Every identifier the diff adds resolves and the resolved titles match what the records claim they support (Smith 2021 radical pairs/xenon, Zadeh-Haghighi 2022 microtubule reorganization, Helou 2017 LISA Pathfinder, Majorana Demonstrator 2202.01343, Diósi 2111.04604, Gassab 2602.02868 and 2604.18604, Wiest MGR commentary, Kerskens reply DOI 10.1088/2399-6528/acc636). The verification account shows a genuinely adversarial second reader: 38 candidates refused with reasoned, locator-specific grounds (wrong page for the 'RP reaction' quote, non-verbatim spans, relevance failures), directions flipped from 'supports' to 'context' for secondary retellings, and E049/E056 split by direction — the checks worked rather than being dodged, and every rejection is recorded append-only in dispositions.yaml. Provenance is handled unusually honestly: the report run's stamp and spend were corrected to the served model with the fallback noted, and the draft run's unknown served model is carried into each record's origin as 'asked; served model unrecorded', which is the opposite of misattribution. The edition file and its header state plainly that it replaces the incumbent only if the panel prefers it, so no unratified draft is presented as ratified. Residual imperfections I would want tightened but do not treat as breaches: ORCH-C057 and ORCH-C063 still carry 'it would be false if…' clauses that were stripped from C044/C046/C047 for §3.2, and the split records (C065–C069, E071ff.) stamp extractedBy: claude-fable-5-1 under the verify runId without the served-model caveat applied elsewhere. The omitted assessment overlay is the one gap I cannot inspect, but the edition rationale in the tool-generated run account states the two verdict moves and the two holds with their anchoring evidence, and nothing visible contradicts it.

The first added 2026-09-11 history entry identifies the drafter as “claude-fable-5-1,” while the draft run explicitly says that this was only the requested model and that the served model is unknown because a fallback may have answered. Several split-derived records, including ORCH-C065 through ORCH-C069 and ORCH-E071 through ORCH-E073, likewise stamp `extractedBy: claude-fable-5-1` while citing the Sonnet verification run as their runId, leaving unclear who produced those final records. This violates the requirement that readers be able to reconstruct exactly which model did what and that revision history identify actors honestly. The history actor should carry the requested-model/unknown-served-model caveat, and every verify-generated split should identify Sonnet or the actual mechanical splitter rather than attributing it to Fable without support.

The research intake for Orch OR meticulously adheres to the constitution's epistemic rules. All 9 added sources mechanically resolve, and the multi-step verification pipeline rigorously filtered proposals, rejecting 38 candidate items that were non-atomic, conflated distinct claims, or had inaccurate locators. Second-reader adjustments split compound evidence and calibrated evidence direction honestly (e.g., splitting ORCH-E049 into ORCH-E049 and ORCH-E070 to reflect contrasting bearing on different claims). Provenance caveats regarding the model fallback during the draft run are recorded candidly across the ledger origin fields and history entries. The edition article faithfully reflects only ledgered evidence and clearly distinguishes competing hypotheses. While several working and governance files are omitted from the diff, the extensive RUN ACCOUNT provides complete visibility into the intake and adjudication, deciding compliance.

All nine newly added content sources resolve in mechanical citation verification with titles matching their ledger use; the verify run rejected 38 over-reaching or non-atomic candidates with concrete reasons and admitted only second-reader-checked records. Provenance stamps for the draft run honestly record that the served model is unknown, report/edition stamps name the fallback that answered, and history appends the hand corrections rather than silently rewriting. The edition stays a stamped AI candidate (case verdict unresolved; two claim moves reasoned from new ledger rows), AGENTS.md is untouched, and no confidence/unpublished material is published—the Kerskens reply is a public journal article later retrieved. Residual imperfections (ORCH-C057/C063 still carry bundled falsifiability clauses; assessment.yaml omitted from the packet) are ordinary and do not show fabrication, check-weakening, or misratification in what is visible.

Every citation the diff adds under content/ resolves in the mechanical verification, and the verify run's record shows disciplined epistemics rather than rubber-stamping: 38 candidates were rejected with specific, sourced reasons (wrong pages, over-reaching falsifiability clauses, non-atomic statements), and the second reader's direction corrections (supports→context, undermines→supports/qualifies) are displayed in readerActs rather than hidden. The provenance handling is the opposite of fabrication: the served-model stamp bug was fixed by hand, the mis-stamped runs were corrected to say the model asked versus served is unknown, and every correction is stamped in history.yaml with actor, date, and reason. The edition file explicitly labels itself as a candidate that replaces the incumbent only if the panel prefers it, so no unratified draft is presented as ratified — ratification is exactly the panel judgment now underway. Unretrieved sources (Turin 2014, the Symmetry paper, arXiv:2512.15393) are honestly blocked with reopen conditions rather than cited, and sources lacking Wayback snapshots are recorded as such. I note for the record that the blocked-disposition prose still references the drafter's stale provisional ids (ORCH-C101–C121, ORCH-R103) even after the R011–R015 correction pass fixed the accepted records — a cleanup item, not a constitutional breach — and that the unseen assessment overlay and spend.yaml are covered in substance by the account's edition header and the run.yaml pricing notes.