Recurrence is signal

The rule. A finding that reappears after it was dispositioned is evidence about the disposition, not a duplicate of the finding. A detector re-raises a tension it has surfaced before whenever that tension is still present, and the ledger escalates the recurrence rather than folding it back into the closed entry. Suppressing a repeat because "we covered this before" destroys the only signal that tells you the resolution was weak or false.

Why. A closed finding carries an implicit claim: this was dealt with. The cheapest available test of that claim is whether the condition that produced the finding is still there. If a blind detector — one that cannot see the ledger and therefore cannot be influenced by the fact of closure — surfaces the same tension again, the closure is contradicted by evidence, and that contradiction is more informative than the original detection was. The failure mode this guards against is a ledger that grows quieter as it grows less accurate: every dedupe silently converts "we were wrong to close this" into "we already know about this". The ABCD sensemaking method makes the same point from the detector side and states it as a prohibition on the reader — be deliberately amnesiac; re-raise previously surfaced tensions — because a tension that keeps re-surfacing after it was supposedly resolved is the signal that the resolution was false (the method).

Bounds.

• Recurrence is not reopening. The escalation is a claim that the closure is in question, not an automatic reversal of it. The human's disposition remains the gate — a recurrence can itself be dispositioned "still wontfix, and here is why", which is a stronger record than the original wontfix, because it was made against evidence of persistence.
• This is not a licence to re-raise noise. The rule earns its keep only where the detector is deterministic or blind. A detector that re-raises because it forgot, rather than because the condition persists, is producing duplicates and the rule does not protect it.
• A recurrence after a resolve is a different fact from a recurrence after a wontfix. The first says the fix did not hold (or was never made); the second says the accepted cost is still being paid. Both are worth surfacing; they are not the same signal and should not be collapsed into one.
• Composes with verifier-selects-gates-decide: the escalation is a proposal. It composes with evaluator-outside-the-loop in the strong form — a detector that can read the ledger it feeds will learn to fall silent about closed entries, which is precisely the gaming this rule exists to prevent.

Promotion. The MVP is a convention: when a finding recurs, file it as a new finding citing the closed one, rather than reopening or deduping — the citation is the escalation. The tool is the ledger doing this itself: abcd capture matching an incoming finding against dispositioned entries and escalating on a hit instead of deduping, which is itd-87. As a maintained detector it is demotable to advisory if its matching produces false recurrences, and archivable to regression-only if closures stop recurring at all — the saturation case, which is the outcome the rule wants.