The change adds a single dated entry to docs/DECISIONS.md recording an operator-side robustness fix: one non-JSON strict-mode reply is retried with the schema as instructions before failing (with the head of the bad reply quoted in the error), and a failed split rejects that one record with a stated reason instead of killing the run. Nothing under content/ is touched, no citations, locators, or quotes are added (verification found no identifiers), and AGENTS.md is untouched, so §3.15's reserved-amendment rule is not engaged. The described behaviour does not loosen any §3.15 check: ratification, fail-closed CI, and the parking rules are unaffected, and refusing a record with an explicit reason is the honest-refusal behaviour the constitution favours rather than a dodge. Two things I would want answered on the record but do not treat as violations: (1) the PR body describes code changes to `anthropicJson` and `verify`, yet the complete diff contains only the docs entry — the log should not describe code as landed if it landed elsewhere, so the operator should say where that code is; (2) the insertion is placed above the pre-existing trailing line `(Operator record, founder's session of 2026-09-16.)`, so a stamp that previously closed the #291/edition-v7 entry now reads as the new entry's stamp — the earlier entry should keep its own stamp and the new one should carry its own explicitly.

The added decision entry records the incident and resulting operational policy with a date, actor, and channel: “Operator record, founder's session of 2026-09-16.” Retrying malformed JSON once does not accept invalid output, and rejecting only the affected record while continuing the run remains fail-closed at the record level rather than weakening citation, provenance, or ratification checks. The diff neither edits AGENTS.md nor adds content citations, assessments, confidential material, or claims of ratification.

The change adds an operator record to docs/DECISIONS.md documenting pipeline error handling changes from the founder's session on 2026-09-16. This conforms directly to §3.15, which permits founder directions given in a working session to be recorded and paraphrased in the decisions log stamped with date and channel. AGENTS.md is not modified, no content or citation records are altered, and no checks are weakened.

The diff only appends a dated operator/founder-session entry to docs/DECISIONS.md, which §3.15 expressly permits for recording operating directions with date and channel. AGENTS.md is untouched, no content/ ledger or citations are added, and nothing in the entry fabricates sources, exposes confidence material, or loosens the §3.15 ratification/checks. The described runtime retry and per-record verify isolation are operational robustness notes, not epistemic check-weakening; with a complete diff and no omitted files, the change complies.

The diff touches only docs/DECISIONS.md — no AGENTS.md edit, so the founder-amendment reservation (§3.15) is not implicated — and it records a founder-session direction stamped with date and channel ('Operator record, founder's session of 2026-09-16'), exactly the form §3.15 permits for the decisions log. Substantively, neither described mechanism weakens the §3.15 checks: the JSON retry is a bounded re-ask on the model-call path (a recovery route already used for schema-refusal), and the verify change keeps fail-closed behavior per record — a failed split rejects that record with a stated reason rather than silently repairing or passing it, so no atomicity check is dodged and no silent data repair occurs. No citations, locators, or provenance details are added, so fabrication rules are not engaged. One mismatch worth an operator note: the PR body describes code changes to anthropicJson and verify, yet the change stat shows only the 12-line DECISIONS.md insertion — presumably the code landed in a companion PR (#296 chain), but if those code changes have in fact not been made anywhere, the record would describe work that does not exist and should be corrected. On what the diff itself contains, this complies; the typecheck/lint/test claims are unverifiable from the packet but ordinary and not load-bearing here.