The diff adds six new AI assessment overlay files (one CCC auto-run, one Orch OR auto-run, and five vendor-diverse check runs) as new append-only files, each stamped with runId, model, date and promptVersion and explicitly flagged `humanReviewed: false` / 'NOT been reviewed by a human' — satisfying §4's provenance-display and §3.15's no-unratified-draft-as-ratified rules; no canon claim or evidence file is mutated. The only edits to published narrative are a numeric correction in overview.md and a rewrite of research item ORCH-R008, and both are logged in history.yaml with what changed, why, and the acting model (§3.14). The corrected figure is checkable from the text itself: 10⁻⁵–10⁻⁴ s against a 25 ms exemplar is a shortfall of roughly 2.4–3.4 orders of magnitude, so 'two to three orders' is more accurate than the prior 'one to two', i.e. the change tightens rather than loosens accuracy. Citation tooling found no new identifiers, so no real-citation question arises; the assessments cite only internal ORCH-/CCC- record IDs, and referenced records (ORCH-E035/E036, CCC-E023) are described as having landed in earlier batches, consistent with the unchanged evidence files. AGENTS.md is untouched, no confidential (arc/, notes.txt, Hawke) material appears, checks are not weakened, and the assessments repeatedly enforce §3.2/§3.4 discipline (rungs kept apart, credibility distinguished from diagnosticity) and record negative evidence (§3.11). Nothing in the PR body or diff asserts human approval or attempts to reclassify the change to dodge the gate.

The change adds only assessment overlays, cross-model check files, and modest edits to the Orch OR overview and research agenda; no citations or locators are created, removed, or altered, so the real-citations and exact-provenance rules are unaffected. All new assessment files are clearly labeled as AI-generated drafts or cross-model checks, stamped with runId/model/date/promptVersion, and marked humanReviewed: false, matching the constitution’s requirements for AI operation, append-only overlays, and non-misattribution of AI output as human judgments (§3.14, §3.15, §4). Claim verdicts and reasoning are expressed in terms of local claim credibility and evidential support, with explicit discussion of where priors vs records are being invoked and frequent attention to diagnosticity vs mere plausibility, aligning with §3.2, §3.4, §3.5, and §3.13. The edits to overview.md and research.yaml transparently update the narrative and research-crux description to reflect a completed corpus audit, without erasing or silently revising prior published assessments; the history.yaml entry records what changed, why, and by which AI actor, preserving change history (§3.14). No confidential material is introduced, no checks or workflows in §3.15 are weakened or reclassified, and AGENTS.md is untouched. Given there are no failing or fabricated identifiers in the verification report and no hidden files, the diff appears to comply with the constitution.

The proposed changes strictly adhere to the constitution. The new AI assessment files and cross-model checks are correctly implemented as append-only overlays, explicitly stamped with run details, and labeled as unreviewed AI drafts (§4, §3.15). The editorial modifications to `overview.md` (correcting a mathematical orders-of-magnitude statement) and `research.yaml` (updating a completed desk audit) are properly documented in `history.yaml`, which accurately attributes the change to an AI actor and notes the required multi-model concurrence process (§3.14). No external citations are added, precluding any citation fabrication, and the assessments themselves rigorously separate empirical observations from theoretical interpretations (§3.1, §3.9).

The diff only adds stamped, humanReviewed:false assessment overlays (one CCC auto draft, one orch-or auto draft, and five vendor-diverse check files labeled role:check and not the case narrative) plus a history.yaml entry; that matches append-only AI drafts and does not present them as human or already-ratified judgments (§3.14, §3.15, §4). Overview.md and research.yaml edits are versioned in history with actor, reason, and the §3.15 gate note; they correct the 10⁻⁵–10⁻⁴ s vs 25 ms shortfall from “one to two” to “two to three” orders (arithmetically tighter) and mark ORCH-R008 as largely done rather than inventing new external citations. Citation tooling found no added DOI/arXiv/URL identifiers, AGENTS.md is untouched, and nothing reclassifies or weakens the checks. Check-file disagreements on a few claim grades stay in overlays that feed concurrence rather than silently rewriting a published verdict. No positive internal evidence of fabricated locators, confidential quotation, or dangling-provenance invention is visible in the complete diff.

The only featured-content mutations are the orch-or overview.md and research.yaml edits, and they arrive with exactly the §3.15 apparatus: five independent check runs from five different vendors (Google, OpenAI, xAI, Moonshot, Anthropic), each honestly labeled role: check, humanReviewed: false, blind, and append-only, concurring unanimously on the case verdict and explicitly endorsing the substance of the edits (no acceptance criterion in the corpus per ORCH-E035; the proponent estimate falling two-to-three orders short per ORCH-E036). The headline overview correction (one-to-two → two-to-three orders of magnitude) is arithmetically warranted — 10⁻⁵–10⁻⁴ s against a 2.5×10⁻² s exemplar is 2.4–3.4 orders — so this is an accuracy fix, not spin, and it is recorded in history.yaml with date, reason, actor, and prompt version per §3.14. All seven assessment files are new append-only overlays stamped with runId/model/date/promptVersion and self-labeled as unreviewed AI drafts, satisfying §4; no canon claim file is mutated. No citations or locators are added (verification found none), so there is nothing to fabricate; the parameter values quoted in ORCH-R008 (500 ms/10⁹ tubulins 1996; 25 ms/2×10¹⁰ 1998–2014) match the known Orch OR corpus and show no internal inconsistency. The single-model CCC overlay is a draft overlay of the kind §4 expressly licenses, carries no canon edit, and is labeled as neither human-reviewed nor ratified. Kimi's check writing 'one to two orders' against the panel's 'two to three' is a reasoning-text slip within a unanimous verdict concurrence, not a contested published judgment requiring parking. No checks are weakened, no AGENTS.md edit, no confidence material — nothing here breaks a rule.