The diff is a 25-line, docs-only addition to docs/CHAT_BRIEFS.md — it does not touch AGENTS.md, content/, schemas, CI, or any ratification machinery, so §3.15's reservation of amendments to the founder is not engaged. Substantively the new §4b tightens rather than loosens the epistemic checks: it makes IN the default disposition for verified brief items, requires zero-diagnosticity items to be carried with their weightlessness stated (consistent with §3.4 credibility-vs-diagnosticity and §3.11 negative evidence), requires failed verifications to be documented as prominently as confirmations, and requires editorial exclusions to be listed with a reason for founder review rather than silently dropped. The tiering rule adds a protective constraint (claims naming living persons cannot sit under an 'unreviewed backlog' label), which supports §3.9/§7 honesty about provenance and review status. No citations, identifiers, or locators are added, and the verification tool found nothing to resolve, so there is no fabrication surface. The PR's assertion that this records a founder session decision is an unverifiable process claim, but it is recorded in a docs file as policy rather than dressed up as a ratified editorial judgment or an AI record passed off as human, and it imposes obligations rather than removing checks — not a §3.15 violation on what I can see.

The change amends an internal documentation file (docs/CHAT_BRIEFS.md) to articulate founder policy about how brief items are dispositioned and tiered. It does not alter AGENTS.md or any constitutional text, so §3.15’s human-reservation on constitutional amendment is not implicated. No sources, citations, or locators are added, so there is no risk of fabricated or misused evidence (§3.7–§3.8, §3.15). The new policies (default inclusion of verified items, explicit coverage tables, living-persons tier rule) concern editorial workflow and UI tiering, and do not weaken any epistemic safeguards or multi-model checks. They are compatible with atomic claims, explicit diagnosticity, and negative evidence recording, and do not reclassify changes to dodge review. Therefore, the documentation update complies with the existing constitution.

The PR modifies workflow documentation (`docs/CHAT_BRIEFS.md`) to require explicit coverage dispositions for brief items and enforces a protective tiering rule for claims naming living persons. These additions align closely with the constitution's epistemic rules, particularly reinforcing §3.4 by retaining zero-diagnosticity items for transparency and §3.11 by ensuring failed verifications are documented prominently rather than silently dropped. It does not amend AGENTS.md, weaken any verification checks, or introduce fabricated material.

The diff is a complete, docs-only addition to docs/CHAT_BRIEFS.md; it does not touch AGENTS.md (§3.15 reserved amendment), assessments, content/, or CI checks. No citations, locators, or confidential material are added. The new coverage/default-IN/failed-verification rules tighten omission and negative-evidence practice rather than weaken §3 gates, and the living-persons featured-tier rule is an extra labeling constraint, not a reclassification dodge. Attribution as “founder policy, 2026-08-28” is a same-day provenance claim with no internal contradiction visible in the packet, so it is not treated as fabrication.

Docs-only change to docs/CHAT_BRIEFS.md adding a coverage-disposition policy: verified brief items default to inclusion with weightlessness stated, exclusions must be listed with reasons for the founder's call, blocked items carry recovery routes, and failed verifications are documented prominently. This reinforces rather than weakens the epistemic rules — it bans silent omission (supporting §3.11), requires explicit diagnosticity statements (consistent with §3.4), and the living-persons tier rule adds protection for named individuals rather than removing any check. It does not touch AGENTS.md, so the founder-reservation under §3.15 is not implicated. No citations, identifiers, or provenance are added, and the mechanical verification found nothing to check, so §3.7/§3.8 are not at issue. The PR body's claim that the founder set this policy is untrusted text, but the change's content is constitutionally sound on its face regardless of that claim's accuracy, and it does not reclassify or dodge the multi-model ratification gate in §3.15.