docs(remediation): promote query-for-refutation to charter doctrine

Per Mos. A subordinate asked to confirm a hypothesis will agree — the bias is induced by
the query, not by the answerer's diligence. 'The DB flaked, please confirm' and 'confirm
or refute, with the log line that proves it' are different instruments returning
different answers to the same question.

This matters most with agent subordinates, which are agreeable by construction, so the
discipline cannot rest on the answerer being rigorous — it must be built into how the
question is asked.

Origin: the orchestrator's ci-postgres hypothesis was refuted by the implementing seat
with log evidence and then settled by reproduction. Phrased for confirmation, it would
have returned agreement and D-21 would have been re-classified on a false premise,
silently corrupting a banked finding.

Operational form: state the hypothesis as yours, ask for evidence that kills it, say
what would change your mind, and reproduce when the answer is consequential. Added to
KICKSTART's standing invariants so it survives compaction.

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

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.

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.**