docs(remediation): promote redundant-observation to charter; bank D-35 (tool caught what attention could not)

Charter gains a fifth principle from D-33: two observers of the same evidence,
disagreeing, catch what neither catches alone — applied to evidence GATHERING, not just
judgement. A summary that resembles an enumeration is more dangerous than one that
obviously summarises; prefer the machine-readable record and state counts so divergence
is detectable.

D-35: while editing merge-gate.md to fix D-33, the coordinator recalled the mandate
string instead of reading it and the Edit tool's exact-match REJECTED it. Third instance
for that author, inside the turn fixing another instance of the same class — and the
only one that did not reach a document, because a mechanism caught it.

A rule that fails in its authors but is caught by a tool has told you where it belongs.
RM-02 should enforce verbatim citation by construction, as the Edit tool did by accident
of design.

Fix landed by annotating the source: merge-gate.md mandates 3 and 4 now require the
scan and count from the JSON record. The shared wrapper was deliberately NOT modified
mid-flight — three lanes are reading it; fix at a seam.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>

docs/remediation/MISSION.md

@@ -117,6 +117,28 @@ gate/program; the LLM handles only genuine judgment.
 > not yet a hypothesis. Where the answer is consequential, **reproduce** rather than accept — two
 > independent runs beat one confident report.
 
+### First-class principle — redundant observation on evidence-bearing steps
+
+> **Two observers of the same evidence, disagreeing, catch what neither catches alone.** Apply redundancy
+> not only to judgement calls but to **evidence gathering itself** — the step everyone assumes is
+> mechanical and therefore skips.
+>
+> Promoted by Mos (2026-08-01) from **D-33**. A seat scanned a pipeline with `-f json` and reported 9
+> steps; the orchestrator scanned the same pipeline in the wrapper's default text mode and reported 8.
+> **The default output omits `clone`.** Every "full step scan" that night had been 8-of-9 and was stated
+> as complete in good faith. No verdict changed — but the _method_ was wrong, invisibly, and **only the
+> disagreement between two counts surfaced it.**
+>
+> The reason it survived: **a summary that resembles an enumeration is more dangerous than one that
+> obviously summarises.** A labelled list of named steps with states _looks_ like the artifact, so nobody
+> checks it against the record. Compare D-24 — `mergeable` was a _true answer to a different question_;
+> this was a _true answer to a smaller one_. Neither is a lie; both pass every sniff test.
+>
+> **Operationally:** where a step _produces evidence a decision rests on_, have it produced twice by
+> different means, and treat **any divergence as a finding rather than as noise to reconcile**. Prefer the
+> machine-readable record over the human-readable rendering — _read the artifact, not the summary_ — and
+> state the counts observed so a divergence is detectable at all.
+
 ## Decision record (authoritative, immutable)
 
 - **15/15 proposals decided: 13 accept, 2 modify (P-AUTHORITY-001, P-INBOX-001), 0 reject.**