# Claims review — 0.2.47

- base: v0.2.46
- head: f2372c9
- surface: sha256:b3c49849a617eb4dfab1fe4427a40f7de440516d30bf62894506be2c9c826e08
- verdict: pass
- reviewer: Claude, after the release branch merged `docs/draft-07`. The first
  version of this record was written at `ea09896` by Cursor, before the draft
  landed, and the gate refused it: the surfaces it described were not the ones
  about to ship. Re-read from `v0.2.46` over the full set, `standards/README.md`
  and `standards/draft-dogru-scitt-disclosure-evidence-07.md` included.

The version number moved because a new changelog section and this record
would otherwise ship under a number already on npm. `server.json` moves
with `package.json`. The starter kit landed as `examples/starter-kit` and
is excluded from the tarball. The two-ledgers preprint remains on
`docs/paper-two-ledgers`; `paper/` is not in this tree and is not in the
tarball. `-07` was read against the four neighbouring drafts it cites
(datatracker, 23 August 2026), against the -04 rewrite published by the
reviewer it thanks (no sentence of his entered the text), and its sentence
counts were recomputed with `test/draft_sentences.mjs`.

## Findings

### 1. standards/ADOPTION-EVIDENCE.md:20 — Vaara "adopted the wording"

- Claim: "Adopted the wording 'removal is detectable relative to a retained head' on the Vaara conformance / evidence page after the 21 August 2026 list exchange." — kind `wording adopted`
- Mechanism: the SCITT list archive and the Vaara page would show the sentence originating here and appearing there.
- Why it falls short: the sentence was proposed by Iman Schrock on the list (20 August 2026, `arch/msg/scitt/I5mdtYRinS-wjrnbwCnyXwwvrjU`) and endorsed in this project's reply the next morning. It appears nowhere in this repository before 23 August 2026. Vaara's `reproductions.json` credits this project with the observation that a truncated chain verifies clean, not with the wording. A citation was labelled an adoption.
- Disposition: reworded in `f2372c9` — kind `citation`, with the origin of the sentence stated and the three source URLs given.

### 2. standards/ADOPTION-EVIDENCE.md:19 — Pablo Play "merged a partition"

- Claim: "Merged a partition of the receipt-set completeness discussion on the SCITT list (thread 'Closing omission', 21 August 2026)." — kind `citation`, URL "not retrieved in this pass"
- Mechanism: a list message from that sender citing this draft.
- Why it falls short: his three list messages of 19–20 August 2026 concern argentum-core and the coverage-attestation draft; none cites this draft. The row had no URL because there was nothing to point at.
- Disposition: row removed in `f2372c9`, with a note saying so. A row for Joel Hillier's draft announcement — whose own words call his disposition vocabulary this draft's standing ladder "now aimed at a very different question" — replaces it, with its archive URL.

### 3. standards/ADOPTION-EVIDENCE.md:21 — Elara row without a reachable URL

- Claim: "Recorded this project's OpenSSL / ML-DSA-65 observation in Elara `SIGNING.md`" — URL "not re-fetched in this pass".
- Mechanism: the file itself.
- Why it falls short: it is a claim about a document nobody in this pass had opened. The file exists at `site/receipts/SIGNING.md` and names Emek Can Doğru and Conarium as the first verification of Elara bundles with non-Elara code — which is this project verifying Elara, the reverse direction from an adoption.
- Disposition: URL filled and the direction stated in `f2372c9`. `standards/ADOPTION-EVIDENCE.md` added to `docs/claims/surfaces.json` so the next row is read by the gate.