# R4 disposition: accepted with limits; small documentation/test addendum before release

Both complete actual final responses were read. Claude and Grok independently returned ACCEPT WITH LIMITS. Both close the reproduced authority bypass and nondeterministic availability selection. They accept scope-isolated pins with disclosed global availability/activity inference, reduced finite capacity and one-run timing evidence. No external toolchain execution or byte hashing is attributed to them. R4 remains frozen unchanged.

Claude N1 is valid: changed source-kind interpretation creates a new immutable scope and yields unmapped, whereas the same-scope catalogue/validity failures yield active-pin-suspended. Correct model-spec.md, its identical spec.model.scope, and SS-F10 evidence text; retain the harmless unreachable source-kind defensive comparison to avoid changing the reviewed executable build. Claude N3 requires explicit host review of all shared pages before attesting completion; an intake contributor can occupy nonterminal slots or close with errors, never establish successful attested completeness alone. Add this adoption duty.

Add three meaningful tests without changing runtime code: a scope-B-only actor encountering scope-A identifiers/reservation and denied retirement; exact terminal retry after coverage grant revocation; shared nonterminal page displacement and errored incomplete close. Regenerate the source-test/native reports. Do not rerun the capacity benchmark because its exact runtime/schema/fixtures/worker/benchmark bytes remain unchanged. Submit the exact changed documentation/test addendum to both actual providers before release.

Other suggested tests remain disclosed coverage limits: nonempty interrupted SQLite bootstrap/hot-journal recovery, more-than-two-writer contention, intermediate-depth recursive validation, and cross-purpose round predecessor references. Partial/corrupt nonempty stores may raise raw SQLite host errors; no automatic repair or resume is promised. Trusted clock validation precedes ordinary authorization. Busy handling, shared-page review, current-store trust, runtime packaging, IAM and evidence custody remain host duties. Neither provider acceptance grants publication authority or establishes production-scale readiness.