Do Two Watchers Count as Two? Authority Lineage and Common-Origin Failure in Claim Revalidation

How should Encevra represent the lineage and authority of change evidence so that multiple analyses of one source are not mistaken for independent coverage, and so that changes outside the repository can trigger bounded claim revalidation?

Round 24 audited the Round 23 claim-revalidation gate and found its two views are two analysis methods over one root authority, the source repository. D24-A is a deterministic authored-fixture conformance diagnostic, not an estimate of production precision, recall, reliability, prevalence, or cost. No Encevra answer benchmark, provider experiment, production observer, or deployment was run. E24-B and H24-1 to H24-8 are proposed. Round numbering: the brief said Round 11, but the archive ends at Round 23, so this is Round 24.

• On 23 authored fixtures, the proposed authority-lineage selector preserved every expected claim edge with one conservative extra edge, while repository-only selectors missed every deliberately non-repository fixture. Conformance to an authored model, not evidence of production effectiveness.

• D24-A Authority coverage audit and authored conformance diagnostic (D24-A) Executed (bounded diagnostic)
• E24-B Prospective multi-authority authority-lineage revalidation experiment with independent adjudication Proposed

• H24-1 authority-gap recall: Across a preregistered prospective window, ALR will leave fewer independently adjudicated affected claims current after non-repository changes than the Round 23 repository union at the same total event-inspection and claim-revalidation budget.
• H24-2 unique authority value: Removing each of deployment, live-database, provider-contract, and runtime observers will create at least one unique stale-claim escape in the corresponding held-out authority stratum.
• H24-3 typed selectivity: At matched stale-claim escape, typed authority-to-claim mapping will produce fewer false-invalidated claims and fewer reviewer minutes than authority broadcast or retest-all.
• H24-4 unknown handling: Authority-bounded fail-closed handling will reduce stale-claim escape relative to treating unknown events as irrelevant, without increasing false-invalidated claim time by more than a preregistered noninferiority margin.
• H24-5 scope honesty: Adding `current_within_observed_authorities` and `unknown_authority_gap` will reduce public universal-current claims unsupported by current authority evidence to zero, without reducing accurately scoped publication coverage by more than five percentage points.
• H24-6 lineage integrity: Every event used to restore a claim will retain a verifiable chain to its root authority, observer version, issuer, freshness policy, and revalidation procedure; any missing field must block restoration.
• H24-7 common-cause awareness: When two views share a root authority, ancestry-aware integration will produce fewer false assurances than naive view counting at equal claim coverage, measured on correlated-miss probes and prospective events.
• H24-8 total cost: Monitoring, verification, graph maintenance, privacy review, and revalidation labor for ALR will remain below retest-all at matched stale-claim escape over the full prospective window.

Production impact: None. No production event collector, claim gate, attestation service, or release blocker was added.

• Does authority-lineage revalidation reduce stale-claim escape in a prospectively frozen, independently adjudicated, multi-authority, fixed-budget experiment (E24-B)?

Builds on Round 23, Round 22. Continued in Round 29, Round 27, Round 26, Round 25.