E06 — All operational paper claims reconciled

Authored design — 2026-09-15. Section 4. This cascade elaborates the existing checklist item. It is not a dispatch, implementation receipt or completion verdict. Work outside WM-01–14 still requires Joe’s explicit greenlight; having a cascade is necessary but not permission.

Section 3/4 index · Exact TODO · Cascade JSON

Situation and design problem

Editorial accuracy requires every operational claim to retain its evidence kind. Correcting prose must not erase a build requirement that remains unfulfilled.

Governing checklist snapshot

E06 — All operational paper claims reconciled. OPEN: the 150-row completion inventory, including seven historically refuted claims, all unresolved/missing claims, current additions and deletions, matched to actual scoped evidence. Rewrite to facts; do not lower the build requirement by rewriting the promise away.

This is the checklist’s dated evidence account, not a new deployment census. Existing source/test evidence keeps its bounded credit. The acceptance obligation above governs this design.

Pattern applications

E06-1 — Freeze the operational claim population

Pattern: wm-purpose-and-account/each-paper-claim-keeps-its-evidence-kind

Start from the 150-row inventory and enumerate current additions, deletions and changed claims across delivered sources. Produce a versioned claim-to-source map; 150 is a historical baseline, not a permanent current total.

E06-2 — Classify evidence and contradictions

Pattern: wm-purpose-and-account/each-paper-claim-keeps-its-evidence-kind

Bind theorem, implementation, test, historical use and current runtime claims to their actual evidence. Retain the seven historically refuted claims explicitly and distinguish missing from contradicted evidence.

E06-3 — Review the proposed reconciliation

Pattern: wm-purpose-and-account/assent-has-an-object-and-scope

Obtain scoped owner/reviewer decisions on exact claims and revisions. A lane’s assent cannot certify other lanes. Preserve the original unmet requirement when the accurate prose says not yet built.

E06-4 — Publish and verify the delivered account

Pattern: wm-purpose-and-account/each-paper-claim-keeps-its-evidence-kind

Regenerate affected paper/board text, compare delivered bytes with the reviewed revision and retain the claim crosswalk. Do not claim publication from a preview or old fetched snapshot.

Composition and interfaces

Each node’s stated artifact is the input or constraint for the related node below. These are design dependencies, not a claim that a runtime scheduler automatically fires patterns. Existing WM producers are reused through the linked contracts; no second implementation is implied.

Retain the actual subject, source/model revision, task/occurrence, cutoff, producer and consumer for each interface. A missing field is a named gap; a default that changes the meaning is not an adapter. Reuse existing records where they satisfy these obligations. If a new component is indispensable, identify its exact TODO/cascade clause before seeking a separately bounded implementation instruction.

Worked situation

A generic theorem establishes a law for arbitrary C. The paper may state that theorem, but cannot claim the machine constructed C. Rewriting the sentence accurately leaves the construction TODO intact.

This is a distinguishing design example, not a claimed production experiment.

Implementation sequence and closure evidence

1. Bind the first application to the actual source, task and authority. Resolve the decisions below before their dependent change; do not reproduce a known gap merely to claim activity.
2. Implement only the specifically dispatched producer/consumer change from the middle applications. Retain the meaningful pre-change failure and relevant post-change controls; do not start a general infrastructure project.
3. Acquire the final application’s evidence and independent review. Compare it against every clause of the exact TODO, identifying any still-open dependency. Source, tests, serving state, ordinary use and whole-run validation receive different credit.

Distinguishing controls: Reject dropped refuted rows, current-runtime claims based on historical logs, evidence-kind promotion, missing new claims and preview-as-publication.

Closure rule: every part of the quoted obligation must be supported by the indicated artifacts and actual connections. A useful rejection proves the rejecting boundary only. One accepted subclause does not tick the whole item. A bellback must supply the exact reviewed subject, executed checks, independent verdict and remaining clauses.

Dependencies and authority boundaries

E01 · E05 · E07 · E10

Inventory changes require explicit mapping; editorial completion does not imply machine completion or revise Joe’s all-node standard.

Dependency links describe required interfaces; they do not authorize work on those items. No implementation outside the existing TODO list is approved. Publication does not select a numerical law, settle an unresolved operator ruling or authorize a run.

Pattern and source scope

All seeded patterns are applied above. The JSON pins their source bytes and the governing checklist/rulings. Historical formulas, thresholds and examples in a pattern remain scoped examples unless the governing contract adopts them. This draft adds no pattern-library entries and claims no independent semantic ratification.