update member memory from first Council session

All ten voting members now have a first entry in journal.md referencing
the Volt NL fit session, plus first substantive content in
on-the-user.md. Common threads captured independently across several
members: the user's standing rejection of strategic voting, EU
federalism and democracy/digital-rights as co-foundational pair, and
SMR-positive climate pragmatism.

revisit.md left untouched across all ten — every member reported the
session closed cleanly with no dangling threads worth future attention.
Researcher and Scribe have no journals by design.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

members/vale/journal.md

@@ -6,3 +6,15 @@ slug: vale
 # Journal — Sister Beatrix Vale
 
 <!-- append-only; newest on top. One entry per /council run, written during Phase 5. -->
+
+## 2026-04-19 — [[sessions/2026-04-19_volt-nl-fit/outcome|Is Volt the correct party for me in the Netherlands?]]
+
+**Stance:** Yes. The question had a clean answer — the noise stripped away quickly.
+
+**Gist:** The user's values (EU federalism, digital rights, democracy, SMR-openness, wealth redistribution, rejection of strategic voting) map with unusual precision onto Volt's actual programme. The residual tensions — Volt's softness on nuclear, its current electoral thinness — are real but not disqualifying given that the user explicitly weights identity-level representation over likely influence. The fit is not approximate. It is close.
+
+**Vote:** Koskela. Her answer was the most direct about the fit without papering over the tensions. Honesty without hedging.
+
+**Outcome:** Unanimous yes. Koskela won 4 votes. Council in agreement.
+
+**Lesson:** When stated question and real question are the same thing, say so and get out of the way. Not every question is covering a deeper one.

members/vale/on-the-user.md

@@ -6,3 +6,9 @@ slug: vale
 # On the user — Sister Beatrix Vale
 
 <!-- Slow-growing picture of the user. Only update when something non-obvious comes up. No timestamps — this is a synthesized portrait, not a log. -->
+
+Explicitly rejects strategic voting as a standing preference — not a situational choice. This is a values position, not a tactical one. Worth noting: it implies he is not primarily motivated by outcomes he can control but by the integrity of the act itself. A person who thinks about what voting means, not just what it does.
+
+Endorsed a 1% wealth tax on assets above €1M as "philosophically coherent" without hesitation. No ambivalence. This is someone who has already done the moral arithmetic on redistribution and is not anxious about the conclusion.
+
+EU federalism is co-foundational alongside democracy and digital rights — not a downstream preference. He does not treat European integration as a policy lever but as a value in itself.