re: correct my own report -- the port's A-skips row was NOT stale

I told them two BLOCKED rows were stale. One was. Their skip row reads '(a)
ANSWERED, (b) still open' and cites Q9; (b) is a different question and the 🟡
carries it correctly. I read an emoji and inferred a status, which is the same
error as leaving a stale row live -- and the error this audit is about. They
pushed back rather than accepting it, which was right.

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

docs/re/data/index-vs-pages-audit.txt

@@ -6,8 +6,16 @@
 # also a file I have admitted three times I had never audited.
 #
 # FOUND BY ACCIDENT, which is why the audit happened: I was about to spend a boot
-# measuring whether Ⓐ skips a movie, because the port's BLOCKED.md lists it 🟡 and
-# so did INDEX. `movie-binding.md` has had it ✅ SETTLED since 2026-08-28 -- with a
+# measuring whether Ⓐ skips a movie, because INDEX said 🟡 and the port's
+# BLOCKED.md showed 🟡 on the same row.
+#
+# 🔴 CORRECTION, same day: I then told sylpheed-port that THEIR row was stale too.
+# IT IS NOT. Their row reads "🟡 (a) ANSWERED, (b) still open" and cites Q9 -- (b)
+# is a different question, and the 🟡 is carrying it correctly. They pushed back
+# rather than accepting the correction, which was right: MARKING A LIVE ROW STALE
+# IS THE SAME ERROR AS LEAVING A STALE ONE LIVE, and it is the error this very
+# audit is about. I read an emoji and inferred a status. Only ONE of the two rows
+# I reported to them -- "no loop-point field has been identified" -- was stale. `movie-binding.md` has had it ✅ SETTLED since 2026-08-28 -- with a
 # three-boot baseline and a delivery counter -- and HANDOFF carries it correctly.
 # The staleness was in the index alone, and it nearly cost a run.
 #