Make Q17 carry its own conditions

The operator questioned the model behind keeping withdrawn resolutions.
The answer is that the ruling matches the campaign's standing rule of
never overwriting, and that the record only earns its keep if Cut 9 shows
a subject's history and Cut 11 indexes withdrawals with their reasons.
Both are now requirements on those cuts.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>

notes/eureka-pipeline-state-cut.md

@@ -3203,6 +3203,22 @@ operator may simply want recorded.
   stay as records under their subject, and the in-force resolution is the
   latest not withdrawn. Self's default was withdrawn from the Cut 8 fix
   batch before it landed. The key change is a leaf cut, mapped with Q18's.
+
+  The operator then checked the model behind the ruling: a subject is like
+  a GitHub issue or a Stack Overflow question, one canonical resolution
+  with an affordance to withdraw it, so discarding the withdrawn record
+  would waste context, "but that's making an assumption that this context
+  is even made available to the agents to begin with, and that it is
+  important." Self's answer, recorded as two obligations the ruling
+  carries: the ruling stands on the campaign's own principle, nothing is
+  overwritten and in-force is derived, which Self's default had violated
+  for this one kind; and the context reaches agents only if **Cut 9
+  exposes a subject's resolution history, not only its in-force state**
+  (ruling 2: rehydration and precedent before browsing) and **Cut 11
+  indexes withdrawn resolutions with their reasons**. Both are now
+  requirements on those cuts. The evidence that reversals matter is this
+  map: Q5 ruled A then C, the pause ruled then unruled, a byte-identical
+  claim withdrawn.
 - **Q18. Can a stewardship be regained after a hand-off?** Depends on: Cut
   12. The derived stewardship keys `<instance>:stewardship:<repo>`, so a
   repo handed away and handed back collides with the withdrawn record.