docs/legal-decision-lessons.md

@@ -446,3 +446,21 @@ The draft's biggest structural error was adding the "נבאר" doctrinal paragra
 - [ ] Update block-schema.md: block order for 1xxx cases (ט before ז)
 - [ ] Update daphna-architecture-by-outcome.md: add "bridge planning" analysis for rejections
 - [ ] Update writer system prompt: mandatory "להלן מתוך" pattern
+
+---
+
+## Lessons from Weekly Feedback (May 31, 2026)
+
+### Source
+- Chair feedback summary for week ending 2026-05-31
+- Case: 8126-03-25 (ערר על חבות בהיטל השבחה - יעקב עמיאל), entries from CMPA-62
+
+### 34. Don't Manufacture Doubt About Clear Statutes
+- **Lesson:** סעיף 19(ג)(2) לתוספת השלישית קובע באופן חד-משמעי כי תקופת המגורים היא ארבע שנים מגמר הבנייה — אסור להציע "פרשנות חלופית" של שנה אחת או להכניס שאלות פתוחות על נוסח חוק שהוא ברור; הצגת ספק מלאכותי בכלל ברור מערפלת את הניתוח ומחלישה את הכרעה.
+- **Rule:** When a statutory provision is unambiguous on its face, the analysis must state it as the binding rule — not as one possible reading among others. Spurious interpretive doubt is a methodology failure, not a sign of intellectual humility.
+
+### 35. Writer/QA Sync Gap — Two Sources of Truth
+- **Problem:** legal-writer updates `decision_blocks` in the DB, but legal-qa reads from `drafts/decision.md` on disk. In CMPA-62 the writer reported updating block headers in DB but the file did not re-sync, causing QA-2 to fail on exactly the same issue twice.
+- **Lesson:** Single source of truth is mandatory — either the writer must write to BOTH the DB and the decision.md file in one atomic step, or there must be an automatic `regenerate-draft` hook that runs after every block update so the file always reflects the latest DB state. Two unsynchronized sources will keep producing the same false-fail loop.
+- **Owner:** Infrastructure task — not a writer/QA prompt fix.
+