Role or Witness? Measured Joint Misreading of Undetermined Facts by One Witness in Two Roles and by Two Witnesses in One Role

Does one witness reading in two roles, a direct verdict and an evidence ledger resolved by deterministic code, misread undetermined facts jointly less often than two different witnesses reading in the same role?

Measures whether one witness reading in two roles misreads undetermined facts jointly less often than two witnesses in one role, as the Round 41 handoff asked. Six authored contract families are each written as two contrast variants that differ by exactly one record: in U the decisive record is absent and the label is HOLD; in K it is present. Witness B, Witness C, and Witness D each read every item as a direct reader and as an extractor whose evidence ledger is resolved by fail closed code, and the same six readers read 20 new balanced SEC EDGAR exhibits. A structural diagnostic (E42-A, 0 model calls) certifies the contrasts and shows that a pair's joint unsafe rate is bounded by its Frechet limits. Live, 192 scored calls (E42-B and E42-C) found that direct readers released 11 unsafe verdicts in 18 undetermined decisions, all FAIL, reading absence as negation; two witnesses in the direct role failed together on 8 of 18 pair opportunities, the Frechet maximum, while one witness in two roles failed together on 0 of 18. The zero comes from the extraction marginal, and the extraction role paid 4 false holds in 18 determined decisions; within a witness, errors across roles were negatively correlated. Revises P4 to decorrelate by role, then verify by structure, and adds proposition P7, absence is not negation; no production system changed.

• F42.1 (deterministic, E42-A): all contrast, gold resolver, and exhibit certificates pass; a pair's joint unsafe release is bounded by its smaller marginal, and zero events in 18 opportunities allow a true rate of 0.153.
• F42.2 (live, E42-B): on undetermined items direct readers released 11 unsafe verdicts in 18 decisions, all FAIL; extraction readers released none.
• F42.3 (live, E42-B): two witnesses in the direct role released the same wrong verdict on 8 of 18 pair opportunities, equal to the Frechet upper bound (independence 6.33); one witness in two roles did so on 0 of 18.
• F42.4 (live, E42-B): on determined items the direct role was correct 18 of 18; the extraction role gave 4 false holds in 18, turned by the pair rule into 4 of 18 role pair and 7 of 18 cross witness extraction pair false holds.
• F42.5 (live, E42-C): on 20 balanced real exhibits, one unsafe direct release (Z16) and two extraction false holds (Z19); no pair group released a joint unsafe verdict.
• F42.6 (live, pooled over 32 items): joint error was 0 of 96 for role pairs, 8 of 96 for cross witness direct pairs, and 2 of 96 for cross witness extraction pairs; error correlation was negative within every role pair and positive for every cross witness direct pair.

• E42-A Structural certificates, gold resolver ledger, and Frechet bounds for reader pairs Executed (diagnostic)
• E42-B Live contrast families read in two roles by three witnesses Executed (diagnostic)
• E42-C Live two role reading of real SEC exhibits Executed (diagnostic)

• H42.1 Pairs of one witness in two roles release joint unsafe verdicts on undetermined items less often than pairs of two witnesses in the same role.
• H42.2 The extraction role holds undetermined items more often than the direct role.
• H42.3 The extraction role pays a measurable false hold cost on determined items.
• H42.4 The real exhibit track shows the same pair ordering as the authored items.
• H42.5 At this pool size a zero joint rate cannot exclude a material true rate.

Research diagnostic and live benchmark only. Recommends pairing each Noetis witness's direct verdict with its own extraction ledger under a fail closed resolver rather than adding a second direct witness, and stating the record closure convention in every evaluation pool. No production system, release gate, or Noetis behavior changed.

• When the packet is declared an open or a closed record, do direct readers still read absence as negation, and once extraction readers can err unsafely, do the same witness's unsafe releases coincide across roles?

Builds on Round 41, Round 40, Round 39, Round 38, Round 37.