The diff touches one line of scripts/reassess-changed.mjs, changing the `actor` string stamped into editorial-audit history entries from "...pending human approval" to "...publishes only through the constitutional gate's multi-model concurrence, per AGENTS.md §3.15". Under §3.15 the founder retains only the kill switch and amendment power; editorial ratification of featured content is by multi-model concurrence, so the old wording promised a human review step that the constitution does not provide — arguably implying an AI record would receive human sign-off. The new wording states the actual mechanism and still preserves model name, run type, and prompt version in the stamp, satisfying §3.14/§3.15 accountability requirements. No check is weakened or reclassified: the gate itself is untouched, and the label does not claim ratification has already occurred. No citations, locators, provenance, or published assessments are altered, and AGENTS.md is not edited. The added comment is explanatory only.

The change only updates the human-readable `actor` string in an auto-generated editorial-audit history entry to describe the actual existing approval mechanism (“constitutional gate's multi-model concurrence”) instead of a non-existent “pending human approval” process. This makes the provenance label more accurate and aligned with §3.15’s description of how publication is ratified, rather than weakening any checks. No citations, sources, locators, or verification labels are created, altered, or removed, so rules on real citations and exact provenance (§3.7–§3.9) are unaffected. The script continues to append history entries rather than silently altering previous records, preserving the append-only spirit of §3.14. AGENTS.md itself is not modified, so the human-only amendment restriction (§3.15) is respected. Overall the PR tightens, rather than loosens, the transparency about how AI-operated assessments are approved.

The change updates the script that appends history entries to accurately reflect the multi-model concurrence mechanism defined in §3.15, rather than claiming a 'pending human approval' step that no longer exists. This ensures AI-generated assessments are not falsely implying future human review (in line with §4 Phase-1 rules) and preserves the transparency of the actual AI constitutional gate.

The diff only rewrites the future `actor` string in `scripts/reassess-changed.mjs` history stamps, replacing the outdated phrase “pending human approval” with a description of the actual §3.15 multi-model concurrence gate. AGENTS.md is untouched, so §3.15’s founder-only amendment reservation is not implicated. No citations, locators, assessments, or already-published records are fabricated, rewritten, or presented as ratified; the comment documents why the label was wrong without changing enforcement. Aligning the stamp with the real approval mechanism is honesty about process, not a weakening or reclassification of checks.

The diff changes only the actor-label string written into editorial-audit history entries by scripts/reassess-changed.mjs. The old wording, 'pending human approval,' promised a review mechanism the constitution does not provide: under §3.15 the founder retains only the kill switch and constitution amendment, and editorial ratification runs through multi-model concurrence — so stamping AI entries as awaiting human review risked presenting an AI record as carrying human oversight it would never receive, which §3.15 expressly forbids. The new wording states the real publication mechanism and cites §3.15, making the provenance stamp more honest, not less. No gate, CI check, or ratification process is modified; this is a labeling correction, not a reclassification to dodge review. AGENTS.md itself is untouched, and the inline comment documenting why the wording exists supports the transparency the constitution requires.