docs(agents): re-run the Phase 5 and Phase 7 checks, and record what they say

This page says not to trust its own ledger on arrival, so the checks were run
again rather than read. Nothing was archived and nothing was deleted — both are
the human's, and both phases stay open.

The substantive finding is that Phase 5's containment check is the wrong test
for half the list it names. `xenia-rs` and `xex2tractor` were never absorbed;
their disposition is harvest-then-archive. Run the check literally against
`xenia-rs` and it returns 42 of 42 refs "not present in Sylpheed" — every line
true, every line unactionable, which is the failure this page already names
once about Phase 0's first gate. For those two the invariant is that the
harvested artefacts are in Sylpheed and the repository is archived rather than
deleted; that is now checked separately, and it shows the harvest is real but
lives only on the unmerged PR branches, so Phase 5 should follow them rather
than precede them.

Containment itself holds for the two repos it does apply to: 21/21 and 2/2.

Also answers Phase 7's one open question — nothing cites `texcompare/`, and all
four `ship_render` citations name the example program, not the output
directory — and records that most of Phase 7's list does not exist on this
machine, that `has_wiki: true` is a flag rather than content (all six wikis
return 404, never initialised), and that the disk is at 90%, not the 83% the
page records.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

docs/agents/CONSOLIDATION.md

@@ -333,6 +333,86 @@ it, since DuckDB's UPDATE is delete+insert and one inbound FK would make
   (README and the binary's module doc both say DuckDB), but two inline comments
   at `sylph-xexdb.rs:499` and `:874` still say SQLite.
 
+## ▶️ The Phase 5 and Phase 7 checks, re-run 2026-09-14 on the second machine
+
+This page says *"Do not trust this page's ledger when you get there."* So the
+checks were re-run rather than read. **No repository was archived and nothing was
+deleted** — both are the human's, and both stay open. What follows is only what
+the checks now say.
+
+### Phase 5 · containment — and the check the page asks for is wrong for half its list
+
+| repo | disposition | tips | contained in Sylpheed |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| `Syplheed-Reborn` | absorbed | 21 | **21 ✅** |
+| `Sylpheed-Godot` | absorbed | 2 | **2 ✅** |
+
+🔴 **Phase 5 names four repos, but the containment check only means something for
+the two that were *absorbed*.** `xenia-rs` and `xex2tractor` were never absorbed —
+their disposition is *harvest, then archive*. Run the check literally against
+`xenia-rs` and it reports **42 of 42 refs "NOT PRESENT in Sylpheed"**, every line
+true and every line unactionable. That is the failure this page already names once,
+about Phase 0's first gate: *a check that goes red for something unactionable*.
+
+**For the two harvest repos the invariant is different** — the harvested artefacts
+are in Sylpheed, and the repository is *archived, not deleted*:
+
+| artefact | on `main` | on its PR branch |
+|---|---|---|
+| `docs/reference/xex2-format.md` | ✗ | ✅ #30 |
+| `docs/reference/xbox360-exports.json` | ✗ | ✅ #30 |
+| `LICENSE` | ✗ | ✅ #30 |
+| `crates/sylpheed-xexdb` (32 files) | ✗ | ✅ #32 |
+| `tools/zq.py` | ✅ | ✅ |
+
+⚠️ **So the harvest is real but is not on `main` yet.** Archiving is still safe —
+the branches are pushed, and archiving is reversible — but **Phase 5 should follow
+the harvest PRs, not precede them**, or `main` alone does not carry what was
+harvested.
+
+### Phase 5 · nothing lives outside git — re-verified, still true
+
+| | issues | PRs | releases | wiki |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| the four retiring repos | **0** | **0** | **0** | none |
+| `Sylpheed` | 36 | 19 | 0 | none |
+
+📌 `has_wiki: true` is the repository *feature flag*, not content —
+`/wiki/pages` returns **404 on all six**, i.e. no wiki was ever initialised. Read
+the flag as content and you would report six wikis that do not exist.
+
+📌 All six repos are still **`archived: false`, `private: false`**. The retention
+question this page leaves open is therefore unchanged and now has a number beside
+it: `docs/re/captures/` is ~87 MB of game screenshots in a **public** repository.
+
+### Phase 7 · most of the drop list is not on this machine
+
+The list was measured on the agent box. Here:
+
+| item | page | this machine |
+|---|---|---|
+| `agent-backups/` | 687 MB | **absent** |
+| `xenia-rs/audit-runs/` | 57 MB | **724 KB** |
+| local `pi/clippy`, `pi/clippy-clean`, `pi/reauth3` | 3 branches | **0 — not on this box** |
+| `texcompare/`, `ship_render/` | 14 MB + 64 KB | **both absent** |
+| root `canary_*.log` / `.stdout` / `.stderr` | ~15 MB | 1 file |
+| `stock-oracle/` | 34 MB | 34 MB ✅ |
+| `Sylpheed/target/` | 32 GB | **34 GB** ✅ |
+
+✅ **Phase 7's one open question is answered.** It asks to *"confirm no `docs/re/`
+page cites"* `texcompare/` or `ship_render/` before dropping them. Four citations
+of `ship_render` exist — and **all four name the example *program*, not the output
+directory**: `cargo run --example ship_render` in `xbg7-mesh.md`, two in
+`BACKLOG.md`, and the tracked `examples/ship_render.rs` itself. `texcompare` is
+cited nowhere at all. The directories are droppable; the example is tracked code
+and stays. (Same directory-vs-file distinction that made Phase 4's "10 dangling
+citations" turn out to be one.)
+
+⚠️ **Disk is tighter than this page records: 90 % used, 96 GB free** (the page says
+83 %). `Sylpheed/target/` is 34 GB of that and is the only large item here — but it
+is a deletion on the human's disk, and rebuilding it is hours, so it stays until
+asked for.
+
 ## Phase 5 — Verify the invariant, then archive  ⬜ **NOT STARTED**
 
 For each of `Syplheed-Reborn`, `Sylpheed-Godot`, `xenia-rs`, `xex2tractor`: