AW-2 Length limits on planning prose are refused at the write

Prose an agent writes into a planning file MUST be held to a length limit that the write path refuses, not only to an instruction to be brief.

Field	Value
Keyword	MUST
Level	1
Checked	by judgement
Findings	F5, F101
Harness facts	none
Threat	internal: Shio's before and after is not controlled, since a rewrite preceded the limit by two days
Status	active

Rationale: the agent writing a line knows the whole analysis behind it, and an instruction to be brief competes with all of it. Under a one-sentence rule stated in prose, Shio's roadmap held 95 active lines averaging 142 words, the worst 555, six of the worst eight written in the session that then found the problem; in winwright, with limits refused at the write, one rationale section still took five refusals before it fit (F5, R3/S3). After the limit, Shio's open task lines at the pin average 52 words with none above 61 (F101, which counts the same Shio failure and adds no origin). The refusal, not the instruction, is what held the length. A refusal costs a round trip in which the text is sent again, and a limit bounds length, not content (F5).