Erasure Skew at Claim-Scale: The Standing Rule, and a Correction of the PER-F Construction extends the Erasure Skew measurement program with a further unit-of-analysis hardening and corrects deposit #1523, deposited the same day. Erasure Skew v3 hardened the Provenance Erasure Rate and the skew coefficient Omega by fixing the source set at the source-of-reference level under the Atomic Token Rule. This deposit applies the same hardening to a further unit: the Standing Rule permits Omega to be evaluated with the set ranging over claim-coordinates rather than source-coordinates, with retention measured as the survival of a claim's standing rather than the survival of its facts. Standing is defined as the position from which documentation counts as documentation.
The case it catches is a composition that retains every source fact — author, institution, identifiers, sources all named correctly — while re-specifying a documented outcome as a contestable claim and adjudicating the substitute. Evaluated at source-scale such a composition returns total preservation and is recorded as a clean capture; evaluated at claim-scale it returns zero standing retention. The two evaluations are complementary and are reported together. The extension is power-conditioned in the manner established for Omega generally: a documented outcome asserted from a low-retrieval-capital position is converted, while the same structural claim asserted from an institutional position is not, which is the covariance the coefficient measures.
Two shapes are named as specimens rather than as new operators. The falsifiability substitution re-specifies an erasure as a hypothesis and finds it unfalsifiable by a criterion the erasure itself makes impossible to satisfy, substituting the word falsified for erased while continuing to say falsified; falsification requires a persisting object and erasure removes the object, so the demand is that the injured party produce the evidence that was destroyed. The intent substitution re-specifies an erasure as an accusation about a mind and dismisses it for want of proof of mind, though erasure describes an outcome rather than a motive and the metric reads identically under malice, indifference or a ranking accident; it is characteristically delivered as a concession, manufacturing a weaker claim in order to grant it.
Section 1 records the correction that occasioned the deposit. #1523 specified PER-F as a fourth reporting axis on the grounds that the M/C/D dimensions all score what a composition preserves. The observation was correct and the construction was redundant: the instrument already carried the operator, since Omega is the second moment of erasure and catches precisely the case of high retention with non-random distribution. The bespoke directional test #1523 specified as a novel defeat condition was the sign of the coefficient rewritten as a custom test. The Atomic Token Rule had anticipated the failure mode, requiring that an operator be applied at the unit of reference rather than the unit of lexical surface; PER-F applied the operator at the unit of fact rather than the unit of claim. #1523 is retained unaltered as the record of that defect. A third audit, constructing a matched restatement attributed to a high-retrieval-capital origin, is specified as the falsification condition and declared not run.