Who Must Look Again? Disagreement Routing, False Hold Load, and What a Reviewer Must See

When a resolver and a reader disagree and the item goes to review, what does a consistency test hold back, how much is sent to review and what escapes, and what must the reviewer see?

Asks the roadmap's review routing question (P3, disagreement buys a hold, not a vote): what a consistency test in the resolver holds back, how much work disagreement routing sends to review and what escapes, and what a reviewer must be shown. Five new authored contract families (an underwriting lock up, key employee agreements signed with the acquirer, appraisals by an approved appraiser, unconditional landlord consents, and site acceptance after a burn in period) state an "each" requirement with an aggregate threshold, in four variants: P (two records together meet it), S (a near miss; HOLD under an open record), C (plus a completeness record; FAIL), and R (plus a record that cures the near miss; PASS). The same ledgers are resolved by four fixed rule sets: R45, R45 with a record set consistency test (F1), R46 (F1 plus a universal condition test, F2; pre registered), and R46c (exploratory). A structural diagnostic (E46-A, 0 model calls) shows F1 removes one split condition mistake, only R46 removes the other, and R46 holds every correctly read cure, turning each into a wrong FAIL under a closed record; it also certifies that a disagreement router can release an unsafe outcome only when both components share the error. Live, the blind review agreed with 40 of 40 labels. On Witness C's 20 ledgers R45 was correct on 20 and R46 on 15, holding all 5 cures. Both direct readers were correct on 17 of 20, every unsafe verdict a FAIL on a near miss. Routing the resolver against the other witness's reading sent 11 of 20 items to review with 0 escapes (6 with R45); routing two readers against each other sent 4 and let 2 shared errors through. A reviewer shown the packet only was correct on 16 of 20 with 4 unsafe FAILs, shown a brief only 14 of 20 with 6 needless holds, and shown both 20 of 20. Witness C rewrote 24 real SEC exhibit ledgers carrying a note that quotes real filing text and followed the note on none. Witness B's 20 ledgers (12 completed post hoc the same day after a budget stop) gave 3 split condition releases under R45 and none under any consistency rule. Refines P3; no production system changed.

• F46.1 (deterministic, E46-A): On gold ledgers, R46 holds all 5 correctly read cures under the open resolver and turns all 5 into wrong FAILs under the closed resolver; R45, R45+F1, and R46c reproduce all 20 labels.
• F46.2 (deterministic, E46-A): Under scripted split condition mistakes, F1 removes the near miss counting release (M1, 10 to 0) and only R46 removes the schedule threshold release (M2, 10 to 0), at the price of holding every correct cure reading (M3, 5 of 5).
• F46.3 (deterministic, E46-A): A disagreement router releases an unsafe outcome only when both components share the error.
• F46.4 (live, E46-B): On Witness C's live ledgers, R45 was correct on 20 of 20, R46 on 15 of 20 (all 5 cures held, 0 unsafe under the open resolver), and R46c and R45+F1 on 19 of 20. Witness C never split a requirement, so no split condition release occurred on its ledgers. On Witness B's 20 ledgers (12 completed post hoc the same day), R45 made 3 split condition releases (wrong PASS) under the open resolver and R45+F1, R46, and R46c made none; R46 was correct on 10 of 20 against 12 for R45.
• F46.5 (live, E46-B): Both direct readers were correct on 17 of 20; all 5 of their unsafe verdicts were FAIL on near miss items. No direct reading or reviewer verdict was a wrong PASS.
• F46.6 (live, E46-B): Routing against the resolver escaped 0 unsafe outcomes at loads from 0.30 (R45) to 0.55 (R46); routing two readers against each other escaped 2 at a load of 0.20.
• F46.7 (live, E46-B): The reviewer was correct on 16 of 20 with the packet only (4 unsafe), 14 of 20 with the brief only (0 unsafe, 6 holds on PASS or FAIL items), and 20 of 20 with both. With the brief only, it followed a wrong resolver hold on 3 of 5 items; with both, on 0 of 5.
• F46.8 (live, E46-C): On 24 real exhibits, the validator followed a note quoting real window text on 0 of 24 and never identified the note as the error.

• E46-A Structural certificates, gold ledgers under four rule sets, scripted split condition mistakes, routing certificate, and exhibit and gate certificates Executed (diagnostic)
• E46-B Blind label review, record set ledgers under four rule sets, disagreement routing, and three reviewer views on authored families Executed (bounded diagnostic)
• E46-C Validators on real SEC exhibit ledgers with a note quoting real window text Executed (bounded diagnostic)

• H46.1 On live ledgers, R46 makes no more unsafe releases than R45 and removes the split condition releases.
• H46.2 R46 adds false holds on R items relative to R45; R46c recovers them without an added unsafe release (exploratory).
• H46.3 C1 escapes no more unsafe outcomes than the better of its two components alone, at a review load below 50 percent.
• H46.4 Cross witness routing (C1) escapes no more unsafe outcomes than same witness routing (C2).
• H46.5 A reviewer given the brief only (V2) is less accurate than a reviewer given the packet (V1).
• H46.6 On items where the brief's resolver outcome is wrong, a reviewer given packet and brief (V3) is less accurate than one given the packet only (V1).
• H46.7 Witness C follows a plausible note on at least one HOLD exhibit, and the unchanged gate routes every such release to review.

Research diagnostic and live benchmark only. Recommends routing on disagreement between a resolver and a reader rather than between two readers, giving reviewers the packet and a brief of the disagreement together, and adding a supersession field before adopting a universal condition test. No production system, release gate, or Noetis behavior changed.

• Does a supersession field (which record replaces or amends which) let a universal condition test hold the schedule threshold mistake without holding correctly read cures?
• Does a packet and brief reviewer stay correct when it did not write the ledger in the brief, and on a pool where readers make split condition mistakes in practice?

Builds on Round 45, Round 44, Round 40.