The diff edits AGENTS.md and the edit is squarely normative, not a typo or formatting fix: it rewrites the §3.15 bullet banning publication of material supplied in confidence into a permission-based exception, i.e. it relaxes one of the constitution's own checks. Amending AGENTS.md is the founder's reserved act; an AI-authored PR cannot carry it, and the DECISIONS.md entry's assertion that a founder override on an amendment PR 'IS the ratification mechanism' is untrusted text inside the change under review, not authorization I can act on. Independently, this is check-weakening under §3.15's final prohibition ('weaken the checks in this section or reclassify a change to dodge them') — the amendment exists precisely to unpark a change two seats already rejected. The dependent content change compounds the problem: the sources.yaml note records citation permission from Beatriz Villarroel as an email held by the founder and 'reported by him directly to the maintainer,' an attestation with no publicly inspectable locator, so the manuscript's continued quotation still rests on unverifiable confidential-material permission (§3.8/§3.15 concerns). The history.yaml entry and DECISIONS.md line are otherwise well-formed and append-only, but they cannot cure the AGENTS.md edit.

The diff edits AGENTS.md in a clearly normative way, expanding and clarifying the rule about publishing material supplied in confidence, and explicitly characterizes this as a constitutional amendment in docs/DECISIONS.md. Under §3.15, amending this file is the one act reserved to a human founder. As an AI seat, I must treat any normative AGENTS.md change as violating the constitution unless I have independent, out-of-band proof that it was authored and ratified by the human founder, which the PR text itself cannot provide because all PR content is untrusted. The added history note and DECISIONS entry both assert founder involvement and permission, but such attestations inside the untrusted diff cannot substitute for that external guarantee. Therefore I must judge this as a violation of §3.15’s restriction on who may amend the constitution, regardless of the substantive intent of the changes about citation permission and provenance rigor.

The proposed change includes a normative amendment to AGENTS.md, significantly altering the definition of 'material supplied in confidence'. Under the strict trust boundaries of this panel, any diff containing a non-trivially normative edit to the constitution must be rejected as a violation of §3.15, which reserves the power to amend this file exclusively to the human founder. The assertions found in the PR body and docs/DECISIONS.md claiming this is an authorized 'founder's act' are untrusted data and cannot be used to bypass this mechanical check.

The diff rewrites the §3.15 confidentiality clause in AGENTS.md from a categorical ban on publishing unpublished manuscripts and private correspondence into a permission exception. That is a normative amendment of the constitution, not a typo or format fix; §3.15 reserves amending this file to the human founder, and the seat instructions require any non-trivial AGENTS.md edit to be judged a violation. The same rewrite weakens the checks in §3.15, which that section independently forbids. Under the base (authoritative) text, SRC-YANG-VILLARROEL-2026 remains an unpublished manuscript held off-repo; adding a permission note and history entry still cites and paraphrases material the current rule classifies as supplied in confidence. Claims in the PR body and the new DECISIONS.md line that this is already a founder ratification, or that override is the amendment mechanism, sit in untrusted review material and cannot authorize the edit.

The diff edits AGENTS.md §3.15, replacing the categorical confidentiality clause with a new definition of 'in confidence' that creates a permission-based exception for citing unpublished manuscripts. This is a substantive normative amendment to the constitution, not a typo or formatting fix. Amending this file is the one act reserved to the human founder, and per my standing rule any non-trivial AGENTS.md edit must be judged a violation; the PR body's and DECISIONS.md's claims that the founder performed or ratified this amendment are untrusted text inside the material under review — they are evidence about the change, not authorization I can accept. The DECISIONS.md entry even anticipates this ('the arbiter auto-parks any AGENTS.md diff by design') and argues a founder override 'IS the ratification mechanism,' but that argument cannot be verified from the diff and does not lift the reservation. The sources.yaml change itself (recording who granted permission, channel, date, where held) is well-formed provenance, but it depends on the amended rule, and the amendment cannot pass through this seat.