The diff adds a zero-row pre-registration (VASO-S001) with an explicit criteria freeze dated before any collection, which is exactly what §3.12 asks for, and it is stamped runId/model/date/promptVersion with humanReviewed: false, so nothing is presented as a human or ratified judgment (§3.15, §4). All six DOIs added under content/ RESOLVE and their resolved titles match how each is characterized in knownCandidates (e.g. 10.1152/ajpheart.00977.2005 is used as the 'absence of latch-bridge formation in muscular saphenous arteries' row; 10.1529/biophysj.107.113977 is explicitly classed as model rather than arteriole measurement), so the citations are used honestly (§3.7, §3.8). The one unresolved candidate — the canine saphenous-vein ~11.9% shortening-velocity report — is recorded as an unlocated, unverified lead with no invented identifier and a commitment to report a failed search, which satisfies §3.8 and §3.11 rather than breaching them. The frozen design enforces two never-combined grades (§3.4, §3.13), absence rows (§3.11), and shared-cohort independence notes (§3.10), and declines the relayed model's proposed rewording of C010/C020 pending the audit — so no published claim or assessment is silently changed. The relayed pre-freeze commentary is preserved verbatim in inbox/processed with its channel, date, relayer and an agent note stating that none of its literature assertions entered claims/evidence/sources; the supplier is the founder who pasted it for this use, so I do not read this as publishing material supplied in confidence. history.yaml is appended to, not rewritten, and AGENTS.md is untouched.

The change adds a preregistered study file (VASO-S001) with zero data rows, clearly labeled as a study freeze with runId/model/date/promptVersion and humanReviewed=false, which aligns with §3.12 and §3.14 and does not present draft analysis as ratified conclusions. The criteria and method sections emphasize one-row-per-experiment and explicit independence notes for shared cohorts (§3.10), explicit handling of negative and absent findings and failed searches as rows/records (§3.11), and calibrated, multi-axis grading without collapsing into a single score (§3.13). Sources are treated correctly as containers, with distinct evidence classes for models and molecular reconstitutions, and there is no attempt to treat secondary literature or briefs as primary evidence (§3.6, §3.7). All added DOIs in knownCandidates resolve and are used in ways that match their titles/venues, with one unresolved lead explicitly marked as unverified rather than cited, satisfying the real-citations and no-fabrication requirements (§3.7, §3.8, §3.15). The inbox commentary file is clearly labeled as AI-origin commentary relayed by the founder and is used only as design input, not as evidence; the file transparently documents what was and wasn’t adopted, honoring source-vs-inference and provenance clarity (§3.9, §3.14, §3.15). No existing claims, evidence, or assessments are silently altered in their judgments, and no checks are weakened or constitutional powers (like AGENTS.md) touched, so the changes remain within the project’s epistemic and operational constraints.

The change perfectly executes §3.12 (Freeze before broad audit) by establishing the study's inclusion criteria and grading axes before any data is collected. It handles the untrusted AI commentary with exemplary constitutional rigor (§3.15): rather than blindly importing its literature claims, the agent mechanically verified each paper, added only the resolved primary documents as pre-committed candidates, and honestly recorded an unlocatable paper as an 'unverified lead' rather than a fabricated citation (§3.8). Furthermore, establishing independent grading axes for 'latch-evidence' and 'knot-relevance' directly enforces §3.4 (Claim credibility is not diagnosticity). All added citations resolve successfully.

The diff is a §3.12 freeze of VASO-S001 with zero rows, empty findings, and stamped AI provenance (humanReviewed: false); it does not rewrite featured claims, invent locators, or present a draft as ratified. All six DOIs added under content/ resolve, and the resolved titles match the named papers (Dillon 1981, Han 2006, Call 2006, Hammell 2022, Wang 2008; Wingard’s DOI resolves at doi.org). The unlocated canine saphenous-vein item is recorded as an unverified lead rather than a citation, and the processing note keeps the relayed commentary’s literature characterisations out of claims/evidence/sources. AGENTS.md is untouched, history is append-only, and the founder-relayed inbox file carries date, channel, and editor provenance rather than confidential material used without a record.

This is a textbook §3.12 freeze: VASO-S001 locks inclusion/exclusion criteria, search protocol, grading axes, and a criteria hash before any rows exist, with rows/findings empty and the file stamped runId/model/date/promptVersion and humanReviewed: false — an honestly labeled AI draft, not a ratified judgment. All six added DOIs resolve, and the resolved titles match what the records claim they support (Dillon 1981, Han 2006 absence report, Call 2006 pressurized follow-up, Hammell 2022 reconstitution, Wang 2008 model); the one unresolvable paper is recorded explicitly as an unlocated lead rather than a citation, with the failed search to be reported per §3.11. The verbatim pre-freeze commentary is archived in inbox/processed/ with honest provenance ('vendor and session not identified' — a labeled gap, not an invented one), and the processing note records that its literature characterizations were verified independently or treated as leads, with none imported into claims/evidence/sources — its design suggestions adopted, its claim rewordings declined precisely on §3.12 grounds. The VASO-R004 amendment edits a research-opportunity design (not a published assessment), and the change is logged append-only in history.yaml with what, why, and actor. No AGENTS.md edit, no confidence material, no fabricated locators, no weakening of any check — the criteria-hash mechanism strengthens them.