Final content addendum: funded inspections and publication surfaces

25 September 2026. Reviewed manuscripts/funded-audits.md, CLAIMS.md, the updated synthesis, publication/site-integration.md and publication/THIRD_PARTY_NOTICES.md. No code or other packet source was changed in this pass. The mathematical lane separately reviewed the finite paths; this review concerns interpretation, authority, human claims and release readiness.

Funded-audit interpretation

The experiment closes the promised-versus-executed inspection gap within its toy environment; it does not close the auditor-effort problem. The manuscript states that auditors perform scheduled work with stipulated detection behavior. Its final boundary explicitly retains strategic auditor refusal/shirking, false reports, dependence and appeal reversal as unmodeled. Neither the claim map nor the synthesis upgrades funded execution into observed human diligence.

The eight output “actors” are now clearly eight task decision units, potentially mapped to fewer execution people. Separate utilities, task-specific escrow and pre-reserved capacity are premises, not evidence of eight independent reviewers. The concealed marginal calculation needs the fixed population, information timing and participating decision’s independence from the subset; the prose states those requirements. Disclosure and partial-refusal controls make their importance visible. A future shared-person or coalition model cannot silently inherit independent decision behavior from the labels.

Tokens, hours and utility effort are distinguished. The escrow transfer is collectible only inside the fixture. It establishes no real asset, deposit policy, consent, lawful fine or legitimate disciplinary process. The text explicitly omits locked-collateral opportunity cost and nonlinear wealth effects. Therefore it cannot show equitable participation across resource levels, and does not claim to. Describing insufficient collateral as pre-offer unavailability is honest within the model; it is not a recommendation to exclude actual poor contributors.

The shared-role reservation is deliberately conservative and its unused slack is reported. Refusal/triage labor is zero only in this experiment and marked as an omission. The coupled queue separately charges it; assembling both results does not automatically create one integrated funded, deadline-aware system. Rights, recusal, lawful recipient disclosure and remedies remain institutional questions. No additional legal disclaimer or operating institution is needed merely to publish this carefully limited synthetic experiment.

Claims and synthesis

The claim map distinguishes prior work, design, conditional theory, implementation and synthetic experiments, empirical evidence and open hypotheses. The relevant mathematical manuscript now uses I for the simulated outcomes and D for the proposed interface, consistent with that map. Human/field evidence remains none. The funding claim is bounded to a fixed-population, fixed-information toy and executing auditors. Internal review evidence is not presented as passed independent human review or a submission-ready journal paper.

The synthesis preserves the explicit noncomposition table and calls this a separate engine closing one narrow loop. It does not infer a whole-network equilibrium, legally enforceable collateral or real inspector independence. I find no new material overclaim in these revisions.

Site integration and notices

The integration guide correctly separates an intentional Jekyll blog adaptation from serving the already rendered static packet. The current blog source actually contains the documented layout/disclosure fields and published: false. Relative links require the selected public destination; copying front-matter-bearing Markdown into a generator is not a guarantee of preserving bytes. .nojekyll is limited to the proposed standalone export root, not the existing site’s root. The guide requires inspecting the actual rendered post and retrieving the delivered archive, rather than equating a successful local build with publication.

The third-party notice is under publication/, not the packet root. It separates the existing font license from the project’s still-proposed original-material licenses and does not claim an adopted open-source grant. I independently read the current eight-page exported PDF’s attachment inventory using pypdf: it contains bitstream-vera-license.txt, and that attachment exactly matches the exported notice file. This verifies that specific notice-preservation claim for the inspected artifact, not ownership of every original contribution or completeness of a legal rights audit. Optional libraries are described as build dependencies, not vendored implementations.

Final position

Qualified assent remains unchanged: publish the curated, candid research seed. No new legal, economic-unit, human-efficacy or publication-framing blocker was found. The funded-audit addition makes an earlier assumption testable without pretending all institutions and incentives are solved. Responsible attribution, rights disposition, destination and final exact-artifact approval remain concrete publication decisions. The runtime lane’s final frozen archive and clean reproduction checks remain separate from this content assent.