This is a pre-registration freeze with zero rows, which is exactly the workflow §3.12 prescribes: inclusion/exclusion criteria, literal search queries, known candidates and dispositions, and a criteria hash all committed before any evidence is gathered. No citations, DOIs, arXiv ids, or locators are added (the verification tool found none), so there is no fabrication surface here; the candidate list gives author-year names as discovery targets, explicitly deferring refereed status and per-cell verification labels to the collection PR, and states that deep-research briefs are never cited and every cell must be verified natively against the primary document. Provenance stamps are present and honest — runId, model, promptVersion, date, aiAssisted: true, humanReviewed: false — so no AI draft is presented as a ratified or human judgment (§3.15, Phase-1 labeling). The design is symmetric per §3.3/§3.11: proponent and critique rows graded by identical rules, refereed vs. flagged preprint never silently mixed, failed searches reported, 'either outcome publishes', and the table adjudicates nothing. The history.yaml change is a pure append with actor and reason, consistent with §3.14; AGENTS.md is untouched and no check is weakened. The only blemish I see is the prose reference to 'CCC-C504' inside a free-text reason field while claimIds lists CCC-C002/C004/C009/C011 — a numbering oddity in narrative text, not an ID field or a provenance claim, and not enough to constitute a violation.

The diff adds a pre-registration freeze entry to the CCC case history and a new study file with zero rows, defining inclusion/exclusion criteria, search protocol, and planned columns. This is clearly labeled as a pre-registration/freeze, with no assessments or quantitative findings yet, so there is no risk of presenting unratified drafts as ratified judgments (§3.15). No new citations, DOIs, or URLs are introduced, so there is no violation of the real-citations or exact-provenance requirements (§3.7–§3.8); future rows will need to respect those rules, but this freeze only defines structure and protocol. The method explicitly states that every cell will be verified against primary documents and that deep-research outputs will not be cited, which is consistent with the preference for primary sources and clear provenance. The history entry records actor, date, reason, and run information, preserving versioning and accountability in line with §3.14 and §3.15. No constitutional checks are weakened, and AGENTS.md is untouched, so the change complies with the current constitution.

The PR correctly implements a pre-registration freeze in accordance with §3.12 (Freeze before broad audit) by establishing inclusion criteria and a search protocol before data collection. It adheres to §3.3 (Competing hypotheses) and §3.11 (Negative evidence) by explicitly requiring both proponent claims and critique reanalyses to be tabulated under identical rules, including failed searches. AI operation is transparently disclosed (§4), with the draft correctly labeled with 'humanReviewed: false' and stamped with run/model data. No citations are fabricated, and the revision history is properly updated (§3.14).

The diff is a complete, zero-row study freeze (ccc-s001.yaml) plus an append-only history.yaml entry. That matches §3.12: inclusion/exclusion, search protocol, known candidates, and the signal-model-provenance column are locked before collection, with empty rows/findings/limitations and humanReviewed: false, so no unratified judgment is presented as ratified (§3.15). No DOI, arXiv id, URL, or page locator is added (citation tooling found none), so there is no fabricated citation or invented locator (§3.8); named papers appear only as pre-committed candidates, not as Source/Evidence records. The changelog is stamped with actor, date, runId, model, and promptVersion and does not rewrite prior entries (§3.14). AGENTS.md is untouched and the checks are not weakened.

This is a pre-registration freeze that implements §3.12 (freeze before broad audit) almost textbook-fashion: criteria, inclusion/exclusion rules, search protocol, and known candidates are frozen with a hash before any rows exist, and rows/findings/limitations are empty by design. The history.yaml entry is append-only (§3.14), records date, reason, actor, and aiAssisted: true, and the study file carries runId/model/date/promptVersion with humanReviewed: false — honest labeling per §3.15 and Phase-1 rules, with no unratified draft presented as ratified (the PR body explicitly says parking is expected). No citations, DOIs, or URLs are added, so there is nothing to fabricate; the named candidate papers are described as candidates to be resolved to primary documents at collection time, with preprint/refereed status flagged rather than hidden. The constitution is untouched and no checks are weakened — if anything, the freeze mechanism strengthens them. The passing mention of CCC-C504 in a prose reason field is not a claimIds reference and is a schema-validation matter for CI, not a constitutional violation.