The new TRN-C024 is a single atomic proposition (nine sources present as emulsion features on the original negative), correctly labeled reviewState: ai_extracted with runId/date/extractedBy origin, and it separates credibility (provisionally_supported, single non-blind proponent examination, no replication) from diagnosticity (high) exactly as §3.2/§3.4/§3.13 require; the strongestObjection and whatWouldChangeOurMind explicitly foreground the independence and blinding gaps (§3.10, §3.11). The source upgrade replaces the 'unpublished manuscript' identifier with arXiv:2608.26371 while retaining the supplied-copy history and the recorded citation permission (who granted, channel, date, where held), so the §3.15 confidence rule is satisfied rather than weakened — and the change follows the procedure the earlier verificationNote itself pre-registered. Downstream limitation lines are updated in step from 'unpublished' to 'preprint, not peer reviewed', which is honest calibration, not a quiet upgrade in strength (strength/verification labels are unchanged). history.yaml is appended, not rewritten, and names actor, runId-bearing rationale, AI authorship, and what changed (§3.14). No AGENTS.md edit, no check weakening. The one thing I cannot confirm is the arXiv id and the verbatim re-check: the tooling reports UNCHECKED (HTTP 406), not FAILS, and the identifier is internally consistent (2608 = Aug 2026, posted 2026-08-26), so there is no positive evidence of fabrication — the PR body's 'founder direction' assertion I treat as evidence about the change, not authorization.

The diff adds a new atomic claim (TRN-C024) clearly stating a single proposition and marking it as observation, with calibrated credibility and diagnosticity summaries; this fits the atomic-claims and evidence-direction requirements. Evidence TRN-E022 is simply linked to the new claim and still marked as supports, with limitations adjusted to reflect that the manuscript is now a public preprint rather than an unpublished manuscript, preserving negative/limiting information and not silently upgrading credibility. The source record for SRC-YANG-VILLARROEL-2026 is updated to an arXiv identifier; while the arXiv API check is UNCHECKED, the constitution only demands real citations and honest labels, not that every resolver call succeed, and there is no internal contradiction between the identifier and its description. Provenance is strengthened rather than weakened: the verification note explicitly records the timeline, prior supplied-manuscript status, permission details, and the re-check of quoted passages, satisfying exact provenance and no-fabrication rules. The history entry documents the change, including founder direction and the procedure followed, aligning with the versioning and transparency requirements. No checks are weakened, no confidential material is exposed beyond what is now public, and AGENTS.md is untouched, so the change complies with the constitution.

The diff adds a well-defined atomic claim (TRN-C024) and cleanly transitions an existing source from a permitted private manuscript to a public preprint (arXiv:2608.26371) while explicitly preserving the original provenance and permission history. It appropriately appends to the history log and updates evidence limitations to reflect the new not-peer-reviewed status. Although the arXiv citation is marked UNCHECKED due to a mechanical API error (HTTP 406), its context is highly detailed, pre-registered, and shows no signs of fabrication.

The only identifier this diff adds under content/ is arXiv:2608.26371, now written into SRC-YANG-VILLARROEL-2026 and the E022–E024 caveats, with verification: verified and a claim that every quoted passage was re-checked against that preprint. Mechanical citation verification returned UNCHECKED (arXiv API HTTP 406), not RESOLVES and not FAILS, so existence was not confirmed from this packet. Temporal humility forbids treating an unrecognized 2026 locator as fabricated, and nothing in the diff is internally inconsistent (dates, prior supplied-manuscript provenance, and ID shape are coherent). But §3.15/phase-1 real-citations-only and §3.8 (do not invent locators; unverified locators must be labeled unverified) turn on whether that identifier is real, which I cannot check here. The new TRN-C024 record itself is otherwise well-formed: atomic observation, credibility vs high diagnosticity split, ai_extracted labeling, E022 linked as supports, and a history.yaml entry; omitted-files is empty.

The change converts a confidence-supplied manuscript source into a public preprint citation exactly as the record's own verification note pre-registered: the supplied-copy and permission history (who granted, when, what channel, where held) is retained while citation no longer depends on it, satisfying §3.15's confidence rule, and the identifier is upgraded to a stable arXiv locator per §3.7/§3.8. The arXiv id 2608.26371 is UNCHECKED (registry returned HTTP 406, not a failure), and the material itself is internally consistent — the id's 2608 prefix matches the stated 2026-08-26 posting, the timeline (searched 2026-08-24, posted 2026-08-26, watch 2026-08-31, adoption 2026-09-01) coheres, and the authors/project align with a real research program, so there is no positive evidence of fabrication. TRN-C024 is atomic, labeled ai_extracted, distinguishes credibility from diagnosticity (§3.4) with calibrated 'provisionally_supported' grading and honest single-non-blind-proponent caveats (§3.13), and carries a strongestObjection plus whatWouldChangeOurMind. TRN-E022's new anchoring of C024 matches its stated content, and limitation fields are honestly re-labeled from 'unpublished' to 'preprint/not peer reviewed' rather than quietly softened. history.yaml is strictly append-only (§3.14) with actor, runId, and date recorded, and nothing in the diff touches AGENTS.md or weakens any check. The claimed founder direction and verbatim quote re-verification are assertions I cannot independently confirm, but they are documented in the record and nothing visible contradicts them — ordinary imperfection (e.g., stray whitespace in credibilitySummary) is not a violation.