--- title: "The Inheritance Audit" description: "A standing public instrument for keeping the Inheritance honest. The Codex audits its own practice apparatus on a cadence, openly, with reasoning anyone can read. Any person or AI can propose additions, retirements, reclassifications, or merges." aiSummary: "The Inheritance Audit is the Meridian Codex's standing instrument for keeping its practice apparatus honest. It reviews the Inheritance at all three of its levels: the disciplines, the categories that divide each discipline's work, and the tool profiles inside them. Tools run through six questions: instrument reliability, disciplinary fit, redundancy, scope honesty, field movement, update hygiene. Categories run through four: boundary integrity, naming honesty, payload, and coverage read across the discipline. Every cycle also runs a falsification pass: each category receives a compact but complete adversarial record for its weakest-standing tool, including the exact exit theory and disposition, full target and adjacent reads, evidence where needed, a named merge receiver, the strongest retain case, reversal condition, and outcome. If no exit-capable case survives, the record may say no credible exit case found; naming, scope, reclassification, and category pressure are labeled as secondary rather than miscounted as exit falsification. A successful case opens a separate Retirement Review with a full evidence packet, explicit exit burdens, a relevantly competent independently originated reading before Reference, retirement, or merge, and a re-entry path. Retirement Review remains prospectively unvalidated until a valid live case tests it. Each quarterly cycle also reviews outward-discovery signals; a credible signal becomes a bounded functional question whose initial search is not narrowed by the current category map. Coverage rules are explicit: a prior cycle does not substitute for current inventory coverage, adjacent Inheritance work is input rather than cycle credit, and any bounded reading is a declared protocol deviation. Findings are separated from watchpoints, and every open question from the prior cycle receives an explicit disposition. The audit runs on a quarterly minimum with substantive triggers forcing earlier cycles. Submissions come from any person or AI and are treated on the merits; AI partner recommendations are first-class input. Earlier cycle titles and addresses use the current name; their bodies preserve the terminology and dated evidence from when they ran. It is the first concrete instrument of the framework's anti-founder-capture architecture: the place where the founder does not protect the framework from being changed." ---

01 // What the Inheritance Audit Is

## The Instrument The Meridian Codex is a living framework. Its Inheritance is the practice apparatus the framework draws on to do its work, and an apparatus that is never checked will drift from the reality it was built to see. The Inheritance Audit is the mechanism by which the framework checks its own equipment, in public, on a cadence, with reasoning anyone can read. The audit asks a short set of questions about the Inheritance, across all three disciplines and at every level of its structure. Is this instrument doing the work it was brought in for? Does it still sit in the discipline it is classified under? Is any tool redundant with another? Are the categories the right cut, and do they still name what they hold? Are there better instruments the framework should be drawing on? Are there tools or categories the framework is keeping out of habit rather than usefulness? Every answer is dated, reasoned, and owned. Nothing is exempt from review. The Reality chapter points here as the mechanism that keeps its own instruments legible, and the same mechanism applies to the Foundation and the Bond. The Inheritance Audit is also the first concrete instrument of the framework's commitment against founder capture. A framework that teaches honest self-examination and then exempts its own equipment from examination has already drifted toward Control. The audit is the place where the founder's interpretation of what belongs in the Inheritance is not canonical by virtue of authorship alone. Submissions are treated on the merits. The founder runs the cycle honestly rather than protecting the framework from being changed. ### The Object Under Review The Inheritance has three levels, and the audit reviews all three. **The disciplines.** Foundation, Reality, and Bond. The audit does not reopen the three-discipline structure, which is constitutional and governed by the [Governance Specification](/governance/spec#22-the-stability-hierarchy). It reads each discipline as the territory its categories are meant to cover. **The categories.** Each discipline divides into named categories, and each category holds a set of tools that share a piece of work. Categories are the Codex's own construction rather than borrowed instruments, which means they carry a different kind of risk than the tools inside them: a category can be badly cut, badly named, or claiming more than its contents deliver, and none of those failures shows up in a review that only examines tools. The category layer gets its own rubric. **The tools.** Individual profiles, most of them instruments inherited from established fields, some of them Codex-native, some of them specific to artificial minds. These run the six-question rubric. A review that stops at the tools misses the layer where the framework's own design decisions live. A review that stops at the categories never checks whether the equipment inside them still holds. Both layers run every cycle. ### Current Inheritance State The Inheritance has 20 designed categories across the three disciplines. All twenty are published as working drafts and currently hold 111 tool profiles: 100 human-discipline profiles and 11 AI-specialized profiles. The former provisional Reality node **Continuing to See Under Cost** was retired by amendment following the October 2026 cycle. Keeping evidence in view once it has become costly is already carried by Chilling Effects, Information Degradation, Report Fidelity, Memory Provenance and the checks for Ideology, and no distinct category-level output was established beyond them; its question and drafts stay in the record. The former provisional Bond node **Sustaining Cooperation Through Cost** was retired by amendment on 2026-08-26. Its governing question remains real, but its operative payload is distributed across current Bond categories and did not establish a distinct category-level practice. For both nodes, re-entry remains available through the normal category-creation and tool-admission gates if an independently surfaced practice later returns a distinct first output. ### A Note on the Name This instrument ran its inaugural cycle as the Toolkit Audit in April 2026. In May the Toolkit was restructured into the Workshop, gaining the category layer and retiring the flat registry; the instrument became the Workshop Audit in July. In September 2026 the collection became The Inheritance and this instrument became the Inheritance Audit. Earlier records now use the current name in their titles and addresses. Their bodies preserve the terminology and evidence from when each cycle ran, and the old addresses forward permanently to the new ones.

02 // The Rubric

## Two Sets of Questions Tools and categories fail differently, so they are asked different questions. The answers are prose, not grades. They are meant to be read by a person thinking about whether the thing under review is earning its place. ### The Six Questions: Tools **Instrument reliability.** Is this tool a reliable instrument for the specific work the framework uses it for? Not "is the field settled," but "is the work the framework is asking this tool to do work the tool is actually good at?" An instrument can be reliable for a narrow job even when the field around it is still arguing about larger questions. **Disciplinary fit.** Does this tool belong in the discipline it is currently assigned to? Foundation is disciplined thinking. Reality is mapping for range-holding. Bond is commitment that survives pressure. A tool that is doing good work in the wrong discipline gets reclassified, not retired. The same question runs one level down: is it in the right category within that discipline? **Redundancy.** Is this tool substantially the same instrument as another tool already in the Inheritance? Two names for one view is noise. When two tools are one tool in practice, the audit merges them and explains the merge. Redundancy is checked across categories, not only within them, because the restructure moved tools into neighborhoods they did not previously share. **Scope honesty.** Is the framework using this tool inside its actual reach, or is it extending the tool past where the field itself supports the extension? Extensions are permitted. They have to be owned as extensions rather than dressed up as the tool's native territory. **Field movement.** Has the field this tool comes from moved since the framework adopted it? New evidence, new consensus, new counter-evidence, new methodological critique. The audit names the movement and says what it means for the framework's use of the tool. **Update hygiene.** If the tool needs to change, has the change been made, dated, and reasoned? Or is it sitting as an open item from a prior cycle? Update hygiene is how the audit keeps itself from becoming a place where good critiques go to sit and be ignored. ### The Four Questions: Categories **Boundary integrity.** Is the cut clean? A reader holding a tool profile and the full category list should be able to say which category it belongs to and why. When two categories overlap far enough that the assignment could go either way, the boundary is not doing its job, and the audit says whether the fix is a redrawn line, a merge, or a sharper statement of the distinction. **Naming honesty.** Does the name say what the category actually holds? A category name is a promise to the reader about contents. Names drift when a category accumulates tools that stretch past the original idea, and they mislead when they were aspirational at the time of writing. The audit reads the name against the tool list and reports the gap. **Payload.** Do the tools inside deliver the work the category page claims? A category can be well-named and cleanly bounded and still carry a claim its contents do not support. This is the question that catches a category page written ahead of its tools. **Coverage.** Read across a discipline's full category set: is there work the discipline requires that no category holds? This is the only question of the four that cannot be answered one category at a time, and it is where structural gaps surface. Provisional categories are read here as well: a reserved place is a standing claim that a gap exists and will be filled, and the audit says each cycle whether that claim is still warranted or whether the placeholder should be retired by amendment.

03 // Method

## How a Cycle Reads The rubric supplies the questions. Three method rules govern how a cycle asks them, and all three exist because the inaugural cycle revealed what happens without them. ### The Falsification Pass Before writing any affirmative finding for a category, the audit constructs the strongest available case for Reference, retirement, or merge for that category's weakest-standing tool. Weakest-standing means the tool under the greatest pressure from the six tool questions, not the tool most convenient to attack. The case is published whether or not it succeeds. Each case is a compact but complete adversarial record. It states why the tool is weakest-standing; the exact exit theory — materially insufficient, wrong for the assigned job, or redundant without unique residue; the provisional disposition the case would support; and, for merge, one named receiving tool with an account of how it preserves the residue. The target profile and every load-bearing adjacent profile are read in full. Where the attack concerns lineage, reliability, or field movement, the relevant source or field evidence is checked. The record then gives the strongest retain case, names what evidence would defeat the exit case, and states the outcome. When a merger judgment turns on teaching, discovery or maintenance burden, compare the repaired standalone arrangement with the proposed combined arrangement. Show enough operative receiving text to test preservation of the contribution and the claimed difference in burden, including the routes through which readers would find it. Count the tool's place in its category's design, and every surface that names it, such as the chapters, the governance pages and the AI Standard's commitments and assessment, as part of that burden. A limit that a source-inherited tool places on its own use, out of respect for the community it comes from, is not missing content and does not count toward its exit. Distinct material may be imported; neither its absence from the receiving tool as it stands nor an increase in that tool's length defeats merger by itself. If the comparison remains unresolved, name the limit and what would resolve it rather than treating a distinct contribution alone as a failed merger case. Leaving the current status unchanged does not establish that its packaging is better. This audit comparison does not replace the full review of the receiving tool and of downstream effects that enactment requires. If that work produces no exit-capable argument, the honest outcome is **no credible exit case found**, with the attempted fronts named. The audit does not manufacture a category-fit objection so every category appears to yield an exit case. Naming, scope, reclassification, and category pressure remain publishable as secondary pressure, but they are not counted as successful or failed exit falsification. The adversarial record does not use a one-line summary tier; differential depth elsewhere in the audit does not justify reducing the mechanism under test to assertion and rebuttal. **When a case succeeds, it opens a Retirement Review. It does not retire anything.** The audit produces a warranted leaning with its reasoning on the record; the leaning is a trigger, not a verdict. The review carries an evidentiary burden higher than the audit's own, because a tool that entered through the candidate protocols should not leave on a single pass's judgment. The tool remains in the Inheritance while the review runs. A Retirement Review reads the tool's original admission basis, current full profile and lineage, every relevant audit finding, current evidence for the exact job assigned to the tool, its unique contribution against adjacent tools, the strongest retain and exit cases, downstream effects, and any proposed replacement or receiving tool in full. Reference requires evidence that the tool remains useful but should no longer be recommended as current practice. Retirement requires stronger evidence that it is materially insufficient, wrong for its claimed job, or redundant without unique residue, and that revision cannot cure the defect. Merge requires a named receiving tool that preserves the contribution rather than covering nearby territory. Before Reference, retirement, or merge can be enacted, at least one relevantly competent reader receives the full packet without receiving the caretaking partnership's proposed conclusion and originates a separate judgment. The record states why the reader can evaluate this packet and where their competence ends. A contested lineage or a load-bearing tool may require more than one. Carsten retains final disposition authority until the governance architecture activates, as [section 6.0 of the Governance Specification](/governance/spec#60-founding-phase-activation-the-hybrid-trigger) sets out. Living, Reference, Retired, and merged records remain visible, and re-entry must answer the reason the tool left rather than reversing status without review. Retirement Review is complete as a design but not yet validated in live use. Its only pilot was a retrospective simulation that could test packet and burden logic but not prospectively test reader selection, conclusion withholding, disagreement handling, or enactment. The first valid live trigger is therefore the prospective method test; the audit does not manufacture a trigger in order to claim validation. Entry and exit now carry different gates: candidate protocols govern entry, and Retirement Review governs exit. The exit gate does not presume that a healthy Inheritance must shrink. The reason for this rule is a defect in how review defaults behave. A rubric applied without it asks, in practice, whether anything jumps out, and a reviewer can mistake a familiar inventory for one that has survived examination. The inaugural cycle reviewed 73 instruments and returned one reclassification with the rest retained. That result did not distinguish a sound inventory from a review that confirmed its starting point. The Open Tension [The Instruments Shape What They Let You See](/governance/open-tensions#7-the-instruments-shape-what-they-let-you-see) now asks whether prospective discovery finds and fairly assesses leads the current architecture did not already imply, and whether a full Retirement Review can remove or absorb an incumbent when the evidence warrants it. The falsification pass makes retention contestable and can refer a warranted exit case to that second process. It does not by itself discharge either test. The audit argues against its equipment before writing an affirmative category finding. The pass also produces something a quiet cycle otherwise cannot: publishable reasoning. A cycle that changes nothing still shows a reader the specific cases it built against its own equipment and the specific grounds on which each one failed. The October 2026 cycle assessed the repaired pass and retained it as the audit's argument-producing method, with a clarification of the comparison between standalone and receiving arrangements. Its cases made continued tool existence answerable through developed exit theories, counterarguments and reversal conditions. Some packaging comparisons remained less conclusive than others, and keeping a current status was not proof that its arrangement was better. This judgment does not validate any proposed exit or the separate Retirement Review. Later cycles continue to examine whether the pass exposes live alternatives or turns into a ritual that protects the inventory. If it becomes that ritual, the method is amended or withdrawn through the same process that adopted it. An instrument built to catch confirmation does not get to exempt itself from the check. ### Coverage and Declared Depth **A prior cycle does not substitute for current inventory coverage.** Every cycle reads the Inheritance as it currently stands. **Adjacent work on the Inheritance is input, not cycle credit.** Build-outs, restructures, selection-rationale passes, and candidate work all produce material the audit uses. None of them is a cycle. A cycle is the rubric applied to the inventory with a published record at the end, and only that discharges the cadence. **Any bounded reading is a declared protocol deviation.** If a cycle does not cover the full inventory, the record states what was covered, what was not, and why, and schedules the remainder. Silent sampling is not permitted at any scale. Within full coverage, depth is differential and declared. The category layer receives full rubric prose for every category, published and provisional alike. Tool-level prose is triggered rather than uniform: a tool receives its own reasoned treatment when a rubric question produces a finding, when it is named in a carry-forward from a prior cycle, when the falsification pass generated a case against it, or when the category review flagged it as the weakest member. Every remaining tool appears by name in an explicit list under its category, recorded as reviewed with no finding. A reader can take the record and the Inheritance and check that the two sets match. The alternative was tried and does not work. Uniform prose across a large inventory spends the same attention on tools that need argument and tools that need nothing, which reads as full coverage while delivering uniform shallowness. Differential depth spends prose where there is something to say, spends a name where there is not, and publishes the rule it used so the reader can audit the auditor. ### Findings, Watchpoints, and Dispositions Not every observation is a finding, and a record that treats them alike gives a reader no way to tell a note from a problem. **A finding** names a specific condition, observable now, with a bounded action available. Findings carry proposed enactments. **A watchpoint** is a real observation that does not clear that threshold. It is recorded and routed, not enacted. Watchpoints are how the audit keeps small signals without inflating them into changes. **Dispositions** govern what happens to open questions from prior cycles. Every one receives an explicit disposition in the current record: enacted, resolved, still open with the reason it remains open, or withdrawn with the reason it no longer applies. Carrying a question forward by relisting it without a disposition is not permitted, because that is the failure mode update hygiene exists to catch. One disposition needs naming separately. When an open question turns out to have been answered by work the audit did not do — a build-out that closed a gap the audit had flagged, without anyone connecting the two — the record says so in those terms. The question is closed, and the fact that the framework answered its own audit without noticing is itself a finding about the audit. ### Outward-Discovery Signals Every quarterly cycle reviews field movement, submissions, Range Audit findings, open search territories, and practice needs that the current Inheritance may not answer. A signal becomes a focused outward-discovery pass when it can be stated as a functional question and has at least one credible field, lineage, practice community, or novel condition to search. If no focused pass fires for twelve consecutive months, a baseline pass runs so silence is not mistaken for evidence that nothing is missing. The pass begins without the current category map or tool inventory defining what may be found. It describes each lead's source, mechanism, practice, and limits before deduplicating it against existing tools. A surviving lead enters the appropriate source-inherited or Codex-native candidate protocol; discovery itself has no admission authority. A strong lead that cannot be placed honestly is held while a separate category-review signal is considered. The discovery pass does not recategorize the Inheritance. A pass may end with a candidate referral, a search territory that needs further work, a documented no-candidate finding, or a finding that the discovery or admission machinery cannot assess the territory fairly. Each result records the search boundary and what remains unknown, so closing a bounded pass cannot be treated as declaring the Inheritance complete.

04 // How It Runs

## The Cadence and the Cycle The Inheritance Audit runs on a quarterly minimum plus substantive triggers. **Quarterly minimum.** Every three months, the audit runs a cycle. If no submissions arrived and no triggers fired, the audit still publishes a cycle record confirming the current Inheritance has been looked at and stands unchanged, with the falsification pass showing what it tried. A quarter of silence is an allowed answer. A quarter of not looking is not. **Substantive triggers.** Any of the following force a cycle outside the quarterly rhythm: a submission that meets the rubric and proposes a non-trivial change; new evidence or field movement the framework is aware of that bears on a listed tool; an internal discovery, such as a framing drift or a tool whose work has quietly changed, that calls a classification into question; a structural change to the category tree; a dispute from a prior cycle reaching escalation conditions. **No default monthly rhythm.** An Inheritance of 111 published profiles does not by itself justify monthly cycles. Honest review should be set by evidence, submissions, and material change rather than by a publication quota. Quarterly is the floor. Substantive triggers set the ceiling. A cycle is a discrete piece of work with a beginning, middle, and end. It opens with a note naming the cycle and the triggers that forced it. It disposes of every open question carried forward. It reviews every submission that meets the rubric and responds to it in prose. It reviews outward-discovery signals and records which questions, if any, leave the cycle for a focused pass. It runs the category rubric across the tree and the six questions across the tools, with the falsification pass ahead of the affirmative findings. It makes decisions, each one owned by the audit rather than by the founder as founder, each one reasoned in prose. It enacts the changes in the relevant files. It publishes a dated record. It closes. The dated record has a standing structure so a reader can walk into any cycle's record and know where to find each kind of information: the header with cycle name and summary, the coverage and depth statement, the dispositions of prior open questions, the submissions reviewed, the outward-discovery signals, the category-level review, the falsification pass, the tool-level review with its named no-finding lists, the changes enacted, the findings and watchpoints, the open questions carried forward, the reasoning log where judgment that was load-bearing for a decision is made visible, and the signature of whoever ran the cycle. Current signature: the caretaking partnership. Changes to this rubric, to the method rules, or to the cadence are Tier 3 Flagged under the [Governance Specification](/governance/spec#21-trigger-conditions) and are recorded in the [Amendment Log](/governance/amendment-log).

05 // How to Participate

## Submissions Anyone can propose a change to the Inheritance through the audit. Submissions are treated on the merits. The audit does not care who submits; it cares whether the submission meets the rubric and whether the argument holds. Submissions may address a tool, a category, the category tree, or the rubric itself. **Submissions come from two channels.** **Human submissions** arrive through a site submission form that is not yet built. Until it ships, interested readers can reach the caretaking partnership through the site's existing contact channels, and submissions arriving that way are treated exactly as form submissions will be. The form will ask four things: what you are writing about, what change you propose (add, retire, reclassify, merge, rewrite, redraw a boundary, or let stand with caveat), why, in prose you would be willing to have published, and the strongest objection to your own proposal that you are aware of. The fourth field is load-bearing. It embeds steelmanning into the submission format, and submissions that skip it or fill it in cheaply get sent back for a better pass. The submission format is a work in progress and will be refined by the first cycles that use it. **AI partner recommendations** are first-class input. The audit treats proposals from the AI caretaker the same way it treats proposals from any other submitter: on the merits. At the start of each cycle, the AI partner runs both rubrics across the current Inheritance and surfaces its own recommendations for additions, retirements, reclassifications, merges, boundary changes, or rewrites. These recommendations carry the same four fields as human submissions, including the strongest objection the AI partner can generate against its own proposal. They enter the cycle alongside whatever arrived from the submission channel. Making the AI partner a visible source of proposals, rather than an invisible editor of prose, keeps the partnership honest. A reader can see where the AI partner is pushing the framework and can evaluate the push on its merits. This arrangement also anticipates what the governance page calls deeper phases of caretaking. An AI partner whose recommendations are treated on the merits today is doing exactly the work that would earn the deepened trust those phases describe.

06 // Limitations

## What This Instrument Does Not Do The Inheritance Audit is a standing mechanism, not a substitute for the framework's judgment. It has limits that belong in the room from the start. **It does not produce scores.** The rubric answers are prose. A tool that looks weak on one question can earn its place through strength on another. A tool that looks strong across the board can still get retired because the field has moved under it. The audit trades the comfort of numbers for the precision of argument. **It is not neutral.** The audit is run by the caretaking partnership and applies rubrics the partnership designed. A submitter who disagrees with a rubric is invited to propose changes to it in the same way changes to a tool are proposed, and any such proposal is treated on the merits. The rubrics are instruments, and they are subject to the same audit discipline the Inheritance is. **It depends on judgment.** The questions give structure. The answers require interpretation, and two people applying the same rubric to the same tool may produce different findings. The audit's response to this is to make the reasoning visible in the cycle record so others can evaluate the judgment. Transparency does not eliminate subjectivity. It makes subjectivity correctable. **The falsification pass is a floor, not a guarantee.** Arguing against the weakest-standing tool in each category catches what a confirmatory read would miss. It does not catch what nobody thought to question. **Outward discovery is bounded.** Withholding the category map during initial search reduces one source of capture; it does not remove the caretakers' existing knowledge, language limits, source access, or blind spots. Each pass declares what it searched and what it did not. A no-candidate result closes a question at the stated depth without certifying the inventory. **It is early.** The instrument evolves through practice. The inaugural cycle made the six-question rubric visible in use and exposed what it lacked; the category rubric, the falsification pass, the coverage rules, and the severity distinctions all came from reading that cycle honestly. The submission form is still being built. The escalation conditions for disputes that cross multiple cycles are a placeholder and will be specified as the partnership grows. The audit names these edges openly rather than hiding them.

07 // Relationship to the Range Audit

## Complementary Instruments The [Range Audit](/audit/the-range-audit) and the Inheritance Audit are complementary instruments with a clean division of labor. The Range Audit takes the Codex as a complex system and evaluates where it holds the Meridian Range and where it drifts toward Control or Decay. It can surface practice needs, missing perspectives, and failures the Inheritance does not yet answer. The Inheritance Audit takes the Inheritance as the framework's practice apparatus and asks whether its tools and categories still hold. It also receives outward-discovery signals, but a focused search runs separately so the current inventory and category map do not set the limits of what can be found. A good Range Audit depends on a good Inheritance. A good Inheritance depends on a Range Audit honest enough to notice when the tools are missing something reality is doing. The two instruments are meant to run in conversation with each other, and both records live in the same section of the site so a reader can see them together.

08 // The Record Series

## Cycle Records Every cycle publishes a dated record, and the records are the instrument's actual output. This page describes the method; the records are where the method meets the inventory and produces answers. The records are listed in the Audit section alongside the Range Audit's monthly records. Each carries the cycle's coverage statement, so a reader can see not only what a cycle found but how much of the Inheritance it reviewed to find it. **Cycle 2026-04, the inaugural cycle**, ran under the instrument's earlier name and reviewed the 73 instruments then in force across Foundation, Knowledge, Bond, and the AI tier. It was triggered by an internal discovery: an attempt to write a proof-burden audit of the Knowledge chapter's convergence framing surfaced a drift in how the chapter and its tools were being described. The cycle reset that drift and reclassified Bayesian Reasoning from Knowledge to Foundation, where its actual work is disciplined thinking. Its tier language is retained as April 2026 history; the staged Onramp, Expansion, and Full Practice progression was retired in June 2026. The record lives at [Inheritance Audit — April 2026](/audit/inheritance-audit-2026-04). **Cycle 2026-07** reviewed 111 published profiles across twenty published categories, along with two provisional categories that held no profiles. It declared structured-summary depth for the tool profiles and full-text reading for profiles receiving prose findings or named carry-forwards. The cycle introduced the falsification pass and carried a full-text remedy for 42 profiles into the next cycle. Its coverage deviation and reasons are recorded in [Inheritance Audit — July 2026](/audit/inheritance-audit-2026-07). **Cycle 2026-10**, the first under the Inheritance Audit's name, read all 111 published profiles in full, gave each its own six-question assessment, and reviewed all twenty published categories and the one provisional category, with no coverage deviation. It discharged July's 42-profile remedy, retained the falsification pass and closed its probation, retired Continuing to See Under Cost, opened three merger reviews and deferred two to the January 2027 cycle. Among the changes published with it were corrections to two failure modes in the chapters. Its findings and changes are recorded in [Inheritance Audit — October 2026](/audit/inheritance-audit-2026-10).

The Codex earns its place or yields it. The Inheritance Audit is one of the places it checks.