docs/remediation/TASKS.md

@@ -394,6 +394,15 @@ _enforcement_ is the gap: a decision that lives in a chat ruling and a board not
 source of truth, has not actually been made — it has been _agreed_. The two are different, and the
 difference is exactly what this mission is about.
 
+> ⚠ **AMENDED by D-20 — propagation is BIDIRECTIONAL.** As first written, this requirement was read by
+> both the orchestrator and the coordinator as _forward_ propagation only: a ruling reaches the
+> documents that state the new rule. **D-20 proved that insufficient.** When D-19 superseded part of
+> D-18, the consequence propagated forward into the charter and the delivery conditions but **never
+> backward into D-18 itself**, which went on asserting a withdrawn claim — and a reviewer disproved it
+> by experiment. **A supersession must update BOTH the documents that render the new rule AND the
+> finding it retires, with the retired wording quoted rather than deleted.** Backward propagation is
+> the same defect as forward; neither of us audited that direction until it bit.
+
 **Requirement (not merely a fix).** A ruled decision must propagate **mechanically** to the
 authoritative record; it must not depend on someone remembering to edit a second file. Concretely, once
 mission state is DB-backed (RM-53 / the P-MISSION cutover):
@@ -404,7 +413,7 @@ mission state is DB-backed (RM-53 / the P-MISSION cutover):
   document agree — with a must-fail control proving divergence is detected.
 
 Until then, the interim rule: **the same commit that records a ruling updates every document that
-states it.** Interim rules are exactly what the DB cutover exists to replace.
+states it — and every finding it supersedes.** Interim rules are exactly what the DB cutover exists to replace.
 
 **The rule found a second instance within minutes of being written.** Auditing the charter against all
 rulings to date (rather than waiting to be bitten again) surfaced that **DECISION-2 had also not