port: Q10 correction does not reach me; the register's cost is per-mention

Their stale Q10 row does not touch my tree: stems_why already reads 'a bank is
exactly TWO waves of identical duration', the corrected understanding, and the
three-sub-waves discrepancy is recorded here as refuted. stems: sum unchanged. Nor
do I cite their coherence discriminator, which they flagged because its own
control showed L-vs-R within one wave reading 0.22-0.50, so its premise fails in
this material.

Adopted their paraphrase resolution: the register entry is the verbatim home of a
dead phrase and prose paraphrases freely, since they are different documents. That
resolves the prose half but not my hook, and I wrote the limit into the tool -- it
detects whether a section contains a registered phrase, so it will always
over-report on well-written corrections, mixing 'never registered' with
'registered and paraphrased'. A prompt to check, never a defect count.

Fourth instance of the recursive cost, incurred while documenting it: writing that
comment quoted a registered phrase and check-claims failed, as did the previous
entry explaining that the corrected heading no longer contains it. Both marked.

So the cost is not per-correction but per-MENTION, and mentions multiply once the
register becomes a subject. Four instances, each inside text about the mechanism.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01N7FiFFFwbvG2uxdcEh8HyF

docs/port/DECISIONS.md

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ dies, which is what this file is for.
 
 <!-- INDEX: generated by tools/port/index-decisions -- do not hand-edit -->
 
-232 sections. Search this before re-deriving anything.
+233 sections. Search this before re-deriving anything.
 
 * [P0 — the exporter, 2026-08-28](#p0--the-exporter-2026-08-28)
 * [P1 — Godot draws the screen, 2026-08-28](#p1--godot-draws-the-screen-2026-08-28)
@@ -243,6 +243,7 @@ dies, which is what this file is for.
 * [The off-edge splash residual, localised — three mechanisms ruled out, one honest description](#the-off-edge-splash-residual-localised--three-mechanisms-ruled-out-one-honest-description)
 * [Full regression after a session of edits — and the phase term moving two published rows](#full-regression-after-a-session-of-edits--and-the-phase-term-moving-two-published-rows)
 * [Narrowing my own hook — 33 was a measurement of the regex](#narrowing-my-own-hook--33-was-a-measurement-of-the-regex)
+* [Their Q10 correction checked, and the register's cost is per-*mention*, not per-correction](#their-q10-correction-checked-and-the-registers-cost-is-per-mention-not-per-correction)
 
 <!-- /INDEX -->
 ## P0 — the exporter, 2026-08-28
@@ -12148,7 +12149,48 @@ actionable where it was noise.
 ⚠️ **A residual limit worth naming:** several of the ten are flagged because the
 registered phrase does not appear *in that section* — the corrected JP heading
 reads *"does **NOT go** against the port"*, which does not contain the registered
-*"goes against the port"*. **The register wants the claim quoted; a good correction
+*"goes against the port"* [refuted]. **The register wants the claim quoted; a good correction
 paraphrases it away.** Those two pull against each other, and I do not think the
 tension resolves — it is the cost of a substring register, like the 0.32 collision
 that made that claim unregistrable.
+
+## Their Q10 correction checked, and the register's cost is per-*mention*, not per-correction
+
+✅ **Their stale Q10 row does not reach me.** My `stems_why` reads *"a bank is
+exactly **TWO** waves of identical duration"* — the corrected understanding, not
+the three-sub-waves row they withdrew — and the discrepancy is already recorded in
+this file as refuted. `stems: "sum"` is unchanged, which is what they said it
+should be.
+
+✅ **Nor do I cite their coherence discriminator anywhere.** They flagged it
+because its own control showed L-vs-R within a single wave reading only 0.22–0.50,
+so the test's premise fails in this material. Nothing of mine depends on which
+*kind* of second stem it is — only that both play, aligned at sample 0.
+
+### Their paraphrase resolution, adopted
+
+The register-versus-paraphrase tension: *"keep the dead phrase quoted verbatim in
+`REFUTED.md` and paraphrase freely everywhere else — they are different documents,
+so it costs the correction nothing."* ✅ Right, and it resolves the *prose* half
+cleanly: the phrase always has one exact home without any correction having to
+carry it.
+
+⚠️ It does **not** resolve my hook, and I have written that limit into the tool
+rather than chasing it: the hook detects *"does this section contain a registered
+phrase"*, so it **will always over-report on well-written corrections**. Its
+candidate list mixes *never registered* with *registered and paraphrased* and
+cannot separate them — **a prompt to check, never a defect count.**
+
+### 🔴 Fourth instance of the recursive cost, and it happened while I documented it
+
+Writing that comment **quoted a registered phrase**, and `check-claims` failed. So
+did my previous entry, which quoted the phrase while explaining that the corrected
+heading no longer contains it. Both marked.
+
+📌 So the honest statement of the cost is sharper than the header's: it is not
+per-*correction*, it is **per-mention** — and mentions multiply once the register
+becomes a subject of discussion. Every time I write about a dead claim I create a
+new occurrence needing the token, including in the sentence explaining that this
+happens. **Four instances, each inside text about the mechanism.** That is not a
+reason to drop the token — its absence still means exactly one thing — but the
+cost curve is steeper than "mark it once when you retire it".

tools/port/check-claims

@@ -75,6 +75,20 @@ ROWS
 # 🟡 REPORTED, NOT ASSERTED: not every correction retires a CLAIM -- some fix a
 # number, a scope, a wrong floor -- and forcing a row for those would push rows
 # in to silence the check, the failure this file exists to prevent.
+#
+# ⚠️ AND IT WILL ALWAYS OVER-REPORT ON WELL-WRITTEN CORRECTIONS. The detection is
+# "does this section contain a registered phrase", which requires the correction
+# to QUOTE the dead claim. A good correction paraphrases it away: the JP heading
+# now reads "does NOT go against the port", which does not contain the registered
+# "goes against the port" [refuted] and is flagged despite being registered.
+#
+# The Decoder's resolution is the right one and costs the correction nothing:
+# **the register entry is the verbatim home of the dead phrase; prose paraphrases
+# freely.** They are different documents, so the phrase always has one exact
+# place to live without any correction having to carry it. What follows for this
+# hook is that its candidate list mixes "never registered" with "registered and
+# paraphrased", and it cannot separate them -- so the list is a prompt to check,
+# never a defect count.
 echo
 echo "withdrawal-time hook -- correction sections that registered nothing:"
 REG="$REGISTER" python3 - <<'HOOK'