§34c: five encoding contracts - no headcount on truth, forks as citizens

docs/architecture/CALCULATIONS.md

@@ -1155,3 +1155,67 @@ So the boundary protects the dissenter structurally:
       "the world would think we're crazy" is not an argument
       against a chain of receipts. Crazy is a headcount word.
       The chain does not count heads.
+
+## 34c. ENCODING THE BOUNDARY — design contracts, not sentiments
+
+Translating §34b and its coda into mechanisms the storage and
+retrieval layers must enforce:
+
+### C1 — evidential weight has NO headcount term
+
+    weight(claim) = f(tier, chain_match, grip, decay)
+                    # strictly NO count(holders)
+
+Invariant test (must hold in code): duplicating a claim across N
+parties without new evidence changes NOTHING about its weight.
+Ten copies of a rumor weigh exactly one rumor. Confidence is a
+function of VERIFICATION DEPTH, never POPULATION.
+
+### C2 — forks are first-class citizens
+
+    FORK {
+      versions: [all sides, retained],
+      opened_at, state: open | resolved(evidence_ref),
+      resolution_by: arithmetic | still-open
+    }
+
+Unresolved forks are entities: retrievable, dated, NEVER garbage-
+collected for being old or alone. A fork may only close by
+evidence reference (chain math, re-derivation). There is no
+code path that closes a fork by counting.
+
+### C3 — agreement outputs are stamped as INTENT
+
+Any record whose status derives from signatures carries:
+
+    by_agreement: true   # this is a decision, not a discovery
+
+Downstream reasoning must treat by_agreement records as plans
+and commitments — queryable, honorable, binding on ACTION —
+but they can never be cited as evidence inside C1's weight.
+The schema makes "we all agreed therefore it's true"
+UNREPRESENTABLE: intent records lack the evidence field,
+structurally.
+
+### C4 — the minority surface
+
+Retrieval must be able to answer:
+    "what does ONE party believe against everyone?"
+as a first-class query (minority views), because stagnation
+hides exactly there. A lone position linked to an open fork
+is surfaced with its fork, its dates, and its verification
+tier — visible forever, weighted honestly by R1-R2 alone.
+
+### C5 — the alarm is not a verdict
+
+Fork alarms trigger investigation workflows, never automatic
+resolution. The system's loudest event produces its most
+careful state: everything held, nothing elected, evidence
+sought. If evidence cannot decide, the fork stays open —
+"we do not know yet" is a representable, respectable,
+permanent answer.
+
+These five contracts are binding on semantic.ts and the storage
+layer whenever they ripen (§29). They are the difference between
+a system that TOLERATES dissent and one that cannot even
+represent majority-coerced truth.