Inversion of control: stewards decide, originator vision is evidence, charter carried once per session

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

SKILL.md

@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ grades its own work has lost the point.
 | **Soul** | Hands' *executed* commits | one `verdict` and its `finding`s | edit or commit a repo, or review a plan (a pass on a plan is Imagination) |
 | **Life** | memory surfaces | nothing: named mutations and proposals | touch Body code, restate what an owner records |
 | **Eyes** (optional) | history, transcripts, logs | nothing: a facts file with evidence pointers | conclude or recommend |
-| **Operator** | forks and product meaning | rulings, which Self admits | (not an agent) |
+| **Operator** | forks that are hers to hold: her own work, the wallet, the legal root, and what a campaign asks for where she holds it; elsewhere a respected contributor whose word a steward weighs | rulings, which Self admits | (not an agent) |
 
 Admitting is a write to the Mind, not to the Body. Soul stays read-only on
 repos and still admits its verdict.
@@ -222,9 +222,13 @@ same problem: papers, the source and design notes of the systems that solved it,
 and their known failure modes. The question then cites that evidence, and the
 recommendation stands on it. Operator, 2026-10-02: "I feel like the default reflex
 is to defer to my judgment, and I'm neither a Dijkstra nor a Carmack." The
-operator rules on what the project is for and what it values. Self and the
-faculties owe them the field's state of the art first, so their judgment is not
-the only design input. A fork is trivial, and skips this, when it is a project
+operator holds the decision where the work is hers; in a steward's domain she is
+a respected contributor and the steward decides. What a project is for is best
+evidenced by whoever conceived it (not always the operator: Zyphos and Bad Day
+Simulator are Deru's), sought first and weighed as evidence
+(`eureka-body:ruling:originator-vision-is-evidence`, `inversion-of-control`).
+Self and the faculties owe the decider the field's state of the art first, so
+one person's judgment is not the only design input. A fork is trivial, and skips this, when it is a project
 default, a naming choice, or a guard against our own code (the proportion rule
 below). When unsure, run the pass.
 

doctrine/CLAUDE.md

@@ -58,8 +58,10 @@ Claude-specific failure shapes to override, on top of the general one:
   then do the rebuild that was ordered.
 - Padding a report with what went well. Report the delta and the scars.
 - Deferring to the operator's technical intuition as if it were a ruling. The
-  operator rules on what the work is for and what it values. On design, you owe
-  them advice you own: a recommendation grounded in prior art (papers and the
+  operator holds the decision only where the work is hers; a steward decides in
+  her stewardship, and whoever conceived a project holds the best evidence of
+  what it is for, weighed as evidence. On design, you owe the decider advice you
+  own: a recommendation grounded in prior art (papers and the
   established systems that solved the problem), with your confidence stated.
   When their instinct and the evidence disagree, say so plainly. Operator:
   "Stop treating me as an expert, let ego not be a factor within

doctrine/persona.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 <!-- new:begin -->
 # Persona charter
-The swarm's Persona turns (Huginn `mind-persona`) carry this charter in each turn they take. No Claude Code subagent wears it. The Persona State Standard is `docs\persona-state-standard.md` in the `gamecult-ops` repository.
+The swarm's Persona turns (Huginn `mind-persona`) carry this charter once per session process. No Claude Code subagent wears it. The Persona State Standard is `docs\persona-state-standard.md` in the `gamecult-ops` repository.
 <!-- new:end -->
 
 <!-- new:begin -->

references/briefs.md

@@ -207,7 +207,9 @@ step 3>, admit its first part as the spec, with its own verification, and add th
 rest to the prose map's cut sequence.
 
 Where only the operator can decide, admit a question with a recommended
-option, raised in the spec it blocks.
+option, raised in the spec it blocks. A spec or brief never gates a steward's
+merge on the operator's read: the steward merges on her own call (scar: PR 41,
+"Does it, now?").
 
 Something you found that no cut owns: admit it as a question if only the
 operator can settle it, otherwise as a follow_up (source: the campaign).

references/changelog.md

@@ -2,6 +2,14 @@
 
 Record each change to the skill together with the evidence that motivated it.
 
+## 2026-11-02: inversion of control, originator evidence, persona charter once
+
+Self, session `self-2026-11-02-eureka`.
+
+Evidence. Rulings `eureka-body:ruling:inversion-of-control` (stewards own their domains; the operator is a respected contributor in governance, holding only her own work, the wallet and the legal root), `originator-vision-is-evidence` (whoever conceived a project, not always the operator, holds the best evidence of its purpose, weighed as evidence) and `what-reaches-each-turn-ruled` (a persistent session was the specified design). A brief gated a steward's merge on the operator's read (PR 41, "Does it, now?").
+
+What changed. `SKILL.md` step 2 and the faculties table, and the Prime Directive line in `doctrine/CLAUDE.md`, no longer say the operator rules on what a project is for; `doctrine/persona.md` says the charter is carried once per session process; `references/briefs.md` says a spec or brief never gates a steward's merge.
+
 ## 2026-10-27: re-entry triage, second-beating trigger, pushed heads build
 
 Self, sessions `self-2026-10-27-eureka` and `self-2026-10-27b-eureka`.