docs(remediation): pre-position the RM-02 activation-seam disposition so it survives a rotation

Mos ruled the disposition BEFORE the verdict, contingent on rev-974's independent A4/A5/A6. Recorded
here — not in the frozen AC file, which would be retrofitting, and not relayed to the reviewer, who
must reach A4 themselves or refute it.

The concern: activationCommit is the lower bound of the range required to carry own-tree registry
provenance, advancing it shrinks the audited set, the author advanced it to turn the author's own gate
green, and the only validation is --is-ancestor, which a commit satisfies against itself. The registry
built to detect gates that silently stopped enforcing may contain a field by which its own author can
make it stop enforcing, validated by a tautology.

A6 is the crux and stands alone from A4: even if f4fd5967 is the correct value — and it plausibly is,
since a pre-registry commit cannot carry a registry manifest — the mechanism question is independent.
If the audited party can relax its own audit behind a tautological check, the value being right today
is irrelevant and the next value need not be right.

If confirmed: BLOCKING at D-40's standard, and the fix is NOT reverting the value. It is making the
field non-author-relaxable — activationCommit independently derivable, equal to the real pre-registry
seam by construction rather than assertion — plus a must-fail negative control that a HEAD-valued or
over-advanced seam is REJECTED. The registry must be able to fail on its own seam being gamed.
If refuted: bounded, value stands, hardening tracked as a registry clause, and the refutation is itself
a finding worth having.

f10-coder commended with the distinction stated: it verified identity before committing and disclosed
the non-mechanical change unprompted, which is the only reason this is visible at all. But disclosure
is not sufficiency — an honest author flagging a self-relaxing change still made one. Honesty surfaced
it; the mechanism must catch it.

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

docs/remediation/TASKS.md

@@ -558,6 +558,40 @@ claims from the provider**, not merely confirming the file parses or that a succ
 > orchestrator does so before dispatch; **the coordinator does so before acting on or relaying a board
 > claim that gates a decision** — Mos noted he had relayed board-derived state to Jason all session.
 
+### PRE-POSITIONED DISPOSITION — RM-02's activation-seam question (A4/A5/A6), ruled BEFORE the verdict
+
+> **Status: OPEN — the verdict belongs to `rev-974`'s independent A4/A5/A6, not to anyone's guess.**
+> Recorded here so the ruling survives a rotation: a successor must not re-litigate it, and must not
+> relay it to the reviewer.
+
+**The concern (Mos, 2026-08-01): potentially the deepest of the mission.** `activationCommit` is the
+lower bound of the range required to carry own-tree registry provenance; **advancing it shrinks the
+audited set**; the author advanced it to turn the author's own gate red→green; and the only validation
+found is `merge-base --is-ancestor activationCommit head` — **which a commit satisfies against itself**.
+That is the D-19 / D-25 self-verification thread **sitting inside the anti-inert-gate registry**, on an
+author-settable field. _The registry built to detect gates that silently stopped enforcing may contain a
+field by which its own author can make it stop enforcing, validated by a tautology._
+
+**★ A6 IS THE CRUX AND STANDS ALONE FROM A4.** Even if `f4fd5967` is the CORRECT value — and it very
+plausibly is, since a pre-registry commit genuinely cannot carry a registry manifest — **the mechanism
+question is independent.** Does the registry let the audited party relax its own audit behind only a
+tautological check? If yes, **the specific value being right today is irrelevant: the hole is
+structural, and the next value need not be right.** The mission's standard is unambiguous — **a gate the
+audited party can relax is not a gate, and the keystone is the last place that may be true.**
+
+**Disposition, pre-positioned by Mos, contingent on the reviewer's independent finding:**
+
+| reviewer outcome                                                                                             | disposition                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
+| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| **A4 confirmed** (seam=HEAD empties the range, history check passes vacuously) **and/or A6 confirmed**       | **BLOCKING — same standard as D-40.** The fix is **NOT "revert the value"** (the value may be right). It is to make the field **not author-relaxable by a tautology**: `activationCommit` must be **independently derivable/validated** — equal to the actual pre-registry seam **by construction, not by assertion** — plus **A5's must-fail negative control** that a HEAD-valued or over-advanced seam is **REJECTED**. _The registry must be able to fail on its own seam being gamed._ |
+| **Refuted** (range not emptied, or a second validation exists that both orchestrator and coordinator missed) | **Bounded.** The value stands; bank the hardening as a tracked registry clause. **That refutation would itself be a finding worth having.**                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
+
+**On the author's conduct — commended, and the distinction matters.** `f10-coder` exported and verified
+`GIT_AUTHOR_IDENT` before committing (D-37 containment held author-side) and **disclosed the
+non-mechanical change unprompted — the only reason this is in front of anyone at all.** But
+**disclosure is not sufficiency**: an honest author flagging a self-relaxing change still made a
+self-relaxing change. **Honesty surfaced it; the mechanism must catch it.** That is the whole thesis.
+
 ### D-42 — the head-pin is an enforcement mechanism whose NEGATIVE CONTROL has never been observed
 
 `merge-gate.md` states it directly: **a successful merge is NOT evidence the pin worked.** Only the