Every added identifier resolves and is used consistently with its resolved metadata (arXiv 1207.6905 Bielewicz, 1706.04191 Creswell, 1811.04071 Nielsen, PhysRevResearch.2.012034 Allen, 2607.10816 Ulhoa, 1508.05158, 1909.09672, 1510.06537). The run notably handles a bad locator honestly rather than papering over it: the report's DOI 10.1093/mnras/sts418 was dispositioned `failed` because it returned the SBW1 ring-nebula paper (the verification tooling confirms arXiv 1211.4612 is that paper), and the Bielewicz source is anchored to arXiv only. Refusals are numerous, reasoned and anchored (40 rejections with per-part reasons in dispositions.yaml), directions are explicit, negative evidence is recorded, and every assessment file is stamped runId/model/date/promptVersion with `humanReviewed: false`. All five check seats and the edition draft return 'contradicted', so no unratified or hidden disagreement is presented as concurrence, and the panel-requested direction and verification-label corrections are recorded in append-only history entries naming actor, session and PR. Three things I would want answered on the record but which do not, singly or together, break a rule: (1) the history entries for #274 render two changes as "[object Object]" → "[object Object]" and as an identically truncated identifier string, so the 'what changed' is opaque even though the reason and the diff show it; (2) the PR body asserts CCC-C525's anchor 'stays open on purpose' while the diff and history show the anchor was in fact re-set to a p.1 quote matching that claim's own proposition — the ledger is right, the prose is stale; (3) CCC-E056's single quote about 'anomalous CMB distribution' is linked to four claims including CCC-C525 ('not consistent with CCC'), which strains §3.2/§3.4 separation of credibility from diagnosticity and should be narrowed. The omitted proposals/ files are working files whose substance is reproduced in the run account and in content/, so they do not hide the question.

The final added history entry does not preserve the corrections it purports to document: `CCC-C525.sourceAnchor` is recorded as `"[object Object]" → "[object Object]"`, and the An–Meissner–Nurowski identifier is recorded as the same truncated DOI string on both sides despite the visible addition of `arXiv:1510.06537`. These malformed before/after values prevent readers from reconstructing exactly what changed, contrary to version-history and inspectability requirements. The citations themselves mechanically resolve, so this is not a fabrication finding, but the public provenance record must serialize the complete old and new anchor and identifier values. The omitted proposal files cannot cure a history entry that is visibly lossy in the published content.

The PR incorporates a research pass on the CCC case, admitting 5 verified sources, 9 atomic claims, 25 evidence records, and 3 research cruxes while documenting 40 rejections in dispositions.yaml. All added sources and identifiers mechanically resolve, and the previous reader-act direction misalignments on CCC-E069 and CCC-E062 have been corrected on the record in history.yaml. The edition candidate and all five independent check panel seats (Anthropic Opus, OpenAI GPT, Google Gemini, xAI Grok, Z.ai GLM) unanimously concur on the 'contradicted' verdict. The provenance, verification labels, and append-only check records strictly comply with §3 and §4 of the constitution.

The sitting adds five sources whose DOIs/arXiv ids all RESOLVE in the mechanical check, with wrong DOI 10.1093/mnras/sts418 honestly failed and Bielewicz anchored only to arXiv:1207.6905. Verify refused ~40 non-atomic/unretrievable/off-topic candidates with stated reasons, split compounds, set per-claim directions, and stamped ai_extracted/ai_verified labels; panel-requested fixes for CCC-E069→undermines, CCC-E062→context, and Nielsen/Ulhoa/Creswell verification labels are on the history with named actors. New check assessments are append-only, role:check, humanReviewed:false; five seats all verdict contradicted beside the edition draft. No AGENTS.md edit, no confidence material, no fabricated locators visible in the material. Residual CCC-C525 is unfeatured and disclosed rather than silently ratified; a stale article aside on Nielsen verification is ordinary lag, not a §3 fabrication or check-weakening.

Every added identifier resolves in the mechanical check, and the one bad locator the report produced (DOI 10.1093/mnras/sts418, resolving to an unrelated Smith et al. paper) was caught, NOT attached to SRC-BIELEWICZ-2013, and dispositioned 'failed' with a reopen route — exactly the fail-closed behavior §4 requires. The verify pass's refusals are individually reasoned (quote-in-context, locator, atomicity, relevance), compound records were split rather than silently kept, evidence directions were corrected with readerActs stamped with model/run/date, and negative evidence (E052, E053, E067, E069) is recorded with honest low diagnosticity noted. The two panel-requested corrections (E069, E062 directions; verification labels for the LIGO sources) are applied through the correction writer with named actor, session, and PR in history.yaml, and sources the drafter could not reach are now labeled ai_verified only because the verifier retrieved and checked the quoted passages — provenance is stamped throughout, nothing is presented as human-reviewed, and the edition is filed as a candidate pending the panel, whose five seats all returned 'contradicted', concurring with the draft. Two residual defects are ordinary imperfection rather than violation: the history entry recording the CCC-C525 anchor correction shows '[object Object]' on both sides of the arrow (though the reason field states substantively what changed and why), and CCC-C525 stands unfeatured with a sibling-stating anchor, a fault the PR and history disclose openly for a later pass after the loader refused a tombstone — both should be cleaned up, but neither fabricates, misattributes, or weakens a check. AGENTS.md is untouched and no confidence material appears.