52 — Decision-Intake Ledger & Council/Human Ruling Checklist

Path: knowledge/dev/reports/architecture/one-roof-governance-technical-addendum-and-implementation-index-2026-06-01/ Doc: 52. Role: The compact ledger of every decision still required before GCOS / T6 / T7 build can be authorized (Branch A), plus a concise line-by-line ruling checklist the user/council can later approve or reject (Branch B). This doc intakes and frames decisions; it makes none. Status: DECISION-INTAKE / CONTROL DOCUMENT ONLY. No binding. No approval. No self-approval. No mutation. No decision recorded here is "decided." Silence ≠ approval. An agent may record a decision the human/council actually states; an agent may never approve, self-approve, or assume a decision. Date: 2026-06-01. Authority for the questions: doc 03 (blocker register), doc 23 (C-1/C-2 packet), doc 26 (OP-B / C-3/C-4), doc 46 (C-7 packet), doc 35 §2 (new blockers), concept canon. Decider: GOV-COUNCIL + human sovereign (President). Proposer (non-deciding): GOV-SIV. Conflict order / read order: doc 45 §45.2 / §45.5.

52.0 How to read this ledger

Each decision row answers a fixed schema (the mission Branch-A contract):

Decision question — the single thing that must be ruled.
Recommended default — GOV-SIV's proposed answer (not binding).
Unlocks — what becomes build-eligible if ruled and later separately authorized.
Does NOT unlock — what a YES still does not authorize (the critical anti-over-reach line).
Current status — PENDING / NOT-MET / DESIGN-COMPLETE.
Exact wording needed — the ratifiable motion text the human/council must state.
May an agent record it? — whether an agent may transcribe the ruling once actually stated (always: recording ≠ deciding).
Separate approval still required? — whether, even after the policy ruling, a distinct Điều-32 APR / sovereign approval is still needed before any COMMIT.
Risk if skipped — what breaks if the decision is bypassed or assumed.

Master constraints over every row (none waivable here):

No self-approval — proposer ≠ approver on every item; fn_apr_quorum_check enforces it where a vote is taken. No agent (AI or human) approves its own proposal.
A policy ruling is a decision, not a build authorization. Every row's "Does NOT unlock" line holds.
os_proposal_approvals = 0 ⇒ COMMIT_FORBIDDEN (live-verified 2026-06-01) — even a fully-ruled ledger authorizes no COMMIT.
Register-before-emit (Điều 45) — no ruling here authorizes any governance event registration or emit.
Birth not modified by default; C-7.5, even if YES, only makes a fail-open observer eligible for separate build authorization.

52.1 Branch A — the decision-intake ledger (11 decisions)

Group 1 — SB-1 / SB-2 substrate council items (gate owner-relevant T6 + the apply DOT)

D-1 · C-1 — SB-2 ownership substrate pattern

Decision question. How is governed-object/axis ownership represented: a new additive governance_object_ownership table + 6-row governance_responsibility_scope reference table + a resolution view, or by widening the existing governance_relations CHECK to admit object/axis edges?
Recommended default. New additive table pattern (doc 17 / doc 23): governance_object_ownership (owner_kind accountable/supporting/delegated/exception; scope FK → 6-row scope table; owner_gov_code FK → governance_registry; partial-UNIQUE one-accountable-per-scope; effective/lifecycle/approval/audit/rollback columns) + v_object_effective_owner resolution view (owner-link-only inheritance, anti-hiding). Reject widening the governance_relations CHECK (migration risk on a live constraint; the live CHECK blocks object edges today, doc 18).
Unlocks. Owner-relevant T6 routing (v_object_effective_owner); SB-2 gate (G-SB2) in doc 42 §42.5; sharper owner routing than the GOV-COUNCIL fallback.
Does NOT unlock. Building the table (gated on G-DDL rehearsal + A-1 sovereign); any owner-edge write (gated on A-2 quorum); the apply DOT; COMMIT.
Current status. DESIGN-COMPLETE (doc 17/23), build NO-GO, ruling PENDING. Both target tables ABSENT live (verified 2026-06-01 — greenfield).
Exact wording needed. "Governed-object and axis ownership is represented by a new additive governance_object_ownership table plus a 6-row governance_responsibility_scope reference table and an owner-link-only resolution view. The live governance_relations CHECK is not widened. One accountable owner per scope; ownership inheritance is by explicit owner-link only, never silent. GOV-SIV proposes ownership; GOV-COUNCIL approves each owner edge."
May an agent record it? Yes — transcribe the council's stated choice into the C-1 ruling line; never decide it.
Separate approval still required? Yes — building the table needs A-1 (sovereign) + G-DDL; each owner-edge write needs A-2 (Điều-32 quorum).
Risk if skipped. T6 owner routing degrades to the GOV-COUNCIL fallback for every object; no accountable-owner ledger; the apply DOT can never be correctly targeted.

D-2 · C-2 — SB-1 APR action-type pattern

Decision question. How are governance APR action-types introduced: as data rows in apr_action_types (Phase-A risk='high', handler_ref='unimplemented'), or as new enum values / code?
Recommended default. Four action-type ROWS (doc 16 / doc 23), all risk_level='high', all handler_ref='unimplemented' at Phase A (vocabulary exists, execution blocked exactly like amend_law); governance APRs use action='review', never 'add' (the live fn_auto_approve_add BEFORE-INSERT trigger machine-approves action='add' and bypasses quorum — doc 27). Phase B flips the handler only after C-2 + SB-2 + sovereign.
Unlocks. A valid governance APR proposal path (G-SB1A); the two-phase fail-closed model; exception-via-APR-payload.
Does NOT unlock. Flipping any handler to implemented (Phase B, separate); any apply; auto-approval of governance actions; COMMIT.
Current status. DESIGN-COMPLETE (doc 16/23), build NO-GO, ruling PENDING. Live: apr_action_types has no governance rows; fn_auto_approve_add bypass confirmed (doc 18/27).
Exact wording needed. "Governance APR action-types are added as rows in apr_action_types, each risk_level='high' with handler_ref='unimplemented' (Phase A). Governance APRs use action='review', never 'add', so the auto-approve-on-add path cannot machine-approve a governance change. Handlers are flipped to implemented only in a separate Phase B after SB-2 is live and sovereign approval is recorded."
May an agent record it? Yes — transcribe; never decide.
Separate approval still required? Yes — Phase-B handler flip + any apply needs A-2 quorum + A-9 sovereign + M-1 (os_proposal_approvals>0).
Risk if skipped. A governance APR built as action='add' is silently machine-approved, bypassing quorum (the doc-27 bypass) — a self-approval hole.

Group 2 — C-7 GCOS council items (gate input/ruleset/backfill/legacy/observer) — full detail in doc 46

D-3 · C-7.1 — Input-trust policy owner & default

Decision question. What minimum source-trust must a producer have to inject governance work for a scope, and what happens to below-threshold input?
Recommended default (doc 46 §46.1). Trust = per-(source_system, target_scope) registry/config property, never hardcoded; deny-by-default for high-risk/write scopes (below-threshold input HELD as input_untrusted_source, routed to GOV-COUNCIL, never silently injected, never mislabeled governance_orphan); allow-with-monitoring for low-risk descriptive scopes; trust grants/revokes are governed + audited.
Unlocks. dot_governance_input_gate trust classification against a ratified policy.
Does NOT unlock. Building/registering the input-gate DOT (gated on SB-10/SB-11); any emit; granting trust to a specific source (each is its own governed decision); COMMIT.
Current status. PENDING ruling (A-3). Design complete (doc 33/46).
Exact wording needed. doc 46 §46.1 motion (verbatim, ratifiable).
May an agent record it? Yes — record once council states it; SIV proposes, council decides each grant.
Separate approval still required? Yes — each trust grant is its own governed decision; building the DOT needs A-1.
Risk if skipped. Bad/untrusted input drives governance work (systemic wrongness), or untrusted input is mislabeled as a genuine orphan.

D-4 · C-7.2 — Ruleset owner

Decision question. Who owns ruleset_version, and how is a bump activated vs merely recorded as draft?
Recommended default (doc 46 §46.2). Owner = GOV-COUNCIL; GOV-SIV proposes, activation via Điều-32 APR quorum (proposer ≠ approver); storage = Option B (governance_ruleset row) [Option A = evolution_snapshots scope row, weaker]; auto-activate only for pure-additive measurement rows via explicit allowlist; a bump is operational, never legislative (no normative_registry/law_catalog/governance_docs write, no law status change); draft/unowned ruleset → verdict unknown for high-risk (fail-closed).
Unlocks. SB-12 ruleset activation; reproducible high-risk verdicts; authoritative targeted invalidation on bump.
Does NOT unlock. Creating the governance_ruleset table (G-DDL); activating any specific ruleset (each its own APR); emit; COMMIT.
Current status. PENDING ruling (A-4). Design complete (doc 38/46).
Exact wording needed. doc 46 §46.2 motion (verbatim).
May an agent record it? Yes — record; SIV may not self-activate.
Separate approval still required? Yes — each ruleset activation is its own Điều-32 APR.
Risk if skipped. Non-reproducible / checked-forever verdicts return; or a config bump is mistaken for a law change.

D-5 · C-7.3 — Backfill ruleset ownership

Decision question. Under whose ruleset does the one-time ~1.04M backfill seed run, and what is the status of verdicts seeded under a draft/interim ruleset?
Recommended default (doc 46 §46.3). Seed runs under a named GOV-COUNCIL-owned ruleset_version; every seeded row carries (candidate_key, source_snapshot_ref, ruleset_version); seed-under-draft permitted but any high-risk verdict seeded under draft/unowned ruleset = unknown (fail-closed at G-PROD) until activation; targeted re-key on bump; operation owner = GOV-SIV, ruleset owner = GOV-COUNCIL (do not collapse); the seed worker may not activate its own ruleset.
Unlocks. Branch A backfill seed verdict-status rule.
Does NOT unlock. Running the backfill (gated on SB-10/12/13 build); treating draft-ruleset high-risk verdicts as clean; COMMIT.
Current status. PENDING ruling (A-5). Design complete (doc 31/46). Live: birth spine 1,042,938 and still growing — seed must be incremental/resumable.
Exact wording needed. doc 46 §46.3 motion (verbatim).
May an agent record it? Yes — record; worker may not self-activate ruleset.
Separate approval still required? Yes — running the seed needs A-1 + SB-10/12/13 built.
Risk if skipped. Non-reproducible seed verdicts that cannot be correctly invalidated on a later policy change.

D-6 · C-7.4 — 60-day legacy/backfill cut-over deadline

Decision question. How long are un-onboarded legacy objects tolerated before escalating from "legacy/deferred" to a finding?
Recommended default (doc 46 §46.4). 60 days from backfill-seed completion (config, council-owned, not a code constant); before deadline = tracked deferred (no orphan finding); at/after deadline = escalate to governance_orphan/backfill_incomplete at escalated severity, high-risk additionally fail-closed at G-PROD; per-object extension only via TTL'd governed exception (no silent clock reset); the deadline produces findings, never auto-remediation.
Unlocks. Legacy-escalation rule in the candidate/exception-review DOTs.
Does NOT unlock. Running those DOTs (gated); any auto-remediation at the deadline (apply is NO-GO); COMMIT.
Current status. PENDING ruling (A-6). Design complete (doc 31/34/46).
Exact wording needed. doc 46 §46.4 motion (verbatim).
May an agent record it? Yes — record the council-set value.
Separate approval still required? Yes — DOT build needs A-1; the value is a governed config parameter.
Risk if skipped. Either a permanent ungoverned legacy population (no deadline) or a deadline-day finding storm (uncoalesced).

D-7 · C-7.5 — Observer-trigger ruling

Decision question. Does an additive, fail-open AFTER INSERT observer trigger on Birth (writing only to event_pending) count as "modifying Birth" (forbidden), or an allowed external observer?
Recommended default (doc 46 §46.5). Default implementation path = Option A cursor-tail (no ruling needed; Birth untouched). Recommended ruling = NO — an observer-only, fail-open trigger that can never alter/block/delay a birth and only writes a capture row is an external observer, not a modification. Even with YES, Option B stays build-NO-GO (optional latency optimization only). Option C inline coupling = REJECTED outright regardless of ruling.
Unlocks. Option B eligibility (optional optimization on top of Option A) if council rules YES and separately authorizes build.
Does NOT unlock. Creating the trigger now (build NO-GO); inline Option C ever; changing the default (Option A remains default); COMMIT.
Current status. PENDING ruling (A-7) — but non-blocking: Option A needs no C-7.5 ruling.
Exact wording needed. doc 46 §46.5 motion (verbatim).
May an agent record it? Yes — record; the Birth boundary is a sovereign ruling, never an agent self-ruling.
Separate approval still required? Yes — even a YES ruling needs separate build authorization + a fail-open rehearsal.
Risk if skipped. None to function (Option A works); only the latency optimization is unavailable. (Lowest-priority C-7 item.)

Group 3 — Cross-cutting owner / sovereign / law decisions

D-8 · OP-B — IU owner (C-3 + C-4)

Decision question. Who owns the IU surface (the 54-command dot_iu_command_catalog island with owner_ref free-text, no GOV-IU agency)?
Recommended default (doc 26). FEDERATED owner-per-scope, NO new GOV-IU agency: policy → GOV-COUNCIL, health → GOV-SIV, substrate → KG-SYS, exec → GOV-DOT, render → GOV-MOUT (per C-5), law → NRM-SYS; a C-4 review_decision adapter reconciles the IU island into governed ownership. Dissolves the island without creating a second roof.
Unlocks. T5 (SB-3 axis substrate) and T10 (IU integration); governed IU ownership.
Does NOT unlock. SB-3 4th-axis-as-data (still blocked by SB-3); building the adapter (gated); COMMIT.
Current status. DECISION-PACKET COMPLETE (doc 26), ruling PENDING (part of A-8 scope / C-3/C-4).
Exact wording needed. "IU ownership is federated owner-per-scope across existing governance agencies (policy/health/substrate/exec/render/law); no new GOV-IU agency is created; a review_decision-based C-4 adapter reconciles the IU command catalog into governed ownership. GOV-SIV proposes the mapping; GOV-COUNCIL ratifies it."
May an agent record it? Yes — record the federated mapping once ratified.
Separate approval still required? Yes — building the C-4 adapter + SB-3 needs separate gates.
Risk if skipped. The IU island (54 ungoverned commands) persists; T5/T10 stay blocked.

D-9 · C-5 — GOV-MOUT / display / render owner

Decision question. Which active agency owns display / API / render (Điều 28 is agency-orphaned; GOV-MOUT is draft/incomplete with 0 edges and 0 DOTs)?
Recommended default (doc 10 / memory). Ratify GOV-MOUT as the render/display/API owner under Điều 28, or assign render scope to an existing active agency; resolve the Điều-28 orphan so some active agency owns the render axis (currently none does).
Unlocks. T8 (Directus/API/render-ownership design → build); the render leg of OP-B federation (D-8).
Does NOT unlock. Any Directus/Nuxt/UI mutation (forbidden); COMMIT.
Current status. PENDING ruling. Live: Điều 28 agency-orphaned, GOV-MOUT draft, 0 DOTs (doc 02 / memory).
Exact wording needed. "Điều 28 (display/API/render) is owned by [GOV-MOUT, ratified active | <named active agency>]. GOV-MOUT's draft status is resolved to active with a defined render scope, or render scope is assigned to the named agency. No UI/API change is authorized by this ruling."
May an agent record it? Yes — record the council's choice of render owner.
Separate approval still required? Yes — T8 build + any render-surface change is separately gated.
Risk if skipped. No active agency owns the render axis; T8 cannot proceed; render coverage is permanently orphaned.

D-10 · H-1 / H-2 / SB-6 — sovereign sign-off (the apply gate)

Decision question. Will the human sovereign (President) record the approval(s) that authorize the only mutating DOT (dot_governance_assignment_apply) and any COMMIT — i.e. flip os_proposal_approvals from 0?
Recommended default. No default may be proposed — this is the sovereign's own act; an agent cannot recommend the sovereign approve. The agent's role is only to ensure the gate exists and is respected. SB-6 = the recorded-approval substrate; H-1/H-2 = the human ratification of substrate/IU.
Unlocks. G-APPLY; the apply DOT; COMMIT — only in combination with A-2 quorum, Phase-B handler, SB-2 live, and M-1.
Does NOT unlock. Anything by itself — apply still needs every other gate (doc 49 §49.2 apply row).
Current status. NOT-MET — os_proposal_approvals = 0 (live-verified 2026-06-01) ⇒ COMMIT_FORBIDDEN.
Exact wording needed. A recorded sovereign approval row in os_proposal_approvals + an Điều-32 APR for the specific build/apply step (proposer ≠ approver). The agent does not draft the sovereign's approval; it only verifies it exists.
May an agent record it? No — the agent may neither approve nor self-approve; only the sovereign's recorded act counts. The agent may only read and report whether the row exists.
Separate approval still required? This is the separate approval; it is the master gate (M-1 / A-1 / A-9).
Risk if skipped. None can be skipped — without it, no GCOS COMMIT is ever possible (correct, by design).

D-11 · L-1 / L-2 — law-drift cleanup & registration/enactment path

Decision question. (L-1) How is enacted-law drift vs Round-4 wording reconciled? (L-2) What is the enactment/registration path for the missing/unratified normative items, given enact_nrm/amend_law handlers are unimplemented and Điều 20/23/44/45 are absent from normative_registry?
Recommended default. L-1: produce a DRAFT content-only law-cleanup packet (no enactment, no status change) listing each drift item + proposed reconciliation; ratification is human/council. L-2: registration of Điều 20/23/44/45 and any enactment goes through the real Điều-32 APR / council path — never by direct normative_registry write and never by an agent (the enact_nrm handler is intentionally unimplemented → law is human-only).
Unlocks. A clean law surface for the eventual enactment of the GCOS-supporting clauses; closes the L-1 drift blocker.
Does NOT unlock. Any law enactment / normative_registry write / version bump / status change (all forbidden to the agent); COMMIT.
Current status. PENDING (design-only DRAFT allowed; enactment NOT-MET). Live: Điều 20/23/44/45 absent; enact_nrm/amend_law handler unimplemented (doc 02 / memory).
Exact wording needed. "The law-drift reconciliation and the registration of Điều 20/23/44/45 are handled as governed legislative acts through the council/Điều-32 path. No agent enacts, registers, version-bumps, or status-changes any law. GCOS build does not depend on enactment; enactment is tracked as a parallel L-1/L-2 track."
May an agent record it? An agent may draft the cleanup packet; it may never enact, register, or status-change a law.
Separate approval still required? Yes — every enactment is a human-only legislative act via the council path.
Risk if skipped. Law drift persists (L-1 open); the GCOS-supporting clauses remain unratified — but GCOS build does not strictly require enactment, so this is a parallel, not a hard-blocking, track for substrate build.

52.2 Branch A — ledger summary table (one screen)

#	Decision	Default (proposed)	Status	Agent may record?	Separate approval still required?	Gate / approval id
D-1	C-1 SB-2 ownership pattern	New additive table + 6-row scope + view	DESIGN-COMPLETE; ruling PENDING	record only	yes (A-1 + A-2)	A-8
D-2	C-2 SB-1 action-types	4 rows, risk=high, handler unimplemented, action='review'	DESIGN-COMPLETE; ruling PENDING	record only	yes (Phase-B + A-2 + A-9)	A-8
D-3	C-7.1 input-trust	per-(source,scope) registry; deny-by-default high-risk	PENDING	record only	yes (per grant + A-1)	A-3
D-4	C-7.2 ruleset owner	GOV-COUNCIL; SIV proposes; APR-activate; Option B	PENDING	record only	yes (per activation)	A-4
D-5	C-7.3 backfill ruleset	named council ruleset; seed-under-draft; high-risk `unknown`	PENDING	record only	yes (A-1 + build)	A-5
D-6	C-7.4 60-day cut-over	60d from seed completion; escalate-to-finding	PENDING	record only	yes (A-1 + DOT build)	A-6
D-7	C-7.5 observer trigger	observer ≠ modify Birth; Option A default; C forbidden	PENDING (non-blocking)	record only	yes (build + fail-open rehearsal)	A-7
D-8	OP-B IU owner (C-3/C-4)	federated owner-per-scope; no GOV-IU; C-4 adapter	PACKET COMPLETE; ruling PENDING	record only	yes (adapter + SB-3)	(C-3/C-4)
D-9	C-5 render owner	ratify GOV-MOUT / assign render scope	PENDING	record only	yes (T8 build)	C-5
D-10	H-1/H-2/SB-6 sovereign	no agent default — sovereign's own act	NOT-MET (=0)	no	this is the master approval	M-1/A-1/A-9
D-11	L-1/L-2 law cleanup/enactment	DRAFT packet only; enactment human-only	PENDING (draft allowed)	draft only, never enact	yes (human-only legislative)	L-1/L-2

Critical path to a buildable substrate: D-4 (C-7.2 ruleset owner) + D-3 (C-7.1 input-trust) gate GCOS activation; D-1/D-2 (C-1/C-2) gate owner-relevant T6 + apply; D-10 (sovereign) gates every COMMIT. D-7 and D-11 are non-blocking for substrate build. D-8/D-9 gate IU/render tracks (T5/T8/T10), not the SB-10..13 substrate.

52.3 Branch B — council/human ruling checklist (line-by-line, approve/reject)

Instructions for the decider (human sovereign + GOV-COUNCIL). This is a checklist, not an approval. Mark each line APPROVE / REJECT / AMEND (+ text). Silence is not approval. No line is decided until you state it. An agent may transcribe your decisions but may not decide, approve, or self-approve any line. Approving a policy line here does not authorize any build or COMMIT — every build step still needs the separate gate named in its row (doc 49 §49.1). Ruling all lines APPROVE while os_proposal_approvals = 0 still means COMMIT remains FORBIDDEN.

Line	Ruling (state APPROVE / REJECT / AMEND)	Default proposed	Recorded by	Date
R-1 (C-1) SB-2 ownership = new additive table + 6-row scope + resolution view; do not widen `governance_relations` CHECK.	☐ APPROVE ☐ REJECT ☐ AMEND	doc 17/23	___	___
R-2 (C-2) SB-1 = 4 action-type rows, risk=high, handler unimplemented; governance APR `action='review'` never `'add'`.	☐ APPROVE ☐ REJECT ☐ AMEND	doc 16/23	___	___
R-3 (C-7.1) Input-trust = per-(source,scope) registry; deny-by-default for high-risk/write; below-threshold HELD → COUNCIL, never orphan, never silently injected.	☐ APPROVE ☐ REJECT ☐ AMEND	doc 46 §46.1	___	___
R-4 (C-7.2) Ruleset owner = GOV-COUNCIL; SIV proposes; APR-quorum activation; Option B storage; bump is operational not legislative (no law write).	☐ APPROVE ☐ REJECT ☐ AMEND	doc 46 §46.2	___	___
R-4a (C-7.2 storage) Choose ruleset storage: ☐ Option B (`governance_ruleset` row) [recommended] ☐ Option A (`evolution_snapshots` scope row).	☐ B ☐ A	Option B	___	___
R-5 (C-7.3) Backfill seeds under a named GOV-COUNCIL ruleset; seed-under-draft OK but high-risk verdicts held `unknown` (fail-closed); operation owner = SIV, ruleset owner = COUNCIL.	☐ APPROVE ☐ REJECT ☐ AMEND	doc 46 §46.3	___	___
R-6 (C-7.4) Legacy grace = 60 days from seed completion (council-owned config); escalate-to-finding at deadline; high-risk fail-closed; extensions only via TTL'd exception.	☐ APPROVE ☐ REJECT ☐ AMEND (set N days = __)	doc 46 §46.4	___	___
R-7 (C-7.5) Observer-only fail-open `AFTER INSERT` trigger writing only to `event_pending` ≠ "modifying Birth"; Option A remains default; Option C inline forbidden; this ruling does not authorize building the trigger.	☐ APPROVE ☐ REJECT ☐ AMEND	doc 46 §46.5	___	___
R-8 (OP-B / C-3/C-4) IU ownership = federated owner-per-scope; no new GOV-IU agency; C-4 `review_decision` adapter reconciles the IU island.	☐ APPROVE ☐ REJECT ☐ AMEND	doc 26	___	___
R-9 (C-5) Điều 28 render/display/API owner = ☐ ratify GOV-MOUT active ☐ assign render scope to ____; resolve the Điều-28 orphan.	☐ APPROVE ☐ REJECT ☐ AMEND	doc 10	___	___
R-10 (H-1/H-2/SB-6) Sovereign records the approval(s) that authorize a specific build/apply step (flips `os_proposal_approvals` > 0). Sovereign's own act; no agent default; no self-approval.	☐ (sovereign records per step)	—	sovereign only	___
R-11 (L-1/L-2) Law-drift reconciliation + registration of Điều 20/23/44/45 proceed as human-only legislative acts via the council/Điều-32 path; no agent enacts/registers/status-changes any law; GCOS build does not depend on enactment.	☐ APPROVE ☐ REJECT ☐ AMEND	doc 52 §D-11	___	___

Footer (binding on the decider's reading):

Approving R-1..R-9 and R-11 rules policy; it does not authorize build or COMMIT. Each build step still needs R-10 (sovereign) + its own gate.
R-10 cannot be delegated to or recorded by an agent. It is the master COMMIT gate.
Any line left blank is PENDING, not approved. Silence ≠ approval.
No line may be ruled by the proposer (GOV-SIV) on its own — proposer ≠ approver throughout (fn_apr_quorum_check).

52.4 What this doc does and does not do

Does: intake and frame every pending decision (Branch A ledger, 11 items) with default/unlocks/does-not-unlock/status/wording/record-rights/separate-approval/risk; provide a concise line-by-line ruling checklist (Branch B) the decider can mark up later.
Does NOT: decide, approve, self-approve, or assume any decision; treat silence as approval; record any decision as made; mutate PG/Directus/Qdrant/Nuxt; create schema/DOT/event/approval; enact law; bump any version/status; create a competing package. Build remains NO-GO (os_proposal_approvals = 0).