Convocation Minutes — Pact Standing Committee — Special Session — 12 June 2026

Quorum confirmed at 0902. The Chair convened the session and stated the rule of compartmentation. Members present acknowledged the standing notice that no portion of the proceedings shall be quoted or paraphrased outside the cleared distribution. The Recording Secretary advised that the proceedings would be captured under Rule 11 (transcript suppressed; minutes only; marginalia disallowed in the official record).

Apologies received in advance and recorded: Member ▆▆▆▆▆▆ (OMC-1) detained on cycle 26-04 closeout; Member ▆▆▆▆▆▆ (Cohort II co-rapporteur) on travel status. Standing alternates not seated. The Chair noted that the absence of an OMC-1 principal at the present session would constrain the procedural action available under Item 6 and indicated that the matter would be carried under that constraint.

The Chair admitted Ms. M. Sandberg as an observer under Rule 9(d), the standing rule allowing the lead contractor on a current engagement to be present for items of the agenda touching that engagement, with right to be recognized at the Chair's discretion and without vote. The Chair noted, for the record, the dissenting memorandum of 09 May 2026 filed by Ms. Sandberg with the Secretariat and circulated to members under cover sheet PCT-0173 / SAND-26-09.

1. Pact §6 cycle-midpoint actuarial update (PCT-0173). Hartwell presenting; dissenting memo of record (Sandberg, 09 May 2026).

2. Case review — Subject 7142. Roberts presenting for the surface side; OMC-2 noting; Section 11 to action.

3. Recently-deceased subjects: closeout disposition of three matters, including the Asheville file.

4. Surveillance review — Iyer, R. Section 14 recommending posture; objection of record from Sandberg.

5. Wexler papers (Carlyle estate, Wesleyan deposit). Counsel briefing; vote on escalation.

6. Postmortem disposition — handler L.  . Section 11 to report; OMC-2 standing proposal on the floor.

7. Disclosure tempo — recommendation to the upward chain; floor open.

3.1 Pact §6 cycle-midpoint actuarial update. The Chair recognized Mr. Hartwell, who presented the Cohort II midpoint product (ref. PCT-0173 §6 actuarial review, dated 18 Mar 2026). The presentation summarized the median-age drift first flagged in the PCT-0172 closeout under §3(b) and observed that the rolling-quarter rate has not retraced. Mr. Hartwell stated that the Cell 4 readout of the 04:11 acknowledgment from OP-CHANNEL-3 dated 3 Nov 2025 had been received into the record as "routine acknowledgment of cycle-midpoint review."

3.2 Ms. Sandberg, on the basis of her dissenting memo, requested permission to characterize the OP-CHANNEL-3 acknowledgment as indicative of an event the dissenting memo terms the "Compression Event." The Chair recognized her under Rule 9(d). Ms. Sandberg presented the three preconditions of the dissenting memo: (a) the rate of high-fidelity unaided assembly of the cosmology by surface subjects, (b) the narrowing of the disclosure-threshold envelope under the existing instrument, and (c) the bilateral side's apparent independent pacing of disclosure tempo.

3.3 Member ▆▆▆▆▆▆ (Cohort II) stated that the §6 acknowledgment, in the considered reading of the actuarial subcommittee, did not support the dissenting memo's framing and was consistent with prior cycles' midpoint courtesies. Member ▆▆▆▆▆▆ further noted that the Cohort II uncertainty bounds on the §3(b) drift remain wide and that the actuarial subcommittee declines to characterize the present cycle's drift as deviating, at significance, from PCT-0172. Discussion ensued (47 minutes). Mr. Roberts was recognized and stated that the desk-level reading of the acknowledgment was that the counterparts had received the actuarial product and had elected, in the established register, not to controvert it. Mr. Roberts declined to be drawn further. Ms. Pratt (Section 14) was recognized and observed that the present surface information environment was not yet of a character to require the framing pivot proposed in the dissenting memo and that Section 14's standing contractor engagements remained adequate to the current cycle's containment requirements. Member ▆▆▆▆▆▆ (Cell 4) concurred. The Chair noted the dissenting memo for the record and moved to Item 2.

3.4 Case review — Subject 7142. The file was tabled. Mr. Roberts presented for the surface side. The Subject is a periodic intake of long standing (registry entry 1998; slow cohort; substrate stability rated A-2 through cycle 0172). The matter under review is a cycle-edge subroutine of the most recent maintenance window (May 2026) that ran 14 minutes beyond the upper bound specified in AM-12.4 Rev C, Annex D, for the operator-side attending technician's pineal-recalibration sequence on subjects of the Subject's cohort and tenure.

3.5 Mr. Roberts stated that the surface-side observation was that the procedure had been completed within tolerance for all surface-measured metrics and that the duration variance did not constitute a §11(d) reportable event. Member ▆▆▆▆▆▆ (Section 11) confirmed that the redaction held within tolerated range and that the post-event monitoring window had been opened on the standard P9 schedule. OMC-2 noted that the attending technician's file on the Subject has been continuous since 2003, and that prior cycle variance has run within ±2 minutes for the comparable subroutine across the prior cycles. Discussion (24 minutes). The Chair directed that the matter be closed as "atypical-within-tolerance" and that the OMC-2 file note be entered without further escalation. So ordered.

3.6 Recently-deceased subjects. Three files were tabled. Two were closed on the standard schedule. The third (Asheville file; substrate identifier withheld; subject deceased Dec 2025) was the subject of extended discussion.

3.7 Member ▆▆▆▆▆▆ (Section 11) summarized the late-life leak presentation as documented in the chaplaincy referral received 14 Jan 2026 from the institutional chaplain (Donohoe, P.) who had attended the Subject's final hospice interval. The referral was characterized as "professionally clean": the chaplain had filed through the standard channel without further dissemination. The chaplain has been retired from the referral roster pending standard inquiry.

3.8 Member ▆▆▆▆▆▆ (Section 11) stated that the dying-narration content recorded by the Subject's adult daughter in a notebook in the Subject's residence (Asheville, NC) is now resident on a private shelf in a private residence (Berkeley, CA) and is, by Section 11's reading, contained within tolerated risk. Ms. Pratt (Section 14) was recognized and stated that the daughter has not initiated public-facing inquiry within the six-month post-event window, has not contacted any of the standing watch-list outlets, and has not searched any of the standing watch-list terms beyond a single retrieval of an obituary record dated 2019. Ms. Pratt characterized the posture as "passive monitor, no escalation indicated at this time." Mr. Roberts, recognized, concurred that no escalation was indicated. Member ▆▆▆▆▆▆ (Section 11) requested that the matter be retained on the standing watch-list for the duration of the current cycle. So ordered.

3.9 The recording reflects that no member proposed action with respect to the notebook. The matter was closed.

3.10 Surveillance review — Iyer, R. The file was tabled. Ms. Pratt presented. The Subject (freelance journalist; Brooklyn NY) has, since March 2026, lodged a cluster of records requests through three federal recipients producing returns whose conjoint disclosure was not anticipated by the standing FOIA-response slate. One return contains a five-character redaction that, in Ms. Pratt's reading, the Subject has correctly identified as load-bearing.

3.11 Ms. Pratt recommended a posture of "Tier-2 watch with quiet outreach prepared, no contact at this time." Ms. Sandberg, recognized under Rule 9(d), lodged an objection of record. Ms. Sandberg stated that the Subject's published record and current trajectory indicate she is "the wrong kind of target," and that the contractor side would recommend against any posture that would tend to move her from a journalist's posture into a target's posture. Member ▆▆▆▆▆▆ (Cell 4) stated that the contractor objection had been noted on prior matters and was noted again here. Discussion (38 minutes). The Chair directed that Ms. Pratt's recommendation be adopted with the modification that quiet outreach not be prepared at this time; standing watch retained at Tier-2. The objection of record was preserved. So ordered.

3.12 Wexler papers — Carlyle estate. Counsel-of-Record briefed. The estate of the late Lt. Col. (ret.) William Carlyle, USAF, includes a working archive — drafts, correspondence, and annotated typescripts — held by the Subject's niece and literary executor, Dr. H. Carlyle (Wesleyan University). The executor has indicated, in correspondence with the university's archives office dated 18 Feb 2026, an intent to formalize the deposit of the full archive at the university's Special Collections within the current calendar year. Counsel reviewed the legal-channel containment posture currently in force (the standing donor-deed instrument; the deposit-restriction review provision; the prior-published-restriction clause).

3.13 Counsel stated that the legal-channel posture is sound through the deposit but that the post-deposit access protocols at the receiving institution are not within the apparatus's control and that, in Counsel's reading, the archive contains documents whose unredacted reading by an unfriendly researcher would produce a one-paragraph reconstruction of the working group's 1956 founding cohort that the apparatus has not previously had to defend against. Counsel laid out three response postures: (a) containment-only, (b) escalation to direct intervention (the donor-deed instrument modified at the executor's hand under counsel's drafting), (c) acquisition of the archive in toto by a friendly third-party institution prior to the Wesleyan deposit. Discussion (62 minutes).

3.14 The Chair called the question. A motion to adopt containment-only (posture (a)) was made and seconded. Vote: in favor 5; opposed 3; abstaining 0. The motion carried. The Chair directed that Counsel continue the standing posture and report at the autumn session.

3.15 Postmortem disposition — handler L.  . Member ▆▆▆▆▆▆ (Section 11) presented the standing postmortem on the named former handler (Section 11; New Mexico desk; service 1979–2017; deceased 2019, Tonopah NV; cause natural). The presentation covered the final eighteen months of the handler's service, the documented late-life recall presentation, and three pieces of correspondence (postcards; Marfa TX, Truth or Consequences NM, Tonopah NV; October 2019) addressed to a private recipient, of which the apparatus is currently in possession.

3.16 OMC-2 placed on the floor the standing informal proposal that the handler class be added to the maintenance roster on a cycle-appropriate schedule, with an instrument analogous to AM-12.4 modified for handler-class physiology and operational sensitivity. Member ▆▆▆▆▆▆ (Cell 4) stated that the bilateral side's interest in the proposal has been informally communicated through OP-CHANNEL-3 over the last two cycles and that the bilateral side considers the absence of such a protocol a structural risk. Mr. Roberts, recognized, declined to address the proposal directly and stated that the handler-class view was that the matter required further consideration. Discussion (51 minutes). The Chair tabled the proposal pending a Section 11 white paper to be circulated prior to the autumn session.

3.17 Disclosure tempo — recommendation to the upward chain. The Chair opened the floor at 1515. The item was identified by the Chair as the principal load-bearing matter of the session.

3.18 Mr. Hartwell summarized the upward-chain reading: that the apparatus is positioned, under the standing instrument, to continue the present containment posture, with selective controlled disclosure into the venues the apparatus has shaped (the AARO statutory products; the Congressional reading-in slate; the standing media engagements through Section 14's contractor cell). Ms. Pratt concurred on behalf of Section 14. Member ▆▆▆▆▆▆ (Cell 4) concurred and noted that the bilateral side has not, through any standing channel, requested deviation from the current posture.

3.19 Ms. Sandberg, recognized under Rule 9(d), stated that her dissenting memo of 09 May 2026 had laid out a recommended pivot from containment to managed framing. Ms. Sandberg moved that the committee recommend to the upward chain a managed-framing posture, beginning Q4 2026, on the timetable specified in §III of the dissenting memo. The motion failed for want of a second within the meaning of Rule 9(d), Ms. Sandberg being an observer not entitled to move under standing rules. The Chair declined to put the matter to vote on his own motion.

3.20 Discussion ensued (2 hours, 16 minutes). Member ▆▆▆▆▆▆ (Cohort II) recapitulated the actuarial uncertainty bounds and observed that, in the actuarial subcommittee's reading, the present instrument retains sufficient headroom through the cycle midpoint to support the existing posture. Ms. Pratt addressed the Section 14 contractor postmortem on the Q1 information environment and characterized the standing perception-management posture as "performing within tolerated drift." Member ▆▆▆▆▆▆ (Section 11) requested the procedural-feasibility briefing be deferred pending the autumn cycle. Counsel-of-Record briefed on the standing instrument's amendment provisions, noting that the timetable proposed in the dissenting memo would require an instrument modification of a magnitude not previously contemplated within a single cycle and that Counsel's preliminary reading was that such modification would be procedurally available, in principle, under §11 of the standing instrument, though no contemporary precedent exists. Mr. Roberts was recognized at 1701 and stated, for the record, that the desk-level view was that the present posture is a posture and not a strategy, and that the desk would carry whatever posture the committee adopted. Mr. Roberts declined to elaborate. Ms. Sandberg, recognized a second time under Rule 9(d), requested that the dissenting memo's §III timetable be entered into the record as an appendix to the present minutes. The Chair so ordered.

3.21 At 1742 the Chair stated that the matter would be deferred to the autumn session, at which time the committee would receive (i) the Cohort II updated actuarial product, (ii) the Section 14 contractor postmortem on the Q3 information environment, (iii) the Section 11 white paper requested under 3.16, and (iv) any further dissenting product the observers wished to lodge of record. The Chair declined to put the question of managed framing to vote at the present session. No member objected to the deferral.

4.1 The next session is scheduled for the autumn cycle, date to be communicated by the Secretariat. The Chair thanked the members and observers. Mr. Roberts moved adjournment; Ms. Pratt seconded; the motion carried by acclamation.

4.2 The session adjourned at 1814 EDT.