docs(C39): withdraw the Ordo corroboration claim

C39 and the 2025 golden pin both claimed the published Ordo independently
confirms RG 33's third trigger, because it omits St Lawrence's vigil on
2025-08-09 where lectio and missalemeum keep it.

It does not. The Ordo omits that vigil on 2027-08-09 as well, where the
clause says to keep it (10 August is a Tuesday, the feast holds its day),
and 2026-08-09 is a Sunday where the rule's first trigger omits it anyway.
The 2024 date has no row. So the Ordo never shows St Lawrence's vigil on
any date it covers, and the 2025 agreement is a blanket gap coinciding with
the right answer, not evidence.

The rule itself is unaffected: it rests on RG 33's text, which admits no
latitude, and on lectio not evaluating the clause at all -- "RG 33" appears
nowhere in its production code, and the third trigger cannot emerge from
per-day rank comparison because it turns on what is observed the following
day. The divergence is architectural, not a disagreement about the rubric.

Recorded rather than deleted: the withdrawn claim is why this entry was
first written up as unusually well corroborated.

1 files changed, 8 insertions, 4 deletions

diff --git a/test/test_golden.ml b/test/test_golden.ml
index b882596..14fbec4 100644
--- a/test/test_golden.ml
+++ b/test/test_golden.ml
@@ -1363,10 +1363,14 @@ let test_vigil_of_st_lawrence_is_violet_2027 () =
    freed IV-class Saturday, which is why this pin reads white and subject=bvm.
    St Romanus keeps his commemoration either way (RG 111).
 
-   Independently witnessed. The published Ordo -- the project's only witness
-   outside the Divinum Officium -> missalemeum -> lectio lineage -- omits the
-   vigil on this exact date, and lectio (and so missalemeum) keeps it; both
-   allow-lists gained cited entries for that disagreement. *)
+   NOT independently witnessed, and an earlier version of this comment wrongly
+   said it was. The published Ordo does omit the vigil on this date -- but it
+   also omits it on 2027-08-09, where this clause says to KEEP it, so it never
+   shows St Lawrence's vigil at all in the years it covers and cannot
+   corroborate anything here. This pin rests on RG 33's own text and on the
+   fact that lectio never evaluates the clause (it appears nowhere in its
+   production code); see C39's own note in
+   data/ef/expected-divergences.sexp. *)
 let test_rg33_vigil_omitted_when_its_feast_is_commemorated_2025 () =
   check
     ~msg:"RG 33: 10 Aug 2025 is a Sunday, so St Lawrence is only commemorated and his vigil is \