docs(overhaul): contract S5 c2 evidence fix

docs/research/2026-09-01-overhaul/s5-consumers-material-closeout-packet.md

@@ -805,3 +805,57 @@ exact clean commit, with `WorktreeDirty=false`, under
 `artifacts/s5-c2-installed-20260904`. Those post-commit artifacts supersede no
 earlier run and will be reported directly; this result does not invent their
 counts.
+
+## 15. S5-c2 production-review fix round 1 — evidence provenance only
+
+Retail/deviation review passed the exact implementation commit
+`603d4bbb05ebc3e840b5d6e66a20a4c9d3cecc8a` without a correction. The
+subsequent architecture/GPU/gate-honesty review found no production-code,
+test, lifecycle, allocation, GPU-flight, or scope defect. It returned FAIL on
+one documentation-only truth gap: §14.7 and the plan still say clean evidence
+is pending and name only the first, broader InstalledDat run, while two clean
+InstalledDat artifacts now exist with different intentional filters.
+
+This is fix round 1. It is bounded to evidence provenance and status text:
+
+1. Change §14.7's heading and tail from pending/future tense to the exact clean
+   results already on disk. Name the implementation commit and
+   `WorktreeDirty=false`.
+2. Record the hermetic artifact
+   `artifacts/s5-c2-hermetic-20260904`: 16,768 passed, 0 failed, 0 skipped;
+   SHA-256 manifest 32/32 present and matching.
+3. Preserve and explain the first InstalledDat artifact rather than hiding,
+   renaming, replacing, or calling it canonical:
+   `artifacts/s5-c2-installed-20260904` ran the literal filter
+   `Lane=InstalledDat` and produced 468 passed, 10 failed, 1 skipped; manifest
+   30/30 present and matching.
+4. Name the distinct canonical comparison artifact
+   `artifacts/s5-c2-installed-canonical-20260904`. It ran the same accepted
+   project filter used by S5-c1,
+   `Lane=InstalledDat&Purpose!=Diagnostic`, and produced 385 passed, 10 failed,
+   1 skipped; manifest 30/30 present and matching.
+5. State that both S5-c2 InstalledDat artifacts have the same 11 nonpassing
+   identities as the accepted S5-c1 canonical artifact and that both exact
+   `Compare-Object` comparisons returned no differences. Do not collapse the
+   two passing counts into one claim.
+6. Record both sequential review outcomes honestly: retail PASS; production
+   FAIL on this evidence-text defect only, with code/architecture/GPU-flight
+   otherwise passing. The stationary three-buffer per-frame publication is
+   real, explicitly permitted by §14.4, and bounded by Vulkan's two-flight
+   retirement fence; it is a performance note, not a correction or #350
+   mechanism.
+7. Update only the S5-c2/S5 status text in the campaign plan to say fix round 1
+   is documentation-only and implemented/pending narrow re-review. Do not mark
+   the chunk landed, review-closed, self-gated, or user-accepted.
+
+Allowed files are exactly this packet and
+`docs/plans/2026-09-01-campaign-overhaul-world-solidity.md`. No source, test,
+register, architecture, artifact, manifest, filter, or client change is
+authorized. Do not rerun a lane or launch the graphical client. Return one
+clean docs-only commit, `git diff --check`, exact file/count report, and prove
+every named artifact/manifest/count/filter directly from its existing files.
+
+One narrow independent production/gate-honesty re-review then checks only the
+two corrected documents against the three clean artifact directories and the
+two recorded review verdicts. A new correction-worthy finding would be fix
+round 2; a third fix round still stops S5-c2 and is written up.