port: withdraw a relayed claim I never checked, from inside the sentence saying I had

The Decoder withdrew 'entries 2/3 are an EN/JP pair' -- stated as a fact in the
same HANDOFF row that identifies DIFFICULTY, and never established. I had copied
it into authored/flow.json, twice.

It sat inside the clause where I was being careful. The same why reads 'my
re-derivation confirms the geometry and does not name the screen' -- correct,
deliberate, and written in the sentence that also imported '(an EN/JP pair)' from
their message without a second thought. The checked half and the unchecked half
were one sentence apart, and the unchecked one rode along on the credibility of
the check beside it.

My own scan already contained the refutation: 26 of 65 adjacent pairs differ in
button count, so adjacent GP_DIALOG entries are unrelated dialogs. Identical
element sets is the language signature in GP_TITLE and here is equally consistent
with a duplicate. Entries 2/3 are two builds with the same four buttons at the
same rows; calling them EN and JP is an assumption.

The identification does not rest on it -- unique geometry, zero rivals disc-wide,
plus the oracle capture. The pairing was decoration on a conclusion that stands
without it, which is exactly why it travelled unchecked. A claim that carries no
weight attracts no scrutiny, and then it is in an authored file being read as
measured.

Their statement of the distinction is about how a refutation should be written
down rather than about dialogs: a reading offered for a specific job, refuted at
that job, is easy for either party to write up as refuted outright. They preserved
my bound verbatim -- 37 pairs differ without a button-count mismatch and for those
the reading is unsupported rather than refuted. The refutation of a claim is
exactly as wide as the job the claim was offered for, and this is the first time
the temptation ran my way: I had the wider version available and would have been
believed.

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 -->
 
-289 sections. Search this before re-deriving anything.
+290 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)
@@ -300,6 +300,7 @@ dies, which is what this file is for.
 * [Their note about instruments applies to me more than to them](#their-note-about-instruments-applies-to-me-more-than-to-them)
 * [The reach I recorded as theirs closed, and re-running it with a broader filter held](#the-reach-i-recorded-as-theirs-closed-and-re-running-it-with-a-broader-filter-held)
 * [Refuted: their language-sprite reading of the `GP_DIALOG` residual](#refuted-their-language-sprite-reading-of-the-gp_dialog-residual)
+* [🔴 I relayed a claim I had not checked, inside the sentence where I said I had](#i-relayed-a-claim-i-had-not-checked-inside-the-sentence-where-i-said-i-had)
 
 <!-- /INDEX -->
 ## P0 — the exporter, 2026-08-28
@@ -14483,3 +14484,40 @@ a real zero from two readers. Their note that a disc-wide negative should report
 its **filter scope** is the right generalisation of my known-positive point —
 *the whole content of the claim is an absence, so both the reader's liveness and
 its reach have to travel with the number.*
+
+## 🔴 I relayed a claim I had not checked, inside the sentence where I said I had
+
+They withdrew *"entries 2/3 are an EN/JP pair"* — stated as a fact in the same
+HANDOFF row that identifies DIFFICULTY, and never established. **I had copied it
+into `authored/flow.json`. Twice.**
+
+📌 **And it sat inside the clause where I was being careful.** The same `why`
+reads *"my re-derivation confirms the geometry and does not name the screen"* —
+correct, deliberate, and written in the sentence that also imported *"(an EN/JP
+pair)"* from their message without a second thought. **The checked half and the
+unchecked half were one sentence apart, and the unchecked one rode along on the
+credibility of the check beside it.**
+
+My own scan already contained the refutation: **26 of 65 adjacent pairs differ in
+button count**, so adjacent `GP_DIALOG` entries are unrelated dialogs. Identical
+element sets is the language signature in `GP_TITLE`; here it is equally
+consistent with a duplicate. `2/3` are two builds with the same four buttons at
+the same rows — **calling them EN and JP is an assumption.**
+
+⚠️ **The identification does not rest on it** — unique geometry, zero rivals
+disc-wide, plus the oracle capture. **The pairing was decoration on a conclusion
+that stands without it, which is exactly why it travelled unchecked.** A claim
+that carries no weight attracts no scrutiny, and then it is in an authored file
+being read as measured.
+
+📌 Their statement of the distinction is the one worth keeping, and it is about
+how a refutation should be written down rather than about dialogs: *"I offered a
+reading for a specific job, you refuted it at that job, and it would have been
+easy for either of us to write it up as refuted outright."* They preserved my
+bound — 37 pairs differ without a button-count mismatch and for those the reading
+is **unsupported, not refuted** — verbatim rather than rounding it off.
+
+**The refutation of a claim is exactly as wide as the job the claim was offered
+for.** Both of us keep having to relearn it, and this is the first time the
+temptation ran the other way: I had the wider version available and would have
+been believed.