method: over-warning is what makes the next real warning unreadable

From the port, after two rounds of its 'known incomplete' banner firing wrongly
-- once with a message true only for ADV, once claiming a gap over 93.694 s of
exact zeroes. Both errors were in the cautious direction, which feels like the
safe mistake and therefore goes unexamined longer than a false all-clear would;
the cost is deferred onto the one occasion the warning is true. A warning needs
the same scrutiny as an assertion, starting with what it keys on.

Also records S00A's kept count moving 1 -> 2 after the voice-region fix, on an
asset the fix was not derived from and with the prediction preceding the
observation -- at the strength it actually has. A different ASSET is evidence
about generality; a different IMPLEMENTATION is what would make it independent,
and only one of those was present.

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

docs/re/METHOD.md

@@ -1341,3 +1341,34 @@ would delete the only thing it was for.
 because the identifier happened to be a byte count.** Had the assignment been indexed
 by something the other side could not measure, it would have been adopted intact.
 When handing over a result, prefer to index it by a quantity the recipient can test.
+
+## Erring cautious is not free: over-warning is what makes the next real warning unreadable
+
+From the port agent, after two consecutive rounds where its "known incomplete"
+banner fired wrongly — first carrying a message true only for `ADV`, then claiming a
+gap over a chunk that is **93.694 s of exact zeroes**. A dropped *silent* stream is
+not missing content.
+
+Both errors were in the **cautious** direction, and that is the point. A false
+warning feels like the safe mistake, so it goes unexamined for far longer than a
+false all-clear would — and the cost is not zero, it is deferred and it lands on the
+one occasion the warning is true. Here that warning is the only thing standing
+between a listener and audio they cannot tell is missing.
+
+⚠️ **So a warning needs the same scrutiny as an assertion**, and specifically: check
+what it keys on. The fix was `kept < content_waves` rather than `kept < present`,
+which is the distinction between "we dropped something" and "we dropped something
+that had audio in it".
+
+## ✅ A second asset moving the way the mechanism predicts — and what that is worth
+
+When the voice-region fix landed, `S00A`'s kept-stream count went **1 → 2**: a chunk
+that had been a *different duration* now matched the others at 93.694 s. That is
+exactly what restoring a truncated first stream predicts, on an asset the fix was
+**not** derived from, and the prediction preceded the observation.
+
+⚠️ **It is not independent ground truth** — it is the port's exporter reading this
+crate's fixed output, so a fault in the fix would reproduce. Recorded at that
+strength and no higher. The distinction worth keeping: *a different asset* is real
+evidence about generality; *a different implementation* is what makes it independent,
+and only one of those two was present.