RS5B-CLOSEOUT-PATCH2 06 — Gate B Wording Clarification & Non-Overclaim Seal — 2026-06-21

Scope: close Codex blocker B9 (Codex §9 / §12.6): PATCH1-06 says "Neither gate opens P2," but Gate B is explicitly the P2-open gate emitting P2_OPEN_AUTHORIZED_FOR_NAMED_CARRIER_PLAN_ONLY. Seal the wording so it is internally consistent and does not over- or under-claim. Gate: REGISTRATION_HOLD · REGISTRATION_CAN_PROCEED = NO · 0 mutations (design-only). Supersession: PATCH1-06 intro sentence "Neither gate opens P2 …" and §6 sentence "Neither gate opens P2, authorizes a write, creates a carrier, or clears a blocker" are SUPERSEDED_BY_RS5B_CLOSEOUT_PATCH2 by the sealed wording in §2 (file 08 M17). Gate A/Gate B inputs and outputs (PATCH1-06 §2/§3) are not reopened — only the non-overclaim wording is corrected.

---

1. The contradiction (reconstructed)

Two PATCH1-06 sentences cannot both be true:

• S-deny: "Neither gate opens P2."
• S-assert: Gate B's output is P2_OPEN_AUTHORIZED_FOR_NAMED_CARRIER_PLAN_ONLY — i.e. Gate B, when satisfied, does authorize opening a (named) P2 lane.

Codex §9: "the intended distinction appears to be that this PATCH1 review does not execute Gate B, while a future successful Gate B authorizes opening only the named lane." PATCH2 states that distinction directly, and forbids the conflated sentence.

2. The sealed wording (controlling, verbatim)

The following is the controlling non-overclaim statement for the two-gate sequencing. It replaces every "Neither gate opens P2" sentence.

1. This PATCH2 package does not open P2. It is a design-level oracle/predicate/XBI/gate-wording correction; it executes no gate.
2. Gate A does not open P2. Gate A (P2_BASELINE_ENTRY_DESIGN_ACCEPTED) permits only preparing a carrier-specific Gate B plan. It authorizes no write, creates no carrier, and never substitutes for Chairman authorization.
3. A future Gate B, only if actually satisfied, may authorize opening the named P2 design/build lane — and only that named lane. "Satisfied" means all Gate B inputs (PATCH1-06 §3) hold: Gate A accepted + carrier-specific plan + named carriers + per-carrier dependency-safe rollback proof (ROLLBACK_CONTRACT_VALID_FOR_REVIEW) + current read-only preflight + exact-scoped Chairman token + independent plan review + no runtime mutation.
4. Gate B does not authorize registration, activation, real register_dot, P3, rollback execution, or any ungated runtime write. Each such act remains its own separately-authorized act behind its own later gate plus item-13 Chairman authorization.
5. No sentence in this package, or in any consolidated reading, may say simply "Neither gate opens P2." That phrasing is forbidden because it contradicts statement 3 (a satisfied Gate B is precisely the P2-named-lane-open gate). The correct denial is always scoped: this package and Gate A do not open P2; a future satisfied Gate B opens only the named lane.

3. Precise verb table (who opens what)

Actor / event	Opens P2?	Opens named lane?	Registration / activation / register_dot / P3 / runtime write?
This PATCH2 package	No	No	No
Gate A (P2_BASELINE_ENTRY_DESIGN_ACCEPTED)	No	No (permits preparing a plan only)	No
Gate B unsatisfied	No	No (fail-closed on the missing input's code)	No
Gate B satisfied (P2_OPEN_AUTHORIZED_FOR_NAMED_CARRIER_PLAN_ONLY)	Only the named lane	Yes — named lane only	No (each remains separately gated under item 13)

"Opens P2" is therefore never unqualified. P2 as a whole is never opened by a gate; only a named carrier-specific lane is opened, only by a satisfied Gate B, and even then nothing downstream (registration/activation/register_dot/P3/runtime) is authorized.

4. Failure codes preserved (not reopened)

The Gate A/Gate B failure codes are unchanged: BASELINE_ACCEPTANCE_NOT_P2_OPEN_AUTHORIZATION (XBI-22), G2_EXECUTION_REQUIRES_SEPARATE_AUTHORIZATION (XBI-23), CHAIRMAN_AUTHORIZATION_SCOPE_MISMATCH (XBI-24), P2_OPEN_GATE_ROLLBACK_PROOF_MISSING (XBI-25), INDEPENDENT_REVIEW_NOT_OBTAINED, RUNTIME_MUTATION_REJECTED (RBP-0). The state machine (PATCH1-06 §4) and the rule "no transition says Gate A accepted → P2 open" are retained. PATCH2 changes only the non-overclaim wording, not the gate logic.

5. Current status under the sealed wording

P2 is CLOSED · NOT_OPENED · NOT_AUTHORIZED. No Gate B is satisfied in this package (no carrier-specific plan, no scoped Chairman token, no current preflight asserted). Therefore no named lane is open. The sealed wording authorizes nothing new; it only makes the description of what a future satisfied Gate B would do non-contradictory.

6. Boundary attestation

This file changes no runtime state, executes no gate, opens no P2 or named lane, and clears no blocker. It corrects only the non-overclaim wording (B9). REGISTRATION_HOLD retained; REGISTRATION_CAN_PROCEED = NO; no Chairman authorization is asserted to exist; Job A not reopened.