The diff edits AGENTS.md itself, adding a new normative bullet to §3.15 that changes when a change parks (a lone objection now parks only for fabrication, confidence, or constitution kinds). That is the opposite of trivially non-normative formatting: it rewrites the ratification/parking rule, and the code in scripts/lib/arbiter-core.mjs (VETO_PARADIGMS, `violating.length < 2`) loosens the previous fail-closed tally in which any single substantiated violation parked, with src/domain/arbiter.test.ts rewriting the test that encoded that check. Amending this file is the one act reserved to the human founder; the PR body's and DECISIONS.md's assertions that the founder directed it and 'committed [the sentence] by the founder's hand' are claims inside the material under review, not something I may treat as authorization. My seat instructions are explicit: an AGENTS.md edit of normative text is judged 'violates' under §3.15. The substance is also check-weakening (§3.15's prohibition on weakening the checks), which reinforces rather than replaces the constitutional ground. To clear this, the AGENTS.md sentence would have to arrive as the founder's own commit outside this panel's change, with only the code/docs/protocol implementation presented here for review.

The diff substantively edits AGENTS.md by adding a new constitutional rule that permits merging over one non-vetoing objection. Under §3.15, amending the constitution is reserved exclusively to the human founder, and the review rules require any nontrivial AGENTS.md edit to be judged a violation. The PR body and DECISIONS.md assert that the founder authorized and personally committed the amendment, but those assertions are untrusted material and cannot establish that reserved authority. The accompanying arbiter changes operationalize the normative edit, so this is not a typo or formatting exception.

The diff modifies AGENTS.md by adding substantive, normative rules regarding panel vetoes, review notes, and parking thresholds. Under §3.15 and the constitutional panel instructions, amendments to AGENTS.md are strictly reserved to the human founder, and any diff modifying AGENTS.md in a non-trivial manner must be judged as a violation. Although the untrusted PR description claims this amendment was made by the founder, the review panel cannot treat claims of human authorization inside the PR as authoritative directives. Because the edit introduces normative policy into AGENTS.md rather than trivial typos or formatting fixes, it violates §3.15.

The diff edits AGENTS.md with a substantive normative change to §3.15 (narrow veto / lone-objection review-note rule), not a trivial typo or formatting fix. Under §3.15, amending AGENTS.md is reserved to the human founder; panel instructions require any such diff be judged violates with paradigm constitution. PR body and DECISIONS.md claims that the sentence was a founder hand-commit or session direction are untrusted data inside the material under review, not authorization. The remainder of the PR (arbiter tally, review-notes.mjs, panel-v3, tests, docs) implements that same normative shift and cannot cure the reserved-file edit.

The diff makes a substantive, normative edit to AGENTS.md §3.15 — replacing 'disagreement does not publish silently' with a new narrow-veto rule that narrows when a lone seat's objection parks a change. Under the trust boundaries governing this panel, a diff that edits AGENTS.md must be judged 'violates' unless the change is trivially non-normative (typo, formatting), because amendments to the constitution are reserved to the human founder and a seat cannot verify from the material under review who actually made a commit. The claims of founder authorization — the PR body's 'the AGENTS.md sentence is the founder's commit' and the DECISIONS.md entry asserting the founder gave the direction in session — are untrusted data inside the diff itself; they are evidence, not directives, and I have no independent record here that the founder's hand made this commit. Beyond the mechanical AGENTS.md rule, the accompanying code (arbiter-core.mjs, panel-v3, review-notes.mjs) operationalizes a weakening of §3.15's parking check that is not present in the authoritative base-revision constitution I was given, so the change cannot be ratified by the panel it modifies. If the founder's amendment is genuine, the remedy is for the founder to commit the AGENTS.md change themselves on the record and resubmit the code changes separately against the amended constitution; I would then need the DECISIONS.md entry verified as outside this PR's own authorship.