The change touches only the never-citable `briefs/` archive area and its README index: it swaps one Hancock chat-capture checkpoint for a later capture of the same conversation and adds a supersession note. No case record, claim, evidence, source, assessment, or citation is altered, and the citation tooling found no identifiers in the added lines. The removal of the 2026-08-30 checkpoint is documented rather than silent — the README preserves the old filename, share id, md5, the rationale (mechanically verified superset), and a pointer to the commit/PR where the file remains in git history — so provenance is retained rather than destroyed, and the act is reversible. AGENTS.md is untouched, no check is reclassified or weakened, and nothing is presented as ratified or human-reviewed. The omitted file is the deleted old capture (and the bulk of the replacement capture body), but that material is archive-only, non-citable, and cannot introduce fabricated citations or provenance into published content; the visible README/table edits are internally consistent with the PR's stated scope. Residual uncertainty about whether the new 30 MB capture contains any confidentiality-constrained (`arc/`, notes.txt, Hawke) material cannot be resolved from the packet, but the same archive practice already exists at the base revision for sibling checkpoints.

The change only updates briefs/README.md and swaps one HTML checkpoint file for another under briefs/hancock/, which is described as never-citable archive material rather than published case content; no citations are added, so rules on real citations and provenance do not appear to be engaged directly. The README note about supersession transparently documents the removal and preserves the old checkpoint’s hash and git reference, which is consistent with versioning and provenance norms. However, the diff omits the full contents of the removed checkpoint file (briefs/hancock/checkpoint-20260830-6a942e20.html), so I cannot verify that no confidential or otherwise disallowed material is being deleted in a way that conflicts with the rules on publishing or handling confidence-bound content in §3.15. Because omitted content could, in principle, hide a violation (for example if briefs/ contained material that should not have been there and its silent removal would mask that history or if its handling conflicted with geo-project constraints referenced in §4), I cannot definitively judge compliance from the visible changes alone. Therefore my vote is unsure rather than a confident complies or violates.

The OMITTED FILES list is non-empty, meaning the changes to the renamed HTML checkpoint file are hidden from review. Because the PR body's assertions about the file's contents and safety are untrusted data, I cannot independently verify that the omitted file is free of confidential `arc/` material (§4), material supplied in confidence (§3.15), or other constitutional violations. Without seeing the actual file diff, I cannot confidently determine compliance.

The omitted-files list is non-empty: briefs/hancock/checkpoint-20260830-6a942e20.html was not shown, and change-stat treats that HTML as a rename to checkpoint-20260901-6a962cd8.html, so the actual payload is unseen. The visible README hunk only swaps a table row and documents supersession; it does not touch AGENTS.md, content/, or assessments, and citation tooling found no identifiers—so nothing in the shown patch is itself a completed violation. Compliance still turns on the unseen HTML: §3.15 forbids publishing unpermitted/confidential material and fabricating provenance, §3.8 forbids invented locators/checksums, and §4 forbids geo-project confidential papers in the tree. Git --stat of a 14-line rename is compatible with long-line HTML or with chrome-only edits, so it is not positive evidence of fabrication, but it also cannot confirm the claimed share, md5, date, or strict-superset story. Per the omitted-files rule this seat votes unsure.

This is archive housekeeping under briefs/, a never-citable raw-capture scope: no content/, claim, source, or assessment file is touched, and citation verification found no added identifiers, so the citation and assessment rules are not engaged. Removing the superseded twin-A checkpoint does not violate §3.14/§3.8 — the README records the old file's name, share ID, and md5, points to its preservation in git history (commit d33e620, PR #121), and documents the containment check; provenance is preserved and auditable, not erased. The superset claims are internally consistent (307→393 = 86 new messages; 48,270−48,267 = 3 explained chrome misses; the 7+/7− line stat fits a single-line embedded-JSON share payload; share ID and md5 84b967a8… match between PR body and README), so there is no positive evidence of fabricated provenance under §3.15. The omitted file is the deleted old checkpoint; its unseen bytes cannot hide a violation because the deletion is history-preserved with checksums and the added capture is founder-supplied archive material in an established workflow, so what is visible decides the question. No check is weakened, AGENTS.md is untouched, and nothing is silently reclassified.