Reconciliation

Status: open. No constitutional text has been changed. Answered: Q3, Q5, Q6, Q8, Q9, Q11 (signed off), Q14 — recorded below and carried into Phase 3. Answered 2026-08-15: Q2, Q4, Q5, Q7, Q13 — see below. Open: Q1, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q12 (none blocking). Branch: rebuild/v3 · Raised: 2026-08-14 · Sign-off required from: Pranay

Phase 3's provision-by-provision table (Act, operation, target id, before, after, source line, sign-off box) is added after PROVENANCE.md is signed off. This file currently records only the questions that must be answered before any text is applied.

Evidence cites acts/text/*.txt, the verbatim extraction committed in ddbffb4, by line number. Short names used below: A1 = first-constitution-amendment-act-2024.txt, A2 = second…, A3 = third….

Citation stability — anchors that changed meaning

Applying Act 2 restructured Articles 14 and 15. Article-level ids are stable — art-14 and art-15 still point at the same articles. But five section ids changed what they denote, which is the first time an anchor has moved rather than merely existed.

Anchor	v2.0.0	3.0.0
`art-14-s-1`	Eligibility (under Sabbatical Leave)	Sabbatical Leave (under Leaves)
`art-14-s-2`	Application	removed
`art-14-s-3`	Duration	removed
`art-15-s-1`	Eligibility (under Resignation)	Voluntary (under Exit Process)
`art-15-s-2`	Application	Involuntary
`art-15-s-3`	Duration	removed

This is correct: the Act restructured those articles, and a section id names a position within an article, not an immutable provision. It is recorded because a citation to art-15-s-1 made before 2026-08-15 meant Eligibility and now means Voluntary.

constitution/versions/v2.0.0.yaml preserves the old structure, and /archive/2.0.0/ still resolves every one of the old anchors — so a stale citation can still be read as it stood.

Standing conventions

Rules that bind every entry in this file and every entry in acts/register.yaml.

C1 — A Statement of Objects and Reasons is evidence of intent, never a source of authority

An SOR is explanatory, not enacting. It may be cited to corroborate what an operative provision does; it may never be the authority for an operation. The two uses cannot be mixed: if an SOR could authorise a deletion in Article 10, it could set a voting threshold in Article 16, and the Q3 ruling that the operative text governs would collapse.

Enforced, not merely stated. src/validate.mjs fails the build (sor-as-authority) if any provisions[].source_lines cites a line at or after an Act's STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS. Where an SOR contradicts the operative text, record it under drafting_discrepancy, which is the only field permitted to point there.

Blocking — legal

These change what the constitution says. Do not resolve without sign-off.

Q1 — Article 19 does not exist

Verified independently as instructed. A whitespace-normalised search over all three Acts finds every article from 3 to 18, then 20 and 21. No occurrence of "19" in any form, in any Act.

Cited	3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 · — · 20 21

Article 18 is inserted by A1:158, Article 20 by A2:97, Article 21 by A3:32. Nothing inserts 19.

Either a fourth instrument exists outside this repo, or Act 2 skipped a number. Article 19 has been left unallocated, not invented and not closed by renumbering.

Question: does a fourth instrument exist? If not, confirm Article 19 is recorded as status: reserved with a note stating no instrument ever occupied it.

Q2 — Article 6, clause 6 (`Donor`)

RESOLVED by literal application — and it was never a decision to make. Board approval speaks to validity, not to what the instrument does. Act 1 substitutes clauses (1)–(5) by name. A substitution of named clauses does not reach an unnamed one, so clause (6) Donor stands. Dropping it would be repair by inference, which this project has refused at every step.

The tension is real and is recorded, not resolved. Donor remains listed under STM Roles while Act 1's amended Article 7(4) provides that a Donor Member is not an official Member and does not work for the organisation. Carried as a standing item for a future Act, and noted on art-6-s-6.

Escalated from deferred. The provenance analysis found Article 6 is 100% its pre-Act text — all five clauses Act 1 substitutes are unapplied. So this is no longer a question about a provision that was already settled by someone else; it gates a change about to be made.

Article 6 must not be applied partially, and clause (6) cannot be guessed. Options for the board, stated neutrally:

(a) Clause (6) survives. A substitution of named clauses does not touch unnamed ones. Article 6 ends with six clauses. This is the stricter reading and the safer default: it changes nothing the Act did not expressly change.
(b) Clause (6) falls. Act 1 moves the donor concept wholesale into Article 7 cl. (4) as STM DONOR, so retaining a Donor role in Article 6 duplicates it.

The tension is real either way. Under (a), Donor remains classified as an STM role while Article 7 states a Donor Member is not an official Member and does not work for the organisation. Only the board can resolve that.

Sequencing consequence: Act 1 is applied to Articles 9, 10, 11, 12 and 18. Articles 6 and 7 are held. If this answer is slow, Acts 2 and 3 proceed and Act 1 stays partially applied — recorded explicitly in provenance on both held articles, naming them. The half-applied state this project exists to fix is not to be recreated silently.

A1:18 reads "Amendment to Article 6, clause 1,2,3,4 and 5" and supplies replacement text for clauses (1)–(5) only. Clause 6 (Donor) is never mentioned. Separately, A1:38-39 amends Article 7 clause 4 to define "STM DONOR".

Substituting 1–5 is not the same as omitting 6. The current spec still carries Donor as art-6-s-6.

Question: does Donor survive in Article 6, or did Act 1 intend it to move wholly into Article 7? Nothing in the Act settles this.

Q3 — Act 2 contradicts itself on the amendment threshold

ANSWERED — 2/3rd governs. A Statement of Objects and Reasons is not enacted text and aids construction only where the operative provision is ambiguous; here it is not ambiguous, merely inconsistent with the note. The discrepancy is recorded on Act 2 as drafting_discrepancy with both figures and both source lines, never normalised away. Q3 stays listed for board ratification: the legal answer is settled, the political one is the board's, and this provision governs how every future amendment passes.

This is the most serious ambiguity found.

Source	Line	Text
Operative provision	A2:75-76	"All proposed amendments must be approved by a 2/3rd present and voting of the board of the NGO, the intermediate board of the NGO and units of the NGO collectively."
Statement of Objects and Reasons	A2:121-123	"Article 16, Clause (3) has been amended with a 3/4th majority present and voting for bills to be enforced in time…"

The Act sets two different thresholds for amending the constitution. Conventional construction prefers the operative provision over the Statement of Objects and Reasons, which is explanatory and not enacting — but this governs how every future amendment passes, and I will not decide it.

Question: is the enacted threshold 2/3rd or 3/4th?

Q4 — Act 2 disagrees with itself on whether Article 15 is amended or inserted

RESOLVED by convention C1. The operative item reads Amendment of Article 15 - Exit Process. The word "inserted" appears only under STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS, which C1 forbids as a source of authority and which sor-as-authority already enforces in the validator. So this needed no new decision: it is an amendment, renaming Article 15 from Resignation to Exit Process and restructuring it into (1) Voluntary and (2) Involuntary.

A2:105 reads "Amendment of Article 15 - Exit Process". The Statement of Objects at A2:131-132 reads "Article 15 has been inserted to incorporate processes for both voluntary and involuntary exit."

Article 15 already exists in the spec as Resignation. The operation is therefore a substitution that also retitles the article — but the Act's own summary calls it an insertion.

Question: confirm this is substitute on art-15 with a retitle to Exit Process, and that the existing Resignation sections (Eligibility, Application, Duration) are replaced rather than retained alongside the new (1) Voluntary / (2) Involuntary structure.

Q5 — Act 1 defines `Unit Board Member` and `Coordinator` with identical words

CONFIRMED 2026-08-15 — publish both as enacted, note the defect, flag for a future Act.

ANSWERED — Publish the defect; do not repair it. The engine records the law, it does not correct the law. Act 1 applies verbatim, both definitions stand as enacted, and an editorial_note on art-6-s-3 and art-6-s-4 points at the defect and at this entry. The note renders visibly. Escalated to the board as a candidate for a corrigendum or a Fourth Amendment Act.

Not previously flagged. A1:26-31, verbatim:

(3) Unit Board Member: Any person who is willing to serve society and abide by the rules and regulations of the NGO to work in STM in their respective unit within their academic life. (4) Coordinator: Any person who is willing to serve society and abide by the rules and regulations of the NGO to work in the STM in their respective unit within their academic life.

The two roles receive the same operative definition, differing only by "in STM" / "in the STM". The spec they replace distinguishes them clearly — its Coordinator is defined by recruitment ("after the successfull interview"), not by tenure.

This reads as a drafting error in the Act itself, not an extraction artefact: the layout-preserving extraction matches the PDF. Applying it verbatim would leave two roles legally indistinguishable.

Question: apply verbatim as enacted, or treat as an error requiring a corrigendum?

Q6 — Does an "Amendment to Article N" replace the whole article or only its listed clauses?

ANSWERED — Read what the Act sets out, not what it calls itself. Where the Act restates the article's own heading and then a complete clause run, it substitutes the whole article; where the heading names clauses and only those are set out, it amends only those. This is the drafter's own convention, matching standard Indian amending practice. Encoded as scope: article | clause on each register entry, with clauses required whenever scope is clause. Applied mechanically, it yields: clause scope for arts. 6, 7, 16, 17; article scope for arts. 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and the preamble.

A1:55 ("Amendment to Article 9") and A1:76 ("Amendment to Article 10") give no clause restriction, unlike A1:18 and A1:35 which name clauses explicitly. Both then set out a complete replacement article.

For Article 10 the Act supplies only (1) Eligibility, (2) Selection Process, (3) Roles and Responsibilities. The current spec additionally carries an article-level introduction ("The IBM are the members who are selected by the board…"). A full substitution deletes that introduction; a clause-wise amendment keeps it.

Question: confirm that an unqualified "Amendment to Article N" is a full substitution of the article, including deletion of any text the Act does not restate. This convention decides several provisions at once, so it is worth settling explicitly.

Q7 — Terminology drift

Act says	Spec says	Evidence
`Unit Board Member`	`College Unit Board Member`	A1:26
`Units` (Art. 11)	`Units` — already renamed from v1's `College Units`	A1:123
`Alumni` (Art. 12)	`Alumini`	A1:155
`Annual Report` (Art. 13)	`Anual Reports`	A3:20
`Amendments` (Art. 16)	`Ammendments`	A2:74
`Leaves` (Art. 14)	`Sabbatical Leave`	A2:90

Confirmed as the Acts' operative words, not extraction artefacts — the layout-preserving extraction reproduces the PDF text exactly.

RESOLVED — the Acts make every one of these corrections themselves. No editorial rename is made. Act 1 titles Article 12 Alumni; Act 3 titles Article 13 Annual Report; Act 2 titles Article 16 Amendments. Holding them was right: correcting them by hand in Phase 3 would have been an editorial edit duplicating one the instruments already make.

Two further renames come from the same source and are structural, not spelling: Act 2 renames Article 14 Sabbatical Leave → Leaves (with Sabbatical Leave becoming clause (1)), and Article 15 Resignation → Exit Process.

Original question: the Alumini/Anual Reports/Ammendments corrections are already authorised as spelling fixes. Confirm College Unit Board Member → Unit Board Member and Sabbatical Leave → Leaves are substantive retitles enacted by the Acts, not spelling fixes.

Blocking — record integrity

Q8 — The amendment table names a different author than the Act

ANSWERED — The table is unverified; split the field. signed_by: P. Priya, Internal Compliance Coordinator and assented_by: Internal Compliance Committee are both evidenced on the face of all three Acts. moved_by is left unset. M. Revanth Reddy is preserved as unverified_attribution — not deleted, not promoted. Confirmed independently: the string Revanth appears nowhere in any of the three instruments.

The register dropped from the spec during migration recorded:

- title: First Constitution Amendment Act, 2024
  date: 2024-05-02T21:25:00+05:30
  author: M. Revanth Reddy

Every one of the three PDFs is signed "P. Priya, Internal Compliance Coordinator of the STM" (A1:205-206, A2:137-138, A3:61-62), and each records assent from the Internal Compliance Committee.

Question: who is recorded as author for Act 1 — the drafter (M. Revanth Reddy) or the signatory (P. Priya)? The schema has both author and assented_by; confirm which name goes where.

Q9 — The amendment table dates Act 1 a day before its assent

ANSWERED — Model both; they are not in conflict. assent_date: 2024-05-03 is evidenced on all three Acts. The table's 2024-05-02 is most likely the date of passage, a distinct event, and is recorded as passed_date marked unverified. One field cannot hold two events.

The dropped register dates the First Act 2024-05-02T21:25:00+05:30. All three PDFs state assent on 3rd May 2024 (A1:5-6, A2:5-6, A3:5-6).

Question: confirm assent_date: 2024-05-03 for all three Acts, and that 2024-05-02 was a drafting or commit timestamp rather than a legal date.

Q10 — "Establishing the Constitution" has no instrument

The dropped register's first entry has act: null (the act: # YAML bug) and author: Pranay Kiran, dated 2023-10-08.

Question: should the register record the original adoption as a non-Act event, or only list enacting instruments? Recording it preserves the v1 adoption date, which exists nowhere else.

Blocking — editorial (changes what a reader sees)

Q11 — Article 11 `Units` has no article body

SIGNED OFF — section-only is correct.

The earlier answer assumed Act 1 supplies article-level text for Article 11 that someone misfiled into a subsection. It does not. Act 1 runs 11. Units straight into (1)(a), exactly as it does for Article 10, and supplies no article-level body at all. Its clause (1) is a 100.0% match to art-11-s-1 and its clause (2) a 100.0% match to art-11-s-2 once the section title is included in the comparison — together the whole of the enacted text.

The resolution comes from Act 1's operative structure, not from an editorial preference. Removing the empty content key makes Article 11 the shape the instrument enacts: an article consisting of two clauses. No provision text was added, removed or altered. versions/v2.0.0.yaml keeps its empty body, as published.

One consequence is recorded separately: Act 1 gives clause (1) no title. The lowercase units above it is an editorial heading, now marked as such in the rendered text and listed on the amendments page for ratification. See the note on title_source below.

art-11.content is an empty string. This is the defect that published a blank provision for two years, and the new validator now rejects it as a hard error — the build cannot ship until this is answered.

What each source holds:

Source	Article-level body	Sections
v1.0.0 (`College Units`)	Full text: "The college units are the units of the NGO… 1. Head … 8. Graphics Department Head"	Establishment, Funds, Roles and Responsibilities
v2.0.0 / current (`Units`)	empty	`units`, Establishment
Act 1 (A1:121-151)	`11. Units` then (1)(a)–(d), (2) Establishment	—

Note that v2 also silently dropped v1's Funds and Roles and Responsibilities sections. Their absence is consistent with Act 1, which does not restate them, but no record of the deletion exists.

Options — choose one, I have not picked:

(a) Apply Act 1's Article 11 text at article level, keeping (1) and (2) as the two sections. Follows the Act's own structure. Consequence: the current units section becomes the article body and the section list changes shape.
(b) Promote the existing units section text to the article body and drop that section. Minimal change, no new text, but not the Act's structure.
(c) Leave the body empty and record it explicitly. Requires a schema addition, since reserved and omitted both carry legal meanings that do not fit "text was never recorded". Archived pages would render the "[No text was recorded for this provision]" marker.

Option (c) is the only one that keeps the archived v2.0.0 faithful to what was actually published. Options (a) and (b) are about what current.yaml should say going forward. These may need different answers for the archive and for the live document.

Q12 — `renumber` has no defined effect on citation identity

Design question, not a legal one, but it must be settled before the schema is used by anyone else.

The validator enforces id === "art-" + number, which is what makes reordering the YAML provably safe. But the Act operation enum includes renumber. If an Act ever renumbers Article 20 to 19, either the id follows the number — breaking every citation ever made to art-20 — or it stays fixed and the id/number coupling breaks.

No Act among the three performs a renumber (all are substitute or insert), so nothing is blocked today.

Question: on renumber, does the id stay permanent (and the coupling rule gain an exception) or follow the number? A statute book would keep the citation and record the move.

Non-blocking — metadata applied in Phase 2

Applied during the structural migration. Flagged for confirmation; none touches provision text.

Field	Value	Source	Confirm
`info.organization`	Service to Mankind Welfare Association	All three Acts: "Further to amend the Constitution of Service to Mankind Welfare Association"	☐
`info.jurisdiction`	Telangana, India	Inferred from the preamble's "Telangana Societies Registration Act., 2001" and the registered address	☐
`info.registration`	omitted	Unknown. Registration number under the 2001 Act appears nowhere in the repo	☐
`info.effective_from` (v1.0.0)	2023-10-08	Preamble `adopted` date	☐
`info.effective_from` (v2.0.0, current)	2024-05-02	Latest dated entry in v2's own amendment table. See Q9 — likely should be 2024-05-03	☐
`info.version` (v1.0.0)	1.0.0	Corrected from the file's own incorrect `2.0.0`	☐
`info.termsOfService`	removed	Was `https://example.com/terms`	☐
`info.contact.url`	removed	Was `https://example.com/contact`	☐

The two removed placeholder URLs can be restored with real values at any time; the validator rejects any example.com URL in info.

Q13 — Procedural validity of all three Acts

RESOLVED by authorisation, 2026-08-15. Pranay (project owner, contact of record) states: the amendments were authored long ago and approved by every member of the board.

Recorded as stated, not as an inference. Article 16(3) as it stood required approval by the board, the intermediate board and all college units. Pranay named the board. The register records board approval with that statement as its evidence and leaves the other two bodies unpopulated, with complete: false. Confirmation of intermediate-board and unit approval is outstanding.

The circularity noted below stands and is unaffected: Act 2 amends Article 16(3) itself, so it passed under the unamended procedure.

Article 16(3) as it stood on 3 May 2024 required proposed amendments to be approved by the board, the intermediate board, and all college units. All three Acts record assent from the Internal Compliance Committee and a signature from the Internal Compliance Coordinator. None records on its face that the Article 16 procedure was followed.

That may simply be because the instrument records only the final attesting step, with the approvals living in minutes. Note the circularity: Act 2 amends Article 16(3) itself, so it had to pass under the unamended procedure.

Nothing here asserts the Acts are invalid; that is not a question this project can answer. The act register schema now carries a procedure block — required_by, an explicit list of approving bodies, attested_by, assent_date — which Phase 3 populates with the bodies named and the approvals left empty. An explicit empty chain of authority is visible and gives the board somewhere to file the minutes; a missing field is neither.

Question: were the Article 16(3) approvals obtained, and do minutes exist?

Q14 — Article 10 retains a paragraph no instrument enacts (DIVERGENT)

New, found by the provenance analysis. This is the only DIVERGENT verdict in the corpus.

Article 10 splits cleanly in two, and the halves disagree:

Part	Matches Act 1	Matches pre-Act v1 text
The three sections (Eligibility, Selection Process, Roles and Responsibilities)	100.0% — 318 tokens against 318	36.7%
The article body (the "The IBM are the members…" paragraph, 64 tokens)	25.0%	89.7%

So Act 1 was applied to Article 10's sections exactly, while the pre-Act article-level introduction was kept. Under Q6 a full substitution deletes it.

The retained paragraph was also hand-edited to match Act 1's naming without any instrument doing so:

- 1. HR & Internshipment Controller Coordinator     + 1. Human Resources Coordinator
- 2. Finance Controller Coordinator                 + 2. Finance Coordinator
- 8. Content Coordinator                            + 8. Documentation Coordinator
- 9. Volunteer Coordinator                          (removed)

All three edits are authorised by the operative text of Act 1 clause (3); see the decision below. Act 1's Statement of Objects, item 4, separately records that "the position of volunteer coordinator has been removed to optimise operational efficiency", which corroborates intent but under C1 confers no authority.

DECIDED — delete the retained paragraph from the operative text. Applied 2026-08-15.

The three renames are not authorised by the Statement of Objects, and the earlier draft of this entry was wrong to say so (see C1). They do not need it — the operative text of Act 1 clause (3) carries all three:

Edit in the retained paragraph	Authority — all operative
`HR & Internshipment Controller` → `Human Resources Coordinator`	Act 1 cl. (3) item 1
`Content Coordinator` → `Documentation Coordinator`	Act 1 cl. (3) item 8
`Volunteer Coordinator` removed	Act 1 cl. (3) roster runs 1–8 and omits it

The SOR corroborates intent. It supplies no authority.

Grounds for deletion:

Act 1 supplies no article-level body. Its substitution runs 10. Intermediate Board Members straight into (1) Eligibility. A full substitution that supplies no body leaves the body empty; the old one does not survive by default.
The roster is a duplicate. All eight coordinators appear in art-10-s-3, in the same order under the same names. Verified programmatically before deletion — the change halts if any role fails to survive.
The unique part is unique because Act 1 replaced it. The lead-in makes the IBM responsible for "all legal and financial activities of the NGO"; clause (3) reframes that to "proper functioning of STM units". Confirmed absent from art-10-s-3.
Retaining it creates a live contradiction, not a redundancy. Article 21, inserted by Act 3, gives the Treasurer and IBM-Finance Coordinator the sole right to approve funds. A surviving blanket claim over "all legal and financial activities" would answer "who controls the money" differently from Article 21 — and only Article 21 has an instrument behind it.
The renames are evidence, not justification. Someone was applying Act 1 clause by clause and missed that the same Act had already removed the paragraph they were conforming. Partial application, not deliberate retention.

Nothing is destroyed. Deletion is from the operative text only:

versions/v2.0.0.yaml keeps the paragraph verbatim — it is what was published.
provenance on art-10 records the text, the unrecorded hand-edits, and the reason for removal.
Both forms are quoted below.

Pre-Act form — versions/v1.0.0.yaml art-10 body

The IBM are the members who are selected by the board of the NGO to manage the NGO and to take care of the NGO.
They are responsible for the all legal and financial activities of the NGO.
The IBM consists of the following members:
  1. HR & Internshipment Controller Coordinator
  2. Finance Controller Coordinator
  3. Designing Coordinator
  4. Public Relations Coordinator
  5. Technical Coordinator
  6. Internal Compliance Coordinator
  7. Operations Coordinator
  8. Content Coordinator
  9. Volunteer Coordinator

Hand-edited form as published in v2.0.0 — the text removed

The IBM are the members who are selected by the board of the NGO to manage the NGO and to take care of the NGO.
They are responsible for the all legal and financial activities of the NGO.
The IBM consists of the following members:
  1. Human Resources Coordinator
  2. Finance Coordinator
  3. Designing Coordinator
  4. Public Relations Coordinator
  5. Technical Coordinator
  6. Internal Compliance Coordinator
  7. Operations Coordinator
  8. Documentation Coordinator

Board action: ratification item, presented as a recommendation with reasons rather than an open question.

Heading provenance — `title_source`

Every heading in the live document now declares whether it carries legal force:

enacted — the heading appears, as a heading, in an instrument already applied to that provision. 8 of 40.
editorial — supplied by an editor. 32 of 40.

Two deliberate narrowings, both of which change the answer:

A heading is never credited to an unapplied Act. Act 2 retitles Article 14 to Leaves, but Act 2 has not been applied, so Sabbatical Leave remains editorial. Crediting it would claim legal force for a heading that is not in effect.
The heading must appear as a heading, not anywhere in the prose. A substring test marks Article 11's units as enacted, because Act 1's clause (1) opens "The units of the NGO…", and marks Article 15's Resignation as enacted off the phrase "the resignation letter". Both are false.

Nothing was renamed. units, Alumini, Anual Reports and Ammendments all stand exactly as they are, now visibly marked as editorial and listed on the amendments page.

Note on Ammendments: Act 2's operative text spells Article 16 as Amendments. That typo therefore corrects itself when Act 2 is applied, by the instrument rather than by an editor. It should not be fixed by hand in the meantime.

Sign-off

No text may be applied until every blocking question above is answered.

Q3 Amendment threshold — 2/3rd governs, discrepancy recorded, board ratification still wanted
Q5 Unit Board Member / Coordinator identical definitions — publish the defect
Q6 Full-substitution convention — read the body, not the heading
Q8 Act author vs signatory — split the field, Revanth preserved as unverified
Q9 Assent date — 2024-05-03 assent, 2024-05-02 recorded as passed_date
Q11 Article 11 empty body — signed off: section-only, per Act 1's operative structure

Open:

Q1 Article 19 gap — does a fourth instrument exist?
Q2 Article 6 clause 6 (Donor) — clause (6) stands; tension recorded for a future Act
Q4 Article 15 amend vs insert — amendment, resolved by C1
Q7 Retitles — the Acts make all of them; no editorial rename
Q10 Original adoption record
Q12 Renumber and citation identity
Q13 Procedural validity — board approval recorded as stated; IBM and unit approval outstanding
Q14 Article 10 unenacted paragraph — deleted from operative text, ratification item for the board

Navigation Menu

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reconciliation

Citation stability — anchors that changed meaning

Standing conventions

C1 — A Statement of Objects and Reasons is evidence of intent, never a source of authority

Blocking — legal

Q1 — Article 19 does not exist

Q2 — Article 6, clause 6 (`Donor`)

Q3 — Act 2 contradicts itself on the amendment threshold

Q4 — Act 2 disagrees with itself on whether Article 15 is amended or inserted

Q5 — Act 1 defines `Unit Board Member` and `Coordinator` with identical words

Q6 — Does an "Amendment to Article N" replace the whole article or only its listed clauses?

Q7 — Terminology drift

Blocking — record integrity

Q8 — The amendment table names a different author than the Act

Q9 — The amendment table dates Act 1 a day before its assent

Q10 — "Establishing the Constitution" has no instrument

Blocking — editorial (changes what a reader sees)

Q11 — Article 11 `Units` has no article body

Q12 — `renumber` has no defined effect on citation identity

Non-blocking — metadata applied in Phase 2

Q13 — Procedural validity of all three Acts

Q14 — Article 10 retains a paragraph no instrument enacts (DIVERGENT)

Heading provenance — `title_source`

Sign-off

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

FilesExpand file tree

RECONCILIATION.md

Latest commit

History

RECONCILIATION.md

File metadata and controls

Reconciliation

Citation stability — anchors that changed meaning

Standing conventions

C1 — A Statement of Objects and Reasons is evidence of intent, never a source of authority

Blocking — legal

Q1 — Article 19 does not exist

Q2 — Article 6, clause 6 (Donor)

Q3 — Act 2 contradicts itself on the amendment threshold

Q4 — Act 2 disagrees with itself on whether Article 15 is amended or inserted

Q5 — Act 1 defines Unit Board Member and Coordinator with identical words

Q6 — Does an "Amendment to Article N" replace the whole article or only its listed clauses?

Q7 — Terminology drift

Blocking — record integrity

Q8 — The amendment table names a different author than the Act

Q9 — The amendment table dates Act 1 a day before its assent

Q10 — "Establishing the Constitution" has no instrument

Blocking — editorial (changes what a reader sees)

Q11 — Article 11 Units has no article body

Q12 — renumber has no defined effect on citation identity

Non-blocking — metadata applied in Phase 2

Q13 — Procedural validity of all three Acts

Q14 — Article 10 retains a paragraph no instrument enacts (DIVERGENT)

Heading provenance — title_source

Sign-off

Q2 — Article 6, clause 6 (`Donor`)

Q5 — Act 1 defines `Unit Board Member` and `Coordinator` with identical words

Q11 — Article 11 `Units` has no article body

Q12 — `renumber` has no defined effect on citation identity

Heading provenance — `title_source`