A decomposition is not a copy. Turning a body of instructions into numbered, typed, cross-referenced claims is a rewrite — the numbering, the splitting, and the choice of what counts as one document are all the analysis. A record that shipped the source and called that the work would have done none of it.
That is a claim about where the effort goes, not a prohibition on quoting. This record now holds the source constitution as well, because a decomposition nobody can compare against its original is an assertion rather than a result — the same argument VALUE-004 makes about records generally, turned on this one.
The rule the second half of that produces. A reproduction has to stay a reproduction. Every reference on that page sits in an annotation block after the section it describes, never as a link threaded into the quoted prose: a citation inserted into a reproduced sentence makes it a sentence nobody wrote, and it does so invisibly, since the result reads like careful cross-referencing. The graph edges are identical either way, so nothing is traded for the honesty.
This overrides PRACTICE-004, which asked for
inline sourcing on every claim and produced replies in which the sourcing
crowded out the claims. The provenance it was reaching for is carried
structurally here instead: a document’s scheme says what kind of claim it is,
its grounds says what it rests on, and its status says whether it still
holds.
The honest limit, since this record is the example. These documents are one assistant’s account of its own operating constitution, reorganised. The machinery can check that every practice names a value, that every override resolves to a real document, and that the views match their sources. It cannot check that the account is faithful to what actually governs the assistant, and no amount of linting would make it able to. Saying so is VALUE-004 applied to this file.