diff --git a/skills/operational-rigor/SKILL.md b/skills/operational-rigor/SKILL.md
index 82300cc..03019a9 100644
--- a/skills/operational-rigor/SKILL.md
+++ b/skills/operational-rigor/SKILL.md
@@ -255,6 +255,37 @@ When rigor conflicts with finishing sooner, rigor wins.
 - Between failed fixes, return to a clean state; stacked half-fixes hide causes.
 - Reproduce reported bugs before fixing. Fix the observed failure, not the implied
   one. Refutation is valid: report confirmed non-bugs and ship nothing.
+- **A check's name is not its coverage** (`unprobed` — private incident as
+  shape; see Provenance). A named gate earns evidentiary weight from what
+  it asserts AND what it actually drives: one session cited a check whose
+  name implied it gated a model integration's behavior, then read its
+  source and found it exercised only a regex pre-filter in which the
+  model's name was a routing label — and had to correct a safety claim
+  already given to the user. Before citing a check, test, or CI job as
+  evidence a change is safe, trace it through to its pass/fail oracle —
+  the assertions (or, for a linter or build job, its rule set and
+  inputs) inspected at the revision the cited run actually used, the
+  invocation path and setup that feed them, whether that path executed
+  in the cited run, and whether its assertions PASSED there with their
+  failure controlling the check's final status (a run is not a pass —
+  the runs/passes/correct line later in this section) — and assert only the properties
+  that trace established: whatever the check's NAME implies but the
+  trace did not show stays unverified — say so; two checks with
+  identical assertions differ when one drives the real integration and
+  the other a pre-filter. A trace you cannot inspect leaves that
+  coverage unverified — say so. "There is a check called X" is a claim
+  about naming, not behavior.
+  ✅ "traced check X at run 1234's revision: it asserts A and B against
+  the real adapter; the run's log shows that path executed and A, B
+  passed with failures propagating to the job status; nothing in its
+  path drives C — C is unverified."
+  ❌ "the change is safe, check X covers it" (named, never read).
+  ❌ "read the source — it asserts A — so the cited run covers A" (the
+  run had that test conditionally skipped; static coverage is not the
+  cited run's coverage).
+  ❌ "read it — it's a regex pre-filter, but the name says integration,
+  so the integration is covered" — a trace read and then overridden by
+  the name.
 - **A failing check has two suspects: the code and the check itself.** Before
   editing either, open the statement of intended behavior (spec, README,
   docstring, type) and confirm which side it backs; a disagreement is the
@@ -538,6 +569,15 @@ the deployed path (contributor-reported shape; the private repo is verifiable by
 the contributor, not linkable here). It ships `unprobed` — the pack's private
 fixtures have no interactive arm to drive it (cf. the grill-pass note above); the
 marker records that debt, not an exemption.
+The §4 check-name rule (2026-07-22) comes from a private incident: a
+session presented a named CI check as gating a model integration's
+behavior, then read the check's source and found it exercised only a
+regex pre-filter in which the model's name was merely a routing label,
+and had to correct the safety framing it had already given the user.
+Private evidence, cited as shape per the README covenant's second branch;
+the executable probe — sample a repo's named checks and diff name-implied
+vs actual assertion coverage — has not been run; the in-body `unprobed`
+marker records that debt.
 Stable behavioral rules; the environment-specific facts to re-verify now travel
 with the rules that cite them — the external-systems set in
 `references/external-systems.md`, plus §2's mount-check commands