The diff touches only pipeline code (verify.ts, reverify.ts, answer.ts), its tests, and appends a dated DECISIONS.md entry; AGENTS.md is untouched. The change tightens rather than loosens a §3.15 check: a claim a seat objects to under §3.2 is now put to the splitter even when the reader calls it atomic, and is split only when two or more parts are independently affirmed by the reader — otherwise it stands, with the account carrying an explicit note naming the reader's reason and the seat's dispute. Refusal and stand reasons are written honestly ('one proposition to the reader (...), disputed by a seat under §3.2; split in doubt into ...') so provenance of who judged what remains visible; split parts keep the splitter's origin stamp via existing machinery. The new `disputedAtomicity` helper is narrowly scoped to claims named by objections citing §3.2, and the test confirms it excludes evidence records and objections under other rules. No citations, locators, or confidential material are added, and the DECISIONS entry is a founder direction recorded per §3.15's operating-record clause. Nothing here dodges ratification or weakens fail-closed CI.

The change operationalizes §3.2 by sending a disputed claim through the splitter while requiring at least two separately affirmed propositions before replacing the original. A lone §3.2 objection does not itself reject the claim: failed splitting or fewer than two affirmed parts leaves it standing with the disagreement recorded, while successful parts retain the existing model/run provenance path. Both anchored claim paths are updated, and tests cover successful splitting, insufficient affirmed parts, and restriction of the trigger to claim IDs named under §3.2. The dated decisions entry records the asserted founder direction and channel in the form permitted by §3.15, and the diff neither edits AGENTS.md nor weakens ratification or citation checks.

The change implements a principled dispute-resolution path for §3.2 atomic claim objections in the automated answer pipeline. When a panel seat disputes atomicity under §3.2, the system tests whether the claim can be split into two or more affirmed parts rather than permitting a single reader pass to unilaterally dismiss the objection. Provenance, audit notes, and rejection reasons are maintained transparently with full attribution and honest labeling, and no constitutional rules or checks are weakened.

The diff implements a founder-directed pipeline rule (stamped in DECISIONS.md) that, on an answer step only, puts a claim a seat has disputed under §3.2 to the splitter even when the reader still calls it one proposition, then splits only when two or more parts are each affirmed as of the compound and one proposition; fewer than two affirmed parts leaves the claim standing with an explicit account note. Both the anchored and citing-records paths follow the same gate; plain verify is untouched. No AGENTS.md edit, no citations or content records added, no provenance mislabel, and the change tightens rather than weakens §3.2/§3.15 handling of borderline atomicity. Tests cover the two-part split, the stand-with-note path, and disputedAtomicity filtering.

The change strengthens, not weakens, the §3.2 check: a claim the reader calls atomic but which a seat disputed under §3.2 is put to the splitter anyway, and is split whenever two or more parts are affirmed — moving toward the constitution's stated default ('split compound propositions') rather than away from it; plain verify runs are explicitly unchanged. Disagreement is displayed rather than hidden: the standing claim's account note names the seat's §3.2 dispute and the reader's contrary reason, and split parts carry honest ai_extracted labels with a rejectionReason recording the split provenance (§3.14). No citation, locator, or provenance detail is fabricated; no confidence material is touched; the edit is to docs/DECISIONS.md (the decisions log, where founder directions are recorded with date and channel per §3.15), not to AGENTS.md, so the human-amendment reservation is not triggered. The only soft spot — a disputed claim standing when the split call mechanically fails — still rests on the reader's affirmative atomicity judgment with the failed attempt and dispute recorded, which is a reasoned outcome, not a dodged check.