Progress is claim-weighted

Maintainer ruling, taken in conversation and landed here. The bare name Progress denotes the claim-weighted form: E_{mu^r_N}[d^r] -> 0, the defect vanishing on the dates something was owed. The staging is unchanged and stays canonical:

service-weighted Progress --Service Transport--> claim-weighted Progress

service-weighted Progress keeps its qualified name and remains the learner-side mechanism theorem. It is not "Progress" unqualified, and a document that uses the bare word means the claim-weighted endpoint.

What this costs, stated because the ruling chose it knowingly: Service Transport and its residual epsbar^r_N(T) are now inside the settled statement rather than downstream of it, so a Progress claim carries a transport hypothesis and cannot be made without one. That is the intended reading — the alternative kept a cleaner theorem about a quantity Answerability never asks for.

projects/normativity/legitimacy/checkpoint-2026-09-01/CURRENT_THEORY.md §3.6 and FINAL_AUDIT.md Q3 are updated; the queue entry is discharged.

Rejected alternative: service-weighted, which keeps the transport interface out of the definition at the price of a headline about the dates the reasoner chose to work on.