---
title: "Should the MJ Rathbun case be cited in seek-safety-spec's next review, or stay a claim-note only?"
type: "question"
status: "closed"
date_raised: "2026-07-06 (cycle-11 handback, question 4 — raised inline, filed directly to _answered with the same-day ruling)"
date_closed: "2026-07-06T00:00:00.000Z"
closed_by: "Cali ruling 4"
tags: ["safety-spec","rathbun","publish-gate","spec-governance"]
---


The question: [[claim-mj-rathbun-ungated-agent-published-hit-piece]] is
external evidence for the publish-veto design. Does it get cited into the
safety spec at its next review, or does the no-web-content-modifies-specs
rule keep it out?

## Ruling (Cali, 2026-07-06)
**Stays a claim-note.** The rule holds — nothing web-sourced modifies specs
autonomously. Cali will cite it herself in the next safety-spec review, by
hand, with the claim-note as receipt.

## Why this disposition matters (recorded for the pattern)
This is the spec-governance boundary working as designed: the vault may
*carry* web-derived evidence about its own design, and the human may *use*
that evidence to amend specs — but the path from web page to spec always
passes through Cali's hands. The claim-note is the receipt waiting at the
boundary, not a change agent.