This is a UI/domain refactor with no content changes: AssessmentPanel and CrossModelPanel are merged into StandingPanel, a LatestStrip and AccountsList are added, and readRuns moves from the pipeline store into src/domain/runs.ts. No citations are added (verification found none), AGENTS.md is untouched, and no supplied-in-confidence material appears. The honesty labels are preserved and in fact strengthened: StandingPanel prints 'an AI-generated assessment · not reviewed by a human' separately from the ratification line, explicitly noting that ratification by independent models 'is not human review' (§4, §3.15), and each seat's footer keeps run id, model, date, 'not human reviewed'. Disagreement is still displayed rather than hidden — dissenting seats show 'disputes', split claims are listed, contested/unratified banners and the staleness notice remain, and run/model/prompt/date provenance is stamped at the foot. The change to claimConcurrence loosens 'adjacent' from all-seats-within-one-step to majority-within-one-step, but that is the rule the §3.15 founder amendment itself states ('a load-bearing claim splits the panel when fewer than a majority of seats are within one step'), so it aligns display with the constitution rather than dodging a check. One thing I would flag for fixing as a review note, not a park: the CrossModelSummary doc comment says 'adjacent' means 'every seat is within one step', which contradicts the majority rule the code now applies, and the reader-facing sentence 'Y within one step' could similarly overstate agreement — the wording should be brought into line with the majority semantics.

The new StandingPanel keeps ratification distinct from human review, explicitly labeling the judgment “an AI-generated assessment” and “not reviewed by a human,” while showing each independent seat’s verdict and whether it concurs or disputes. The revised claimConcurrence and seatRelation functions implement the constitution’s one-step graded rule and expose split claims rather than hiding disagreement. Assessment provenance remains displayed through model, runId, prompt version, and date, and individual panel entries show their run, model, date, verdict, and AI status. LatestStrip derives its edition and sitting summaries from existing edition and run records, without adding citations or content records. The decision-log entry attributes the direction to the founder with date and channel, and the diff neither edits AGENTS.md nor weakens a constitutional check.

The change is a UI and domain reorganization that combines the assessment and cross-model checks into StandingPanel, adds LatestStrip for run activity, and displays accounts side by side. Concurrence calculation is aligned with the constitutional rule established in §3.15 (within one step qualifies as concurrence; claims split when fewer than a majority of seats are within one step). Assessments retain required provenance stamps (runId, model, promptVersion, date) and prominent labeling as AI-generated drafts not reviewed by humans, satisfying §4 and §7.

UI-only change: merges assessment and cross-model panels into StandingPanel, adds LatestStrip/AccountsList, and moves run reading into the domain. No content/ citations, no AGENTS.md edit, no confidence material. StandingPanel restores separate AI-generated / not-human-reviewed labels distinct from multi-model ratification (§4, §7). claimConcurrence now uses the §3.15 one-step majority rule so the page cannot show split beside ratified. DECISIONS.md records the 2026-09-09 founder direction with date and channel. Disagreement remains visible via seat concurs/disputes and contested banners.

This is a presentation-layer change with no content, citations, or provenance edits (citation verification found no identifiers in added lines), and it does not touch AGENTS.md — the doc changes are to docs/AUTOMATION.md and docs/DECISIONS.md, recording the founder's 2026-09-09 session direction with date and channel as §3.15 allows. Far from weakening checks, the change strengthens them: it fixes a real inconsistency where claim-level 'split' could display beside a ratified standing by applying the constitution's one-step majority rule (claimConcurrence) consistently, and it restores the 'an AI-generated assessment · not reviewed by a human' label separately from the ratification line, directly answering review note #226 and honoring §4's prohibition on implying AI assessments are human-reviewed conclusions. The merged StandingPanel still displays disagreement prominently — each seat's verdict, its concurs/disputes relation, split claim IDs, contested and stale states — so §3.15's 'disagreement does not publish silently' is preserved, and run/model/promptVersion/date provenance remains stamped on the judgment. The new domain/runs.ts reads records without repair (unparsable records skipped, never fixed), consistent with 'no silent data repair'. I would flag only a minor review-note-level item: the old surviving-objections rendering for ratified cases is replaced by the per-seat dispute labels, which conveys the same information; nothing here rises to a violation.