Can the Question and Judgment Show Why They Still Hold?

Version 1.1, updated September 6, 2026, retains the title, DOI, and overall architecture of the September 5 edition while integrating two substantive extensions. First, repeatability is reported as two independent Fresh passes rather than as pooled or averaged evidence. Each selected E1-E9/R1 study was rerun once under the frozen protocol using 760 new model calls, with no between-run tuning. The paper now distinguishes exact reproduction, quality-state stability with resource variation, structural-effect stability with runtime variation, and claim-boundary refinement. E9 is used explicitly as a falsifiability example: the judgment-layer result remained 28/28 in both runs, while the strong structured baseline improved from 26/28 to 28/28, so the baseline accuracy gap is not claimed as repeatable. R1 likewise separates the exactly reproduced recompute/reuse structure from wall-clock and Pareto ordering that varied between runs. Second, the paper adds a proposed Judgment Metrology section for externalized judgment objects. It introduces Judgment Unit (JU) and Information Unit (IU) as object counts; Judgment Information Requirement (JIR/JRU); Qualified Information Ratio (QIR); perturbation-based Judgment Stability (JS); Information Half-Life (IHL); Judgment Half-Life (JHL); Impact Reach (IR); Requalification Load (RL); Propagation Depth (PD); Consequence Weight (CW); Judgment Weight and Judgment Weight Unit (JW/JWU); and an optional Judgment Information (JI) connection to ordinary Shannon bits where a meaningful probability model exists. The section uses two illustrative 1-JU cases, comparison tables, half-life curves, a computable judgment-graph visualization, and photorealistic metrology metaphors. These quantities are explicitly presented as proposed research conventions, not as established standards or validated universal units. The revision continues to incorporate external-review improvements on point-of-use attribution, governance of admission rules, finite governance termination at an external accountable institution, re-derivable governance crosswalk criteria, Decision Adequacy before Question Adequacy, Challenge versus Requalification, broader uncertainty, evidence independence, and the distinction between auditability and deliberative surveillance. Judgment Capital, the Judgment Terrarium Ecosystem, and the proposed .jez (Judgment Ecosystem ZIP) package remain product/architecture implications of reusable qualified state. Portability does not imply applicability, qualification, authority, execution, interoperability certification, or industry-standard status. Evidence remains deliberately bounded. Two internal same-suite Fresh passes distinguish observed-once results from results reproduced at least once, but do not establish long-run stochastic reliability or external independent replication. Cross-model reuse remains limited to the tested OpenAI family/API environment. Governance mappings describe architectural support, not legal compliance. Version DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22321428Concept DOI (all versions): https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22284438Prior v1.0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22284439Public page: https://limflex.org/