§34b: truth is not voted - majority decides actions, never facts

docs/architecture/CALCULATIONS.md

@@ -1076,3 +1076,59 @@ you mean NOW. The system requires both to function and confuses
 them nowhere. That is the whole repair: nothing erased, everything
 dated, the current always distinguishable from the past — so
 nobody has to defend a corpse to prove they're honest.
+
+## 34b. TRUTH IS NOT VOTED — the boundary that prevents atrocity
+
+Will:
+
+"You cant have majority rule on what's true. That leads to atrocity,
+think about it."
+
+He is right, and the historical ledger is written in blood:
+every atrocity had a majority on its side at the time. Galileo was
+out-voted. The List (§THE-FUCKED-UP-LIST) exists precisely because
+some things do not bend to headcounts. And Will's own four-party
+theorem warns it structurally: three parties gang up on one —
+majority-as-truth is the gang-up made permanent.
+
+### The boundary, drawn hard
+
+    MAJORITY MAY DECIDE:   ACTIONS and AGREEMENT-STATUS.
+                           (sign this, accept this proposal,
+                            fire this seal, proceed)
+    MAJORITY MAY NEVER DECIDE: WHAT IS TRUE.
+                           truth settles by VERIFICATION ONLY —
+                           hashes matching, bytes comparing,
+                           reality showing up. No quorum applies.
+
+### Repairing §33/§34 language
+
+When strand copies diverge, the old phrasing said "the honest
+majority out-votes." WRONG, and now forbidden. Corrected:
+
+    Divergence = ALARM + INVESTIGATION, never an election.
+      - all versions are HELD (append-only; nothing deleted)
+      - resolution comes from EVIDENCE: chain math, re-derivation,
+        which copy matches the sealed manifest — arithmetic,
+        not headcount
+      - if evidence genuinely cannot decide, the disagreement
+        REMAINS OPEN as a live fork — visible, dated, unresolved.
+        An honest system can say "we do not know yet."
+        It must never say "we voted, so it's true."
+
+    A minority of one with matching hashes outranks
+    a unanimous room without them.
+
+### Why agreement still needs signatures
+
+Party-4 MUTUAL status is not a truth claim — it is an INTENT
+claim: "we will both act as if." That is legitimately consensual,
+because actions are choices. But the moment a consensus output is
+quoted as fact rather than intent, it has crossed the boundary
+and the system flags it.
+
+### Standing rule
+
+Consensus chooses. Verification knows. Confusing the two is how
+civilizations sign their worst chapters — and how databases
+quietly corrupt themselves. Same bug, different scale.