diff --git a/src/review/outcomes-wire.ts b/src/review/outcomes-wire.ts
index e3ef053815..135f033682 100644
--- a/src/review/outcomes-wire.ts
+++ b/src/review/outcomes-wire.ts
@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ import type { GitHubWebhookPayload } from "../types";
 import {
   CONFIGURED_GATE_BLOCKER_SIGNAL_CODES,
   CONFIGURED_GATE_BLOCKER_SIGNAL_LOOKBACK_MS,
+  GATE_SCORE_SIGNAL_CODES,
 } from "../rules/advisory";
 import { errorMessage, nowIso } from "../utils/json";
 import {
@@ -572,6 +573,51 @@ async function recordAiJudgmentHoldConfirmations(env: Env, targetId: string): Pr
   }
 }
 
+// #8761: implicit terminal-disposition confirmations for every OTHER rule — the "confirmed" mirror the
+// non-AI codes never had (pre-#8761 only reversals existed for them, structurally biasing their measured
+// precision toward 0 as data accumulated). Terminal-event mapping, documented per #8761's Requirements:
+// the repo OWNER closing a PR WITHOUT merging it is the one human disposition CONSISTENT WITH an adverse
+// finding's verdict — the same signal #8123 already treats as confirmation for the two AI-judgment codes.
+// Deliberately EXCLUDED from this mapping:
+//   • AI_JUDGMENT_BLOCKER_CODES — recordAiJudgmentHoldConfirmations above owns them (the explicit,
+//     untagged confirmation; #8123's established semantics stay byte-identical).
+//   • GATE_SCORE_SIGNAL_CODES — score signals fire on PASS outcomes too (above/below threshold alike, so
+//     the corpus can replay thresholds), so "owner closed ⇒ the rule was right" is incoherent for them;
+//     their ground truth comes from threshold replays, never terminal dispositions.
+//   • a merge-despite-advisory-finding — weak evidence AGAINST the finding (a reversal-shaped signal),
+//     out of #8761's scope by design.
+// Idempotent: any existing override (either verdict) for the (ruleId, target) pair suppresses the write —
+// a pair stays single-verdict, so a reopen-recorded reversal is never followed by a contradicting implicit
+// confirmation. Every write is tagged metadata.basis = "implicit_terminal_disposition" so downstream
+// consumers can weight (or exclude) implicit evidence separately from #8123's explicit kind. Fail-open per
+// code; callers attach `.catch(() => undefined)` like every writer in this file.
+const IMPLICIT_CONFIRMATION_BASIS = "implicit_terminal_disposition";
+const IMPLICIT_CONFIRMATION_LOOKBACK_MS = 30 * 24 * 60 * 60 * 1000;
+
+async function recordImplicitTerminalConfirmations(env: Env, targetId: string): Promise<void> {
+  const store = createSignalStore(env);
+  const excluded = new Set<string>([...AI_JUDGMENT_BLOCKER_CODES, ...GATE_SCORE_SIGNAL_CODES]);
+  const codes = [...CONFIGURED_GATE_BLOCKER_SIGNAL_CODES.filter((code) => !excluded.has(code)), LINKED_ISSUE_SCOPE_MISMATCH_RULE_ID];
+  await Promise.all(
+    codes.map(async (ruleId) => {
+      try {
+        const history = await store.queryRuleHistory(ruleId, Date.now() - IMPLICIT_CONFIRMATION_LOOKBACK_MS);
+        if (!history.fired.some((event) => event.targetKey === targetId)) return;
+        if (history.overrides.some((event) => event.targetKey === targetId)) return; // single-verdict pair
+        await store.recordHumanOverride({
+          ruleId,
+          targetKey: targetId,
+          verdict: "confirmed",
+          occurredAt: nowIso(),
+          metadata: { basis: IMPLICIT_CONFIRMATION_BASIS },
+        });
+      } catch {
+        // Fail-open per code: one SignalStore reject must not skip the rest of the candidate list.
+      }
+    }),
+  );
+}
+
 /**
  * Record a REVERSAL — a human overriding a loopover auto-action — into the eval/audit stores (the
  * ground-truth accuracy signal). Mirrors reviewbot recordReversalSignals (runtime.ts ~157/274):
@@ -643,12 +689,16 @@ export async function recordReversalSignals(
   // #8123: the OWNER closing a PR WITHOUT merging it — when that PR was held for a low-confidence AI
   // judgment, the owner's close is the explicit confirmation the finding was right ("confirmed" override).
   // A contributor's own close is not a confirmation signal and records nothing (mirrors the reversal side's
-  // owner-vs-contributor distinction above).
+  // owner-vs-contributor distinction above). #8761 extends the same terminal disposition to every other
+  // fired rule as an IMPLICIT confirmation (basis-tagged, idempotent — see
+  // recordImplicitTerminalConfirmations' own doc comment for the mapping and its exclusions).
   if (payload.action === "closed" && !pr.merged_at) {
     const ownerLogin = (repoFullName.split("/")[0] || "").toLowerCase();
     const senderLogin = (payload.sender?.login || "").toLowerCase();
     if (!!ownerLogin && !!senderLogin && ownerLogin === senderLogin) {
-      await recordAiJudgmentHoldConfirmations(env, reviewAuditTargetId(repoFullName, pr.number)).catch(() => undefined);
+      const targetId = reviewAuditTargetId(repoFullName, pr.number);
+      await recordAiJudgmentHoldConfirmations(env, targetId).catch(() => undefined);
+      await recordImplicitTerminalConfirmations(env, targetId).catch(() => undefined); // #8761
     }
     return;
   }
diff --git a/src/rules/advisory.ts b/src/rules/advisory.ts
index cce3eaeffe..2e760b121e 100644
--- a/src/rules/advisory.ts
+++ b/src/rules/advisory.ts
@@ -197,6 +197,9 @@ export const CONFIGURED_GATE_BLOCKER_SIGNAL_CODES: readonly string[] = Object.fr
   "manifest_linked_issue_required",
   "self_authored_linked_issue",
   "content_lane_deliverable_missing",
+  // #8761 drift fix: backtest_regression (#8138) was added to the gate switch but never to this list, so its
+  // reversals silently never recorded — exactly the drift this list's own doc comment promises against.
+  "backtest_regression",
   "lockfile_tamper_risk",
   CLA_CONSENT_MISSING_CODE,
   ...GATE_SCORE_SIGNAL_CODES,
diff --git a/test/unit/outcomes-wire.test.ts b/test/unit/outcomes-wire.test.ts
index 8cbde1b201..45982b2a70 100644
--- a/test/unit/outcomes-wire.test.ts
+++ b/test/unit/outcomes-wire.test.ts
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-import { afterEach, describe, expect, it, vi } from "vitest";
+import { afterEach, beforeEach, describe, expect, it, vi } from "vitest";
 import * as signalTrackingWire from "../../src/review/signal-tracking-wire";
 import { createSignalStore } from "../../src/review/signal-tracking-wire";
 import { processJob } from "../../src/queue/processors";
@@ -1698,7 +1698,7 @@ describe("recordReversalSignals — aiReviewLowConfidenceHold confirmation (#812
     expect(await overridesFor(env, "ai_consensus_defect")).toHaveLength(0);
   });
 
-  it("records nothing when the PR was not AI-judgment-held (no matching fired event, other rules ignored)", async () => {
+  it("records no AI-code override when the PR was not AI-judgment-held; a fired non-AI code gets #8761's IMPLICIT confirmation instead", async () => {
     const env = createTestEnv();
     await seedAiFired(env, "secret_leak"); // a non-AI code firing does not make this an AI hold
 
@@ -1706,7 +1706,11 @@ describe("recordReversalSignals — aiReviewLowConfidenceHold confirmation (#812
 
     expect(await overridesFor(env, "ai_consensus_defect")).toHaveLength(0);
     expect(await overridesFor(env, "ai_review_split")).toHaveLength(0);
-    expect(await overridesFor(env, "secret_leak")).toHaveLength(0);
+    // #8761: the owner's terminal close IS consistent with the fired secret_leak verdict — implicit confirm.
+    const secretOverrides = await overridesFor(env, "secret_leak");
+    expect(secretOverrides).toHaveLength(1);
+    expect(secretOverrides[0]).toMatchObject({ verdict: "confirmed" });
+    expect((secretOverrides[0]!.metadata as { basis: string }).basis).toBe("implicit_terminal_disposition");
   });
 
   it("records nothing for a fired event on a DIFFERENT target", async () => {
@@ -1757,3 +1761,119 @@ describe("recordReversalSignals — aiReviewLowConfidenceHold confirmation (#812
     await expect(recordReversalSignals(env, "pull_request", ownerClose())).resolves.toBeUndefined();
   });
 });
+
+// ── #8761: implicit terminal-disposition confirmations for the non-AI rules ─────────────────────────────────
+
+describe("recordReversalSignals — implicit terminal confirmations (#8761)", () => {
+  // The preceding describe's last test spies createSignalStore and (deliberately) never restores inside its
+  // own block — restore here so these tests always exercise the real D1-backed store.
+  beforeEach(() => {
+    vi.restoreAllMocks();
+  });
+
+  async function seedFired(env: Env, ruleId: string, targetKey = "owner/repo#9"): Promise<void> {
+    await createSignalStore(env).recordRuleFired({ ruleId, targetKey, outcome: "blocker", occurredAt: new Date().toISOString() });
+  }
+
+  function ownerClose(number = 9, overrides: Record<string, unknown> = {}) {
+    return {
+      action: "closed",
+      repository: { name: "repo", full_name: "owner/repo", owner: { login: "owner" } },
+      pull_request: pullRequestPayload({ number, state: "closed", merged_at: null }),
+      sender: { login: "owner", type: "User" },
+      ...overrides,
+    };
+  }
+
+  async function overridesFor(env: Env, ruleId: string) {
+    return (await createSignalStore(env).queryRuleHistory(ruleId, 0)).overrides;
+  }
+
+  it("confirms a fired non-AI rule on an owner close-without-merge, tagged basis=implicit_terminal_disposition", async () => {
+    const env = createTestEnv();
+    await seedFired(env, "missing_linked_issue");
+    await recordReversalSignals(env, "pull_request", ownerClose());
+    const overrides = await overridesFor(env, "missing_linked_issue");
+    expect(overrides).toHaveLength(1);
+    expect(overrides[0]).toMatchObject({ ruleId: "missing_linked_issue", targetKey: "owner/repo#9", verdict: "confirmed" });
+    expect((overrides[0]!.metadata as { basis: string }).basis).toBe("implicit_terminal_disposition");
+  });
+
+  it("includes linked_issue_scope_mismatch — its first-ever confirmed side (#8101 wired reversals only)", async () => {
+    const env = createTestEnv();
+    await seedFired(env, "linked_issue_scope_mismatch");
+    await recordReversalSignals(env, "pull_request", ownerClose());
+    const overrides = await overridesFor(env, "linked_issue_scope_mismatch");
+    expect(overrides).toHaveLength(1);
+    expect(overrides[0]).toMatchObject({ verdict: "confirmed" });
+  });
+
+  it("IDEMPOTENT: an existing override (either verdict) suppresses the implicit confirmation — a pair stays single-verdict", async () => {
+    const env = createTestEnv();
+    await seedFired(env, "missing_linked_issue");
+    await createSignalStore(env).recordHumanOverride({
+      ruleId: "missing_linked_issue",
+      targetKey: "owner/repo#9",
+      verdict: "reversed",
+      occurredAt: new Date().toISOString(),
+    });
+    await recordReversalSignals(env, "pull_request", ownerClose());
+    const overrides = await overridesFor(env, "missing_linked_issue");
+    expect(overrides).toHaveLength(1);
+    expect(overrides[0]).toMatchObject({ verdict: "reversed" });
+  });
+
+  it("IDEMPOTENT: a second owner close records nothing new — the first confirmation is the pair's only verdict", async () => {
+    const env = createTestEnv();
+    await seedFired(env, "duplicate_pr_risk");
+    await recordReversalSignals(env, "pull_request", ownerClose());
+    await recordReversalSignals(env, "pull_request", ownerClose());
+    expect(await overridesFor(env, "duplicate_pr_risk")).toHaveLength(1);
+  });
+
+  it("EXCLUDES the score-signal codes — they fire on pass outcomes too, so close-confirmation is incoherent for them", async () => {
+    const env = createTestEnv();
+    await seedFired(env, "slop_gate_score");
+    await seedFired(env, "quality_gate_score");
+    await recordReversalSignals(env, "pull_request", ownerClose());
+    expect(await overridesFor(env, "slop_gate_score")).toHaveLength(0);
+    expect(await overridesFor(env, "quality_gate_score")).toHaveLength(0);
+  });
+
+  it("leaves the AI-judgment codes to their existing explicit writer — exactly one confirmation, never a basis tag", async () => {
+    const env = createTestEnv();
+    await createSignalStore(env).recordRuleFired({
+      ruleId: "ai_consensus_defect",
+      targetKey: "owner/repo#9",
+      outcome: "warning",
+      occurredAt: new Date().toISOString(),
+      metadata: { confidence: 0.4 },
+    });
+    await recordReversalSignals(env, "pull_request", ownerClose());
+    const overrides = await overridesFor(env, "ai_consensus_defect");
+    expect(overrides).toHaveLength(1);
+    expect(overrides[0]!.metadata?.basis).toBeUndefined();
+  });
+
+  it("covers backtest_regression via the drift-fixed signal-codes list (#8761's list fix)", async () => {
+    const env = createTestEnv();
+    await seedFired(env, "backtest_regression");
+    await recordReversalSignals(env, "pull_request", ownerClose());
+    expect(await overridesFor(env, "backtest_regression")).toHaveLength(1);
+  });
+
+  it("records nothing for a fired non-AI rule when a CONTRIBUTOR closes — owner-only, same guard as #8123", async () => {
+    const env = createTestEnv();
+    await seedFired(env, "missing_linked_issue");
+    await recordReversalSignals(env, "pull_request", ownerClose(9, { sender: { login: "contributor", type: "User" } }));
+    expect(await overridesFor(env, "missing_linked_issue")).toHaveLength(0);
+  });
+
+  it("degrades silently when createSignalStore itself throws — the close handling never throws (both confirm writers' outer catch)", async () => {
+    const env = createTestEnv();
+    vi.spyOn(signalTrackingWire, "createSignalStore").mockImplementation(() => {
+      throw new Error("store construction failed");
+    });
+    await expect(recordReversalSignals(env, "pull_request", ownerClose())).resolves.toBeUndefined();
+  });
+});