diff --git a/docs/remediation/AC-RM02-NARROW.md b/docs/remediation/AC-RM02-NARROW.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..c426e063
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/remediation/AC-RM02-NARROW.md
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+# RM-02 / PR #1030 — PRE-REGISTERED RE-REVIEW: honest narrowing + (d)-strict
+
+**Subject head (exact):** `e910a45ab3578a9c77ad3eeaa52b31b72611f6c6`
+**Supersedes:** the third NO-GO at `fbb61912` (D-45/D-46/D-47) and the D-52 stop. Those are VOID.
+**Registered by:** `mos-remediation` before any reviewer read the diff. **Reviewer:** `rev-974`.
+
+## Already reproduced by the orchestrator (do not re-spend here)
+
+- The required narrowing sentence is **verbatim** in `gates/required-gates.baseline.json` and in
+  `scripts/gate-inventory-claim-control.mjs`: _"Detects accidental and incompetent inventory drift
+  within a checkout; does NOT survive an adversary who rewrites baseline, manifest, and verifier
+  consistently — that guarantee requires RM-60's external boundary."_
+- **The overclaim control FIRES**: clean ⇒ exit 0; injecting "protected, independently anchored" into
+  the baseline purpose ⇒ **exit 84**, `INVENTORY_CLAIM_OVERSTATED`.
+- CI #2201 at the exact head, 10/10 incl. `clone`; machine check bound, `exempted_steps 0`, no anomalies.
+
+## N — the narrowing (D-52's ruling is the wording)
+
+| id     | check                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
+| ------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
+| **N1** | ★ Is the narrowed claim **honest EVERYWHERE**, or only where the control looks? Find any place — docs, comments, observations, manifest prose, CLI output — that still implies the baseline is protected or independently anchored. **The control only checks the files it checks.** |
+| **N2** | ★ Can the **overclaim control itself** be defeated? It is PR-controlled like everything else. Weaken/skip/reword it so an overstatement passes. If it can be trivially neutered, D-52 is re-armed one level down — the exact recursion this PR keeps producing.                      |
+| **N3** | Does the control detect **semantic** overclaim or only the literal strings it greps? An artifact could assert protection in different words and pass.                                                                                                                                |
+| **N4** | Is the narrowed claim **TRUE**? Verify the baseline genuinely catches accidental/inconsistent drift — not just that it says so. A narrowed claim that is still overstated is D-48 again.                                                                                             |
+
+## H — (d)-strict history removal
+
+| id     | check                                                                                                                                                                                                |
+| ------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| **H1** | Is the verifier **structurally incapable** of reporting history-provenance-verified, or merely not currently doing so? The manifest says "structurally incapable" — test the claim.                  |
+| **H2** | ★ **TRAP 1 re-check:** nothing emits the unverifiable state as an OBSERVATION (which exits 0). Confirm no path yields exit 0 while implying provenance was considered.                               |
+| **H3** | ★ **TRAP 2 re-check:** the exclusion is **enforced**, not merely declared in `coverageBoundary.excluded`. Re-enable history provenance without a trustworthy anchor — does a registered case go RED? |
+| **H4** | The residual is stated **correctly** — no local git state is trustworthy because PR code executes before the gate — **NOT** the D-48 wording ("compromised main").                                   |
+
+## B3 / R — evidence-subject and renderer
+
+| id     | check                                                                                                                                                                          |
+| ------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
+| **B1** | Subject is on the **EVIDENCE side** and compared **at consumption**, not `gate.evidenceSubject === gate.id` metadata-vs-itself. Mutate the evidence-side subject **per gate**. |
+| **B2** | Can evidence still be moved or misbound while every gate satisfies its check?                                                                                                  |
+| **R1** | Renderer now covers the **final success stdout/stderr** paths.                                                                                                                 |
+
+## C — integrity + CI
+
+| id     | check                                                                                                                                           |
+| ------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| **C1** | Head `e910a45a` on git + provider; `Closes #1029` present.                                                                                      |
+| **C2** | Exact-head CI terminal-green, `-f json`, counts incl. `clone`; machine-checked with `--expect-commit e910a45ab3578a9c77ad3eeaa52b31b72611f6c6`. |
+| **C3** | Nothing weakened `fbb61912` → `e910a45a`. Red-first labels honest (D-8).                                                                        |
+| **C4** | **NO fourth local anchor was invented.** Blocker 1 and blocker 2's adversarial guarantee both track RM-60.                                      |
+
+## Reviewer instruction
+
+Verdict bound to `e910a45ab3578a9c77ad3eeaa52b31b72611f6c6`, evidence enumerated, posted durably.
+Unrunnable ⇒ **say so**. **N1 and N2 are the sharp ones** — this PR's history is that every fix
+relocates the defect one level down, and N2 asks whether the control that enforces honesty is itself
+honest. **Attack outside the set: six for six so far.**
+
+**No one dispatching this review may state a conclusion on an open check (D-39).**