docs(remediation): bank D-18 — pre-registered criteria AC2 and AC4 were mutually unsatisfiable

Implementing D-17's fix surfaced a conflict between criteria, not within one. AC2
(reject symlinked generated state) cannot hold alongside AC4 (canonical build
succeeds): verified independently that apps/web sets output:'standalone' and the built
tree carries 42 legitimate pnpm symlinks under .next/standalone. Only building the
tree reveals it.

Completes the chain: a pre-registered check set can be WRONG (D-8), INCOMPLETE (D-17),
or INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT (D-18).

Ruling: build-certified symlink manifest — .next itself still rejected; descendants
rejected unless exactly certified. Stronger than blanket rejection because it catches
retargeting. AC2 restated and RECORDED with provenance rather than absorbed, since
silently resolving a conflict between pre-registered criteria destroys the point of
registering them.

Hardening: the manifest is generated state, so a manifest writable by whoever plants a
rogue symlink certifies the attack. Must be inside the integrity envelope, published
atomically, with negative controls observed red first including manifest-tampered.

RM-02 fourth clause: the registry must detect conflicts between criteria, and retain
original text plus restatement plus reason when a criterion changes meaning.

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

docs/remediation/TASKS.md

@@ -93,6 +93,52 @@ and must not be cited as merge evidence. Rely on reviewer clearance + real CI.
 Three independent live instances in a single session — format gate, agent context reset, queue guard —
 is the class confirmed, not anecdote.
 
+### D-18 — two pre-registered criteria were mutually unsatisfiable, discoverable only at implementation
+
+Implementing D-17's fix surfaced a conflict **between** pre-registered criteria:
+
+- **AC2** (as written) — reject symlinked generated state.
+- **AC4** — the canonical `pnpm -w build` succeeds and leaves no residue.
+
+Verified independently rather than taken on report: `apps/web/next.config.ts:4` sets
+`output: 'standalone'`, and the built tree contains **42 legitimate pnpm dependency symlinks** under
+`.next/standalone/node_modules`. A blanket descendant-symlink rejection makes the canonical build fail
+its own preflight with exit 43. **AC2 read literally is unsatisfiable alongside AC4 under this
+configuration**, and nothing short of building the tree would have revealed it.
+
+**Third distinct failure mode of a pre-registered check set**, completing the chain:
+
+| finding | a pre-registered check set can be…                                 |
+| ------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------ |
+| D-8     | **wrong** — a check that does not test what it claims              |
+| D-17    | **incomplete** — green while a criterion's requirement is untested |
+| D-18    | **internally inconsistent** — two criteria that cannot both hold   |
+
+The implementing seat escalated instead of silently picking a winner. That matters: **quietly resolving
+a conflict between pre-registered criteria destroys the point of pre-registering them** — the registration
+exists so that changes of meaning are auditable rather than absorbed.
+
+**Resolution (orchestrator ruling).** Approved a **build-certified symlink manifest**: `.next` itself is
+still rejected as a symlink; descendants are rejected unless _exactly_ certified by a manifest the build
+publishes atomically. Strictly **stronger** than blanket rejection — it also catches a **retargeted**
+symlink, which blanket rejection cannot distinguish from a legitimate one.
+
+**AC2 restated (recorded, not absorbed).** _Generated state must reject `.next` itself being a symlink,
+and must reject any descendant symlink not exactly certified by the build manifest — added, removed,
+retargeted, or manifest-tampered all fail with exit 43._
+
+**Hardening required before this counts.** The manifest is itself generated state, so **a manifest
+writable by whoever plants a rogue symlink certifies the attack** — that is the one way this design
+fails. It must sit inside the same ownership/fingerprint envelope, published atomically via the existing
+marker mechanism, with negative controls **observed red first** for: added, removed, retargeted,
+**manifest-tampered**, plus a positive control that the canonical build passes. The tampered-manifest
+control is non-negotiable; without it, integrity is a claim rather than a property.
+
+**Requirement on RM-02 (fourth clause).** The registry must detect **conflicts between registered
+criteria**, not only wrongness and coverage. Two criteria that cannot simultaneously hold is a registry
+defect discoverable by construction — and when a criterion is restated, the registry must retain the
+original text, the restatement, and the reason, so the evolution stays auditable.
+
 ### D-17 — a pre-registered criterion passed a green suite without being satisfied
 
 `rev-974` returned **CHANGES REQUESTED** on PR #1027 with one blocking finding, and it is the sharpest