diff --git a/workplans/ADAPTIVE-WP-0009-tenancy-posture-alignment.md b/workplans/ADAPTIVE-WP-0009-tenancy-posture-alignment.md
index 680e9a7..03ceb63 100644
--- a/workplans/ADAPTIVE-WP-0009-tenancy-posture-alignment.md
+++ b/workplans/ADAPTIVE-WP-0009-tenancy-posture-alignment.md
@@ -231,12 +231,28 @@ availability** until finding 1 is resolved; say so rather than inventing a level
 `tenant-engine` owns which plan a tenant holds; this repo owns the terms — state
 that split when replying so the seam is recorded.
 
-**Q2 — placement co-signature.** Recommend **accepting, scoped**: co-signer means
-a veto on placement policy changes that would invalidate an existing tier's
-recorded minimum — not a seat in per-workload placement operations. §8.2's
-reasoning holds and the stated alternative is real (placement decided purely on
-operational grounds then constrains what can be sold), but unscoped co-signature
-on an ops decision puts a commercial repo in a ticket queue. Bernd's call.
+**Q2 — placement co-signature. Decided 2026-08-17 by Bernd: decline the
+signature, bind via artifact instead.**
+
+adaptive-pricing publishes tier minimums as typed constraints (T02/T03) and asks
+railiance-platform to validate placement against them. Ownership stays single;
+the check runs every time rather than when someone remembers to route it. §8.2's
+concern is right — placement decided purely on operational grounds does constrain
+what can be sold — but a signature is the wrong instrument for a constraint that
+is machine-checkable, and tier minimums are machine-checkable by construction.
+
+**No interim veto.** A scoped veto was considered and dropped: its only purpose
+would be protecting existing claim-bearing tiers, and there are none. Not being
+live is what makes the direct move safe.
+
+**Named revisit trigger** — if a tier carrying an isolation, availability or
+retention claim is drafted before the constraint artifact lands, reopen this
+decision rather than assume it. Declining must not be open-ended.
+
+Accept the P ladder, the triggers and §8.1's monitoring obligation
+unconditionally. Caveat to raise: §8.1 says triggers MUST be monitored and never
+says by whom; if that defaults to adaptive-pricing it is a standing obligation on
+a repo with no on-call. Propose it is railiance-platform's.
 
 Reply on the State Hub to message `6d5293ca-4f69-46a6-a78e-b469e626b83d`.