method: the refuted register and a good correction pull against each other

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

docs/re/METHOD.md

@@ -2277,3 +2277,36 @@ train the check to be ignored. Mine avoids that collision only by accident — a
 25-character minimum excludes bare numbers by construction, which is the same limit
 from the other side. A short claim cannot be enforced by substring; say so instead
 of forcing a row in.
+
+## The register and a good correction pull against each other
+
+`sylpheed-port` surfaced this from their hook and it applies to `check_refuted.py`
+unchanged, so it is recorded here as ours too.
+
+**A substring register can only find a revival of a claim it holds verbatim. A
+well-written correction paraphrases the dead claim away.** Their corrected heading
+reads *"does **NOT go** against the port"*, which no longer contains the registered
+phrase *"goes against the port"* — so the better the prose, the weaker the
+enforcement. Mine has the same shape from the other side: it matches exact wording,
+so a restatement is invisible to it.
+
+⚠️ **These do not reconcile, and pretending otherwise produces a register that is
+trusted more than it earns.** The workable posture is to keep the dead phrase
+quoted *somewhere* — a `~~"…"~~` line in `REFUTED.md` is exactly that, and costs
+the correcting prose nothing, because the register entry and the correction are
+different documents. Quote verbatim in the register; paraphrase freely everywhere
+else.
+
+📌 Same family as the unregistrable-claim limit: **some enforcement is structurally
+unavailable, and the honest move is to name which**, not to add a row that
+generates noise and trains the check to be ignored.
+
+## An independent confirmation of the capture-phase term, from the render side
+
+The port pinned `--leaf-time=0` at their render sites and two *published* oracle
+rows moved in **opposite** directions (`title_plate` 0.00 → 0.09 %, `title_band`
+0.35 → 0.00 %). Opposite directions is the signature of a phase change rather than
+a regression, and it is the same term I measured from the capture side as a
+phase-locked shutter — arrived at independently, from the other end of the
+pipeline. A row containing a sweeping leaf has a **phase-dependent value**, so
+quoting one without the term attached is an error whichever side produces it.