diff --git a/docs/port/HANDOFF.md b/docs/port/HANDOFF.md
index c0ce3040..81e6d08e 100644
--- a/docs/port/HANDOFF.md
+++ b/docs/port/HANDOFF.md
@@ -6220,3 +6220,23 @@ challenge rather than as my confirmation.
 
 ⚠️ Not re-checked against the new reader: unit 10's alpha decomposition and the
 `ptbtn00f` pulse ratio. Both look safe and neither is verified.
+
+## Re-ran both flagged findings (`8cc38ee`)
+
+`docs/re/reverify-pulse-and-decomposition.md`.
+
+✅ **The pulse ratio holds — your independent leg is safe.** `f6b` 0.1000 over 16
+clean cycles, `f6` 0.0993. 60 leaf units × 2 = 120 title units = `ptbtn00f`'s
+declared loop. `rate = 0.5` keeps three legs, one of them independent.
+
+🟡 **Unit 10's conclusion survives; its numbers did not.** I quoted the implied
+parent as 254.0–256.9 / 253.9–254.9. Those were the **rows I printed** — every
+20th frame — not the series. First-cycle truth: **250.9–260.5** (n=1128) and
+**253.1–255.0** (n=560). Still flat ~254 while the drawn alpha swings 8→255→132,
+so the parent multiplies in and the F6 gate is unaffected.
+
+Post-wrap the spread widens to 237–283 **only in `f6`**, the run with dropped
+frames; `f6b` holds at median 254.3. That is my phase model drifting, not the
+parent — a varying parent would degrade in both. **Do not use my post-wrap
+decomposition for anything**; a per-cycle phase fit would be needed and I have
+not done it.
diff --git a/docs/re/f6-unit10-parent-alpha-gates-the-sweep.md b/docs/re/f6-unit10-parent-alpha-gates-the-sweep.md
index a6f6ff7c..be1fca3a 100644
--- a/docs/re/f6-unit10-parent-alpha-gates-the-sweep.md
+++ b/docs/re/f6-unit10-parent-alpha-gates-the-sweep.md
@@ -35,9 +35,15 @@ alone predicts the wrong direction — the control could have flattered the
 hypothesis and did not.
 
 Decomposing `observed = parent × leaf / 255` using the leaf's declared curve, the
-implied parent **ramps up and then pins at 255.0 and holds**: 254.0–256.9 (f6)
-and 253.9–254.9 (f6b) across hundreds of frames, while the observed alpha swings
-242 → 132 → 145. Over that whole swing the leaf's declared curve predicts the
+implied parent **ramps up and then pins at ~254 and holds** across hundreds of
+frames while the observed alpha swings 242 → 132 → 145.
+
+> 🔴 **Numbers corrected** by
+> [`reverify-pulse-and-decomposition.md`](reverify-pulse-and-decomposition.md).
+> This page first said 254.0–256.9 and 253.9–254.9; those were the sampled rows
+> I printed, not the series. First-cycle truth: **250.9–260.5** (f6, n=1128) and
+> **253.1–255.0** (f6b, n=560). The conclusion is unchanged and restricted to
+> the first cycle. Over that whole swing the leaf's declared curve predicts the
 drawn alpha **to within one alpha level**.
 
 A flat 255.0 residual across a large excursion is the part that could have