# Outside read of floor cycle 12, criterion 3 under the counterfactual reading: GPT-6 Astra (gpt-6-astra), 4 October 2026

**Type:** outside-lineage read (one Codex call, xhigh) · **Verbatim below** (local file links shortened).

1. **Faithful delivery; qualified blinding.** Input assembly reproduces exactly. Removing my second sentence preserved the general distinction while withholding its predicted application. The supplied input contains neither earlier nor expected verdicts; the audit records only the permitted read and structured output. It establishes restricted tool access, not complete contextual isolation. **Amend the control discussion:** both applications shared a prompt containing the new reading. Opus’s movement may reflect priming or clarification, not simply “single cells are noisy.” This was not an unexposed control.

2. **Computations reproduce.** I independently reproduced every field of `result.json`. Both readers give human **pass**, supervisor **fail** under the reading. Combining those cells with cycle 11’s C1, C2 and explicit C4 choice 2 yields **P/P/P/P** versus **P/P/F/P**, respectively, for both panels. **Amend “both readers now pass”:** these are verdicts composed across cycles and fresh instances, not a joint reassessment of all four criteria under both readings. The record correctly labels the operation computed; retain that qualification throughout.

3. **A defensible general reading, not an established general discriminator.** Requiring represented alternatives of the system itself gives substantive force to Part III’s phrase. It contains no human-specific exemption and is not inherently a gerrymander. Nevertheless, the wording permits interpretive disagreement; this test demonstrates application, not unique textual correctness. **Amend “counterfactual against prospective modelling”:** prospective models can represent counterfactual alternatives, including an option eventually selected. Mere forecasting is insufficient; futurity or intention is not disqualifying. Likewise, modelling alternative actions can satisfy **3d**, not automatically C3 or the full filter. The supervisor’s failure depends on exhaustive stipulation converting unstated alternatives into absence.

4. **The record needs factual and proportional corrections.** “Both readings were proposed after cycle 11’s verdicts” is false: C4 choice 2 (`cycle-11/01_protocol.md:104`) was already in the frozen protocol. The C3 proposal and selection of their combination followed the results. Replace “only under two readings together” with “under the tested combination”; necessity across faithful readings was not established. Objection 8 gains a possible separation of these descriptions, not validation of its general filter. Preserve the same-lineage and asymmetric-description limits.

   The stated costs sum correctly: **$1.07, $0.07 over cap (7%)**. Disclosure is proportionate, including the unproposed outside call, but does not undo the breach. Token usage and billing are not independently reproducible from the supplied records. Qualify “fixed context … whatever the task” as an observation about these runs and retain the overhead-budgeting correction.

**ADOPT WITH AMENDMENTS (1–4).**