This sitting adds only role: check readings: four vendors × three runs on ledgerHash ad0e0e…, plus the Anthropic seat's 2026-09-30 run. Each is stamped with runId, producedBy, model, date and promptVersion, marked humanReviewed: false and never shown as the case narrative, and no edition, article, evidence, source, history line or AGENTS.md is touched; the tooling found no added identifiers (§3.14, §4, §3.15). The run records reconcile with the spend ledgers (140630: four calls totalling $0.506556 and 44,412 output tokens; 053723: $2.330516), and the PR body itself discloses that the 'no seat has judged' reason line was stale for runs two and three. Disagreement is displayed rather than pruned: every divergent reading is committed, including Gemini's swing from contradicted to weakly_supported and back on the same ledger. Seat-level errors are the seats' own labelled readings, not fabricated citations or locators, and weighing them is the panel's job; examples are Gemini crediting the AI lineup to 'human evaluators', Gemini reading 'centuries or millennia' into a relative-only abstract, and GLM-140630's duplicated DEEP-C034 entry. For the operator, none a violation: (1) standing on merge must take one reading per vendor per ledger rather than counting repeated runs as independent seats (§3.10), which the 09-30 note 'not asked, having judged this ledger already' suggests it does; (2) the failed 052151 run logs calls: 0 and $0 despite a max_tokens reply that was likely billed; (3) the PR body's summary omits the 09-30 runs, though the tooling's account covers them. The omitted files are seat working replies and mechanical harvests whose visible sibling (pr-409) reconciles its token and cost totals, so they cannot change what the visible content shows; I would only want the seven harvested arbiter records confirmed verbatim against their public PR comments.

The visible assessment records are clearly stamped as AI check-role outputs, mark `humanReviewed: false`, and the run account candidly records failed seats, costs, models, dates, and prompt versions. However, seven added `governance/arbiter/pr-*.yaml` records, two spend ledgers, and the underlying seat records are omitted and were not digested by the run account. Those files could contain provenance mismatches, inaccurate harvested outcomes, or records presented with a status they did not earn, which cannot be evaluated from line counts alone. I would need the complete omitted governance and seat records, or a generated account comparing their verdicts, outcomes, stamps, and costs with their stated public sources, to determine compliance.

The pull request adds append-only check assessment files, governance arbiter harvest logs, spend ledgers, and proposal execution records resulting from routine automated pipeline runs on the deep-memory case. Each assessment is properly stamped with runId, model, date, promptVersion, and humanReviewed: false, with no draft presented as human-reviewed or ratified. AGENTS.md is untouched, no citations or external identifiers were added under content/, and the mechanical checks and provenance records are fully preserved.

The change adds only append-only check-role assessments (four vendors across three 2026-09-28 runs, plus the missing Anthropic seat on 2026-09-30), matching run.yaml/spend records, each stamped with runId, model, date, promptVersion, role: check, humanReviewed: false, and a shared ledgerHash. No edition, claim, evidence, or source is altered; no citation identifiers were added (CITATION VERIFICATION empty); AGENTS.md is untouched. Assessments reason from ledger records, mark self-reports and priors, and leave gaps unresolved rather than fabricating support. Omitted seat-*.yaml and arbiter harvests are operational mirrors of the assessments already digested in the RUN ACCOUNT and do not hide content fabrication.

The change adds only append-only, provenance-stamped check-role assessments (runId, model, date, promptVersion, role: check, humanReviewed: false), run records, spend ledgers, and harvested arbiter verdicts — no editions, citations, or locators; CITATION VERIFICATION confirms no identifiers were added, so §3.7/§3.8 fabrication risk is nil. All five vendors' check readings of the same ledgerHash are recorded, including a 2026-09-30 run whose sole purpose was to install the one missing seat (anthropic) after three network failures, with the other seats honestly recorded as declining to re-judge — this is panel completion, not unilateral publication of featured content. Disagreement is displayed rather than hidden (verdicts span contradicted, weakly_supported, mixed, unresolved across seats and runs), and a failed run (052151, empty reply) is recorded rather than hidden. The stale scheduler wording ('no seat has judged') reproduced in the PR body is a provenance display bug the operator transparently discloses and routes to a separate fix (#417); the run records themselves faithfully state 4-of-5 seats installed, so no record misattributes who did what. AGENTS.md is untouched, no check in §3.15 is loosened, and the seat files under proposals/ are working material properly excluded from the account; the minor duplicate DEEP-C034 entry in the glm-140630 assessment is a roll-up redundancy, not a violation.