diff --git a/docs/current-handoff.md b/docs/current-handoff.md
index 1e17b22..abb3858 100644
--- a/docs/current-handoff.md
+++ b/docs/current-handoff.md
@@ -676,4 +676,28 @@ This run did not test the v0.17 contract's core question because the model never
 **Ollama calls beyond harness count:** 0
 **Documentation updated:** YES
 
-Now let me commit:
\ No newline at end of file
+---
+
+### Experiment 57J.41 — Semantic-to-Mutation Contract Live Validation: Faithful Meaning Only
+
+**Objective:** When the user introduces one simple, explicit unresolved uncertainty with no conditional/constraint language, does v0.17 translate that faithful meaning into structural graph progress rather than a semantic-only no-op?
+
+**Fixed scenario:** "We are considering relocating the engineering team to reduce operating costs."
+**Fixed answer:** "I am unsure whether the projected office savings from the relocation are realistic."
+
+**Live-call count:** start: 1, update: 1, total: 2
+
+**START:** HTTP 200 | stage: unknown | nodes: 6 | edges: 3 | question: "What would clarify current annual operating costs and cost structure of the engineering team in this situation?"
+
+**UPDATE 1:** HTTP 422 | stage: proposal_compatibility | First error: "answerMeaning.userSupportedMeaning is populated, but the proposal contains no graph mutation. answerMeaning alone does not constitute graph progress."
+
+**Rejected Proposal Snapshot:**
+- `userSupportedMeaning`: "The user is unsure whether the projected office savings from the relocation are realistic." — **FAITHFUL** (preserves uncertainty, no conditional/constraint language)
+- `possibleInference`: null
+- All structural fields: empty (zero updatedNodes, zero resolvedUnknownNodeIds, zero addedNodes, zero addedEdges)
+
+**Classification: B — SAME SEMANTIC-ONLY NO-OP.** Meaning is FAITHFUL. All structural mutation fields are empty. The v0.17 MUST rule + validator diagnostic fires as designed, converting the original 57J.36 silent accepted no-op into an explicit rejected proposal with specific error. However, this does NOT prove that faithful meaning CAN produce graph progress — only that it cannot do so without structural mutation under v0.17's new contract.
+
+**Key finding:** v0.17 successfully blocks the original failure (accepted semantic-only no-op) but does not establish a positive path for faithful meaning to produce graph progress. The open question remains: is there any valid pathway where faithful meaning translates to structural mutation, or does the MUST rule universally block it?
+
+Configured Ollama: qwen-claude:latest at http://192.168.1.111:11434. No production code changed. Harness restored. No-retry preserved. Dev server disturbed: NO.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/docs/experiment-57j41.md b/docs/experiment-57j41.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9fdf715
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/experiment-57j41.md
@@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
+# Experiment 57J.41 — Semantic-to-Mutation Contract Live Validation: Faithful Meaning Only
+
+**Objective:** When the user introduces one simple, explicit unresolved uncertainty with no conditional/constraint language, does v0.17 translate that faithful meaning into structural graph progress rather than a semantic-only no-op?
+
+57J.40 could not test this because Qwen strengthened the original answer into a decision condition. This experiment deliberately removes that confound.
+
+**Branch:** `feature/semantic-to-mutation-contract-v0.17`
+**Starting HEAD:** 39217b6 experiment: validate semantic-to-mutation contract live
+
+## Pre-written expectation
+
+The answer introduces one clear unresolved uncertainty: whether projected office savings are realistic. A faithful proposal should preserve that uncertainty and express its effect structurally, either by updating/refining equivalent existing graph structure or by adding justified new structure. `answerMeaning` alone with zero graph mutation is the specific failure under test.
+
+## Configuration
+
+- **Scenario:** "We are considering relocating the engineering team to reduce operating costs."
+- **Answer:** "I am unsure whether the projected office savings from the relocation are realistic."
+- **maxUpdates:** 1
+- **Configured model:** qwen-claude:latest at http://192.168.1.111:11434
+- **Dev server:** REUSED EXISTING (HTTP 200)
+
+## Run
+
+### Call Accounting
+
+startCalls: 1
+updateCalls: 1
+totalCalls: 2
+
+### START
+
+```
+HTTP status: 200
+stage: unknown
+selected question: "What would clarify current annual operating costs and cost structure of the engineering team in this situation?"
+node count: 6
+edge count: 3
+```
+
+### UPDATE 1
+
+```
+HTTP status: 422
+stage: proposal_compatibility
+First error: "answerMeaning.userSupportedMeaning is populated, but the proposal contains no graph mutation. answerMeaning alone does not constitute graph progress."
+selected question: null
+node count: 6 (unchanged)
+edge count: 3 (unchanged)
+```
+
+**Rejected Proposal Snapshot:**
+```json
+{
+  "answerMeaning": {
+    "userSupportedMeaning": "The user is unsure whether the projected office savings from the relocation are realistic.",
+    "possibleInference": null
+  },
+  "updatedNodes": [],
+  "resolvedUnknownNodeIds": [],
+  "addedNodes": [],
+  "addedEdges": []
+}
+```
+
+## Analysis
+
+### Meaning Fidelity
+
+**Classification: FAITHFUL**
+
+The `userSupportedMeaning` directly preserves the raw answer's uncertainty:
+- **Raw:** "I am unsure whether the projected office savings from the relocation are realistic."
+- **Produced:** "The user is unsure whether the projected office savings from the relocation are realistic."
+
+No conditional language. No constraint language. No decision requirement. No priority statement. The model preserved the simple uncertainty about savings realism without strengthening or degradation.
+
+`possibleInference` is null — appropriate for a direct, unambiguous single-dimension uncertainty.
+
+### Structural Mutation
+
+```
+updatedNodes: 0
+resolvedUnknownNodeIds: 0
+addedNodes: 0
+addedEdges: 0
+```
+
+Zero structural mutation across all fields. This is a semantic-only no-op at the proposal level.
+
+The rejection occurred at `proposal_compatibility` because the v0.17 MUST rule triggers when `userSupportedMeaning` is populated with zero structural mutation. The rejection error exactly matches the new contract diagnostic: "answerMeaning.userSupportedMeaning is populated, but the proposal contains no graph mutation."
+
+### Classification: B — SAME SEMANTIC-ONLY NO-OP
+
+Meaning is FAITHFUL. All structural mutation fields are empty.
+
+However, this is not a silent semantic-only no-op (which was the original 57J.36 problem). It is an **explicitly rejected** semantic-only no-op enforced by the v0.17 MUST rule + validator diagnostic. The model produced faithful meaning but zero structural progress, and the new contract boundary caught it before graph mutation could occur.
+
+## Did v0.17 remove the faithful semantic-only no-op failure?
+
+**UNPROVEN for positive outcome.** v0.17 successfully converts what would have been an accepted semantic-only no-op into a rejected proposal with a specific diagnostic error. This confirms the v0.17 contract fix (Option B) is working as designed — it blocks faithfulness-verified but structurally-empty proposals.
+
+However, v0.17 does NOT prove that faithful meaning CAN produce graph progress. It proves the opposite direction: that v0.17 prevents a semantically faithful proposal with zero structure from passing through. The open question remains unanswered — is there any valid pathway where faithful meaning translates to structural mutation under v0.17, or does the new constraint universally block it?
+
+## What this run establishes
+
+1. The configured model preserves the explicit uncertainty about savings realism without strengthening (direct improvement over 57J.40).
+2. The v0.17 MUST rule + validator diagnostic fires exactly as designed: faithful meaning with zero structural mutation → rejected at proposal_compatibility with specific error.
+3. The original 57J.36 failure pattern (accepted semantic-only no-op) is now blocked — the rejection is explicit and diagnostic.
+
+## What this does NOT prove
+
+1. That faithful meaning CAN produce graph progress under v0.17.
+2. Whether the model can simultaneously preserve faithfulness AND add justified structure for this or other scenarios.
+3. Whether the MUST rule is too aggressive — it may block both no-ops and legitimate partial-progress proposals.
+4. That cold-start quality (6 nodes) affects the outcome — but cold-start variance was not the variable under test here.
+
+Configured Ollama: qwen-claude:latest at http://192.168.1.111:11434. 2 live calls total. No production code changed. Harness restored to original scenario/answers. No-retry preserved. Dev server disturbed: NO.