@chrono-meta/fh-gate 2.3.0 → 2.4.0

package/.claude/rules/fh_4axis_gate.md

@@ -197,7 +197,32 @@ than only from the hook's absence.
 **`thirdparty:` — ⓓ3자 대면의 자기 필드 (2026-08-17 신설).** ⓑ가 `standpoint:` 를 갖는 것과
 같은 형태다: `axes-run` 에는 포인터(`ⓓ=→thirdparty`)만 두고 값은 이 필드가 나른다.
 
+🟥 **이 축은 반쪽이 아니라 둘이다 — 규격이 한쪽만 인코딩하고 있었다(2026-08-17 정정).**
+6축 정본(`knowledge/shared/harness-core/fh_three_layer_canon.md:243`)은 ⓓ가 받는 것을
+**«문제 + 남의 코드베이스»**로 정의하고 **두 질문**을 묶는다:
+
+| 반쪽 | 질문 | 값 |
+|---|---|---|
+| ① 선행자산 | **이미 풀린 문제 아닌가** | `checked` · `none-found` |
+| ② **하네스 단위 적대검증** | **내 변경이 남의 레포/입장에서 어떻게 보이나** | `peer-review` ← **신설** |
+
+②의 정본 형태(운영자, 2026-08-17): *"qasp 개선건에 대해서 **지스택에 소넷을 넣고 지스택 하네스
+페르소나로** qasp 개선건을 리뷰하고 검증하는 것 — **계열을 넘어선 하네스 단위의 적대검증 스코프**."*
+**FH 는 governor 로서 그 상황을 만들고·관측하고·판정한다.** 4축 게이트가 검증하는 대상은 그
+제3 하네스가 내놓은 **의견**이고, 그 판정은 **FH 로컬**에서 이뤄진다 — 남의 레포에 게이트를
+거는 것이 아니다.
+
+⚠️ **②가 왜 빠져 있었는지가 실측으로 드러났다**: 규격에 ①만 있으니 코퍼스 6건 중 peer 가 쓴
+4건은 전부 ① 형태였고, ②에 가까운 것을 적으려던 2건은 **enum 밖 자유 산문으로 샜다.** 이 필드가
+신설된 사유(*「적을 자리가 없다」를 벗는다*)가 **한 칸 안쪽에서 재발한 것**이다.
+
+🟥 **그리고 ②는 정의상 «남의 레포 스코프»다.** 게이트 스코프가 자기 자신으로 묶여 있으면 이 축은
+**구조적으로 기록될 수 없다** — 정본 §170 의 «ⓓ 자기 스코프가 가장 나빴다» 실측과 같은 자리다.
+
 ```
+thirdparty: peer-review(<하네스>/<페르소나> → <대상>, <무엇이 돌아왔나>)
+                                            ← ② 하네스 단위 적대검증. 계열을 넘는다
+                                              예: gstack/harness-persona → qasp, 경계 가정 2건 반증
 thirdparty: checked(<무엇을 검색했고 무엇을 찾았나>)
 thirdparty: none-found(<무엇을 검색했나>)   ← 찾았는데 선행 없음. «안 봤다»와 다른 명제다
 thirdparty: DEGRADED_NO_ACCESS(<사유>)      ← 못 봤다 (검색 수단 부재)

package/.claude-plugin/marketplace.json

@@ -11,13 +11,13 @@
   "plugins": [
     {
       "name": "fh-meta",
-      "version": "2.3.0",
+      "version": "2.4.0",
       "description": "New in 2.2.0: BREAKING (gate): chamber step 6 now reads ACTUAL.md, not BUDGET.md — an in-flight chamber run whose actual cost sits in BUDGET.md blocks until the ACTUAL: line moves to tracks/_chamber/<slug>/ACTUAL.md (the runner prints the path). Why: BUDGET.md's pre-verdict hash IS the ordering witness, and step 6 hard-blocked until that same file changed, so every run that reached COMPLETE necessarily mutated a witnessed artifact and verify returned TAMPERED — the chamber's promotion condition was unsatisfiable by construction, not by strictness. Two roles (immutable witness / post-verdict calibration sink) had collided in one file; each was correct alone, so neither side's code showed the conflict. Also: ko-tech-writer Step 2/4-b scans are now calibration-backed (known-pair fixtures + reproducible command, shipped) — discrimination is proven, 'zero residue' is explicitly NOT; chamber lane suite 12 -> 33 including the runner x witness seam no test covered; chamber_run.sh now teaches the two-commit discipline (gate hashes and verdict hash must land in separate commits/PRs — it previously advised the opposite). New in 2.1.0: BREAKING (gate): `crossfamily: declined` in an Axes 2-3 marker now requires grounds naming a record path that RESOLVES on disk — bare `declined`, and `declined` justified by author judgment, are blocked at commit. Remedy: cite where the operator decision lives (e.g. `.. — operator declined sidecars, per knowledge/shared/rules/operational_adaptation.md`), or use `DEGRADED_PANEL_UNUSED` if a panel was reachable and you chose not to recruit it — which is what author judgment actually is. `declined` was the only enum value with no grounds requirement; a cross-family review then broke the first (vocabulary-grep) fix three ways — self-validating on the value's own token, vacuous keyword passes, and over-blocking real declinations in natural prose — so the check asserts a resolvable record instead of words. Also: standpoint axis gains `tier1b` (a STATIC read of a target repo, executed nothing) plus a decide-in-order procedure, after blind floor-tier sims graded pure cold-reads as `tier2` three rounds running; steel-quench Wave 1's sixth angle (gate-locality) gains the output-template row it never had, so a mandatory angle stops being structurally unreportable; verify-bidirectional gains category 5 (prescriptive doctrine statement); Sister Asset Protocol gains an active-adoption trigger; new resident doctrine — Mechanization Boundary, Local Execution First, Skeleton-not-Muscle, Expedition track, and this package's versioning policy. Hub meta-operations toolkit — 35 skills + 7 agents. New in 2.0.1: harness-doctor cadence hook, portability lint wired into pre-commit, branch_claim.sh claim-count-vs-tree-count warning, louder confidentiality-scan fail-open notice, fh-gate.sh missing-package.json survival, identity ① reclassified 🟢 (cross-harness adapters + relay argument channel). New in 1.4.53: `fh-codex-doctor` (npm bin) — Codex adapter drift scanner; reads the documented M1/M2/M3 skill tier map + skill/agent source and reports codex-native/adapter-required/claude-native/unclassified per unit, wired into `npm test`/`prepublishOnly` (fail-closed on unclassified Claude-native primitives). New in 1.4.49: steel-quench gains Step 0.6 Verdict-Invariance Probe (groundedness axis — a load-bearing judged gate's verdict must track behavior, not rubric phrasing; measured flip-count over cross-family paraphrases; arXiv:2605.06161 Policy Invariance anchor); multi_model_sidecar_strategy §Vendor-native harness (a model is strongest in its own vendor CLI — Claude/CC, GPT/codex, Gemini/Antigravity; a universal router degrades all of them, so it stays an autocomplete/QA sidecar, never orchestration); predelete_check.sh fail-closed rewrite; memory-hygiene A-TMA anchor. New in 1.4.48: phantom-quench + steel-quench gain external frontier anchors (arXiv:2607.02052 package-hallucination; arXiv:2607.02057 prompt-coverage-adequacy); README model-flat claim reframed from a per-release point-curve to structural invariants (operation flattens across tiers; depth tier-order fixed within a generation). New in 1.4.47: onboarding step ① surfaces the Mode D companion-store session-start load in the auto-read salience anchor (previously only in the local binding + rules, so a greeting could skip the load). New in 1.4.46: context-doctor command-output axis (route to rtk/proxy for verbose CLI stdout, complementing .claudeignore; risk-gated to token-scarce envs). New in 1.4.41: context-doctor 2026 trigger vocab (context engineering/rot/collapse) + phantom-citation hardening; hub measurement-integrity-checklist (cross-model measurement pre-flight: display-name pin/reps≥3/discriminating probe). New in 1.4.40: install-wizard queryable-wiki scaffold (INDEX + session-start read + R/W/C ingest). New in 1.4.39: auto-decorrelation (cross-family verifier sidecar recruitment) + video-ingest (capability-routed video ingestion). New in 1.4.x: verify-axis check-class taxonomy (mandatory-pass/measured/judged), no-reinvention Tier-0 inventory, 7-class failure taxonomy, Destructive-Op Gate, Wave-T (Temper), tier-floor governance, Mode D Model Notice, FC consent lane, default-Sonnet guidance. New in 1.3.0: public-surface-audit, field-harvest Mode B auto-trigger, 4-axis gate scope ext. Validated cross-CLI: Claude Code, Codex, Gemini.",
       "source": "./plugins/fh-meta"
     },
     {
       "name": "fh-commons",
-      "version": "2.3.0",
+      "version": "2.4.0",
       "description": "Project-agnostic utility skills — 5 skills (convergence-loop · deliberation · mcp-circuit-breaker · token-budget-gate · ko-tech-writer) + 1 agent (quench-challenger). Domain-independent utilities transplantable into any project.",
       "source": "./plugins/fh-commons"
     }

package/CLAUDE.md

@@ -54,9 +54,18 @@ core invariants never melt). The nursery also **verifies what it births**: harne
 > · ③ **각 축의 컨트롤과 그 생사**. 축을 «돌렸다»의 **최소 증거 = 컨트롤이 살아 있는 실행 출력**
 > 이다 — 안 고른 이유만 적은 것은 준수가 아니다.
 > **비용 경계**: 넷을 매번 다 돌리지 않는다. 실패 모드에 맞춰 **고른다**.
-> 🟥 **자평이다 · 게임 가능하다 · 훅이 없다 — 셋 다 안 닫혔다.** 지금 기계 앵커가 붙은 축은 ⓓ
-> 하나뿐이나 그건 **현 상태이지 원리적 한계가 아니다**(ⓐⓒ 도 기계화할 수 있다 — cross-family
-> 지목). 닫는 방향은 **cross-family 가 그 마커를 읽는 것**이지 자기 채점을 더 성실히 하는 게 아니다.
+> 🟥 **자평이다 · 게임 가능하다 — 둘은 안 닫혔다. 「훅이 없다」는 2026-08-17 부로 거짓이 됐고,
+> 그 정정이 경계를 더 선명하게 만든다.** 그날 `standpoint:`(PR #429)와 `thirdparty:`(PR #434)에
+> 값 검증 레인이 붙어, `crossfamily:` 와 함께 **세 필드가 훅에서 닫힌 enum + 비공허 근거로
+> 검증된다**(`validate_{crossfamily,standpoint,thirdparty}_leg`). 🟥 **그러나 닫힌 것은 «형식»
+> 이지 «진위»가 아니다** — 훅은 값이 목록 안에 있고 근거가 비어 있지 않은지를 보지, 그 값이
+> **참인지**는 보지 않는다. 도그푸드 증거: 그 기계화를 촉발한 거짓값(어느 릴리스 마커의
+> `not-applicable`)이 **새 레인을 그대로 통과한다.** 형식이 옳기 때문이다.
+> 그래서 **자평·게임 가능성은 그대로 열려 있다.** 그건 결함이 아니라 §Mechanization Boundary 가
+> 의도적으로 사람에게 남긴 자리다(판단을 코드로 굳히면 오늘의 판단이 내일의 천장이 된다).
+> 닫는 방향은 여전히 **cross-family 가 그 마커를 읽는 것**이지 자기 채점을 더 성실히 하는 게
+> 아니다 — 2026-08-17 실측이 그 근거를 강화했다(병렬 두 세션, 상호 정정 7건, **판단 축 자력
+> 적발 0**, 둘 다 사전등록·컨트롤·되돌림을 다 돌리고도 각자 자기 쪽으로 접었다).
 > **근거·사례·표본 한계는 `fh_three_layer_canon.md` §1-c — 인용하기 전에 읽어라.** 이 규칙은
 > **n=1 세션 표본**에서 모든 install 로 일반화한 것이고, 그 절이 그 사실을 명시한다.
 
@@ -535,6 +544,27 @@ runtime (local wiring visible, not independent) · `tier3(<harness>)` a *differe
 target harness ran it · `not-applicable` · degrade triad `DEGRADED_NO_TARGET_ACCESS` could-not /
 `DEGRADED_NOT_RUN` did-not / `UNKNOWN` did-not-look — same shape as `crossfamily:`'s triad,
 **distinct literal values**, do not reuse crossfamily's tokens).
+🟥 **Settle the TARGET CLASS(es) before the tier — §7's `Q0`, added 2026-08-17 (operator decision).**
+A consumer install **is** another harness; what the enum scopes is not who *receives* the change but
+where it has to be **executed**. Q0 is **not first-match — it can return more than one target, and
+each owes its own tier**: ⓐ a **named peer** whose local repo carries the changed surface, or which
+the cluster registry / a `scripts/adapters/` entry names (decide by that test, not from a name list)
+→ the enum as written · ⓑ the delta changes **consumer-visible behavior** (what a consumer's gate
+blocks or passes, what their session is told to do, what an install receives) → target = a *clean
+install of the packed artifact*, and it binds **now, pre-push — never deferred to the eventual
+release** · ⓒ neither → `not-applicable`. 🟥 Do **not** read «no cross-repo consumer contract» as
+«this file is not shipped» — measured, **194/200 recent non-merge commits touch a shipped path (97%,
+all 6 exceptions hand-verified)**, so shipped-ness cannot be the discriminator; the behavior clause
+is. Pricing the axis at that rate is the **over-triggering** §7's own Trigger paragraph rejects.
+⚠️ 97% measures **the reach of the discarded shipped-path argument**, not the applicability rate —
+how often ⓑ actually fires is **unmeasured in both tails** (it could also land near-universal, which
+would be a rubber stamp — watch the next 20 markers). 🟥 Do **not** cite
+`[[feedback_unreachable_done_when_trains_evasion]]` here: that memory concerns an unreachable *pass
+condition*, and `not-applicable` is an *exemption* — the direction inverts. Three marker-audit legs all failed at that reading;
+they were **not** decorrelated (same family · same prompt · same canon) so that is one observation,
+not three. ⚠️ The consumer-install arm's *presence* half is mechanized at ship time; its
+**execution** half (extract the tarball, run the gate, record command + output) has **no lane** —
+do it by hand, and do not cite that arm as mechanized.
 🟥 **The execution is the load-bearing half** (operator decision 2026-08-16): a static standpoint
 read competes with cross-family review for the same defect classes and mostly loses — *running the
 target harness locally, to completion*, is the part with no substitute. Measured on one delta the
@@ -609,14 +639,28 @@ installed **FH assets** run the **4-axis gate**; **field scaffolds** run **`asse
 `steel-quench`** (the FH pre-commit hook is repo-local and does **not** reach a scaffold installed into another
 repo, so this routing is not redundant with it) · **autonomy floor** — discover/rank trusted at opus-tier+;
 below-floor, present the raw recommend and ask · **HITL per item**, and `"끝까지 해줘 / 자율로 완주"` → full-autonomy under the `/goal-quench`
-gate: autonomy removes the per-item *prompt*, **never the gate**. Honesty boundary that must not soften in
-summary: the chamber **overwhelmingly screens** — hand-counted 2026-08-08 from the run ledger:
-9 full runs, **8 KILL, 1 EMIT**. It has birthed **once** (run #9 `forge-wiki`, shipped publicly), so
+gate: autonomy removes the per-item *prompt*, **never the gate**.
+
+🟥 **Chamber outcome vocabulary changed 2026-08-17 (operator decision) — the old count below is a
+snapshot of a *different instrument*, not a current rate.** Re-routing, not softening:
+`net-new` failure is no longer a KILL — it routes to **`CURATED`** (hand the maker the prior-art list
+and the delta it does not cover; *"그 사람이 만들려는 걸 인큐베이터가 막을 필요가 있을까"*), and a
+judgment-shaped candidate routes to **`NOT-APPLICABLE`**. **KILL survives for measured
+precision-shortfall, hub-state dependence, and inability-to-run** — the screening that was actually
+load-bearing is intact. Detail + the frozen known-pair that keeps the old instrument measurable:
+`harness_incubator_doctrine.md §3-SCREEN-2026-08-17` · `tracks/_meta/chamber_taxonomy_knownpair_PREREG_2026-08-17.md`.
+
+Honesty boundary that must not soften in summary — **under the old vocabulary**, hand-counted
+2026-08-08 from the run ledger: 9 full runs, **8 KILL, 1 EMIT** (13 runs · 11 KILL · 1 EMIT as of
+2026-08-17). It has birthed **once** (run #9 `forge-wiki`, shipped publicly), so
 "it has not birthed" — the earlier wording here — is no longer true. But do not upgrade the claim
 either: that run's workspace carries only a verdict file, with no intent/budget/blind-persona
 artifacts, so the **formal flow** is not what produced it. The first end-to-end formal run is #10 and
 it KILLed. Either way simulate-first stays a one-line HITL recommendation, never a push-button
 autonomous emit.
+⚠️ **Do not cite that ratio as "the chamber screens well" or "over-screens" going forward** — the
+counts were produced by a rule set that no longer runs, and whether it over-screened is **exactly
+what the frozen known-pair exists to measure and has not measured yet.**
 
 > **Detail**: See `knowledge/shared/harness-core/onboarding_acceleration_autopilot.md` — full Phase-0 branch
 > logic + `chamber_run.sh` scope, the per-phase skill composition, the remaining guards (no-reinvention
@@ -791,6 +835,7 @@ Proposal format: `"I see [X]. Want me to run /[skill] to [one-line description]?
 | "I don't know what to build", "how should I approach this", "organize this for me", "clarify this", "정리해줘" (ambiguous request before dispatch) | `/deep-clarify` |
 | **work-shaped request outside the harness domain** — "이 문서 만들어줘", "위키 페이지 써줘", "이 자료 표로 만들어줘", any general work ask no other row or skill catches (**fallback default** — a more specific row above/below always wins: 리서치→deep-research · ambiguous "정리해줘"→deep-clarify · heavy fleet→goal-quench) | **Intent-Marshaling loop** (§Intent Marshaling — mechanical capability scan → one-line compose proposal → run; gap → capability ladder) |
 | "memory feels bloated", "clean up memory", "memory too large", "memory hygiene" | `/memory-hygiene` |
+| **사람이 읽을 산출물이 나가기 직전** — README·가이드·리포트·장표·PR 본문 등 «독자가 여는» 것 (proactive; 코드가 옳아도 걸린다 — 이 행이 잡는 건 정확성이 아니라 **가독성**이다) | **독자로서 한 번 읽어라** — 첫 8줄에 결론이 있나 · 본문이 고정 템플릿에 덮이지 않나 · 마지막 인상이 무엇인가. 렌즈는 이미 있다: `/sim-conductor` A-1(`beginner` cold-read) 또는 직접 렌더해서 읽기. 🟥 **정적 검사는 「없는 것」을 잡고 「안 읽히는 것」은 못 잡는다** — 실측 2건이 독립 수렴했다(qasp 축: 지적 12건 중 스캐너 적발 0 · gstack 3자대면: 배포된 리포트 본문 3줄 vs 고정 템플릿 21줄). pre-commit 이 같은 상기를 advisory 로 낸다(차단 아님) |
 | "ready to PR", "about to push", "merge this", "PR 올려줘", FH asset changed in session | 4-axis auto-gate (see above — runs automatically, no proposal needed) |
 | **field verdict/gate/safety/irreversible code changed** in a mapped project (function returning a verdict enum / gate exit code / safety-invariant · publish/delete/history path) — **proactive, before merge** | **Field-Harness Load-Bearing Change Gate** (see above → degrade-lint → cross-family review → converge; same rigor as FH assets, applied to field code) |
 | **a diff (yours or an unattended pipeline's) alters another harness's actual behavior, gate outcome, or interaction contract** — building automation that opens PRs autonomously, touching a synced/shared-body surface, or any change whose effect crosses a harness boundary (not merely a file-class match — most self-improvement is `not-applicable` here, which is the expected common case) — **proactive, before push, never as a post-PR comment** | **Standpoint axis** (`knowledge/shared/harness-core/field_verdict_crossfamily_gate.md §7` — orthogonal to `crossfamily:`; run the diff from the TARGET harness's own repo/standpoint via `tier2`/`tier2b`/`tier3`, or record `not-applicable`/`DEGRADED_*` on the closed enum. Missed once in-session while building `scripts/frontier_digest_autopilot.sh` 2026-08-15 — mis-routed to `fh-meta:hub-cc-pr-reviewer` (same-repo self-consistency, a different lens) before the operator caught it; this row exists so the next session connects the trigger without two rounds of correction.) |

package/README.ja.md

@@ -206,14 +206,26 @@ Project B  ──→  CLAUDE.md でハブを接続
 | **④** | **フロンティア → 組織への伝播** | 外から届いたものが、組織の*内側*まで届ききります |
 | **⑤** | **増幅器 (Amplifier)** | 短い意図が、完成した成果物まで鍛え上げられます |
 
+**6つ目の行は、意図的にこの表にありません。** `Ⓑ` **プロジェクトブースター (Project Booster)**
+— FH の機構が *相手のハーネス自身の開発* を加速すること — は実在し等級も付いていますが、
+**5つと同じ層ではありません。** 番号ではなく文字 Ⓑ を使う理由がまさにそれです。5つはそれぞれ
+ブースティングの **外側** に固有の範囲を持ちます: ⑤ は人の意図全般（ハーネスが一切絡まない仕事
+まで）、① は逆方向（受益者が FH 側）、② はユニットを *産む* こと — ブースティングは産んだ
+**後**に来ます。だから包含関係ではありません。
+
+🟥 **正典はここで止め、矢印を描きません。** 階層を固めるほど、表が実際の動き方から離れるから
+です — 現場では一つの仕事が ① と ⑤ を同時に走らせ、その結果が ② へ流れます。「何が何の下か」
+ではなく **「異なる範囲」** として読んでください。等級は Ⓑ の分も含めてファイル一つにあります:
+[`ship_readiness_gate.md`](knowledge/shared/harness-core/ship_readiness_gate.md) §Ⓑ-layering。
+
 **5つが等しく仕上がっているわけではなく、この表を「5つの動く機能」として読んではいけません。** 成熟度は
 正体ごとに4段階（`aspirational → partial → RC (ラボで立った) → REALIZED (外を歩いた)`）で追跡され、
 それぞれに日付入りの証拠の行が付いています。その等級はここには**あえて写しません**: 2つのファイルに
 置かれた等級は片方が必ず腐りますし、このページは4言語で存在するので、ここに写せば写しは4つになります。
 上のどの行かに頼る前に、現在の等級を読んでください — それはファイル1つです:
 [`ship_readiness_gate.md`](knowledge/shared/harness-core/ship_readiness_gate.md)。1文だけ欲しいなら、
-**2026-08-15** 時点で: **③ と ⑤ は緑 — ラボの外で実証済み。①, ②, ④ はリリース候補 — 作られ較正されて
-いますが、他人の手の中で歩くところはまだ示されていません。** この文とゲートファイルが食い違ったときは、
+**2026-08-17** 時点で: **①, ③, ⑤ と Ⓑ は緑 — ラボの外で実証済み。②, ④ はリリース候補 — 作られ較正
+されていますが、他人の手の中で歩くところはまだ示されていません。** この文とゲートファイルが食い違ったときは、
 ゲートファイルが正しく、この行が古いということです。
 
 5つすべてを横断する性質が2つあり、どちらもオンにする機能ではありません:

package/README.ko.md

@@ -203,13 +203,26 @@ Project B  ──→  CLAUDE.md에서 허브 연결
 | **④** | **프런티어 → 조직 전파** | 밖에서 들어온 것이 조직 *안쪽까지* 내려앉음 |
 | **⑤** | **증폭자** | 짧은 의도가 완성된 산출물까지 벼려짐 |
 
+**여섯 번째 행은 의도적으로 이 표에 없습니다.** `Ⓑ` **프로젝트 부스터** — FH 의 기계가 *상대
+하네스의 자체 개발*을 가속하는 것 — 는 실재하고 등급도 매겨져 있지만, **다섯과 같은 층이
+아닙니다.** 번호 대신 문자 Ⓑ 를 쓰는 이유가 정확히 그것입니다. 다섯 각각은 부스팅 **밖의**
+고유 범위를 지닙니다: ⑤ 는 사람의 의도 전반(하네스가 전혀 안 끼는 일까지)을, ① 은 반대 방향
+(수혜자가 FH 다)을, ② 는 유닛을 *낳는* 것을 — 부스팅은 낳은 **뒤에** 옵니다. 그래서 포함
+관계가 아닙니다.
+
+🟥 **정본은 여기서 멈추고 화살표를 그리지 않습니다.** 위계를 못 박을수록 표가 실제 작업 방식과
+멀어지기 때문입니다 — 현장에서는 한 작업이 ①과 ⑤ 를 같이 태우고 그 결과가 ② 로 흐릅니다.
+「무엇이 무엇 밑」이 아니라 **「서로 다른 범위」**로 읽으세요. 등급은 Ⓑ 것까지 파일 하나에
+있습니다: [`ship_readiness_gate.md`](knowledge/shared/harness-core/ship_readiness_gate.md)
+§Ⓑ-layering.
+
 **다섯이 똑같이 완성돼 있지 않으며, 이 표를 작동하는 기능 다섯으로 읽어서는 안 됩니다.** 성숙도는
 정체성별로 `지향 → 부분 → RC(실험실에서 섬) → REALIZED(밖에서 걸음)` 4단계로, 각각 날짜가 박힌
 증거 한 줄과 함께 추적합니다. 그 등급은 의도적으로 여기에 **옮겨 적지 않습니다**: 두 파일에 나눠 둔
 등급은 한쪽이 반드시 낡고, 이 페이지는 4개 언어로 존재하므로 여기에 복제하면 사본이 넷이 됩니다.
 위의 어느 행이든 믿고 쓰기 전에 현재 등급을 읽으세요 — 파일 하나입니다:
 [`ship_readiness_gate.md`](knowledge/shared/harness-core/ship_readiness_gate.md). 한 문장만 원한다면,
-**2026-08-15** 기준 요약: **③과 ⑤는 초록 — 실험실 밖에서 실증됨. ①·②·④는 릴리스 후보 —
+**2026-08-17** 기준 요약: **①·③·⑤ 와 Ⓑ 는 초록 — 실험실 밖에서 실증됨. ②·④는 릴리스 후보 —
 만들어지고 보정됐지만, 아직 남의 손에서 걷는 것이 확인되지 않음.** 이 문장과 게이트 파일이 다르면,
 게이트 파일이 옳고 이 줄이 낡은 것입니다.
 

package/README.md

@@ -204,14 +204,28 @@ this page: that table is *symptoms you might arrive with*, this is *what the hub
 | **④** | **Frontier → org propagation** | What arrives from outside lands all the way *inside* the organization |
 | **⑤** | **Amplifier** | A short intent gets forged all the way to the finished artifact |
 
+**A sixth row is deliberately absent from that table.** `Ⓑ` **Project Booster** — FH's machinery
+accelerating *another harness's own development* — is real and graded, and it is **not on the same
+layer as the five**. It carries a letter instead of a number for exactly that reason. Each of the
+five keeps scope that sits outside boosting: ⑤ covers human intent generally (including work where
+no harness is involved at all), ① runs in the opposite direction (FH is the beneficiary), and ②
+births units — boosting comes *after* birth. So the relation is not containment.
+
+🟥 **The canon stops there on purpose and does not draw an arrow.** Pinning a hierarchy makes the
+table drift from how the work actually runs, where one job rides ① and ⑤ together and the result
+flows into ②. Read "different scopes", not "one sits under another". Grades — Ⓑ's included — live
+in one file: [`ship_readiness_gate.md`](knowledge/shared/harness-core/ship_readiness_gate.md)
+§Ⓑ-layering.
+
 **They are not equally finished, and you should not read the table as five working features.** Maturity is
 tracked per identity on a four-step scale — `aspirational → partial → RC (stood up in the lab) → REALIZED
 (walked outside)` — with a dated line of evidence for each. Those grades are deliberately **not** copied
 here: a grade kept in two files goes stale in one, and this page exists in four languages, so a copy here
 would be four copies. Before you rely on any row above, read the current grades — that is one file:
 [`ship_readiness_gate.md`](knowledge/shared/harness-core/ship_readiness_gate.md). The short version if you
-only want one sentence, as of **2026-08-15**: **③ and ⑤ are graded green — demonstrated outside the lab;
-①, ② and ④ are release candidates — built and calibrated, not yet shown to walk in someone else's hands.**
+only want one sentence, as of **2026-08-17**: **①, ③, ⑤ and Ⓑ are graded green — demonstrated outside
+the lab; ② and ④ are release candidates — built and calibrated, not yet shown to walk in someone
+else's hands.**
 If that sentence and the gate file disagree, the gate file is right and this line is stale.
 
 Two properties cut across all five, and neither is a feature you switch on:

package/README.zh.md

@@ -194,13 +194,24 @@ Project B  ──→  在 CLAUDE.md 中连接中枢
 | **④** | **前沿 → 组织传导 (Frontier → org propagation)** | 从外部到来的东西，一路落进组织 *内部* |
 | **⑤** | **放大器 (Amplifier)** | 一句简短的意图被一路锻造到成品 |
 
+**第六行是刻意不放进这张表的。** `Ⓑ` **项目助推器 (Project Booster)** —— FH 的机制去加速
+*对方harness自身的开发* —— 是真实存在且已被评级的，但它 **与这五项不在同一层**。用字母 Ⓑ
+而不是编号，理由正在于此。这五项各自都有落在助推 **之外** 的固有范围：⑤ 覆盖人的意图整体
+（包括完全不涉及harness的工作），① 方向相反（受益者是 FH 自己），② 是 *生出* 单元 ——
+助推发生在生出**之后**。所以这不是包含关系。
+
+🟥 **正典到此为止，不画箭头。** 把层级钉死，表就会离实际的运作方式越来越远 —— 现场里一个任务
+同时跑 ① 和 ⑤，结果再流向 ②。请读成 **「不同的范围」**，而不是「谁在谁下面」。等级（含 Ⓑ 的）
+只在一个文件里：[`ship_readiness_gate.md`](knowledge/shared/harness-core/ship_readiness_gate.md)
+§Ⓑ-layering。
+
 **它们完成度并不齐平，你也不该把上面那张表读成五项能用的功能。** 成熟度按身份逐项跟踪，用一把
 四级刻度 —— `aspirational（构想）→ partial（部分）→ RC（在实验室里立起来了）→ REALIZED（走到
 外面去了）` —— 每一级都配一条带日期的证据。这些等级刻意 **没有** 被复制到这里：同一个等级放进
 两个文件，总会有一个先腐坏，而本页有四种语言版本，复制到这里就等于四份副本。在你依赖上表任何
 一行之前，请先读当前的等级 —— 那只有一个文件：
 [`ship_readiness_gate.md`](knowledge/shared/harness-core/ship_readiness_gate.md)。如果你只想要
-一句话的版本，截至 **2026-08-15**：**③ 与 ⑤ 是绿灯 —— 已在实验室之外得到验证；①、② 与 ④ 是
+一句话的版本，截至 **2026-08-17**：**①、③、⑤ 与 Ⓑ 是绿灯 —— 已在实验室之外得到验证；② 与 ④ 是
 候选发布 (RC) —— 已造出并校准，但还没在别人手上走过。** 如果这句话和那个门禁文件对不上，以门禁
 文件为准，这一行就是过期的。
 

package/knowledge/shared/harness-core/field_verdict_crossfamily_gate.md

@@ -224,6 +224,37 @@ pass):
 **🟥 DECIDE IN THIS ORDER — first match wins. Do not pick by matching a description.**
 
 ```
+Q0. WHICH TARGETS? — settle the target CLASS(es) before reaching for a tier.
+    🟥 NOT first-match. Q0 can return MORE THAN ONE target, and each one owes its own tier.
+    A release that also alters a named peer's contract owes both arms; recording only the
+    first shadows the second (caught by cross-family review, 2026-08-17).
+
+      ⓐ Does a NAMED PEER HARNESS carry this surface?
+         Mechanical test, in this order — do not decide from memory or from a name list:
+           · a local repo of a cluster peer carries the file this delta changes
+             (`for d in ~/projects/*; do test -f "$d/<changed-path>"; done`), OR
+           · the peer is declared in `.claude/capabilities` / the cluster registry, OR
+             the change edits an adapter under `scripts/adapters/` naming it
+         YES → target = that repo (one per peer)              → run Q1 for each
+      ⓑ Does this delta change CONSUMER-VISIBLE BEHAVIOR — what a consumer's gate blocks or
+         passes, what a consumer's session is instructed to do, what an install receives?
+         YES → target = a CLEAN INSTALL of the packed artifact → run Q1
+               🟥 This binds NOW, at the change, pre-push (§Sequencing) — NOT deferred to
+               the eventual release. Deferral was the first draft's hole: "not a release
+               yet" would have let a behavior change ship unexamined and left the releaser
+               holding a delta they did not write.
+      ⓒ Neither ⓐ nor ⓑ → `not-applicable`   STOP.
+
+    🟥 A consumer install IS another harness — settled, not open. What Q0 scopes is not WHO
+    RECEIVES the change but WHERE IT HAS TO BE EXECUTED, and 🟥 **not «is this file shipped»**:
+    almost everything here is shipped, so shipped-ness cannot be the discriminator (see
+    «Target class» below). The discriminator is ⓑ's *behavior* clause — the same effect-based
+    trigger this section already uses, applied to the consumer as a target rather than as an
+    audience.
+    Reading Q1/Q2 when the target is an install tree rather than a repo: Q1's "executed in the
+    target's repo" = "executed inside the extracted/installed tree"; Q2's local-wiring question
+    is answered NO for a bare extraction (`tier2`), YES only if a real consumer node's own
+    settings/state were in play (`tier2b`).
 Q1. Did anything EXECUTE in the target's repo — a command, a script, a suite?
       NO, I only read files          → tier1b(<harness>)   STOP.
       NO, I did not touch its repo   → tier1               STOP.
@@ -269,6 +300,24 @@ tier1b(<target-harness>)     STATIC standpoint read — the reviewer read the TA
                               nearer value existed. A missing rung does not stay empty — it gets
                               filled by the next one up. Real but weak: see «execution is the
                               load-bearing half» below before crediting it.
+                              🟥 «FROM THE TARGET'S REPO» IS LOAD-BEARING, and a field case the
+                              day this rung shipped shows why. A session changed FH code that would
+                              make two peer harnesses' capability declarations start being REJECTED
+                              — genuinely applicable — and reached for `tier1b` because it had
+                              *read files*. The files it read were FH-local records ABOUT those
+                              peers (`tracks/_meta/relay/*.cap`), not the peers' own files. Reading
+                              your own repo's description of a peer is NOT a standpoint read; the
+                              whole point of the axis is whose ground truth the review was checked
+                              against, and that was still your own. The honest value there is
+                              `DEGRADED_NOT_RUN(<peers>)` — applicable, target reachable, nothing
+                              done at the target. Note the direction of the risk has INVERTED since
+                              this rung was added: tier1b was created because a real static read had
+                              no home and got recorded one rung too high; the new failure mode is
+                              local reading being recorded as tier1b because "I read something"
+                              feels the same. 🟥 Two different questions get merged here and must
+                              not be: *does a target exist and is it affected* is **Q0**; *what did
+                              you actually do at that target* is the **tier**. "The impact is real"
+                              answers the first and says nothing about the second.
 tier2(<target-harness>)      peer-simulated — the reviewer EXECUTED CODE in the TARGET's own repo
                               (a local clone, real content) and observed the result.
                               🟥 DISCRIMINATOR — «reading the target's real files is NOT this rung».
@@ -305,8 +354,18 @@ tier2b(<target-harness>)     same operator, target's real runtime — the SAME h
 tier3(<target-harness>)      actual peer — a DIFFERENT human operator of the target harness ran
                               the change in their real runtime. The only tier with both local
                               wiring AND reviewer independence from the author.
-not-applicable                the change has no target-harness standpoint to borrow (no
-                              shared-body surface, no cross-repo consumer contract) — distinct
+not-applicable                the change has no target-harness standpoint to borrow — Q0 found
+                              neither a named peer harness NOR a release/publish surface, so there
+                              is no repo and no install to run this from. 🟥 Read the second half
+                              literally: «no cross-repo consumer contract» does NOT mean «this file
+                              is never shipped». Almost everything here is shipped (measured
+                              2026-08-17: 192/200 recent commits touch an npm-shipped path, and that
+                              96% is a LOWER bound — `package.json` is packed without appearing in
+                              `files[]`). Reading shipped-ness as the trigger makes this value
+                              reachable in under 4% of commits, i.e. effectively unreachable, and an
+                              unreachable value teaches authors to delete what they are counting
+                              (`[[feedback_unreachable_done_when_trains_evasion]]`). The trigger is
+                              the RELEASE, not the path — distinct
                               from a degrade value; this is a scoping fact, not a miss. Carries the
                               same substantive-grounds-on-the-same-line discipline as a degrade
                               value below — asserting non-applicability without naming what was
@@ -382,11 +441,22 @@ data point.
 **Mechanization status — `standpoint:` is prose-only today, and this must not be read as more than
 that.** `crossfamily:`'s degrade triad is hard-blocked at commit (`templates/.git-hooks/pre-commit`,
 `scripts/test_marker_crossfamily_lanes.sh` — grep-verified: ~20 crossfamily references in the hook,
-validated fixtures). `standpoint:` has **zero** matches in that hook and no fixture suite — nothing
-stops an author from writing `not-applicable` with a thin justification, or omitting the field
-entirely, and no marker-shape check catches it. §Marker required fields in
-`.claude/rules/fh_4axis_gate.md` does not yet list `standpoint:` either (add it there when this
-mechanizes). This is the honest current state, not a placeholder apology: the field exists so a
+validated fixtures). `standpoint:` has **no value-enum validation and no fixture suite** — nothing stops an author from
+writing `not-applicable` with a thin justification, and no marker-shape check catches a wrong value.
+
+🟥 **Two sentences that stood here were STALE and are corrected (2026-08-17, re-measured — a
+cross-family reviewer flagged the second, the first fell out of checking it).** They read
+*"`standpoint:` has **zero** matches in that hook"* and *"§Marker required fields in
+`.claude/rules/fh_4axis_gate.md` does not yet list `standpoint:` either"*. Both are false as of this
+date: `grep -c standpoint templates/.git-hooks/pre-commit` → **15**, and the hook *does* enforce one
+property (when `axes-run` carries `ⓑ=→standpoint`, the `standpoint:` line must exist and be non-empty
+— `pre-commit:780-782`); `.claude/rules/fh_4axis_gate.md` lists the field at **§133 and §192**.
+**What is still true is the narrower claim**: the *value* is unvalidated — «the line exists» is
+enforced, «the value is right» is deliberately reserved (§Mechanization Boundary). Do not read the
+corrected sentence as "now mechanized"; read it as "the channel is checked, the judgment is not".
+The distinction this stale text destroyed is exactly the one that matters here, and it destroyed it
+in the *pessimistic* direction — under-claiming coverage is not a safe error either, because it
+invites someone to rebuild a lane that already exists. This is the honest current state, not a placeholder apology: the field exists so a
 human reader can ask for it and so the *next* occurrence of a false `not-applicable` has something
 concrete to point at — mechanize on that first recorded false value
 (`[[feedback_mechanize_at_repetition_prose_before]]`), not before. **Ownership**: this field lives
@@ -449,6 +519,160 @@ proposal (pmh-dev issue #68, verified verbatim in that thread: *"대상 후보
 behavioral reading after that same review found the file-class reading false for at least one real
 pair.
 
+**Target class — «누가 받나» is not the question; «어디서 돌려야 하나» is (operator decision,
+2026-08-17).** The trigger above says *effect, not file-class*, and that was still not enough: three
+independent marker-audit legs, run the same day against three different markers, all failed at the
+same place — each reasoned *"it ships, therefore there are consumers, therefore a cross-repo consumer
+contract exists, therefore applicable"*. That reading is not obviously wrong; the enum's own words
+(*"no cross-repo consumer contract"*) invite it. What kills it is the size: **192 of the last 200
+commits touch an npm-shipped path (96%, a lower bound — `package.json` ships without being listed in
+`files[]`, so at least one of the 8 remaining is a false negative too)**. A value reachable in under
+4% of commits is not a scoping value — it prices the axis at a rate this section's own **Trigger**
+paragraph already rejects as over-triggering (*"almost every commit would qualify, which is the
+over-pricing this trigger is trying to avoid, not invoke"*). That is the argument, and it was
+already in this document.
+
+⚠️ **A citation is withdrawn here.** The first draft justified this with
+`[[feedback_unreachable_done_when_trains_evasion]]` — *"an unreachable condition teaches people to
+delete what they are counting"*. An adversarial round showed the direction is **inverted**: that
+memory is about an unreachable **pass condition** a person must reach, whereas `not-applicable` is an
+**exemption**. An unreachable exemption does not make anyone delete anything; it makes the obligation
+fire almost always, and the failure mode is over-pricing and formality, not evasion. Same discomfort,
+different mechanism — do not re-import the citation.
+
+🟥 **State precisely what that 96% does and does not establish — it is narrower than it looks, and a
+cross-family reviewer caught the first draft overreaching on exactly this.** It is a *file-class*
+count, which this very section rejects as a trigger. It is admissible for **one** claim: the legs'
+argument *was* the file-class argument (*"it ships, therefore consumers, therefore applicable"*), so
+the number measures **that argument's reach**, and shows that adopting it collapses `not-applicable`
+to under 4%. It does **NOT** establish how often the *behavioral* trigger (Q0-ⓑ) actually fires —
+that number is **unmeasured**, and the step from "touched a shipped path" to "a consumer standpoint
+obligation arose" is precisely the step Q0-ⓑ exists to make someone take by hand. Anyone citing 96%
+as the applicability rate is citing it wrong.
+
+**Corrected figure, and the instrument defect behind it — surfaced only because an adversarial round
+demanded the hand-check.** The first pass reported **192/200 (96%)** with 8 non-touching commits. Two
+faults, in opposite directions:
+- **Instrument**: the scan ran `--first-parent` *including merge commits*, and `--name-only` emits no
+  file list for a merge — so merges were silently scored *non-touching*. Re-run with `--no-merges`:
+  the ratio held at 192/200, but the non-touching set collapsed to **6 real cases** (2 commits
+  legitimately carry no files).
+- **Hand-check of all 6** (this repo's own publish-a-number rule; N=6 made it trivially cheap):
+  **2 are `package.json`-only**, which npm packs regardless of `files[]` — they *are* shipped. The
+  other 4 are genuinely unshipped (`.gitignore` · `knowledge/shared/learnings/…` · two `scripts/`
+  paths absent from `files[]`).
+
+⇒ **Measured: 194/200 = 97%, every exception hand-verified.** ⚠️ One direction stays unexamined: the
+scan applies **today's** `files[]` to **past** commits, and that manifest has only grown, so older
+commits are over-counted as shipped. That FP direction is **unmeasured** — read 97% as *"under the
+current manifest"*, never as a historical claim.
+
+🟥 **And read the reachability argument in BOTH directions, which the first draft did not.** It
+measured only what the *rejected* reading does to `not-applicable` (collapses it to <4%). It never
+measured what the *adopted* reading does — Q0-ⓑ is a judged behavioral test, so no scan settles it,
+and the honest statement is that **the new rate is unknown in both tails**: the value could stay rare
+(if most shipped-path commits do change consumer-visible behavior) or become near-universal (if most
+do not), and a near-universal exemption is a rubber stamp, which is its own failure — not the one
+this edit was fixing. Watch the next 20 markers rather than assuming this landed in the middle.
+⚠️ **The «unreachable ⇒ trap» premise is also weaker here than the first draft implied**: `tier1` is
+explicitly *"NOT itself a failure"*, so even under the rejected reading an author had a cheap honest
+value to write and was not cornered into deleting anything.
+
+⚠️ **Two different denominators, both of which happen to be 200 — do not merge them.** The 192/200 is
+over the **last 200 commits**. The 177/200 below is over the **200 markers in
+`tracks/_meta/.axes_23_passed_*.marker`**. Commits and markers are different populations (a marker
+covers a delta, not a commit; unmarked commits exist), and their coincident size is an accident of
+this corpus. No ratio may be carried from one to the other.
+
+So the split is by **execution site**:
+
+| Q0 target class | What discharges the standpoint arm | Binds at |
+|---|---|---|
+| named peer harness (qasp · pmh · mate · gstack · sibling hub) | the enum as written — `tier1b`/`tier2`/`tier2b`/`tier3` against that repo | the change, pre-push |
+| generic consumer install | run the **packed artifact in a clean install** — see the split below; the *presence* half already runs at ship time, the *execution* half does not exist yet | the **release/publish** delta |
+| neither | `not-applicable` | — |
+
+**🟥 What that arm is actually covered by today — corrected in the same session that wrote it, by
+reading the lanes instead of naming them.** The first draft of this table said the consumer-install
+arm was *"already mechanized"* by `publish_freshness_check.sh` · `package_coverage_check.sh
+--vs-tarball` · `test_capability_entrypoint_shipping.sh`. Reading those three shows they answer a
+narrower question than the arm asks:
+
+```
+covered, AT PUBLISH   `prepublishOnly` = prepublish_scope_note · publish_freshness_check ·
+                      version_lockstep_check · package_coverage_check --vs-tarball ·
+                      public_surface_scan_files          ← read from package.json, not recalled
+covered, BUT IN CI    test_capability_entrypoint_shipping.sh is NOT in that chain — it runs under
+                      the selfcheck anchor loop (`npm test`/CI). Naming it as a ship-time lane was
+                      wrong; a green CI is not a publish gate (§Local Execution First).
+NOT covered (exec)    extract the tarball into a clean directory, run the gate as a consumer would,
+                      observe it behaves as intended. Measured 2026-08-17: of the lanes that invoke
+                      `npm pack`, ZERO extract or execute the result — `--vs-tarball` compares a
+                      FILE LIST (`npm pack --dry-run --json`), it never unpacks.
+```
+
+This matters because it is the same asymmetry this section already argues for: *"execution is the
+load-bearing half"*. An arm discharged by presence checks alone is a `tier1b`-shaped arm wearing a
+`tier2` label — the exact substitution the `tier1b` rung was added to stop. **So: the presence half
+is mechanized and free; the execution half is a named residual, discharged by hand
+(`npm pack` → extract to a clean dir → run the gate → record the command and the output, per the
+`tier2` discriminator) until a lane exists.** Do not cite this arm as fully mechanized. The
+decision's «no new machinery» framing was correct about the *presence* half and overstated about
+the whole — recorded here rather than quietly narrowed, because a reader reaching for this table
+mid-release is exactly the reader who would otherwise skip the half that has no lane.
+
+**What this decision costs, stated rather than hidden.** Of the three legs, **leg B was right and
+the other two were wrong to generalize it**: the `release_2.3.0` marker's `not-applicable` IS a
+defect under this closure (a release delta whose own grounds line concede *"소비자 install 의 게이트
+수용은 바뀐다 (BREAKING 2건)"* — that is the trigger being met, written out in the field that denies
+it), while an ordinary commit touching a shipped script correctly stays `not-applicable`. Row 1
+(PR #368) needs no reclassification: its target was a sibling hub with its own repo, a named peer.
+⚠️ Those three legs were **not decorrelated** — same family, same prompt shape, same canon — so their
+3/3 agreement is closer to one observation than three; it is cited here as *the pattern that exposed
+the definitional hole*, never as three confirmations
+(`[[feedback_decorrelation_axis_is_what_you_send]]`).
+
+**Measured after this edit shipped, and it REFUTES the residual this paragraph first carried.** The
+original text read: *"177 of the 200 corpus markers carry no `standpoint:` line at all … that pool is
+larger than the one measured and remains unexamined."* It has now been examined, and the pool is not
+larger — it barely exists:
+
+```
+201 markers · 24 carry `standpoint:` · 177 do not
+  172   predate the field itself (born 2026-08-14, PR #370 landed 14:13) — structural, not a miss
+    2   written the same day but BEFORE 14:13 (12:29 · 12:39) — also structural
+    3   written after the field existed (16:41 · 19:10 · 21:06)   ← the entire real pool
+    0   absences dated 2026-08-15 or later — adoption is 100% from day two onward
+```
+
+🟥 **The first step was decomposition, not adjudication.** Counting "no field" as "not recorded"
+folds *the field did not exist yet* into *the author skipped it* — the same `not-found ≠ 0` collapse
+this session hit three separate times (`[[feedback_not_found_is_not_zero_family]]`). Splitting by the
+field's own birth timestamp is what turned 177 into 3.
+
+**Hand-check of all 3, judged from the real diffs** (their markers use the pre-2026-08-17 four-letter
+`axes-run` notation, where `b` means first-real-use and NOT standpoint — reading the marker's own
+self-description instead of the diff would have inverted two axes):
+
+| commit | delta | verdict under Q0 |
+|---|---|---|
+| #375 `cedd8ac` | `version_lockstep_check.sh` +11 lines, **all comment** | `not-applicable` would have been correct — a **missing line**, not a wrong judgment |
+| #374 `0690ba7` | 7 files, +409 — shipped gate scripts plus `templates/degrade_direction_scan.sh` | 🟥 **genuinely under-recorded** (Q0-ⓑ, and `templates/` propagates to field harnesses) |
+| #373 `549a4bc` | `ko-tech-writer/SKILL.md` +63/−12 (shipped plugin) | 🟥 **genuinely under-recorded** (Q0-ⓑ) |
+
+**The direction matches §6's earlier finding: over-claiming 0, under-recording only.** A gate that
+tightens *"were you really tier2?"* cannot catch this direction by construction.
+
+⚠️ **Retroactive-application caveat**: Q0 was written 2026-08-17 and these three are 2026-08-14, so
+their authors could not have applied it. What survives the caveat is narrower and still real — the
+**field existed** by then, so the absent line is a gap independent of Q0.
+
+**Consequence for sequencing**: the argument for postponing mechanization was *"absence is the
+dominant reality, so validating values would only tighten a recording minority."* That premise is
+**dead** — recording is 100% from 2026-08-15 onward. ⚠️ The refutation does **not** travel to peers:
+pmh-dev's 42 markers carry the field 0 times, and whether that is late arrival or non-adoption is
+**unmeasured** there. `thirdparty:` likewise stands at 2 corpus instances — unmeasured, not clean.
+
 **Relationship to `harness_verification_core_extended.md`'s core/extended axis**: tier2 and tier3
 are both "extended" in that document's sense (they require a cluster member's engine or repo to
 discharge) — this field does not compete with that doctrine, it subdivides one corner of it.