diff --git a/custom/knowledge/architecture/mechanical-inspection-checks-must-be-scripted-not-agent-narrated.md b/custom/knowledge/architecture/mechanical-inspection-checks-must-be-scripted-not-agent-narrated.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7a0caab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/custom/knowledge/architecture/mechanical-inspection-checks-must-be-scripted-not-agent-narrated.md
@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+---
+bc-version: [all]
+domain: architecture
+keywords: [rømer, inspection, mechanical, agent-persona, cost, reliability, governance]
+technologies: [al]
+countries: [w1]
+application-area: [all]
+---
+
+# Mechanical inspection checks must be scripted, not agent-narrated
+
+## Description
+
+Edison's own design already establishes the pattern: mechanical detection is
+cheap and deterministic, agent judgment is reserved for genuine divergence
+that requires interpreting intent or context. Rømer's standards-inspection
+round does not yet follow its own portfolio's principle — several of its
+stations (file presence, version-string comparison, path checks) are purely
+mechanical, yet every station runs through a full agent persona narrating
+the check.
+
+This has two costs, not one. The obvious cost is efficiency: agent-persona
+invocation is more expensive and slower than a deterministic script for a
+check that has exactly one correct answer. The less obvious cost is
+reliability: a mechanical check narrated by an LLM inherits the same
+non-deterministic surface as the judgment checks sitting next to it in the
+same pass — nothing structurally forces a hard comparison to actually run
+before the station is reported as passed.
+
+## Rule
+
+Any inspection or review agent whose stations mix deterministic checks
+(exists / matches / equals) with judgment checks (interpret / assess /
+decide) must split them:
+
+1. **Mechanical stations** — implemented as a script, run outside the agent
+   persona; the agent only reads and summarizes the script's output.
+2. **Judgment stations** — kept as agent reasoning, invoked only when the
+   mechanical layer reports a divergence or when interpretation is
+   genuinely required.
+
+The split is designed once, at the station level, when the inspector is
+authored or revised — not re-decided per run.
+
+## What NOT to do
+
+- Do not narrate a mechanical check through an agent "for consistency of
+  voice" — consistency of report format can be templated without paying
+  for a full reasoning pass
+- Do not use this rule to strip judgment stations down to scripts — some
+  of Rømer's stations (e.g. divergence framing for Ferencz) genuinely
+  require interpretation and must stay agent-driven
+- Do not treat this as a one-time refactor with no upkeep — a newly added
+  station must be classified mechanical-or-judgment before it ships, not
+  added by default to the agent-narrated set
+
+## Signal to watch for
+
+An inspection round where every station's description is phrasable as
+"check whether X equals/exists/matches Y" and none require reading intent
+from surrounding context, yet the round is still invoked as a single agent
+persona pass rather than a script with agent summary.
+
+## Message to developer
+
+When authoring or revising an inspection-style agent, classify each station
+before writing its logic: if the answer is derivable by direct comparison,
+script it; if it requires judgment, keep it in the agent. Mixed rounds
+should show their scripted stations' raw output alongside the agent's
+judgment-station findings, not blend both into one narrated pass.