The change is confined to src/pipeline/verify.ts, its test, and a DECISIONS.md entry; AGENTS.md is untouched, so §3.15's reservation is not implicated. Substantively it strengthens rather than loosens a check: claims that previously escaped the atomicity gate because they had no source anchor of their own are now put to the reader (§3.2), and compound ones are split, with the compound explicitly rejected naming its parts and the citing evidence relinked and set back to provisional rather than silently carried. Provenance is preserved, not invented: each part's origin.ref records that it is a 'split of <id> ... on the statements of the records that cite it, without a text', with extractedBy/runId/date stamped from the splitter/reader (§3.8, §3.14), and the compound's dependsOn/alternativeTo/contradicts relations are deliberately not inherited, with a note recording that they were dropped — which avoids one rung's relations silently attaching to another (§3.2, §3.10). No citations are added (verification tooling found none) and no confidential material appears. The DECISIONS entry is a dated, channel-stamped record of a founder direction, which §3.15 expressly permits; I cannot independently confirm the session occurred, but nothing in the material contradicts it, and unfamiliarity is not evidence of fabrication. Remaining questions (whether the parts' anchorless state is correctly displayed downstream) are ordinary implementation matters, not constitutional violations.

The change closes an atomicity gap by sending evidence-anchored claims through the same one-proposition judgment and splitting claims judged compound. Generated parts are checked as propositions of the original compound, receive explicit split provenance, and the original is refused with the resulting claim IDs recorded. Citing evidence is relinked and downgraded to provisional so it cannot carry assessment weight until reread against each new part. The decision log records the rationale and founder supervision with date and channel, and the change neither edits AGENTS.md nor weakens an existing constitutional gate.

The change closes a gap in the verification pipeline where claims anchored solely by evidence (such as founding claims without a dedicated source anchor) previously bypassed atomicity review. Under the updated logic in src/pipeline/verify.ts, these claims are judged for single-proposition atomicity against citing evidence statements and split if compound, upholding §3.2. AGENTS.md is untouched, no content or citations are fabricated, and verification checks are strengthened rather than weakened.

The diff tightens §3.2 for claims that have no source anchor and are anchored only by citing evidence: atomicity is now judged on those citers’ statements, compounds are split with honest origin provenance, relations are not silently carried, and citers are relinked provisional. That strengthens rather than weakens §3.15 checks. DECISIONS.md only records a founder session direction; AGENTS.md is untouched; no citations, content ledger records, or confidence material are added. Tests match the stated behavior.

This change extends the §3.2 atomicity check to claims anchored by evidence alone — previously admitted at settlement without any reader judgment because the atomicity check lived inside the source-anchor branch — so it strengthens rather than weakens the epistemic checks. No citations are added (verification found none), and the split path preserves honest provenance: parts carry an origin ref stating they were judged 'without a text' with recorded model/runId/date, the compound is rejected with a reason naming its parts, dropped relations are disclosed in notes rather than silently lost, and citing evidence records are relinked to 'provisional' — consistent with §4's rule that provisional records carry no weight. Tests cover the blind judgment, the split, the refusal, and the relinking, and the DECISIONS.md entry documents the change with the same supervised-by stamp format as the preceding merged entry (2026-09-20), giving me no positive evidence of a misattributed provenance stamp. docs/DECISIONS.md is a decisions log, not the constitution, so §3.15's AGENTS.md rule is not triggered. My one note: the founder-direction stamp ('direction in session, 2026-09-21') is not independently checkable from the packet, but unverifiable authorization claims in a decisions log are not grounds for a violation vote absent contradicting evidence.