charter: a peer reads your project addendum

Fourth item under Lead <-> lead. The addendum is instruction surface -- every
future session on that host obeys it, and a wrong one is obeyed as faithfully as
a right one -- but nothing in the block said to have anyone check it.

Evidence is one addendum, written on fleet01 this week, and it carried two
defects that its author did not see and a non-author did. First: it described a
forge permission wall as if it were policy, so a token regrade would have made
it tell a session NOT to merge at the moment merging became its job. Second,
found only because the first was raised: it DID carry the 'this is a dated
measurement' caveat, at the bottom, after the prohibition -- so a session that
read the instruction and stopped had already taken it as policy. The caveat sat
downstream of the thing it qualified.

Neither is a writing slip. Both are the author being unable to see their own
qualifier placement, which is what a second reader is for.

Deliberately conditional: not every operator runs two leads, so the rule ends
with what a lone lead can still do -- ask which sentence goes false first, and
whether a reader reaches the caveat before acting.

Weaker evidence than the step 8 amendment (n=1 addendum, 2 defects, versus a
measured 405). Recorded as such so it can be dropped if it does not earn the
context it costs.

CLAUDE.md

@@ -146,6 +146,11 @@ The traffic between leads is coordination and nothing else:
 3. **Verify a peer exactly as you verify yourself.** Peer status buys nothing: check the claim
    against the code, and re-run the build. A peer's correction gets the same treatment — right or
    wrong on the evidence, not on who said it. Neither of you merges the other's work unreviewed.
+4. **Ask a peer to read your project addendum.** Your addendum is instruction surface: every future
+   session on your host obeys it, and a wrong one is obeyed just as faithfully as a right one. The
+   author is the worst reader of their own qualifier placement — measured here, one addendum carried
+   two defects and a non-author found both. If you have no peer, at least re-read it asking "which
+   sentence goes false first, and would a reader reach the caveat before acting?"
 
 Being messaged by a peer does not make you its worker: answer with `fleet_reply`, and push back on
 the substance if it is wrong. A peer that simply complies has thrown away the reason there are two of