§3.4 said promotion "requires a curator-mediated coherence judgment." That
over-states a necessity. ADR-0021 §3 only requires promotion be a function of
coherence with the reviewed field. For claims *deductively entailed* by
already-COHERENT facts, the entailment proof IS that coherence judgment and can
be machine-certified by the sound deductive_logic_v1 engine — the logical arm of
the "structural coherence metric" ADR-0021's v2 gap already names.
- position_paper.md §3.4: split "own asserted output" (no standing — kept) from
"deductively entailed from COHERENT facts" (proof = coherence judgment);
relocate review to the *reading*, not the deduction; flag the proof-carrying
path as specified-but-unwired with a link to the new issue.
- teaching/epistemic.py: the EpistemicStatus docstring claimed transitions are
"computed from coherence" — they are not; review_correction carries status as
a curator-supplied input. Docstring now states this honestly.
- docs/issues/proof-carrying-coherence-promotion.md: thorough spec for the
unbuilt capability (scope, the reading hazard, INV-21 impact, trust boundary,
falsification tests, phased plan, proposed ADR-0218).
No runtime behavior change. Green: test_epistemic_invariants,
test_epistemic_phase3_state_tagging, TestINV21OneMutationPath (15 passed).
5a221a7e50