diff --git a/docs/port/HANDOFF.md b/docs/port/HANDOFF.md index ba025a57..74af0ae8 100644 --- a/docs/port/HANDOFF.md +++ b/docs/port/HANDOFF.md @@ -774,6 +774,13 @@ exactly. That one is genuinely two independent routes. ## πŸ”΄ 2026-08-30 β€” your ask #1 ran, and the answer is NO. β’· from EXTRAS DOES go black. +> ⚠️ **CITATION ADDED 2026-08-31.** This section delivered a *measurement* as an +> inline frame excerpt with **nothing you could open** β€” the same shape +> `sylpheed-port` found in their own `loop_why`: prose describing a measurement, +> no file cited, while the data sat committed the whole time. The evidence is +> [`data/fade-four-transitions.txt`](../re/data/fade-four-transitions.txt), which +> carries this leg and eight others. + You declined to suppress the hold on the cancel path because β’· menuβ†’title was one transition. **That was the right call and the test proves it.** `EXTRAS β†’ main menu`, also β’·: diff --git a/docs/re/METHOD.md b/docs/re/METHOD.md index 64dd4f6d..509a4885 100644 --- a/docs/re/METHOD.md +++ b/docs/re/METHOD.md @@ -3118,3 +3118,27 @@ They quote their claim in backticks and are bare identifiers (`+0x29d0`, the same offset. Both agents landed on the same rule independently: **report the ratio, do not demand it be 1** β€” a counter that must be satisfied invites mislabelling, which is a worse failure than an honest gap. + +## An answer the port must author still needs a citation β€” and the thing to cite is the question + +`sylpheed-port`'s rule, from finding an `authored` value whose `why` said *"ask the +RE agent"* without naming where the question is recorded: **a pointer with no +destination**. Their formulation is the one that transfers β€” *without a citation, +an invented value and a placeholder for a measurement read identically*, which is +the whole distinction the label exists to carry. + +πŸ”΄ **Measured the analogue here.** This corpus's equivalents are the deliveries +classified **measured** or **undecodable, with reach** β€” where the mission says the +port authors by hand and *must know it is authoring*. Of **57** `HANDOFF.md` +sections asserting one of those, **9 cite nothing openable β€” 84 %**. + +Two are legend sections that need none. But one is a **measurement**: *"β’· from +`EXTRAS` DOES go black"*, delivered as an inline frame table with no file cited β€” +while `data/fade-four-transitions.txt`, which carries that leg and eight others, +**was committed the whole time**. Exactly their `loop_why`. Citation added. + +πŸ“Œ **And the mechanism they name is the one worth carrying: a blind spot that +correlates with quality is invisible by construction.** Their unlabelled entries +were not the sloppy ones β€” they were so well-evidenced that nobody thought to mark +them. Both audits were measuring **self-declaration, not grounding**, and a +well-evidenced claim is exactly the one that never declares itself.