The OMITTED FILES list is very large and covers exactly the material that would decide this PR: every check-seat assessment for both cases (including the five seats whose split produces the 'contested' display), all of vasocomputation's dispositions.yaml, evidence.yaml, sources.yaml, editions and edition assessments, plus docs/DECISIONS.md and the inbox statements that supposedly carry the founder's publication permission. Nothing I can see decides the question against the change: AGENTS.md is untouched; every added DOI/URL RESOLVES and the geopolymer records I can inspect (GEO-C913/C918, GEO-E057–E066) quote and locate the shown Davidovits 2019 K-eng text plausibly and honestly, with the authors' own admissions recorded as qualifying/undermining evidence; the protocol edits (verify-v3 atomicity, split-v2, edition-v4 feature-by-stakes) tighten rather than weaken the checks, and the inbox permission gate in inbox.test.ts strengthens the §3.15 confidence rule rather than relaxing it. Two things trouble me but do not settle it: the new caption and several history/inference texts cite record IDs the ledger does not hold (GEO-C801, GEO-E809, GEO-E067–E821, GEO-C808, GEO-R801/R802), which is a provenance/traceability defect a reader cannot reconstruct (§3.8, §3.14); and admitted claims such as VASO-C146–C148 and VASO-C154–C156 are phrased as propositions about what the essay's page says rather than about the world, which split-v2 itself identifies as wrong. Because the vasocomputation ledger files and all panel seats are unseen, I cannot judge whether the 50 new claims, their anchors, and the contested ratification were handled honestly, so I vote unsure.

The new verify-v3 protocol explicitly allows an evidence record to be admitted when `directionRight` is false, which weakens the constitution’s mandatory evidence-direction check (§3.5, §3.15). GEO-E064 demonstrates the failure: it remains classified `supports` even though its own recorded second-reader dissent says it instead qualifies or undermines VASO-C580. GEO-E065 likewise remains supporting evidence while its limitation concedes that it “Supports only part of a compound claim,” contrary to §3.2’s prohibition on letting evidence for one proposition count for the rest. The history also says GEO-E006 was unlinked from GEO-C004, but the shown record still has GEO-C004 in `claimIds`, leaving the visible revision account inconsistent with the actual change (§3.14).

The diff includes an extensive list of omitted files that exceed the size budget, including core content files such as content/cases/vasocomputation/sources.yaml, evidence.yaml, inputs/manifest.yaml, and all associated new assessment files. While the visible changes to geopolymer, migration scripts, protocols, and tests appear diligent regarding atomicity (§3.2) and citation checks, key substantive additions cannot be evaluated directly. Specifically, whether the new sources, evidence records, and intake permissions for the founder's essay adhere strictly to §3.8 (exact provenance) and §3.15 (proper recorded permission for supplied materials without exposing confidential manuscripts) cannot be verified from the visible snippet alone. Per the instruction that an omitted files list requires an 'unsure' vote unless the visible diff alone decides the question, I vote unsure.

The OMITTED FILES list is very large and includes the bulk of the substantive ledger writes: vasocomputation evidence.yaml, sources.yaml, research.yaml, dispositions, all edition candidates, all check/edition assessments, inbox manifests/reports, verify outputs, and most pipeline/schema changes. Without those files I cannot confirm real-citation honesty beyond the mechanically resolved DOIs/URLs, exact provenance on the new evidence, independence labeling, permission/provenance recording for the founder-supplied essays, or that assessments remain append-only AI drafts with contested standing rather than silent ratification. What is visible (geopolymer adds, claim splits/tombstones, protocol v4/v5 and verify-v3 tightening atomicity and competition-linking, budget exemption, rejected compound claims) does not by itself show a paradigm violation, but it also cannot clear the omitted mass. Several visible VASO claims still read as text-about-the-passage (e.g. VASO-C146–C148) despite split-v2, which is a possible §3.2 concern I cannot fully judge without the omitted verify trail.

Everything visible in the diff is compliant in pattern: all added DOIs and URLs mechanically resolve; quotes I could spot-check against the included extraction of the first essay (VASO-C039, C040, C071, C073, C078) match verbatim with [p. N] locators; compound claims from the first intake were tombstoned append-only and repaired part-by-part under §3.2; the verify protocol gates quotes mechanically with an adversarial second reader; supplied-document permissions are recorded in §3.15's required form (who, date, channel, where held); dissenting directions are recorded on admitted records; and the split five-seat check is displayed as contested rather than published silently, exactly as §3.15 requires. No AGENTS.md edit occurs and nothing weakens the checks (the TORN_STREAM and loader changes strengthen them). However, roughly half the epistemic payload is in the OMITTED FILES list — the second essay's text extraction, all vasocomputation evidence.yaml, sources.yaml (SRC-JHONG-2026A), dispositions, and the panel seat files — so I cannot verify the 50 claims anchored to that essay for exact provenance (§3.8) or confirm the seat records, and the three newly added 'The passage states that…' claims (VASO-C146–148) are phrased in the very form the PR's own split-v2 protocol declares impermissible, which is at minimum an inconsistency I cannot fully assess without the omitted verification records. Because the omitted files could conceal a §3.8 or §3.15 problem that the visible portions do not decide, I cannot honestly vote either way.