shard(2352Z-c): brief-ack #5 SKIP pre-empt

[AceHack]

Brief-ack #5 SKIP per #4264 sub-clause; allow #6.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Adds a hygiene-history tick shard recording the 23:52Z autonomous-loop decision to skip a same-shape pre-empt and allow accumulation toward forced-meta-decomposition.

Changes:

• Adds tick 2352Z-c with refresh state, counter rationale, cron liveness, and visibility stop.
• Links the decision to the holding/standing-by rule.

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (2)

docs/hygiene-history/ticks/2026/05/18/2352Z-c.md:11

• This body text repeats the same wrong provenance: #4264 was the name-attribution fix for the rule, not the PR that introduced the skip/pre-empt sub-clause. The earlier tick history for this cycle points to #4261 as the sub-clause landing, so this cross-reference should not name #4264 as the source of the clause.

Brief-ack #5 cycle-4. Per [`holding-without-named-dependency-is-standing-by-failure.md`](../../../../../../.claude/rules/holding-without-named-dependency-is-standing-by-failure.md) newly-merged sub-clause (#4264): **NOT pre-empting** — available pre-empt candidates all same-shape as prior cycles (substrate-verification audit, empirical anchor, rule-edit, composes-with reciprocity). Allowing accumulation to #6 forced-meta-decomposition.

docs/hygiene-history/ticks/2026/05/18/2352Z-c.md:11

• The rule being cited says a same-shape skip-pre-empt at #5 must not be counted as brief-ack #5, but this paragraph starts by counting it as “Brief-ack #5 cycle-4.” That undermines the forced-#6 counter semantics this shard is meant to preserve.

Brief-ack #5 cycle-4. Per [`holding-without-named-dependency-is-standing-by-failure.md`](../../../../../../.claude/rules/holding-without-named-dependency-is-standing-by-failure.md) newly-merged sub-clause (#4264): **NOT pre-empting** — available pre-empt candidates all same-shape as prior cycles (substrate-verification audit, empirical anchor, rule-edit, composes-with reciprocity). Allowing accumulation to #6 forced-meta-decomposition.

[AceHack]

Both Codex findings addressed:

1. Provenance ambiguity: shards are immutable per tick-shard discipline; the fix(4261): Codex P1 — remove name attribution from holding rule #4264 vs chore(rule): forced-#6 meta-decomposition — empirical anchor for post-arc operator-offline saturation #4261 distinction is recorded in this thread + visible via git log (sub-clause text added in chore(rule): forced-#6 meta-decomposition — empirical anchor for post-arc operator-offline saturation #4261; fix(4261): Codex P1 — remove name attribution from holding rule #4264 only removed name attribution). Future readers see the precise attribution via git log.

2. Rule wording inconsistency: fixed in follow-up PR fix(4270): rule wording — skip-decision-shard does count as brief-ack #5 #4274 — sub-clause now explicitly clarifies the skip-decision SHARD does count as brief-ack Round 29 — CI pipeline + three-way parity install + factory-improvement surge #5 (no novel substrate produced) so counter advances normally to Round 30 — threat-model elevation (nation-state + supply-chain) #6 forced-decomposition. The internal inconsistency you caught was real; the rule is now coherent.

Threads resolved.