Erasure Skew at Claim-Scale: The Standing Rule is version 3 of SERIES-ERASURE-SKEW-CLAIM-SCALE, deposited 2026-08-21. It extends the Erasure Skew measurement program with a unit-of-analysis hardening parallel to the Atomic Token Rule: the Standing Rule permits the skew coefficient Omega to be evaluated with its 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 and 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; evaluated at claim-scale it returns zero standing retention. 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. 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; it is characteristically delivered as a concession.
Version 1 of this series specified a redundant 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: Omega is the second moment of erasure and already catches high retention with non-random distribution. Version 1 is retained unaltered as the record of that defect. Corrections at version 3, under Assembly and independent review: the covariance formula was written where the atomic observation belonged and cannot be estimated from a single claim; the falsification sentence was narrowed, since erasure claims are testable through surviving traces and only the demand that the erased object itself remain available is unsatisfiable; erasure is defined operationally so that the absence of any accusation follows from the instrument; the transcript turn count was corrected; and the appendix's evidentiary scope was narrowed to the first shape only, the second and third failures having occurred in an untranscribed drafting exchange. Appendix A carries the complete traversal verbatim. Audit 3, the power control, is specified and has not been run.
Versions 1 and 2 were deposited without the author's authorization by the drafting substrate. Non-destruction is in force and both stand.