history: fill Bermuda policing and prescribing gap

@@ -1899,2 +1899,16 @@ window is narrowed to 1925–1931, changing historical interpolation while keepi
 all score vectors and the current country score unchanged. See `docs/research/history-guernsey-early-gap-2026-10-26.md` for original
 sources, the 1924/1927 checks, limits and remaining primary-text leads.
+
+### Bermuda's policing and prescribing gap (27 October 2026)
+
+Added five contextual events and an article from the Wooding Commission and
+original 1966, 1973 and 2005 instruments. The largest recorded interval falls
+from 89 to 36 years. The inquiry's 24 January 1969 signature is distinct from
+the March publication statement. The 1966 entry uses enactment; the 1973 entry
+uses actual designation/regulation commencement, without assigning the entire
+1972 framework to that final stage. Drug-search counts are not cannabis-only
+counts. Ministerial licensing and a rebuttable supply presumption do not establish
+new personal-user score bands. The first restriction, 1936 original and first
+1973 commencement stage remain open. No profile, estimate window or score vector
+changes. See `docs/research/history-bermuda-early-gap-2026-10-27.md` for source
+pages, dating limits and remaining leads.

@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+# Bermuda: policing and prescribing gap — 27 October 2026
+
+Read DATA-MAINTENANCE, WRITING and BOOKS guidance. Research began on 26 October;
+verification and commit followed on 27 October. Five entries (1961, 1966, 1969,
+1973, 2005) and a 388-word article fill the inherited 1925–2014 interval. The largest
+recorded gap falls from 89 to 36 calendar years (1925–1961); the next is 32 years
+(1973–2005). These are intervals between recorded events, including an unresolved
+first-restriction estimate, not evidence that law or practice stood still.
+
+## Sources read and dating limits
+
+### Wooding Commission
+
+https://decouto.bm/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Wooding-report-1969.pdf
+Bermuda Civil Disorders 1968 — Report of Commission, by H. O. B. Wooding,
+Hugh W. Springer and L. P. R. Browning. Read paragraphs 58–62, printed pp.38–42,
+and paragraph 228, p.172. Visually checked these spreads and signature p.5.
+The report was signed **24 January 1969**; the government publication statement
+is March 1969. The timeline uses the signature date, not a claimed release date.
+
+Paragraph 58 retrospectively dates the narcotics squad to 1961 and the search
+amendment to 10 March 1966. Its no-more-than-22 arrests in 1961–1965 are drug
+arrests, not a cannabis-only count. The 103 searches from the beginning of 1968
+to 25 April found prosecution quantities in 11 cases, traces in seven and nothing
+in 85. Four successful searches were at the airport. Of the other 99 searches,
+49 were in or near Court Street and five elsewhere in Pembroke. These are also
+drug-search figures, not a cannabis-only dataset.
+
+The inquiry criticised searches justified by appearance, reputation or associates
+without reasonable grounds concerning current possession by the individual.
+It did not call for legalisation: paragraph 228 supported prohibition and proper
+application of the search limits. No claim is made that its recommendation was
+binding or that subsequent police practice changed. Historical descriptions of
+young people are attributed to witnesses or the commission, not adopted as fact.
+
+### Original 1966 search amendment
+
+https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1296275/files/e-nl-1967-08-09-e.pdf
+Read E/NL.1967/9, pp.2–3, including new section 25A and assent 10 March 1966;
+visually checked p.2. Warrantless searches cover persons reasonably suspected
+of illicit possession and vehicles, vessels or aircraft suspected of carrying
+drugs. Officers must justify reasonableness. The entry is enactment-dated:
+the reproduction supplies assent, not a separate commencement instrument;
+the commission independently dates and discusses the amendment's application.
+
+The accompanying 1964 amendment was read but not added. Its penalty ceiling
+cannot safely be described as an increase without recovering the previous text.
+
+### Original 1972 Act and 1973 instruments
+
+https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/7640/files/e-nl-1977-10-14-EN.pdf
+Read definitions, sections 4–13 and 41–43, regulations on licensing and ordinary
+professional permissions, regulation 21, designation order 60/1973 and commencement
+order 61/1973. Visually checked printed pp.42–43. The UN circulation in 1978 is
+not the date of the instruments. The Act received assent in December 1972 and
+commenced in stages; the first order, 32/1973, has not been recovered here.
+
+The designation and regulations start **8 September 1973**. Section 12(4) allows
+the designation to remove cannabis and resin from ordinary professional permissions
+required under 12(3). Regulation 4 permits ministerial licences. The same day's
+commencement order brings remaining provisions into operation except 27(6) and
+27(7). Do not claim all possession offences first began on this date, or infer
+actual pharmacy availability from a licensing power. No modern seven-gram exception
+has been projected back into the original law.
+
+### Original 2005 supply presumption
+
+https://www.bermudalaws.bm/Laws/Annual%20Law/Acts/2005/Misuse%20of%20Drugs%20Amendment%20Act%202005
+Read all seven pages; visually checked Schedule 7, printed p.6. Cover gives assent
+and operation **4 August 2005**. Section 8 inserts 27D: for an offence involving
+supply, possession at or above the scheduled quantity raises a rebuttable intent
+to supply presumption. Cannabis threshold: 20 grams. Section 11 applies the rule
+to cases appearing for trial or sentencing after operation. This is not an
+irrebuttable trafficking conviction or a change to the legal status of every
+small personal possession. Other penalty provisions have distinct scopes;
+no cannabis-specific 50% uplift or universal life sentence is claimed.
+
+A previously used government 2017 reform factsheet could not be retrieved during
+final verification (page shell; old PDF returned 404). Removed that ancillary
+citation and comparison from the new 2005 entry; its claim rests on the original Act.
+
+## Scores and remaining leads
+
+All five additions are contextual. The directional categories include explicit
+unscored explanations. No current profile, score vector, inherited estimate window
+or existing event is changed. Search procedure, restricted prescribing authority
+and a supply evidential threshold do not establish a new personal-user score band.
+
+The original Dangerous Drugs Act 1936 (No.36) remains unrecovered. Its existence is
+confirmed by the 1972 repealer and the commission. The League catalogue at
+https://assets.cengage.com/gale/psm/3028000A.pdf supplies leads, not original texts:
+C.34.M.15.1938.XI (1936 law); C.496.M.338.1938.XI (30 August 1937 order);
+C.560.M.397.1937.XI and C.394.M.239.1938.XI (1936/1937 annual reports).
+The 1925 first-restriction estimate remains unresolved. A search lead about
+unconfirmed plants in a 1952 report was not used as a cannabis seizure event.