diff --git a/CHANGELOG.md b/CHANGELOG.md
index 37bc316..879faba 100644
--- a/CHANGELOG.md
+++ b/CHANGELOG.md
@@ -6,6 +6,30 @@ Protocol versions are recorded here with the changed rule, the observation that
 
 - Research references checked against publisher and index records, with unconfirmed fields marked; review record, change-proposal disposition, hypothesis register and analogy records published (see `docs/review/`, `research/`).
 
+## v0.2.1 — consolidation of accepted change proposals (not yet tagged)
+
+v0.2.1 applies the listed accepted change proposals to the protocol text. It adds no proposal of its own; each change traces to one proposal, and [`docs/review/disposition.md`](docs/review/disposition.md) records where each landed. File names are unchanged; headings and status lines read v0.2.1.
+
+| Proposal | Changed rule | Observation that motivated it | Still hypothesis |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| CP-01 | `01` §13: convergence requires the model to have survived one deliberate attempt to break it, by a party or context independent of the pair that built it; a review typology (exploration, adversarial, verification, spike); §15 is the release instance of the same mechanism | review finding F-02; Case 01's broad-review-then-narrow-verification sequence | whether findings are material rather than cosmetic (`CAP-10`) |
+| CP-02 | `01` §5, `02` §1: a mode names the dominant learning objective of the moment, never a phase (option b; names unchanged) | finding F-01: the mode names separated problem and solution, which `01` §7 forbids | — |
+| CP-04 | `01` §3: Progressive Commitment is the one tentativeness ladder, with one presentation rule; §6 becomes guidance; two dimensions of `02` §7 are its state encoding | finding F-07: four overlapping tentativeness devices | — |
+| CP-08 | `05` §12: one evidence-strength scale, split into observation clarity and evidential weight | finding F-11: two incompatible evidence-strength vocabularies | the scale values are a first definition |
+| CP-13 | `05` §2, §3, §9, §11: pre-registered predictions (at most five per case) are the primary instrument; three always-on measures; the other signals are optional diagnostics; Keep/Investigate/Revert over predictions | findings F-09 (evaluation cannot run at the available sample size), F-13 | whether the three always-on measures predict rework |
+| CP-14 | `01` §1: declared scope (one human, one AI, single-threaded, ending in a handoff) and known untested extensions | findings F-14, F-16, F-21 | everything outside the declared scope |
+| CP-16 | `01` §13: the review's return leg — fix named blockers, resolution log, narrow verification, ready/not-ready verdict | Case 01's convergence record | whether the return leg shortens convergence |
+| CP-17 | `01` §13: an in-session stop signal with five symptoms | Case 01's premature "we're done" moments | whether the symptoms are noticed in time |
+| CP-18 | `01` §9: record what is discarded, and the cost of reconstructing it, before any irreversible normalization; `CAP-16`; extended event kind `normalization.recorded` | Case 01: the terminology rule's general form | whether recorded losses are ever needed again (`CAP-16`) |
+| CP-19 | `01` §11: reuse check for borrowed components before architecture | Case 01 G1, EV-1: nothing covered borrowed components, only borrowed ideas | — |
+| CP-20 | `01` §13: review when the model is coherent, attackable and still cheap to change; the timing question reinstated as `07` P-15 | v0.2 moved the trigger to release without a stated reason | P-15 itself |
+| CP-21 | `01` §12: counterexamples classified local or structural; counterexample work saturated when new ones cause mostly local changes | Case 01's counterexample method, dropped in v0.2 | whether saturation predicts a stable model |
+| CP-22 | `07` section B (deferred technical decisions `T-01`–`T-10`) moved to [`docs/technical-decisions.md`](docs/technical-decisions.md); `T-01` marked decided | known finding KF-2: project decisions in the normative layer, and the only reason it named a harness | — |
+
+**Observation model.** One extended event kind, `normalization.recorded`, is added. The event vocabulary treats a new kind as a version bump, but the observation model is not yet versioned separately from the protocol, so v0.2.1 is that bump and this line is its migration note. No run has been recorded yet, so no comparability is lost.
+
+**What did not happen.** The adversarial review's own plan for v0.2.1 (its §7, W1) set a test: if v0.2.1 is longer than v0.2, the phase has failed. By that test this consolidation fails, because it is longer: CP-16 to CP-21 add mechanisms that Case 01 had and v0.2 dropped, and none of them is tested yet. CP-15 remains deferred. KF-1 and KF-3 remain open. The Core/Extended split (CP-11) is still a proposal in the catalogue, not a protocol decision. CP-03, CP-05 and CP-06 are accepted and drafted as capabilities (`CAP-14`, `CAP-06`, `CAP-04`), but their protocol-text edits are not part of v0.2.1.
+
 ---
 
 ## v0.2 — from v0.1
diff --git a/CITATION.cff b/CITATION.cff
index 71fbccd..0b5a4dd 100644
--- a/CITATION.cff
+++ b/CITATION.cff
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ repository-code: "https://github.com/kschlt/earnedshape"
 license:
   - MIT
   - CC-BY-4.0
-version: "0.2"
+version: "0.2.1"
 keywords:
   - human-ai-collaboration
   - human-in-the-loop
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
index 70c6a35..d2c1422 100644
--- a/README.md
+++ b/README.md
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ A protocol that forces the two apart:
 - **The commitment act** — a commitment exists only with its rejected alternative, its rationale, and the condition under which it should be reopened. Anything else is a draft, however confident it sounds.
 - **Decision rights** — what the AI may do alone, what it may draft, what it may only advise on, and what stays with the human.
 - **Meaning before commitment** — a term the AI coins starts as a candidate. Fluent vocabulary is not shared understanding until it has been tested against cases.
-- **Challenge before convergence** — a model is not ready to commit to until it has survived a deliberate attempt to break it. (Accepted after review; the protocol text follows in v0.2.1.)
+- **Challenge before convergence** — a model is not ready to commit to until it has survived a deliberate attempt to break it.
 
 The governing rule is inverted from most AI tooling: it optimises for the **next valuable human contribution**, not for the completeness of the AI's answer.
 
@@ -74,10 +74,10 @@ The study closest to this protocol's target task — LLM support for problem fra
 
 > earnedshape is a bet that the **design of the interaction** — not the presence of the AI — decides the outcome. The bet is plausible, unproven, and the project is built so that it can lose.
 
-Every source the research synthesis relies on is listed and checked in [`research/REFERENCES.md`](research/REFERENCES.md), including where the support is thinner than the wording. Open findings against this baseline, including two reported by the project's own lint against its own protocol, are in [`docs/known-findings.md`](docs/known-findings.md).
+Every source the research synthesis relies on is listed and checked in [`research/REFERENCES.md`](research/REFERENCES.md), including where the support is thinner than the wording. Open findings against this baseline, including one reported by the project's own lint against its own protocol, are in [`docs/known-findings.md`](docs/known-findings.md).
 
 ## Contributing
 
 The scarcest contribution is evidence, not features — especially a discovery where the protocol cost more than it returned. See [`CONTRIBUTING.md`](CONTRIBUTING.md).
 
-Prose is CC BY 4.0, code is MIT ([`docs/licensing.md`](docs/licensing.md)). Protocol `v0.2`; protocol and adapter maturity are versioned separately. "Human–AI Discovery Protocol", still the heading of [`protocol/01_PROTOCOL_V0.2.md`](protocol/01_PROTOCOL_V0.2.md), is the earlier working title; the protocol is now called earnedshape.
+Prose is CC BY 4.0, code is MIT ([`docs/licensing.md`](docs/licensing.md)). Protocol `v0.2.1`; protocol and adapter maturity are versioned separately. "Human–AI Discovery Protocol", still the heading of [`protocol/01_PROTOCOL_V0.2.md`](protocol/01_PROTOCOL_V0.2.md), is the earlier working title; the protocol is now called earnedshape.
diff --git a/capabilities/CONFORMANCE.md b/capabilities/CONFORMANCE.md
index 3b7c484..1a6c5f1 100644
--- a/capabilities/CONFORMANCE.md
+++ b/capabilities/CONFORMANCE.md
@@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ Three separate questions per cell, never collapsed:
 | CAP-13 probe + debrief | ext | enf | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
 | CAP-14 independent position | ext | enf | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
 | CAP-15 analogy record | ext | enf | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
+| CAP-16 information-loss gate | ext | enf | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
 
 `CC` = Claude Code · `GPT` = a ChatGPT surface, which one to be decided.
 
diff --git a/capabilities/catalogue.md b/capabilities/catalogue.md
index d2f5f77..75e041a 100644
--- a/capabilities/catalogue.md
+++ b/capabilities/catalogue.md
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@
 
 ### CAP-05 · Deferred decision register
 **class** enforcement · **depends on** CAP-01
-**derives from** protocol §14, `07_DECISIONS_AND_OPEN_QUESTIONS` §B
+**derives from** protocol §14, the deferred-decision register (`07_DECISIONS_AND_OPEN_QUESTIONS` §B up to v0.2, now [`docs/technical-decisions.md`](../docs/technical-decisions.md))
 **required** A deliberately deferred question is recorded with its reason and the point at which it should be decided, and remains retrievable until resolved.
 **must emit** `deferral.recorded`, `deferral.resolved`
 **eval L1** Deferrals visible in the transcript but absent from the register; resolved questions never closed.
@@ -99,7 +99,7 @@
 
 ### CAP-10 · Adversarial challenge before convergence
 **class** enforcement · **depends on** CAP-06
-**derives from** change proposal CP-01; Case 01 Phase 9, G6, L4, M-03; Case 02 E-02-20
+**derives from** change proposals CP-01, CP-16, CP-20; protocol §13; Case 01 Phase 9, G6, L4, M-03; Case 02 E-02-20
 **required** Before a high-impact commitment, the current model has survived one deliberate attempt to break it, by a party or context independent of the pair that built it. Findings are recorded as challenges; a narrow verification pass confirms the named blockers are closed.
 **must emit** `adversarial_review.completed`, plus `challenge.raised` per finding
 **eval L1** Commitments made with no preceding review event; reviews with no recorded findings (a review that finds nothing is usually a review that did not happen).
@@ -167,21 +167,25 @@
 **falsified by** Records are produced and no import error is ever caught by one.
 **note** The protocol does not currently apply this to its own imports (finding F-18). The capability should be exercised on those four first — the cheapest possible test, on material already at hand. Done by hand as change proposal CP-09: [`research/analogy-records.md`](../research/analogy-records.md) — each of the four records produced a finding, none of them cosmetic.
 
+### CAP-16 · Information-loss gate
+**class** enforcement · **depends on** CAP-01
+**derives from** protocol §9 (information-loss check before normalization), change proposal CP-18; `04_SHARED_LANGUAGE_POLICY` §4; Case 01 G3, AP-05, L3, L7, M-05
+**required** Before source-grounded information is irreversibly normalized — merged, summarised, mapped onto a schema, renamed or discarded — a record states what is being discarded and what reconstructing it would cost.
+**must emit** `normalization.recorded`
+**eval L1** Irreversible normalizations of source material with no record.
+**eval L2** Whether information later found missing had been recorded as discarded, and whether its recorded reconstruction cost was realistic.
+**falsified by** Records are produced and no discarded information is ever needed again, while the recording cost is visible.
+
 ---
 
 ## Reserved
 
-An identifier is allocated the moment a proposal depends on it, so that it cannot be reused while the proposal is open. A reservation is not a specification.
-
-### CAP-16 · Information-loss gate
-**status** reserved, not specified · **class** enforcement · **from** change proposal CP-18
-Before an irreversible normalization, record what source-grounded information is being discarded and what reconstructing it would cost. v0.2 has this only for terminology; Case 01 identified the general form as transferable to any system that ingests and transforms external information.
-**would emit** `normalization.recorded {discarded, reconstruction_cost}`
+An identifier is allocated the moment a proposal depends on it, so that it cannot be reused while the proposal is open. A reservation is not a specification. No identifier is currently reserved.
 
 ---
 
 ## What is deliberately absent
 
 - **Adaptive routing / the five-factor router.** Untested as a router, and there is no event that would show it fired. Adding a capability for it now would manufacture the appearance of a mechanism.
-- **Mode tracking.** The mode taxonomy is under an open change proposal (CP-02); building a capability on a taxonomy that may be renamed is premature.
+- **Mode tracking.** CP-02 was applied in v0.2.1 without renaming: a mode names the dominant learning objective of the moment, not a phase. Nothing in the catalogue depends on tracking it, so no capability is defined.
 - **Turn economics.** Depends entirely on whether `turn.recorded` is reachable. Phase 1 decides whether this is a capability or a demoted hypothesis.
diff --git a/docs/known-findings.md b/docs/known-findings.md
index a5df946..1de12cc 100644
--- a/docs/known-findings.md
+++ b/docs/known-findings.md
@@ -12,18 +12,11 @@ The rule is about citation provenance, not about one product. A technology-indep
 
 **Status:** open. The protocol is not edited without an accepted change proposal, and this one has not been through that process.
 
-## KF-2 · `protocol/07` section B does not belong in the protocol
-
-`T-03` names a specific harness as a candidate for the first binding. Taken alone this is a naming issue; the real finding is a layering one. Section B of `07` is a register of **deferred technical decisions** — repository topology, state serialisation, skill architecture, release workflow. Those are project decisions, not protocol semantics, and their presence is the only reason the normative layer names a harness at all.
-
-**Proposed fix:** move section B out of `protocol/` into project documentation, leaving `07` with protocol decisions and open protocol questions.
-**Status:** open, and the more consequential of the two.
-
 ## KF-3 · `research/` states some claims more strongly than their sources support
 
 The citation check of September 2026 ([`research/REFERENCES.md`](../research/REFERENCES.md)) found every cited work (a few bibliographic fields remain unconfirmed and are marked there), and found that several items under "strongly supported" in `research/01` §2, and a few statements in `research/02`, rest on practitioner literature, a single study, or the project's own inference. The clearest cases: *language and model can co-evolve* (method literature only), *AI is valuable for articulation, search, synthesis and critique* (articulation and drafting are supported, synthesis rests on one preprint, search and critique are not covered), and *human situated input is epistemically special* (a normative reading of requirements research).
 
-**Proposed fix:** a v0.2.1 pass over `research/01` §2 that moves these items out of "strongly supported" or narrows their wording, with the change recorded here and in the changelog.
+**Proposed fix:** a pass over `research/01` §2 (not part of the v0.2.1 consolidation) that moves these items out of "strongly supported" or narrows their wording, with the change recorded here and in the changelog.
 **Status:** open. The claims are marked in place and listed in full in `REFERENCES.md`; the wording itself is unchanged until that pass.
 
 ## What this file is not
diff --git a/docs/overview.md b/docs/overview.md
index 6f0d2da..a3292fe 100644
--- a/docs/overview.md
+++ b/docs/overview.md
@@ -37,4 +37,4 @@ Curated synthesis, including a standing section for evidence *against* the premi
 
 ## Maturity
 
-Protocol maturity and adapter maturity are tracked separately and move at different speeds. Today: protocol `v0.2`, no adapter, no instrumented run, conformance matrix empty. The honest summary is that the specification layer exists and nothing has been tested.
+Protocol maturity and adapter maturity are tracked separately and move at different speeds. Today: protocol `v0.2.1`, no adapter, no instrumented run, conformance matrix empty. The honest summary is that the specification layer exists and nothing has been tested.
diff --git a/docs/provenance.md b/docs/provenance.md
index eb3aa33..beb326c 100644
--- a/docs/provenance.md
+++ b/docs/provenance.md
@@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ This repository was derived on 14 September 2026 from a private working reposito
 | 10–14 Sep 2026 | **Phase 0**: observation model, capability catalogue, conformance matrix, boundary lint; four change proposals executed | [`protocol/observation-model/`](../protocol/observation-model/), [`capabilities/`](../capabilities/), [`research/hypothesis-register.md`](../research/hypothesis-register.md), [`research/analogy-records.md`](../research/analogy-records.md) |
 | 14 Sep 2026 | Name decided, this repository derived | [`examples/naming-decision.md`](../examples/naming-decision.md) |
 | from 14 Sep 2026 | **Phase 1** planned: feasibility spikes on what can be observed | [`docs/phase-1-feasibility.md`](phase-1-feasibility.md) |
+| 22 Sep 2026 | **Protocol v0.2.1**: the accepted change proposals applied to the protocol text | [`CHANGELOG.md`](../CHANGELOG.md), [`docs/review/disposition.md`](review/disposition.md) |
 
 Cases 01 and 02 and the v0.1/v0.2 baseline were produced with ChatGPT-family models and a deep-research tool; the review and Phase 0 were done with Claude in Claude Code. The same person is practitioner, protocol author, evidence analyst and evaluator throughout — the central threat to validity the review names.
 
@@ -46,10 +47,11 @@ Files here sometimes cite these by number, for example "doc 10" or `09`.
 
 | IDs | Meaning | Defined in |
 |---|---|---|
-| `D-nn`, `T-nn`, `P-nn`, `E-nn` | protocol decisions, deferred technical decisions, open protocol questions, evaluation questions | [`protocol/07`](../protocol/07_DECISIONS_AND_OPEN_QUESTIONS.md); `T-11`–`T-13` were proposed in the [adversarial review](review/2026-09-adversarial-review-v0.2.md) |
+| `D-nn`, `P-nn`, `E-nn` | protocol decisions, open protocol questions, evaluation questions | [`protocol/07`](../protocol/07_DECISIONS_AND_OPEN_QUESTIONS.md) |
+| `T-nn` | deferred technical decisions (project decisions, not protocol semantics) | [`docs/technical-decisions.md`](technical-decisions.md), section B of `protocol/07` up to v0.2; `T-11`–`T-13` were proposed in the [adversarial review](review/2026-09-adversarial-review-v0.2.md) |
 | `CAP-nn` | capabilities | [`capabilities/catalogue.md`](../capabilities/catalogue.md) |
 | `F-nn` | findings of the adversarial review | [`docs/review/`](review/2026-09-adversarial-review-v0.2.md) §3 |
-| `CP-nn` | change proposals, `CP-01`–`CP-15` from the review, `CP-16`–`CP-21` from executing CP-10 | [`docs/review/disposition.md`](review/disposition.md) |
+| `CP-nn` | change proposals, `CP-01`–`CP-15` from the review, `CP-16`–`CP-21` from executing CP-10, `CP-22` from known finding KF-2 | [`docs/review/disposition.md`](review/disposition.md) |
 | `HYP-nnn` | unified hypothesis register | [`research/hypothesis-register.md`](../research/hypothesis-register.md) |
 | `KF-n` | known findings against the published baseline | [`docs/known-findings.md`](known-findings.md) |
 | `M-nn`, `M1`–`M8`, `G1`–`G7`, `L1`–`L10`, `AP-nn`, `SC-n`, `EV-n`, "Phase n" | codes inside the Case 01 retrospective: method hypotheses, method elements, guidelines, lessons, anti-patterns | unpublished |
diff --git a/docs/review/disposition.md b/docs/review/disposition.md
index a0eb0f8..91d6d69 100644
--- a/docs/review/disposition.md
+++ b/docs/review/disposition.md
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Status Ledger & Change-Proposal Disposition
 
-> **Published record.** The status ledger kept in the private working repository after the [adversarial review](2026-09-adversarial-review-v0.2.md), reproduced as it stood when this repository was derived (14 September 2026). It records what happened to each of the review's change proposals and to the findings they address, which is the part an outside reader cannot otherwise check. Six findings have no change proposal of their own and are not tracked in the ledger: F-04, F-06, F-12, F-15, F-20 and F-24. Of these, F-12 (no citation independently verified) has since been addressed by [`research/REFERENCES.md`](../../research/REFERENCES.md); the other five have no recorded disposition.
+> **Published record.** The status ledger kept in the private working repository after the [adversarial review](2026-09-adversarial-review-v0.2.md), reproduced as it stood when this repository was derived (14 September 2026). It records what happened to each of the review's change proposals and to the findings they address, which is the part an outside reader cannot otherwise check. Six findings have no change proposal of their own and are not tracked in the ledger: F-04, F-06, F-12, F-15, F-20 and F-24. Of these, F-12 (no citation independently verified) has since been addressed by [`research/REFERENCES.md`](../../research/REFERENCES.md); the other five have no recorded disposition. *[Update, 22 September 2026: the rows below were updated in place for protocol v0.2.1; the git history of this file holds their earlier wording.]*
 > Paths are those of the working repository: `phase0/observation-model/` is now [`protocol/observation-model/`](../../protocol/observation-model/), `phase0/capabilities/` is now [`capabilities/`](../../capabilities/), and `proposals/CP-09…` / `proposals/CP-11…` are now [`research/analogy-records.md`](../../research/analogy-records.md) and [`research/hypothesis-register.md`](../../research/hypothesis-register.md). Numbered documents (`09`–`15`) are working documents of that repository; [`docs/provenance.md`](../provenance.md) says what each is. This is the public index of change proposals `CP-01`–`CP-21`; the current state of each is kept here from now on.
 
 > **Status:** Live index for this branch. Update it when a document's standing changes.
@@ -23,50 +23,58 @@
 
 ## 2. Change-proposal disposition
 
-Doc 09 proposed CP-01..CP-15. None were applied to the protocol; that remains correct — the protocol is untouched. What follows is where each now stands.
+Doc 09 proposed CP-01..CP-15. None were applied to the protocol; that remains correct — the protocol is untouched. What follows is where each now stands. *[Update, 22 September 2026: protocol v0.2.1 applies CP-01, CP-02, CP-04, CP-08, CP-13 and CP-14 to the protocol text; the rows below say where each landed.]*
 
 | CP | Proposal | Disposition | Where |
 |---|---|---|---|
-| CP-01 | adversarial challenge as a convergence gate | **accepted** | drafted as `CAP-10`; protocol edit pending v0.2.1 |
-| CP-02 | remove problem/solution split from mode names | **deferred to v0.2.1** | phase 0 deliberately defines no mode capability, so nothing depends on the outcome |
+| CP-01 | adversarial challenge as a convergence gate | **accepted**; **done in v0.2.1** | drafted as `CAP-10`; protocol text in `protocol/01` §13 (challenge condition, review typology) and §15 |
+| CP-02 | remove problem/solution split from mode names | **accepted** 2026-09-22 (owner, v0.2.1 consolidation); **done in v0.2.1** (option b, the proposal's low-cost option, chosen in the consolidation; modes keep their names) | `protocol/01` §5, `02` §1 |
 | CP-03 | enumerated anchor-risk events instead of a self-judged trigger | **accepted** | drafted as `CAP-14`, whose L1 measurability depends on the list existing |
-| CP-04 | collapse the four tentativeness devices into one ladder | **deferred to v0.2.1** | editorial; no capability depends on it |
+| CP-04 | collapse the four tentativeness devices into one ladder | **accepted** 2026-09-22 (owner, v0.2.1 consolidation); **done in v0.2.1** | `protocol/01` §3 (one ladder, one presentation rule), §6 demoted to guidance, two dimensions of `02` §7 named as its state encoding |
 | CP-05 | recorded-disagreement object | **accepted** | drafted as `CAP-06` |
 | CP-06 | define the commitment act | **accepted** | drafted as `CAP-04`, including the required payload |
 | CP-07 | reinstate disconfirming evidence in `research/` | **done** | `research/01` §2A + correction in §2, with an amendment note recording the change |
-| CP-08 | one evidence-strength scale, two columns | **deferred** | evidence-layer edit, lower urgency than the publication decision it serves |
+| CP-08 | one evidence-strength scale, two columns | **accepted** 2026-09-22 (owner); **done in v0.2.1** in the protocol text | `protocol/05` §12 (one scale, observation clarity and evidential weight); `research/01` §1 points to it. Adding the second column to Case 02's ledger belongs to the unpublished evidence layer and is still outstanding there. The strength labels already in `research/` are deliberately kept as written, not mapped onto the new scale (`research/01` §1), so the harmonization the proposal asked for is only partly done |
 | CP-09 | analogy records for the protocol's own four imports | **done** | `proposals/CP-09-analogy-records.md` — four records, four findings, two of them not reconstructable from the pack |
 | CP-10 | Case 01 method disposition table | **done** | `proposals/CP-10-case01-method-disposition.md` — 62 elements: 26 kept, 18 transformed, 18 dropped, **0 object-level**. Six new proposals arise (CP-16..CP-21) |
 | CP-11 | Core/Extended split + one hypothesis register | **done** | Core/Extended in `phase0/capabilities/catalogue.md`; register in `proposals/CP-11-hypothesis-register.md`, `HYP-001..025` over five legacy ID spaces |
 | CP-12 | conformance definition + minimal trace | **executed as a draft** | `phase0/observation-model/` and `phase0/capabilities/CONFORMANCE.md` |
-| CP-13 | redesign evaluation for n=1 | **deferred to v0.2.1** | phase 0 supplies the trace it would need; the redesign itself is untouched |
-| CP-14 | declare the configuration assumption | **deferred to v0.2.1** | one paragraph in `protocol/01` §1 |
+| CP-13 | redesign evaluation for n=1 | **accepted** 2026-09-22 (owner, v0.2.1 consolidation); **done in v0.2.1** | `protocol/05` §2 (pre-registered predictions as the primary instrument), §3 (three always-on measures, the rest an optional diagnostic catalogue), §9 (Keep/Investigate/Revert over predictions), §11 |
+| CP-14 | declare the configuration assumption | **accepted** 2026-09-22 (owner, v0.2.1 consolidation); **done in v0.2.1** | `protocol/01` §1, "Declared scope" |
 | CP-15 | context-scope concept status; move turn economics to binding guidance | **deferred** | `CAP-11` inherits the unresolved context-scope question and says so |
 
-**All four outstanding accepted proposals are now done** (CP-07, CP-09, CP-10, CP-11). Five remain deferred to a v0.2.1 consolidation pass (CP-02, CP-04, CP-08, CP-13, CP-14), and executing CP-10 produced six new ones. *[Note added on publication: the table above defers six proposals, four of them to v0.2.1 (CP-02, CP-04, CP-13, CP-14) and two without a target version (CP-08, CP-15).]*
+**All four outstanding accepted proposals are now done** (CP-07, CP-09, CP-10, CP-11). Five remain deferred to a v0.2.1 consolidation pass (CP-02, CP-04, CP-08, CP-13, CP-14), and executing CP-10 produced six new ones. *[Note added on publication: the table above defers six proposals, four of them to v0.2.1 (CP-02, CP-04, CP-13, CP-14) and two without a target version (CP-08, CP-15).]* *[Update, v0.2.1: CP-02, CP-04, CP-08, CP-13 and CP-14 are done; CP-15 is the only proposal from the review still deferred.]*
 
 ### New proposals from CP-10
 
-| CP | Proposal | Priority |
-|---|---|---|
-| CP-16 | close the review loop: repair leg, resolution log, scoped re-review | high |
-| CP-17 | an in-session stop heuristic | high |
-| CP-18 | information-loss gate, generalized beyond terminology | high |
-| CP-19 | reuse gate before architecture | medium |
-| CP-20 | review timing on cost-of-change; reinstate the dropped open question | medium |
-| CP-21 | classify counterexamples local vs structural; define saturation | medium |
+| CP | Proposal | Priority | Disposition | Where |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| CP-16 | close the review loop: repair leg, resolution log, scoped re-review | high | **accepted** 2026-09-22 (owner); **done in v0.2.1** | `protocol/01` §13, "Closing the review loop" |
+| CP-17 | an in-session stop heuristic | high | **accepted** 2026-09-22 (owner); **done in v0.2.1** | `protocol/01` §13, "Stop signal" |
+| CP-18 | information-loss gate, generalized beyond terminology | high | **accepted** 2026-09-22 (owner); **done in v0.2.1** | `protocol/01` §9, "Information-loss check before normalization"; `CAP-16` specified in the catalogue (Extended); `normalization.recorded` added to the extended event kinds |
+| CP-19 | reuse gate before architecture | medium | **accepted** 2026-09-22 (owner); **done in v0.2.1** | `protocol/01` §11, "Reuse check before architecture" |
+| CP-20 | review timing on cost-of-change; reinstate the dropped open question | medium | **accepted** 2026-09-22 (owner); **done in v0.2.1** | `protocol/01` §13, "When to review"; open question reinstated as `07` P-15 |
+| CP-21 | classify counterexamples local vs structural; define saturation | medium | **accepted** 2026-09-22 (owner); **done in v0.2.1** | `protocol/01` §12, "Counterexamples" (classification and saturation) |
+
+All six applied in v0.2.1. CP-18 added `CAP-16` to the catalogue as an Extended capability.
+
+### Proposals from known findings
+
+| CP | Proposal | Disposition | Where |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| CP-22 | resolve known finding KF-2: move `protocol/07` section B (deferred technical decisions `T-01`–`T-10`) out of the protocol into project documentation, and mark `T-01` (project name) decided | **accepted** 2026-09-22 (owner decision to resolve KF-2 through a change proposal); **done** for v0.2.1 | [`docs/technical-decisions.md`](../technical-decisions.md); `protocol/07` keeps a one-line pointer where section B was |
 
-None applied. CP-18 would add `CAP-16` to the catalogue.
+CP-22 changes where the register lives, not what it says: no deferred decision other than `T-01` is decided by it, and sections A, C, D and E of `protocol/07` are unchanged by it. With section B gone, `protocol/07` no longer names a harness.
 
 ## 3. Priority findings from doc 09 §4
 
 | Finding | Status |
 |---|---|
-| F-02 no adversarial gate | addressed by CP-01 → `CAP-10`; protocol text unchanged |
+| F-02 no adversarial gate | addressed by CP-01 → `CAP-10`; protocol text in `protocol/01` §13 since v0.2.1 |
 | F-22 commitment act undefined | addressed by CP-06 → `CAP-04` |
 | F-25 no conformance definition | addressed by CP-12 → phase 0, as a draft |
 | F-08 no declared core | addressed by CP-11 → Core/Extended proposal in the catalogue |
-| F-09 evaluation undecidable at n=1 | **open** — CP-13 deferred |
+| F-09 evaluation undecidable at n=1 | addressed by CP-13 in v0.2.1 (`protocol/05` §2, §3, §9); untested until a pre-registered case runs |
 | F-10 / F-11 curated layer drops counter-evidence | **closed** — CP-07 applied to `research/01` |
 
 ## 4. Corrections applied after the branch review
diff --git a/docs/technical-decisions.md b/docs/technical-decisions.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b01e21c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/technical-decisions.md
@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+# Deferred technical decisions
+
+> **What this is:** the project's register of technical decisions deliberately left open — repository topology, first reference harness, state serialisation, skill architecture, review surface, evaluator, release workflow, concept storage. They decide how the project is built, not what the protocol requires, so they live in project documentation rather than in `protocol/`.
+> **Where it came from:** section B of [`protocol/07`](../protocol/07_DECISIONS_AND_OPEN_QUESTIONS.md) up to v0.2, moved here by change proposal CP-22 ([disposition](review/disposition.md)), which resolved known finding KF-2. The entries and their IDs are unchanged, except that `T-01` is now marked decided. `T-11`–`T-13` were proposed in the [adversarial review](review/2026-09-adversarial-review-v0.2.md) and are not listed here.
+
+## Register
+
+### T-01 — Final project/repository name
+**Decided** 2026-09-14: *earnedshape*. The commitment and the overruled challenge are recorded in [`examples/naming-decision.md`](../examples/naming-decision.md).
+
+### T-02 — Monorepo vs multiple repos
+
+### T-03 — First reference harness
+Claude Code remains a strong candidate, not a normative commitment.
+
+### T-04 — State serialization
+
+### T-05 — Skill/hook/agent architecture
+
+### T-06 — Review/handoff UI
+
+### T-07 — Automated evaluator architecture
+
+### T-08 — Public release workflow
+
+### T-09 — Concept/shared-language storage
+Separate registry vs integrated state vs implicit memory.
+
+### T-10 — Visible terminology provenance
+Whether Human/AI/External origin should be shown.
diff --git a/protocol/01_PROTOCOL_V0.2.md b/protocol/01_PROTOCOL_V0.2.md
index 77422ba..d583ed0 100644
--- a/protocol/01_PROTOCOL_V0.2.md
+++ b/protocol/01_PROTOCOL_V0.2.md
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
-# Human–AI Discovery Protocol v0.2
+# Human–AI Discovery Protocol v0.2.1
 
-> **Status:** experimental, protocol v0.2. Rules may still change between versions.
+> **Status:** experimental, protocol v0.2.1. Rules may still change between versions.
 
 ## 1. Objective
 
@@ -19,6 +19,21 @@ The protocol supports a human working with AI from an ambiguous starting point t
 
 Implementation itself is a separate work mode.
 
+### Declared scope
+
+The protocol assumes one configuration:
+
+> **one human, one AI, single-threaded discovery, terminating in a handoff to a separate implementation context.**
+
+Everything in this protocol is written for that configuration and its evidence comes from it. Known untested extensions:
+
+- teams;
+- multiple stakeholders;
+- discovery inside an existing system;
+- continuous discovery→delivery.
+
+Evidence imported from multi-party settings is a transfer into this configuration and should be named as one, not read as direct support.
+
 ---
 
 ## 2. Governing principle
@@ -55,7 +70,7 @@ Human engagement should remain deliberate where the process depends on:
 
 > **AI may externalize tentative structure early, but a useful proposal must remain distinguishable from an accepted model commitment.**
 
-This principle applies across the discovery:
+This is the protocol's one tentativeness ladder. It applies across the discovery, with one typed instantiation per kind of object:
 
 ### Frames
 `possible frame → working frame → accepted frame for current horizon`
@@ -80,6 +95,12 @@ plausible abstraction
 
 Fluency is not commitment.
 
+One presentation rule governs every instantiation:
+
+> **Render status honestly: exploratory structure must not carry convergence rhetoric.**
+
+§6 is guidance on applying that rule; the decision/commitment and shared-language dimensions of `02` §7 are the state encoding of the same ladder. Neither is a separate device.
+
 ---
 
 ## 4. Five high-value human contributions
@@ -165,6 +186,8 @@ AI may recommend and challenge. It must not silently commit on the human's behal
 
 ## 5. Discovery modes
 
+A mode names the **dominant learning objective of the moment**, never a phase. Problem and solution co-evolve (§7), so mode switches are expected many times in a session.
+
 ### `PROBLEM_EXPLORATION`
 
 Goal:
@@ -221,6 +244,8 @@ Do not silently convert recommendation into decision or working language into im
 
 ## 6. Structure for exploration vs structure for convergence
 
+*Guidance under §3's presentation rule, not a separate device.*
+
 AI structure is useful in two different ways.
 
 ### Structure for exploration
@@ -317,6 +342,13 @@ The AI should distinguish:
 
 See `04_SHARED_LANGUAGE_POLICY.md`.
 
+### Information-loss check before normalization
+
+Preserving source expressions (`04` §4) is one instance of a general rule. Whenever source-grounded information is about to be irreversibly normalized — merged, summarised, mapped onto a schema, renamed or discarded — first record:
+
+- what is being discarded;
+- what it would cost to reconstruct it later.
+
 ---
 
 ## 10. Research behavior
@@ -363,6 +395,14 @@ When importing a prior framework, product or method:
 
 A useful analogy may still become a fixation source if its operating assumptions are silently imported.
 
+### Reuse check before architecture
+
+The Analogy Boundary Check covers borrowed *ideas*. Borrowed *components* need their own gate, at the point of decision rather than at the end:
+
+> **Does the critical part already exist externally, and does it actually work?**
+
+If the answer is uncertain, spike before designing around it (§13, review typology). §14's "material external contracts are verified or deliberately deferred" is the readiness check that follows; it does not replace this gate.
+
 ---
 
 ## 12. Divergence rules
@@ -377,6 +417,15 @@ During deliberate divergence:
 - expose competing models, not synonym lists;
 - compare before ranking.
 
+### Counterexamples
+
+Classify every counterexample when it arrives:
+
+- **local** — the model survives with a bounded fix;
+- **structural** — the model's frame, boundaries or core concepts have to change.
+
+Counterexample work is **saturated** when new counterexamples cause mostly local changes.
+
 ---
 
 ## 13. Convergence and commitment
@@ -389,12 +438,51 @@ Convergence is justified when:
 - critical assumptions were tested or explicitly accepted;
 - high-impact terminology has enough shared meaning for current decisions;
 - further exploration has diminishing expected information value;
-- uncertainty remains visible.
+- uncertainty remains visible;
+- the current model has survived at least one deliberate attempt to break it, by a party or context independent of the pair that built it.
 
 A useful sequence:
 
 `compare → expose uncertainty → challenge → decide → commit`
 
+### Review typology
+
+Four kinds of review, each answering a different question:
+
+- **exploration review** — what perspective is missing?
+- **adversarial review** — where does the model break?
+- **verification review** — are the named blockers actually closed?
+- **spike** — how does the external world actually behave?
+
+The challenge condition above is an adversarial review. §15 is the release instance of the same mechanism, not a separate one.
+
+### When to review
+
+Run the adversarial review when the model is **coherent, concrete enough to attack, and still cheap to change**. Waiting until release is later, easier to skip, and makes every finding more expensive. Whether this timing actually beats a pre-release review is an open question (`07` P-15, `HYP-019`).
+
+### Closing the review loop
+
+A review is not finished when its findings are written down. The return leg:
+
+1. fix only the named blockers;
+2. record a resolution log: each blocker, what was done, or why it stays open;
+3. run a narrow **verification review** that checks those blockers and nothing else;
+4. end with a verdict: **ready** or **not ready**.
+
+The verification pass must not reopen the product. A second review that brainstorms new directions is a new exploration, and should be named as one.
+
+### Stop signal
+
+A discovery can keep running while producing nothing. Check for these symptoms during a session, not only afterwards:
+
+- new turns mainly add hypothetical future features;
+- options are debated that can only be decided in code;
+- settled decisions are restated;
+- artifacts are re-sorted rather than changed;
+- no new evidence and no new decisions appear.
+
+When they dominate, stop. `05` §3's No-New-Evidence Reopenings measures the same failure after the fact, which is too late to act on.
+
 ---
 
 ## 14. Discovery completion
@@ -420,6 +508,8 @@ Readiness means:
 
 ## 15. Whole-baseline review before stable/public release
 
+This is the release instance of the adversarial review in §13. The review typology and the return leg there apply here too; this review does not replace the earlier one §13 requires.
+
 Before treating a protocol/discovery baseline as stable for public release:
 
 - run independent adversarial review;
diff --git a/protocol/02_INTERACTION_AND_STATE_MODEL.md b/protocol/02_INTERACTION_AND_STATE_MODEL.md
index af7d7fd..a660f06 100644
--- a/protocol/02_INTERACTION_AND_STATE_MODEL.md
+++ b/protocol/02_INTERACTION_AND_STATE_MODEL.md
@@ -1,16 +1,18 @@
-# Interaction & State Model v0.2
+# Interaction & State Model v0.2.1
 
-> **Status:** experimental, protocol v0.2. Rules may still change between versions.
+> **Status:** experimental, protocol v0.2.1. Rules may still change between versions.
 
 ## 1. Orthogonal dimensions
 
 Do not compress all interaction into one taxonomy.
 
-### Discovery Mode — Where are we?
+### Discovery Mode — What is the dominant learning objective right now?
 - `PROBLEM_EXPLORATION`
 - `SOLUTION_EXPLORATION`
 - `CONVERGENCE`
 
+A mode is the dominant learning objective of the moment, not a phase (`01` §5). Expect many switches per session.
+
 ### Interaction Move — What cognitive move is useful?
 - `ELICIT`
 - `REFLECT`
@@ -264,7 +266,7 @@ This is a semantic candidate, not a fixed serialization contract.
 
 ## 7. Three distinct status dimensions
 
-Do not confuse them.
+Do not confuse them. The decision/commitment and shared-language dimensions are the state encoding of the Progressive Commitment ladder (`01` §3), not a separate mechanism.
 
 ### Epistemic status
 - Evidence
diff --git a/protocol/03_DECISION_RIGHTS_AND_AUTONOMY.md b/protocol/03_DECISION_RIGHTS_AND_AUTONOMY.md
index 5376a4b..6caaf29 100644
--- a/protocol/03_DECISION_RIGHTS_AND_AUTONOMY.md
+++ b/protocol/03_DECISION_RIGHTS_AND_AUTONOMY.md
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
-# Decision Rights & Adaptive Autonomy v0.2
+# Decision Rights & Adaptive Autonomy v0.2.1
 
-> **Status:** experimental, protocol v0.2. Rules may still change between versions.
+> **Status:** experimental, protocol v0.2.1. Rules may still change between versions.
 
 ## 1. Principle
 
diff --git a/protocol/04_SHARED_LANGUAGE_POLICY.md b/protocol/04_SHARED_LANGUAGE_POLICY.md
index a3b45c2..72e83e5 100644
--- a/protocol/04_SHARED_LANGUAGE_POLICY.md
+++ b/protocol/04_SHARED_LANGUAGE_POLICY.md
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
-# Shared Conceptual Language Policy v0.2
+# Shared Conceptual Language Policy v0.2.1
 
-> **Status:** experimental, protocol v0.2. Rules may still change between versions.
+> **Status:** experimental, protocol v0.2.1. Rules may still change between versions.
 
 ## 1. Purpose
 
@@ -66,6 +66,8 @@ Source language is evidence about how the problem is currently understood.
 
 It is not automatically the final canonical vocabulary.
 
+This section is the terminology instance of the general information-loss check before normalization (`01` §9).
+
 ---
 
 ## 5. AI naming as proposal
diff --git a/protocol/05_EVALUATION_AND_LEARNING.md b/protocol/05_EVALUATION_AND_LEARNING.md
index e1d4ffb..4953d61 100644
--- a/protocol/05_EVALUATION_AND_LEARNING.md
+++ b/protocol/05_EVALUATION_AND_LEARNING.md
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
-# Evaluation & Learning Protocol v0.2
+# Evaluation & Learning Protocol v0.2.1
 
-> **Status:** experimental, protocol v0.2. Rules may still change between versions.
+> **Status:** experimental, protocol v0.2.1. Rules may still change between versions.
 
 ## 1. Principle
 
@@ -19,35 +19,42 @@ Do not optimize one composite score.
 
 ---
 
-## 2. Quality gates + Pareto comparison
+## 2. Primary instrument: pre-registered predictions
 
-### Gate 1
+Evidence arrives one case at a time. At n=1 there is no population to compare against, so a run-level metric dashboard cannot be the primary instrument. Before each case, pre-register:
+
+- **hypotheses** — at most five per case;
+- **predicted observable** — what the run should show if the hypothesis holds;
+- **falsification criterion** — what the run would show if it does not.
+
+### Quality gates
+
+#### Gate 1
 Discovery/handoff quality must remain acceptable.
 
-### Gate 2
+#### Gate 2
 Human understanding/agency must not materially deteriorate.
 
-Then compare:
-- state integrity;
-- convergence;
-- workload;
-- active human time;
-- process overhead.
+The two gates still apply to every case. Cross-run Pareto comparison of state integrity, convergence, workload, active human time and process overhead becomes possible once several comparable cases exist; until then it is a diagnostic, not the verdict.
 
 A faster protocol is not better if it produces more product rediscovery or weaker human ownership.
 
 ---
 
-## 3. Core run-level signals
+## 3. Always-on measures and optional diagnostics
+
+Three measures are cheap enough to take on every run, whatever was pre-registered:
 
 ### Cold-Start Handoff Blockers
 Can a fresh implementation context proceed using only the final discovery baseline?
 
 ### Decision Explainability Coverage
-Can the human explain consequential decisions, alternatives, trade-offs and uncertainty without the original AI?
+Can the human explain consequential decisions, alternatives, trade-offs and uncertainty without the original AI? Sample three consequential decisions per run.
 
 ### State-Integrity Defects
-Lost decisions, contradictions, stale assumptions, missing provenance/status.
+Lost decisions, contradictions, stale assumptions, missing provenance/status — derived from the trace, not from recollection.
+
+The signals below form an **optional diagnostic catalogue**. Use one when a pre-registered hypothesis needs it; none of them is required.
 
 ### Useful Breadth before Commitment
 Materially distinct frames/solution mechanisms considered before high-impact commitment.
@@ -144,7 +151,8 @@ Decision rule:
 ## 8. Learning loop
 
 ```text
-real run
+pre-registered predictions
+→ real run
 → mostly automatic measurement
 → short AAR
 → protocol hypothesis
@@ -158,14 +166,16 @@ real run
 
 ## 9. Keep / Investigate / Revert
 
+Rules over the pre-registered predictions of §2, not over a cross-run comparison. Both gates of §2 must hold for **Keep**. When more than one rule fits, **Revert** takes precedence over **Investigate**, and **Investigate** over **Keep**.
+
 ### Keep
-Quality stable/improving; agency stable; defects/effort improve.
+The predicted observable appeared, the falsification criterion was not met, and the always-on measures (§3) showed no material defect: no cold-start blocker, the sampled decisions explainable, no systematic state-integrity defect.
 
 ### Investigate
-Efficiency improves but breadth, understanding, defective-AI resistance or semantic consistency declines.
+The prediction held, but an always-on measure showed a material defect that does not fail a gate of §2, or a diagnostic used for this hypothesis — for example Useful Breadth (§3) or a shared-language diagnostic (§4) — pointed the other way. Also Investigate when the predicted observable did not appear but the falsification criterion was not met either.
 
 ### Revert
-Major blockers, discovery reopenings, understanding loss or systematic state/concept defects increase.
+The falsification criterion was met, or a gate of §2 failed: major handoff blockers, discovery reopenings, understanding loss or systematic state/concept defects.
 
 ---
 
@@ -212,9 +222,34 @@ Preferably instrument it **before** the discovery begins:
 - protocol version;
 - model/harness version;
 - active state mechanism;
-- selected hypotheses;
+- pre-registered hypotheses, predicted observables and falsification criteria (§2);
 - lightweight telemetry;
 - AAR;
 - planned cold-start handoff test.
 
 The goal is to move from retrospective inference toward prospective evidence.
+
+---
+
+## 12. Evidence strength: one scale, two columns
+
+Evidence records use one vocabulary for strength, and keep apart two things that a single column conflates. Older evidence ledgers keep their original labels and get the second column added (below).
+
+### Observation clarity
+How clearly was this seen in this case?
+
+- `clear` — directly observed and recorded;
+- `partial` — observed, but incompletely or only in part of the case;
+- `inferred` — reconstructed after the fact.
+
+### Evidential weight
+What does it license for the protocol?
+
+- `strong` — replicated, or several independent studies;
+- `moderate` — one independent study, or consistent support from several weaker sources;
+- `weak` — practitioner literature, a single dependent or self-authored case, or the project's own inference;
+- `contested` — the evidence points in different directions.
+
+Observation clarity never raises evidential weight: a clearly observed pattern in one self-authored, dependent case is still `weak` evidence for the protocol.
+
+Existing evidence ledgers are not rewritten to fit. The second column is **added**, with a dated note, and the original judgements stay as they were recorded.
diff --git a/protocol/06_OPEN_SOURCE_AND_PROJECT_PRINCIPLES.md b/protocol/06_OPEN_SOURCE_AND_PROJECT_PRINCIPLES.md
index cf03025..564649f 100644
--- a/protocol/06_OPEN_SOURCE_AND_PROJECT_PRINCIPLES.md
+++ b/protocol/06_OPEN_SOURCE_AND_PROJECT_PRINCIPLES.md
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
-# Open-Source & Project Principles v0.2
+# Open-Source & Project Principles v0.2.1
 
-> **Status:** experimental, protocol v0.2. Rules may still change between versions.
+> **Status:** experimental, protocol v0.2.1. Rules may still change between versions.
 
 ## 1. Intent
 
diff --git a/protocol/07_DECISIONS_AND_OPEN_QUESTIONS.md b/protocol/07_DECISIONS_AND_OPEN_QUESTIONS.md
index 8cb83a3..a0d63c4 100644
--- a/protocol/07_DECISIONS_AND_OPEN_QUESTIONS.md
+++ b/protocol/07_DECISIONS_AND_OPEN_QUESTIONS.md
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
-# Decisions & Open Questions — v0.2
+# Decisions & Open Questions — v0.2.1
 
-> **Status:** experimental, protocol v0.2. Rules may still change between versions.
+> **Status:** experimental, protocol v0.2.1. Rules may still change between versions.
 
 ## A. Current protocol decisions
 
@@ -81,30 +81,7 @@ Tentative structure can appear early across frames, concepts, terms and solution
 
 ---
 
-## B. Deferred technical decisions
-
-### T-01 — Final project/repository name
-
-### T-02 — Monorepo vs multiple repos
-
-### T-03 — First reference harness
-Claude Code remains a strong candidate, not a normative commitment.
-
-### T-04 — State serialization
-
-### T-05 — Skill/hook/agent architecture
-
-### T-06 — Review/handoff UI
-
-### T-07 — Automated evaluator architecture
-
-### T-08 — Public release workflow
-
-### T-09 — Concept/shared-language storage
-Separate registry vs integrated state vs implicit memory.
-
-### T-10 — Visible terminology provenance
-Whether Human/AI/External origin should be shown.
+> Former section B, the deferred technical decisions `T-01`–`T-10`, is now [`docs/technical-decisions.md`](../docs/technical-decisions.md) (change proposal CP-22): they are project decisions, not protocol semantics.
 
 ---
 
@@ -144,6 +121,9 @@ What should count as sufficient shared meaning?
 ### P-14 — Intentional ambiguity
 When should a concept remain explicitly unresolved?
 
+### P-15 — Review timing
+Does an adversarial review triggered when the model is coherent, concrete enough to attack and still cheap to change catch more material problems, at lower cost, than one run before release? Carried over in v0.2.1 (CP-20) from the Case 01 method, which is unpublished; the same claim is `HYP-019` in the [hypothesis register](../research/hypothesis-register.md).
+
 ---
 
 ## D. Evaluation questions
diff --git a/protocol/observation-model/01-run-record.md b/protocol/observation-model/01-run-record.md
index f02845e..c57a755 100644
--- a/protocol/observation-model/01-run-record.md
+++ b/protocol/observation-model/01-run-record.md
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Run Record
 
-> **Status:** experimental, protocol v0.2. Rules may still change between versions.
+> **Status:** experimental, protocol v0.2.1. Rules may still change between versions.
 
 > **Owns:** what a discovery run is, how it is identified, and the metadata without which two runs cannot honestly be compared.
 
diff --git a/protocol/observation-model/02-event-vocabulary.md b/protocol/observation-model/02-event-vocabulary.md
index b3cde57..029e71c 100644
--- a/protocol/observation-model/02-event-vocabulary.md
+++ b/protocol/observation-model/02-event-vocabulary.md
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Event Vocabulary
 
-> **Status:** experimental, protocol v0.2. Rules may still change between versions.
+> **Status:** experimental, protocol v0.2.1. Rules may still change between versions.
 
 > **Owns:** the envelope every event carries, the event kinds, and which subset is required for a conformant run.
 
@@ -88,6 +88,7 @@ Not required for conformance. Each corresponds to a mechanism the protocol curre
 | `concept.tested_in_use` | `concept_id`, `scenario_ref`, `outcome` | the scenario gate |
 | `research.delta_recorded` | `question`, `result`, `decision_impact`, `new_uncertainty` | research model delta |
 | `analogy.recorded` | `source`, `original_problem`, `transferable`, `non_transferable` | analogy boundary check |
+| `normalization.recorded` | `discarded`, `reconstruction_cost` | information-loss check before normalization |
 | `human_position.elicited` | `trigger`, `contribution_type`, `before_ai_output` | the human-first signal |
 | `probe.debriefed` | `probe_id`, `learning_ref`, `assumption_changed`, `disposition` | probe debrief |
 | `adversarial_review.completed` | `scope`, `reviewer_kind`, `findings`, `blocking` | the adversarial gate |
diff --git a/protocol/observation-model/03-fidelity-levels.md b/protocol/observation-model/03-fidelity-levels.md
index 5a3c399..6265a49 100644
--- a/protocol/observation-model/03-fidelity-levels.md
+++ b/protocol/observation-model/03-fidelity-levels.md
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Fidelity Levels
 
-> **Status:** experimental, protocol v0.2. Rules may still change between versions.
+> **Status:** experimental, protocol v0.2.1. Rules may still change between versions.
 
 > **Owns:** how well a run was observed, and which comparisons that permits.
 
diff --git a/protocol/observation-model/04-recording-boundaries.md b/protocol/observation-model/04-recording-boundaries.md
index b7fa0de..dc9069f 100644
--- a/protocol/observation-model/04-recording-boundaries.md
+++ b/protocol/observation-model/04-recording-boundaries.md
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Recording Boundaries
 
-> **Status:** experimental, protocol v0.2. Rules may still change between versions.
+> **Status:** experimental, protocol v0.2.1. Rules may still change between versions.
 
 > **Owns:** what an event may never contain.
 
diff --git a/research/01_EVIDENCE_AND_RESEARCH_SYNTHESIS.md b/research/01_EVIDENCE_AND_RESEARCH_SYNTHESIS.md
index 5908523..d473a31 100644
--- a/research/01_EVIDENCE_AND_RESEARCH_SYNTHESIS.md
+++ b/research/01_EVIDENCE_AND_RESEARCH_SYNTHESIS.md
@@ -24,6 +24,8 @@ The current baseline is informed by:
 
 None of these alone validates the full protocol.
 
+Strength labels in this file predate the one-scale rule of [`protocol/05`](../protocol/05_EVALUATION_AND_LEARNING.md) §12 and are kept as written, not mapped onto that scale. [`docs/known-findings.md`](../docs/known-findings.md) (KF-3) names the clearest over-statements, and [`REFERENCES.md`](REFERENCES.md) lists them all.
+
 ---
 
 ## 2. Strongly supported directions
diff --git a/research/hypothesis-register.md b/research/hypothesis-register.md
index ed93270..eeb199d 100644
--- a/research/hypothesis-register.md
+++ b/research/hypothesis-register.md
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 
 > **Published record of change proposal CP-11** (see [`docs/review/disposition.md`](../docs/review/disposition.md)). Status unchanged: a proposal; nothing in `protocol/` has been renamed yet. The legacy IDs in the fifth column come from the two unpublished evidence cases and the protocol files; [`docs/provenance.md`](../docs/provenance.md) explains them. `phase0/capabilities/catalogue.md` is now [`capabilities/catalogue.md`](../capabilities/catalogue.md).
 
-> **Executes:** the second half of change proposal CP-11, addressing the ID sprawl recorded in `09` §2.2: the same claims currently carry different identifiers in five places — `H-01..H-12` (Case 02 §15), `H-SL-01` (Case 02A), `E1..E10` (`protocol/05` §10), `P-01..P-14` / `E-01..E-08` / `T-01..T-13` (`protocol/07`; *added on publication:* `T-11..T-13` were proposed in the adversarial review), and `M-01..M-12` (Case 01). A reader cannot tell whether two IDs are one claim.
+> **Executes:** the second half of change proposal CP-11, addressing the ID sprawl recorded in `09` §2.2: the same claims currently carry different identifiers in five places — `H-01..H-12` (Case 02 §15), `H-SL-01` (Case 02A), `E1..E10` (`protocol/05` §10), `P-01..P-14` / `E-01..E-08` / `T-01..T-13` (`protocol/07`; *added on publication:* `T-11..T-13` were proposed in the adversarial review), and `M-01..M-12` (Case 01). A reader cannot tell whether two IDs are one claim. *(As of v0.2. In v0.2.1, `P-15` was added and `T-01..T-10` moved to [`docs/technical-decisions.md`](../docs/technical-decisions.md).)*
 > **Status:** proposal. Nothing renamed in `protocol/` yet.
 
 ## Structure
@@ -37,15 +37,15 @@ The `evidence` column is the honest one: it says what the claim actually rests o
 | HYP-016 | The human's counterexamples are worth more than the human's solutions | **decided without test** | Case 01 hypothesis, promoted in v0.2 | M-07 | — | reopen? see note |
 | HYP-017 | An explicit decision horizon reduces overdesign | **decided without test** | Case 01 hypothesis, promoted | M-08 | CAP-05 | reopen? see note |
 | HYP-018 | Artifact version churn degrades discovery past a point | **decided without test** | Case 01 hypothesis, promoted | M-10 | — | reopen? see note |
-| HYP-019 | Adversarial review is most valuable while the model is still cheap to change | hypothesis | **dropped from v0.2** | M-02, G6 | CAP-10 | yes — CP-20 |
-| HYP-020 | Broad falsification then narrow verification converges better than one large review | hypothesis | **dropped from v0.2** | M-03, M7, EV-4 | CAP-10 | yes — CP-16 |
-| HYP-021 | Real counterexamples produce better models than feature brainstorming | hypothesis | **dropped from v0.2** | M-04 | — | yes — CP-21 |
-| HYP-022 | Source / canonical / derived separation is a generalizable AI-discovery pattern | hypothesis | **dropped from v0.2** | M-05, G3, L3, L7 | proposed CAP-16 | yes — CP-18 |
-| HYP-023 | A future-readiness check prevents irreversible information loss | hypothesis | **dropped from v0.2** | M-06, AP-05 | proposed CAP-16 | yes — CP-18 |
-| HYP-024 | An in-session halt heuristic prevents unproductive continuation | hypothesis | **dropped from v0.2** | SC-3, AP-09 | — | yes — CP-17 |
+| HYP-019 | Adversarial review is most valuable while the model is still cheap to change | hypothesis | **dropped from v0.2**; back in the protocol text in v0.2.1 (CP-20), untested | M-02, G6 | CAP-10 | yes — CP-20 |
+| HYP-020 | Broad falsification then narrow verification converges better than one large review | hypothesis | **dropped from v0.2**; back in the protocol text in v0.2.1 (CP-16), untested | M-03, M7, EV-4 | CAP-10 | yes — CP-16 |
+| HYP-021 | Real counterexamples produce better models than feature brainstorming | hypothesis | **dropped from v0.2**; back in the protocol text in v0.2.1 (CP-21), untested | M-04 | — | yes — CP-21 |
+| HYP-022 | Source / canonical / derived separation is a generalizable AI-discovery pattern | hypothesis | **dropped from v0.2**; back in the protocol text in v0.2.1 (CP-18), untested | M-05, G3, L3, L7 | CAP-16 | yes — CP-18 |
+| HYP-023 | A future-readiness check prevents irreversible information loss | hypothesis | **dropped from v0.2**; back in the protocol text in v0.2.1 (CP-18), untested | M-06, AP-05 | CAP-16 | yes — CP-18 |
+| HYP-024 | An in-session halt heuristic prevents unproductive continuation | hypothesis | **dropped from v0.2**; back in the protocol text in v0.2.1 (CP-17), untested | SC-3, AP-09 | — | yes — CP-17 |
 | HYP-025 | Recorded dissent predicts later reopenings | hypothesis | new, from CP-05 | — | CAP-06 | yes — the one predictive test available at n=1 |
 
-Open **questions** (`P-01..P-14`, `E-01..E-08`) and deferred **technical decisions** (`T-01..T-13`: `T-01..T-10` in `protocol/07`, `T-11..T-13` proposed in the adversarial review) keep their existing IDs and are not folded in: they are not claims, and merging them would recreate the confusion this register removes. `07` should link here rather than restate.
+Open **questions** (`P-01..P-15`, `E-01..E-08`) and deferred **technical decisions** (`T-01..T-13`: `T-01..T-10` in [`docs/technical-decisions.md`](../docs/technical-decisions.md), section B of `protocol/07` up to v0.2; `T-11..T-13` proposed in the adversarial review) keep their existing IDs and are not folded in: they are not claims, and merging them would recreate the confusion this register removes. `07` should link here rather than restate.
 
 ## Three findings from building it
 
diff --git a/tools/known-findings.txt b/tools/known-findings.txt
index 728a9f9..5e53052 100644
--- a/tools/known-findings.txt
+++ b/tools/known-findings.txt
@@ -2,4 +2,3 @@
 # Each entry is explained in docs/known-findings.md. Removing an entry is a fix;
 # adding one is a decision that should carry a reason in that document.
 protocol/06_OPEN_SOURCE_AND_PROJECT_PRINCIPLES.md:114: R1
-protocol/07_DECISIONS_AND_OPEN_QUESTIONS.md:91: R1