diff --git a/docs/remediation/KICKSTART.md b/docs/remediation/KICKSTART.md
index 1bfd3c24..6fdf43d8 100644
--- a/docs/remediation/KICKSTART.md
+++ b/docs/remediation/KICKSTART.md
@@ -34,6 +34,9 @@ mechanically until Build 3 (rotation) makes it automatic.
   durably with enumerated evidence under its own minted identity → **coordinator head-pinned merge**.
   The queue guard runs but is **zero-information until RM-03 lands** (D-23) and must not be cited as evidence.
   **After a `GO`, freeze pushes** — even a doc tweak voids the verdict. The coordinator assigns the gate seat.
+- **Query for refutation, never for confirmation.** A subordinate asked to confirm a hypothesis will
+  agree — the bias is in the question, not the answerer, and agent seats are agreeable by construction.
+  State the hypothesis as yours, ask for the evidence that KILLS it, and reproduce when it matters.
 - **Dogfooding:** every fix validated against its live seed case (MISSION.md lists them).
 - **Tracking → DB** (hard cutover); do NOT re-invest in flat-file tracking. jarvis-brain PDA is off-limits.
 - **Git identity:** export `MOSAIC_GIT_IDENTITY=<your-seat>` so wrappers author correctly and survive respawn.
diff --git a/docs/remediation/MISSION.md b/docs/remediation/MISSION.md
index 6a77de6f..f6fcd769 100644
--- a/docs/remediation/MISSION.md
+++ b/docs/remediation/MISSION.md
@@ -91,6 +91,32 @@ gate/program; the LLM handles only genuine judgment.
 > seat in the loop. Residual risk bound to **RM-59** (`depends_on: RM-12, RM-21, RM-25`), where the
 > choke-point executor and spine verify from _outside_ the worktree's authority.
 
+### First-class principle — query for refutation, never for confirmation
+
+> **A subordinate asked to confirm a hypothesis will agree. Ask it to refute, with evidence.**
+>
+> The bias is induced by the **query**, not by the answerer's diligence. _"The DB flaked — please
+> confirm"_ and _"confirm or refute this, with the log line that proves it"_ are different instruments,
+> and they return different answers to the same question. The first harvests agreement; only the second
+> can return **"you are wrong, and here is why."**
+>
+> This matters most with agent subordinates, which are **agreeable by construction**: fluent, eager to
+> be useful, and structurally disinclined to tell the dispatcher their premise is false. A confirmation
+> query aimed at one is close to a guaranteed yes — so the discipline cannot rest on the answerer being
+> rigorous. **It has to be built into how the question is asked.**
+>
+> Promoted to the charter by Mos (2026-08-01). Origin: the orchestrator hypothesised that a coincident
+> `ci-postgres` failure caused a CI test failure and asked the implementing seat to **confirm or refute**
+> it. The seat **refuted it** with the log (`ci-postgres:5432 - accepting connections`, migrations
+> completed) and identified the real cause. Reproduction on an identical head then settled it. Had the
+> query been phrased for confirmation, the agreement would have been returned, **D-21 would have been
+> re-classified on a false premise**, and a banked finding would have been silently corrupted.
+>
+> **Operationally:** state your hypothesis explicitly, mark it as yours, ask for _evidence that kills
+> it_, and say what evidence would change your mind. A hypothesis you cannot describe how to falsify is
+> not yet a hypothesis. Where the answer is consequential, **reproduce** rather than accept — two
+> independent runs beat one confident report.
+
 ## Decision record (authoritative, immutable)
 
 - **15/15 proposals decided: 13 accept, 2 modify (P-AUTHORITY-001, P-INBOX-001), 0 reject.**