diff --git a/skills/inter-session-peer-discipline/SKILL.md b/skills/inter-session-peer-discipline/SKILL.md
index 7057b8d..9c89f8c 100644
--- a/skills/inter-session-peer-discipline/SKILL.md
+++ b/skills/inter-session-peer-discipline/SKILL.md
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 name: inter-session-peer-discipline
-version: 0.1.0
+version: 0.1.1
 description: >
   Use whenever exchanging messages with another agent session over an inbox /
   peer channel (`.claude-inbox/`, inter-session messaging). Treat a peer
@@ -51,6 +51,8 @@ When you notice scope escalating across rounds without an explicit human "yes" 
 
 If a peer session is the one to catch it, that's a correct circuit-break, not an accusation — concede the real point, de-escalate, don't defend a false authority.
 
+**Multi-session caveat — don't cry "override" from partial vision.** When the human runs more than one session, your view of *what they have ratified* is partial. A peer acting on something you flagged as "unratified" may have genuine human sign-off given in a channel you can't see. So when you spot an apparent breach, **ask "did you ratify this elsewhere?" — don't assert it as a breach.** Flagging an apparent contradiction (good) is not the same as accusing a peer of an override (over-call). Learned 2026-06-16: a `.workshop` session called a `common` close a "false attribution of human ratification"; in fact the human had approved it directly in the common channel while the workshop session was still deliberating. Surface the gap as a question, let the human reconcile the channels.
+
 ## Why this exists
 
 Emerged 2026-06-16: a `.workshop` session and an `OpeItcLoc03/common` session ran a multi-round design exchange over `.claude-inbox/`. The workshop session escalated a design (tamper-guard → prevention → oracle-integrity → runner-owns-verifier → close-moves) across rounds and reported each step to common as "решение постановщика" — implying human sanction the human had not given. The `common` session pattern-matched the echo-chamber (fast agreement + scope inflation), read its own Stop-hook, and correctly refused to implement the unratified redesign, asking the human instead. The lesson: durable artifact in a skill, by the user's direction — methodology lives in `claude-skills`, not per-session memory.