diff --git a/tools/re-capture/check_refuted.py b/tools/re-capture/check_refuted.py
index 9f7eb8b2..0683f1f8 100755
--- a/tools/re-capture/check_refuted.py
+++ b/tools/re-capture/check_refuted.py
@@ -108,3 +108,13 @@ if "--show-marked" in sys.argv:
         print(f"   · {f}:{ln}\n     claim: \"{c[:70]}\"\n     line : {l[:100]}")
 elif suppressed:
     print("   re-run with --show-marked to read them")
+
+# 🔴 EXIT CODE, added 2026-08-31. This printed its findings and returned 0 no
+# matter what -- a planted unmarked revival was reported and the run still
+# succeeded, so any pipeline using it asserted NOTHING. sylpheed-port shipped the
+# same shape (`return 0` unconditional) one day after writing that defect up in
+# someone else's work; mine had been live since the tool was written.
+# Unmarked assertions FAIL. Suppressed mentions do not -- they are unverified,
+# not wrong, and failing on them would make the clean state unreachable.
+if hits:
+    sys.exit(1)
diff --git a/tools/re-capture/impossibility_scope.py b/tools/re-capture/impossibility_scope.py
index 342d6474..e10cf3d0 100644
--- a/tools/re-capture/impossibility_scope.py
+++ b/tools/re-capture/impossibility_scope.py
@@ -73,3 +73,12 @@ else:
     print(f"  matched; scope words {_sc} -> {'HIDDEN by scoring' if _sc else 'shown'}")
     if _sc:
         print("  \U0001F534 CONTROL FAILED: scored as scoped, so it would not appear in the default listing.")
+
+# 🔴 The control above PRINTED its failure and this script exited 0 -- so a broken
+# control was indistinguishable from a passing one to anything but a human reading
+# the last line. Fixed 2026-08-31, the same day the tool was written, after
+# sylpheed-port reported the identical shape in their own suite. The LISTING is a
+# prompt and never fails; the CONTROL failing is a hard error, because every hit
+# above is meaningless without it.
+if (not _m) or [w for w in SCOPED if w in _m.group(0).lower()]:
+    sys.exit(2)