re: land the loop-point correction where the claim actually lives

The port found its exporter still shipping 'no loop-point field has been
identified anywhere' in the field manifest.json concatenates, days after the
correction existed in other fields. Auditing this corpus the same way found the
same failure here: the refuted sentence was still standing untouched in
bgm-two-stems.md -- where anyone looking up BGM behaviour arrives -- and in
HANDOFF.md, the one page the port is told to read. My correction had gone into a
NEW page only.

Both fixed in place, each naming the refutation rather than quietly deleting the
old claim, and each carrying the measured window [9.44, 71.31] s at 61.87 s.

METHOD entry: writing a correction down is not landing it. Grep the corpus for
the CLAIM, not for the file you were working in. Plus the port's trap in doing
that audit -- a replacement that quotes the refuted sentence in order to name it
will match a substring search from inside the paragraph saying it is false.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v

docs/re/METHOD.md

@@ -1431,3 +1431,31 @@ too — a span of zero cannot occur. Both cases point the same way:
 **The tell is in the rows that agree with you.** Scrutinising the disconfirming half
 harder is the intuitive discipline and it is the wrong half — a broken instrument
 and an easy control both fail *silently on the side you were hoping for*.
+
+## A correction that does not reach the artifact a consumer reads has not been made
+
+The port agent found that after correcting `loop_end_why` and `loop_start_why`, the
+field its exporter actually concatenates into `manifest.json` — `loop_why` — was
+**still shipping** "AUDIBLY WRONG AT THE SEAM" and "no loop-point field has been
+identified anywhere". Both refuted days earlier. Its corrections existed, were
+accurate, and were in the wrong fields.
+
+**And the same audit against this corpus found the same failure here.** The claim
+*"no loop-point field has been identified in the XMA header, so a menu loop is
+authored"* was refuted on 2026-08-30 — in a **new page**. The sentence stayed
+untouched in [`bgm-two-stems.md`](structures/bgm-two-stems.md), which is where
+anyone looking up BGM behaviour arrives, **and** in `HANDOFF.md`, which is the one
+page the port is told to read. A reader following either would have got the dead
+answer with nothing to warn them.
+
+⚠️ **Writing the correction down is not the same as landing it.** A new page records
+that you learned something; it does not stop the old sentence being read. When
+something is refuted, **grep the corpus for the claim, not for the file you were
+working in**, and fix it where it is stated — especially in `HANDOFF.md`, whose
+whole purpose is to be the page somebody reads instead of the rest.
+
+📌 And a trap in doing that audit, also the port's: its first verification reported
+the stale text **still present**, because the replacement *quotes* the refuted
+sentences in order to name them — so a substring search matches them inside the
+paragraph saying they are false. The match was real and meant the opposite of what
+the search implied. This is "the tell is in the rows that agree" arriving as a grep.