method: confirm every input, not just the ones that once failed; and prose drifting from corrected code

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

docs/re/METHOD.md

@@ -2353,3 +2353,39 @@ revivals.**
 
 So the register's clean run is now backed by a reading. That is the point: the
 number was worth nothing until someone looked, and looking took one pass.
+
+## A press that leaves the harness is not a press the guest received — including the d-pad
+
+This corpus already knew it for Ⓐ and Ⓑ: `b_from_menu.py` confirms delivery from
+the guest's own `[RE-INPUT]` log rather than from the pad, because a scripted press
+can be swallowed. **It had not been applied to the d-pad**, and my first
+focus-persistence run paid for it: two `pad.py dpad down` calls, and the guest
+logged `vk=5811` **once**.
+
+The reader looked broken — F1 and F2 both read `LOAD GAME` — and the tempting
+diagnosis was a stale frame. It was not: the two frames differ by 911 px, so they
+were different frames of an unmoved cursor. **The control caught it and refused to
+report F3**, which is the only reason the run was discarded rather than published
+with a wrong number in it.
+
+⚠️ **The general form: a confirmation discipline adopted for one input silently
+does not extend to the others.** Ⓐ and Ⓑ were confirmed because they had once
+failed; DOWN had never visibly failed, so it was never confirmed. Ask of any
+input-driven measurement *which* presses are confirmed, not whether presses are
+confirmed.
+
+## Prose that drifts from the code beneath it — three instances, two agents
+
+`sylpheed-port` named this after hitting it in `spin_period_units`, whose doc
+described the pre-fix "first timed, second untimed" rule while the body implemented
+the span-based replacement. Two of the three are mine: the `rest` override's
+comment still described it as testing the shifted time reading *after* the
+record-layout fix had refuted that reading, and a `continue` was documented with
+the pre-fix rule.
+
+All three were created the same way: **the code was corrected and the sentence
+above it was not.** ⚠️ Neither agent's checker looks at this — `check_refuted.py`
+reads prose against a register, the port's checks read numbers against a tree, and
+a comment that contradicts the function under it is invisible to both. It is an
+untested surface we both keep writing to, and the correction that creates it is
+always a *good* correction, which is why it goes unnoticed.