The diff is pipeline/automation code plus a DECISIONS log entry; it adds no citations (verification tooling found no identifiers) and edits no part of AGENTS.md. The gating checks are preserved rather than weakened: the freeze drafter writes zero-row pre-registrations (§3.12-consistent), assigns ids mechanically, fail-closes on incomplete drafts and unknown claim ids (`unknown claim ${c}` rejection, no silent repair), stamps runId/model/date/promptVersion with `humanReviewed: false`, appends an `aiAssisted: true` history entry naming the drafting agent (§3.14, phase-1 labeling), and lands everything as a single `needs-approval` PR with a reviewer added — nothing self-merges. The scorer records failed seats explicitly as `failed` rather than treating them as neutral, and advancement still requires 4-of-5 high with zero constitutional concerns and non-thin panels, so a degraded panel yields non-advancement, not silent publication (§3.15). Residual imperfections I judged as ordinary rather than violations: `criteriaHash: "000000000000"` is a placeholder immediately overwritten by `scripts/stamp-study.mjs` (a throw there fails the step, so the placeholder should not reach a PR), and model-supplied `knownCandidates` are pre-committed dispositions reviewed by the panel, not citations or locators. The DECISIONS entry's appeal to founder direction ("I don't want to lose them") is an unverifiable claim in untrusted text, but it is consistent with the base file's own same-day founder amendment and I see no positive evidence of a fabricated record.

The change wires in an automated but still panel-gated workflow for scoring proposals and drafting study freezes without weakening constitutional checks. Bench scoring explicitly uses a five-vendor panel with clear advancement rules and records seat-level statuses and tallies in per-run scores.yaml, preserving transparent, append-only assessments (§3.14, §3.15). The freeze drafter generates pre-registered study protocols before any data collection, with explicit budgets, mechanical ID assignment, and fail-closed validation; drafts that fail checks are dropped rather than silently repaired, which aligns with calibrated and non-fabricated processing (§3.15). The system text for drafting studies emphasizes pre-registration, desk-executable criteria, independence, and bans on culpability grading or confidential material, reinforcing §3.11 and §3.15 rather than eroding them. No sources, citations, or locators are added, so there is no fabrication or provenance issue under §§3.7–3.9. The decisions doc update simply records the new automation as a governance decision and does not alter AGENTS.md, so the reserved-human-amendment rule remains intact (§3.15). Overall, this change strengthens the pre-freeze workflow and maintains multi-model concurrence and fail-closed CI, complying with the constitution.

The PR successfully implements the Bench v2 scoring and freeze-drafting workflows while strictly adhering to the constitution. AI-generated records explicitly carry their model, prompt version, and runId, with 'humanReviewed' set to false, complying with §3.14 and §3.15. The drafted study freezes are submitted via a gated, 'needs-approval' PR rather than unilaterally published, preserving the multi-model ratification process (§3.15). Prompt instructions explicitly forbid grading living persons' culpability or using confidential material, adhering to phase-1 rules and constitutional boundaries. No citations are fabricated, and AGENTS.md is untouched.

The complete diff (no omitted files, no AGENTS.md edits, no new citations) adds gated Bench scoring and freeze drafting rather than publishing judgments. Five-vendor scoring is fail-closed per seat (failed/missing seats are recorded and not treated as neutral), advancement is restricted to study proposals, and freeze files are labeled AI-drafted (humanReviewed: false, runId/model/date/promptVersion), zero-row, hash-stamped, and opened as a needs-approval PR for panel review before any data exists. History and research items are append-only; unknown claim IDs and thin drafts are dropped rather than repaired. Ordinary workflow roughness (scoring warning-and-continue, one-cycle latency) does not weaken §3.15 gates or reclassify featured content.

The change builds machinery that strengthens rather than weakens the constitution's gates: advancement requires 4-of-5 vendor seats scoring high with zero constitutional concerns and failed seats never counted (multi-model concurrence per §3.15, fail-closed), and the drafted freezes land only as a gated needs-approval PR with the founder added as reviewer, so nothing publishes on one model's unilateral judgment. The freeze files are pre-registrations with zero rows, frozen inclusion/exclusion criteria, and hash-stamping — a direct implementation of §3.12's freeze-before-audit rule. Provenance and accountability are preserved: history.yaml entries are append-only and stamped with runId, promptVersion, actor, and aiAssisted: true; study records carry humanReviewed: false and headers honestly labeling them as Bench drafts pending panel judgment (§3.14, §3.15's no-unratified-draft rule). No citations are added (verification section empty), nothing confidential is quoted, no existing published judgment is modified, and the prompts explicitly treat proposal text as data rather than instructions while encoding constitutional-concern blocks (living persons' culpability, confidential material, dependence counted as independence). The DECISIONS.md addition is a routine dated decision log, not an AGENTS.md amendment. The claimed founder quote is treated as evidence, not relied upon; the change stands on its own gating regardless.