The two new files under content/cases/*/assessments/ are exactly the append-only overlay form §4 prescribes: runId, model, date, promptVersion, and humanReviewed:false, with a header stating they are unreviewed AI drafts, so no unratified draft is presented as ratified (§3.15). The one edit to published prose (overview.md) is paired with a new, non-destructive history.yaml entry recording what changed, why, and the AI actor with aiAssisted:true, satisfying §3.14 and avoiding a silent change of a published judgment; the risk classification 'needs-approval' routes it to this gate rather than dodging it. The assessment texts consistently distinguish credibility from diagnosticity, flag single-thread dependencies (TRN-C024 on TRN-E022), refuse to count repeated reanalyses of the same author-supplied rows as independent (§3.10), and record null/contrary results (VASO-E019/E020/E021, TRN-E009/E011) per §3.11, with plain-language verdicts rather than false-precision scores (§3.13). The only new citation is a proposal under proposals/ labeled ai_verified with an honest note ('URL fetched... HTTP 200, title confirmed. A human should verify content relevance before use'), which is a candid label, not a fabricated verification; the tooling reported no identifiers in added content/ lines because the URL sits outside content/. AGENTS.md is untouched, no confidential arc/notes material appears, and the inbox move is fully runId-traceable. The PR body's self-serving assurances were treated as claims, not directives, and nothing in the diff contradicts them.

The new assessment overlay files for the transients and vasocomputation cases are clearly marked as AI-generated, append-only drafts with runId, model, date, promptVersion, and humanReviewed: false, satisfying the append-only and transparency requirements of §3.14 and §3.15. They do not overwrite existing canon claim files or alter verdicts without new evidence, and explicitly note stability of judgments when no new evidence has entered, which respects calibrated uncertainty and avoids unjustified churn (§3.11, §3.13). Evidence direction and diagnosticity versus credibility are discussed explicitly in the reasoning, and repeated or related evidence lines are handled with independence caveats, aligning with §3.4, §3.5, and §3.10. The vasocomputation overview.md change strengthens the conventional-account section using already-recorded evidence (VASO-E019, VASO-E020, VASO-E021) and is logged in history.yaml with date, actor, and reason, maintaining visible revision history and not weakening checks (§3.11, §3.14). The new source proposal for the orch-or case is confined to proposals/, marks the URL as ai_verified with an honest note that a human should check relevance, and does not fabricate identifiers, complying with real-citation and provenance rules (§3.7, §3.8). No changes touch AGENTS.md or loosen the constitutional safeguards, and no confidential or unratified material is misrepresented as ratified, so the diff complies overall.

The diff adds AI assessments as append-only overlays with the required metadata and draft labels, complying with §4 Phase-1 rules. The direct correction to the overview article is properly logged in the changelog (`history.yaml`) with clear attribution to an AI actor, following the §7 founder amendment for banked corrections and the §3.14 versioning requirements. No citations are fabricated, and provenance rules are respected.

The diff does not edit AGENTS.md. New transients and vasocomputation overlays are append-only, stamped with runId/model/date/promptVersion, and labeled humanReviewed: false, so they are not presented as ratified or human judgments (§3.14–3.15, phase-1). The vasocomputation overview edit is paired with a dated history.yaml entry stating what changed, why, and that it publishes only through the multi-model gate; the prose tightens the conventional account against existing ledger IDs rather than inventing locators or citations. Inbox output stays under proposals/ with an honest ai_verified webpage record (HTTP 200, title-confirmed, relevance caveat) and does not cite confidential material. No citation identifiers were added under content/, and nothing in the packet shows fabricated provenance, silently rewritten assessments, or weakened checks.

The two assessment overlays are new append-only files stamped with runId/model/date/promptVersion and explicitly labeled humanReviewed: false AI drafts, exactly matching §4's pattern, and they mutate no canon claim files. The one featured-content change (vasocomputation/overview.md) is precisely the kind of consequential edit §3.15 gates — and it is gated: the PR is classified needs-approval and is before this multi-model panel rather than published unilaterally, with history.yaml recording what changed, why, and the actor per §3.14. The added prose leans on evidence records (VASO-E019/E020/E021) already incorporated in a prior run, adds no new citations (the mechanical check found none in added content lines), and strengthens the undermining side of the ledger, consistent with §3.11 and symmetric presentation. The proposed orch-or source lives under proposals/ (not published content), carries an honest ai_verified label with a note that relevance still needs human checking, and the unreachable/unverified handling is disclosed. Assessment reasoning visibly respects §3.4 (credibility vs diagnosticity) and §3.10 (same-rows reanalysis 'adds no independent weight', 'one line of evidence, not two'). No AGENTS.md edit, no check-weakening, no confidence-material exposure, and nothing in the diff attempts to instruct the panel.