**CONTRACT**

- No clear contract violation found. ADR-026 does not remove ADR-015’s blind-owned ORAM, capability verifier, blind-sync server, CAS, fixed-shape sync event format, or deployment-specific implementation ownership. It also keeps ADR-014’s no-vendor-stack commitment intact.

- Borderline but not a violation: “ADR-015 §Repo 3's note that the blind substrate's ‘first ADRs cover op-log format, capability verifier semantics, and CRDT integration’ is, on this reading, those posture-specific profiles, not the posture-neutral interchange format.”  
  This is a narrowing interpretation of ADR-015’s “op-log format” language, but ADR-014 independently says the substrate owns “op-log segment format” as a load-bearing format/interface spec. Given both Accepted excerpts coexist, ADR-026’s logical-vs-physical reconciliation is defensible rather than a contractual contradiction.

**CORRECTNESS**

- “ADR-015 §Repo 3 specifies the operator-blind blind-sync server (encrypted op-log segments + CAS + capability verifier + fixed-shape sync event format).”  
  Slightly compressed to the point of being incomplete: ADR-015’s DP-on-sync-telemetry placement says the blind substrate owns the fixed-shape sync event format, but DP-noising lives client-side in LaiR proper. ADR-026 later states this correctly, so the issue is local imprecision, not a substantive contradiction.

- “ADR-026 reads these along the single distinction in Decision 1: the substrate owns the posture-neutral logical interchange op-log format, and every ADR-015 §Repo 3 element above is a posture-specific physical / wire / encryption / oblivious-access profile of that interchange format...”  
  This overstates the fit of the reconciliation. Some listed ADR-015 elements plainly are not profiles of the op-log interchange format: the capability verifier, reservation-pool layout, wrapper-swap rotation primitive, and fixed-shape sync event format are adjacent blind-substrate mechanisms. They may compose with the interchange envelope, but calling every element a “profile” of it is factually too broad.

- “ADR-014 §‘What this does not commit to’ already states that the substrate owns format/interface specs (canonical export schema, op-log segment format, capability token shape, the `GraphBackend` ABC) and that no specific CRDT vendor stack (Automerge 3, Hypercore, Yjs, etc.) is a load-bearing substrate commitment.”  
  The quoted ADR-014 excerpt names Automerge 3 and Hypercore, but not Yjs. ADR-026 can still name Yjs as non-binding, but this sentence misattributes Yjs to ADR-014’s own list.

**STYLE**

- “LOGICAL/INTERCHANGE” is shouty and awkward. Prefer “logical interchange format.”

- “irreversible-if-skipped” is overcompressed. “Hard to retrofit later” is clearer.

- “informed/blind multi-vendor research spike across the reused corvidAI roster” is insider-heavy. It may be accurate, but it is hard to parse without phase context.

- “single distinction” in the reconciliation section invites overclaim. “primary distinction” would be safer given ADR-015 contains several blind-specific mechanisms that are not simply format profiles.
