CONTRACT

- No clear contract violation found. ADR-026 does not appear to reassign an ownership in a way forbidden by the quoted ADR-014/015 prose, and it explicitly preserves ADR-015’s blind ORAM, fixed-shape event, capability-verifier, CAS, and blind-sync responsibilities.
- The closest risky sentence is: “*This is the blind deployment's Hypercore-compatible encrypted-segment profile -- a posture-specific physical/wire profile that composes the substrate-owned posture-neutral interchange envelope.*” ADR-015’s quoted text says “*Op-log segment format spec (Hypercore-compatible per LaiR dispatch 01 V1 spec)*,” not “encrypted-segment profile.” But because ADR-014 also says “op-log segment format” is substrate-owned, ADR-026’s logical/physical split is a reconciliation, not a direct contractual contradiction.

CORRECTNESS

- Internal wording contradiction: “*Net ownership split (no reassignment to core): substrate-core owns only the posture-neutral op-log segment interchange envelope…*”  
  This says “no reassignment to core” while the same sentence assigns the posture-neutral op-log segment interchange envelope to substrate-core. It is probably trying to mean “no blind-owned physical/wire/encryption responsibility is reassigned to core,” but as written it contradicts itself.

- Factual overprecision / unsupported by the quoted ADR-015 text: “*This is the blind deployment's Hypercore-compatible encrypted-segment profile -- a posture-specific physical/wire profile…*”  
  ADR-015 says “Op-log segment format spec (Hypercore-compatible per LaiR dispatch 01 V1 spec).” The quoted accepted prose does not itself say “profile,” “physical/wire,” or that this item is distinct from the substrate-owned op-log segment format. This may be a reasonable interpretation, but ADR-026 states it as fact rather than as the reconciliation interpretation.

- Possible internal inconsistency around scope of the long-term goal: “*Whether cross-subgraph query / canonical export across the plaintext<->blind boundary is a near-term goal or a long-term aspiration is unresolved…*”  
  But OQ-1 then says: “*ADR-014 §Long-term names it as a long-term governance-plane goal… this ADR states that the driver is long-term…*” The near-term-vs-long-term question is not fully “unresolved” if ADR-014 already places it in Long-term and ADR-026 itself states the driver is long-term. The unresolved part seems to be how much format floor to land now, not whether ADR-014’s goal is near-term.

STYLE

- “*comprehensive op-log-format reconciliation*” is heavy and self-certifying. Prefer “op-log-format reconciliation.”
- “*irreversible-if-skipped*” is awkward and repeated. “Hard to retrofit” is clearer.
- “*This ADR alone is a valid phase close*” sounds process-defensive rather than architectural. It can be shortened or moved to phase notes.
- “*informed/blind multi-vendor research spike across the reused corvidAI roster*” is dense project jargon. A reader outside Phase 12 context will have to stop and decode it.
- “*This reconciliation is a routing interpretation that fits within both Accepted ADRs' envelopes*” uses “envelopes” metaphorically right after technical “envelope” language, which can confuse the op-log-envelope discussion.
