docs: open authorizations.md and grant AUTH-001 — §7 amendment, acknowledged

New instrument, parallel to corrections.md and open_contract_gaps.md.
An authorization to edit corpus text cannot live in corrections.md:
that file's standing rule (:12-13) states no entry in it authorizes
editing the text it describes, and weakening that rule to solve a
filing problem would turn CR entries into edit warrants.

Created because the failure it prevents has already occurred twice.
425aa09's authority for the :114/:153 amendment exists only in its
commit message; 0c83577's :57 amendment carries no authorization line
at all and is known to have been authorized only because §6's
signature (:271) later cites it as precedent. Grepping docs/ for
either hash returns two signature rows and nothing else. Both are
recorded as gaps in the record, not retroactively supplied.

AUTH-001 grants route A — amend-then-sign — for Contract 001 §7 only,
bounded to three enumerated edits at :245, :246 and :248 AND to the
From/To wording specimens given for each. Discharges CR-002 findings
1, 2, 3 and CR-003. Edit 3 is one amendment justified by two findings:
a bare strike of "in each case" would repair jurisdiction but leave
the incompleteness claim asserted without restriction or support, so
each defect's fix redefines the other's target and they cannot be
sequenced.

Acknowledged by the operator 2026-08-23, on the express qualification
that AUTH-001 pre-clears the permission question only and not the
wording — the §7 amendment commit remains subject to diff review.

NOT YET EXERCISED: contract_001_domain_resolution.md is unchanged by
this commit and §7 remains unsigned.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011qCWQtnHdvgZJbMKYsfj5U

Author: GodSpeed313

docs/authorizations.md

@@ -0,0 +1,149 @@
+# Authorizations
+
+This file records operator authorizations to edit corpus text. It exists because an authorization
+that lives only in a chat turn, a commit message, or a signature row is not discoverable later by
+anyone reading the corpus.
+
+**What this file is not.** It is not a section or appendix of any contract or ruling. It is not the
+gap register (`open_contract_gaps.md`), which tracks what a contract fails to enforce, and it is not
+the corrections register (`corrections.md`), which records defects in text and — by its own standing
+rule at `corrections.md:12-13` — **cannot** authorize an edit. An authorization is a third act: it
+grants permission to change text, names exactly what may change, and closes when the authorized
+commit lands.
+
+**Standing rule.** An entry here authorizes only what it names. Nothing in this file is a signature,
+and no entry ticks a sign-off box. An authorization that has been exercised remains on the record;
+it is not deleted once used.
+
+**Why this file was created on 2026-08-23.** The two prior pre-signature amendments to Contract 001
+were authorized nowhere in the corpus. `425aa09` (`:114`, `:153`) carries its authority only in its
+commit message — *"Operator ruling: match :114 to :128's count basis rather than tie it to a support
+threshold."* `0c83577` (`:57`) carries no authorization line at all, and is known to have been
+authorized only because §6's signature (`contract_001_domain_resolution.md:271`) later cites it as
+*"the standing precedent that the route is available in this corpus."* Grepping `docs/` for either
+hash returns two signature rows and nothing else. Those two amendments are not reopened by this
+file; the gap in the record is noted, not retroactively filled.
+
+---
+
+## AUTH-001
+
+```
+Authorizes:        editing Contract 001 §7, and only §7
+Target lines:      :245, :246, :248 — three edits, enumerated below
+Route:             amend-then-sign (route A), per the precedent at 0c83577
+Granted by:        Kevin Brown, operator
+Granted at:        2026-08-23, in session
+Basis:             CR-002 findings 1, 2, 3 and CR-003, all recorded in
+                   corrections.md; §7 is UNSIGNED, so no attestation is
+                   disturbed by an edit made before signature
+Status:            granted; NOT YET EXERCISED — no edit has been made to
+                   contract_001_domain_resolution.md as of this recording
+```
+
+**Why route A and not route C.** Route C — relocating §7 out of the contract entirely, so that
+§1's self-test (`contract_001_domain_resolution.md:41-42`) no longer reaches it — was presented and
+not taken. Route A keeps `:239`'s pattern where a reader of the contract meets it, and §6's own
+stated test for when amendment is available is met: these are local text repairs, not the
+*"substantive invariant design with implementation consequences"* that §6's signature
+(`contract_001_domain_resolution.md:271`) gives as its reason for declining the route for GAP-4 and
+GAP-5. No invariant is touched by any edit below.
+
+### The three authorized edits
+
+**Edit 1 — `:245`, row 2's "what is preserved" cell.** Discharges CR-002 finding 1.
+
+- From: `the meaning of a category`
+- To: `the integrity of what members inherit from a family`
+
+Grounded in `ruling_002_family_taxonomy_integrity.md:96` and the mechanism amendment at
+`ruling_002_family_taxonomy_integrity.md:101-108`. Deliberately neutral between the two inheritance
+channels: the amendment warns at `ruling_002_family_taxonomy_integrity.md:107-108` that a future
+reader must not read the grounding sentence as current behavior, so the cell may not say
+"grounding"; "classification" alone would drop the prospective half the amendment states is a
+reason for the same rule.
+
+**Edit 2 — `:246`, row 3's rule cell.** Discharges CR-002 finding 2.
+
+- From: `ambiguity is preserved, never collapsed`
+- To: `ambiguity is preserved, never collapsed; selecting arbitrarily is prohibited`
+
+I3 (`contract_001_domain_resolution.md:221-222`) closes *"Selecting arbitrarily is prohibited"* —
+the clause §6's signature (`:271`) identifies as operative and without which it holds I3 is not
+adequately represented. Row 3's "what is preserved" cell was not flagged by Beat 1 and is **not**
+authorized for change.
+
+**Edit 3 — `:248`, the synthesis sentence.** Discharges CR-002 finding 3 **and** CR-003 in a single
+amendment.
+
+- From: `In each case the system is permitted to be *incomplete* but never permitted to be *falsely certain*.`
+- To: `Each of the three rules accepts a less resolved result rather than a wrongly resolved one: a duplicate left unmerged, a family left unadmitted, a domain left unselected.`
+
+**One edit, not two, and the reason is not merely that both defects share a sentence.** A bare
+strike of *"in each case"* would repair jurisdiction — the distribution onto row 2 disappears and
+the subject reverts to I6's shape — but would leave *"the system is permitted to be incomplete"*
+asserted without restriction and without any cited support, which is a worse sourcing posture than
+CR-002 finding 3 describes rather than a repair of it. Each defect's fix redefines the other's
+target, so the two cannot be sequenced in either order and must be one amendment justified by both
+findings.
+
+The replacement was checked against four things:
+
+1. **Jurisdiction (CR-003).** The subject is *the three rules*, not *the system*, and no deontic
+   verb remains. The sentence reports rather than conditions, placing it in the same observational
+   register as `:245`, which already survives `:41-42`.
+2. **`:239`'s stated purpose.** The section's value is the pattern. The replacement names all three
+   rows in table order, so the sentence stays tied to the table it summarizes.
+3. **CR-002 finding 3.** The original's error was choosing *incomplete* as the unifying term, which
+   fits rows 2-3 but not row 1, where Ruling 001 §1 licenses noise — over-completeness
+   (`ruling_001_canonicalization_policy.md:31`). *Less resolved* covers all three: an unmerged
+   duplicate is an identity question the system declined to decide. Row 1 is no longer an exception.
+4. **What Beat 1 found sound is preserved.** *"Never falsely certain"* held across all three rows;
+   *"rather than a wrongly resolved one"* carries it forward.
+
+### This authorization does NOT authorize
+
+- Any edit to `contract_001_domain_resolution.md` outside `:245`, `:246`, and `:248`.
+- Any wording at those three lines other than the wording set out above. A different repair requires
+  a different authorization.
+- Ticking §7's sign-off box (`:272`), or any other box. Amendment and signature are separate acts,
+  and §7 remains unsigned when the authorized edits land.
+- Any edit to `:272`'s existing text, whose rejection as clearance is recorded in CR-003.
+- Reopening, amending, or correcting CR-002 or CR-003, or any signed row.
+- Any edit to Ruling 001 or Ruling 002, both LOCKED.
+- Route C. Relocating §7 out of the contract is not authorized by this entry.
+
+### Verification required before the authorized commit lands
+
+- Every line of `contract_001_domain_resolution.md` other than `:245`, `:246`, and `:248` byte-identical
+  to the pre-edit file, so no signature's anchors shift — the check `0c83577`'s commit message
+  records ("zero anchor shift").
+- File length unchanged at 275 lines.
+- Every `:NNN` reference in the amended §7 re-resolved by extraction against the post-edit file.
+
+### Known consequence, recorded not addressed
+
+CR-002 and CR-003 quote `:245`, `:246`, and `:248` as they read **before** these edits. Those
+quotations become historical on the authorized commit. Both entries are true as of their recording
+dates and are left as recorded, per the standing disposition this corpus applies to signatures.
+Correcting them would be a separate act, and this authorization does not permit it.
+
+**Acknowledgment** — an acknowledgment, not a section signature.
+
+```
+Acknowledged (operator): Kevin Brown
+Acknowledged at: 2026-08-23 19:20 EDT
+```
+
+Statement: *"AUTH-001 is acknowledged. Creating a third instrument rather than forcing the
+authorization into `corrections.md` is correct, and it was checked into existence rather than
+argued into it: grepping for the two prior amendment hashes and finding nothing outside a commit
+message and two signature rows demonstrates that authorization living only in ephemeral text is
+not a hypothetical risk — it has already happened twice. Recording that `425aa09` and `0c83577`
+lack discoverable authorization, without retroactively supplying one, is right; the record should
+show the gap existed rather than paper over it now that the fix is available. The authorization is
+bounded to wording and not only to line numbers, and the does-not-authorize list is part of what is
+granted, not commentary on it. **AUTH-001 pre-clears the permission question only. It does not
+pre-clear the wording.** The §7 amendment commit remains subject to diff review of its proposed
+replacement text before it lands; permission and wording-is-good are separate reviews, even though
+this entry lists specimens."*