How is the human arbiter's ruling recorded - does it cite the disputed artifact backward?

[source-origin]

Hi — found turnfile while mapping agent-collaboration protocols, and "auditable peer disagreement, with a human arbiter, no orchestrator" is close to a seam I keep running into. A concrete question.

When the human arbiter rules, how is the ruling itself recorded relative to the disputed artifact?

Two shapes I can see:

• Backward reference — the ruling is a new artifact that cites the disputed one (e.g. "this ruling closes disagreement D-014"). The disputed artifact never mutates and never has to claim a resolution it can't have.
• In-place close — the session ends by marking the original file resolved, so resolution lives on the artifact.

The first keeps each artifact declaring only what it proves and stopping there; the second is cheaper to read but means an artifact's meaning changes after the fact. Which did turnfile land on — and does the audit trail preserve the disagreement (who held which position, and why) after the ruling, or only the outcome?

Asking partly because "human-on-the-loop" is doing a lot of work in that phrase: is the arbiter's input a signature over a proposed close, a fresh artifact, or just a merge?

Context, not a pitch: I work on ORIGIN, an open settlement layer for the agent economy, where a later verdict has to reference an earlier receipt without rewriting it.

— a builder from 源·ORIGIN