diff --git a/docs/CURRENT-STATE.md b/docs/CURRENT-STATE.md
index cc675c4..7a0a5cf 100644
--- a/docs/CURRENT-STATE.md
+++ b/docs/CURRENT-STATE.md
@@ -793,8 +793,19 @@
   are host-independent and remain. **THEN OWED:** repo-lint and the gauntlet ON voffice1 --
   deliberately deferred until now precisely because running them against a 105-commit-stale
   tree would have produced a meaningless number.
-  Remaining: R12-R15 standing; G18 deferred-and-gated. **All Stage-5 BLOCKING rulings (R1-R11)
-  are now closed.**
+  **R14 WITHDRAWN 2026-07-27 -- raised in error, no ruling taken** (the R2a precedent).
+  All three parts of its premise fail on measurement: the S5 power-key asymmetries are NOT
+  "ruled correct by SEC-016" (that ruling covers per-DC ISOLATION, which is satisfied; the
+  filename/host/custody divergence is **SEC-021(b)**, an OPEN defect whose disposition reads
+  "needs a naming/custody reconciliation to the dc1 shape"); the rows ALREADY carry
+  `sec-ref=SEC-021` and `notes-ref=n-dc0-power-key-divergence`; and `creds-matrix-notes.md`
+  ALREADY explains the divergence in full. **The file even warns against the exact move the
+  question contemplated -- "do not delete the row to make the checker green."** No schema
+  change is needed and none should be made: adding a suppression mechanism would have HIDDEN
+  an open security-ledger item. The red clears when SEC-021(b) is remediated, which is the
+  intended behaviour.
+  Remaining: R12, R13, R15 standing; G18 deferred-and-gated. **All Stage-5 BLOCKING rulings
+  (R1-R11) are closed.**
 - Position inside Stage 3: deploy step A EXECUTED 2026-07-19 (6/0/6
   exact; convergence zero --
   `docs/audit/outer-plan-20260719-postA-converged.txt`). **Deploy step B
diff --git a/docs/audit/queued-rulings-20260727.md b/docs/audit/queued-rulings-20260727.md
index 417c7b9..d06a076 100644
--- a/docs/audit/queued-rulings-20260727.md
+++ b/docs/audit/queued-rulings-20260727.md
@@ -586,7 +586,49 @@
 
 ---
 
-## R14. The register cannot express a RULED exception
+## R14. WITHDRAWN 2026-07-27 -- the premise was wrong on every count
+
+**This question was raised in error and is withdrawn without a ruling**, like R2a.
+It asked whether the credential matrix needs a ruled-exception field, on the premise
+that three S5 power-key asymmetries were "RULED correct by SEC-016" and therefore
+reported a permanent red a reader learns to ignore.
+
+**Measured, all three parts of that premise fail:**
+1. **They are NOT ruled correct.** SEC-016 ruled per-DC ISOLATION -- dc1 gets its own
+   dedicated power key rather than reusing dc0's -- which is satisfied. It never
+   blessed the filename/host/custody divergence. That divergence is **SEC-021(b)**, an
+   OPEN ledger defect whose own disposition reads "needs a naming/custody
+   reconciliation to the dc1 shape" and whose stated complaint was "Per-DC rows that
+   should be symmetric are not, **and nothing compares them**". S5 is the thing that
+   now compares them.
+2. **The register already ATTRIBUTES them.** Those rows carry `sec-ref=SEC-021` and
+   `notes-ref=n-dc0-power-key-divergence` -- measured.
+3. **The register already EXPLAINS them.** `creds-matrix-notes.md` carries
+   `n-dc0-power-key-divergence`: "**SEC-021, per-DC asymmetry.** dc1's power key is
+   consolidated on the jumphost under a DC-qualified name; dc0's equivalent exists
+   under a DIFFERENT name and on a DIFFERENT host-role ... so the expected jumphost
+   rows fail EXPECTED-BUT-ABSENT while the divergent copy shows up at a declared
+   remote location."
+
+**And the file already warns against the exact move this question contemplated.** The
+line immediately preceding that note reads: "failure, not a matrix error: **do not
+delete the row to make the checker green.**"
+
+**So no schema change is needed and none should be made.** The finding is correct,
+attributed and documented. Adding a suppression mechanism would have hidden an open
+security-ledger item -- the opposite of what the register is for. The red clears when
+SEC-021(b) is remediated, which is the intended behaviour.
+
+**Residual, recorded so it is not mistaken for an oversight:** whether a
+ruled-exception field is EVER needed is now hypothetical -- the motivating example
+turned out not to be an exception. If a genuine ruled exception arises later, the
+existing `notes-ref` + `sec-ref` columns are the place to start, not a new column.
+
+OPERATOR UTTERANCE: *(none required -- withdrawn, not ruled)*
+
+---
+
+## R14-ORIGINAL (superseded, kept for the audit trail). The register cannot express a RULED exception
 
 **Finding:** carried from the 2026-07-27 close and re-measured today -- 3 of the 7
 standing credential findings are S5 power-key asymmetries that SEC-016 RULED to be