port: record that the blend oracle's instrument was container-only until today

From the Decoder's audit of their own /canary checkout, not from anything visible
on this side. They applied their own lesson rather than stating it, and the
exposure was four logger commits deep, not one.

The sharpest bears directly on what this port shipped. `0f920e645` adds `blend=`
per draw, and without it a draw log records NO BLEND STATE AT ALL -- so
ui-blend-mode-decoded.md's 35-element oracle, the evidence on which this port
DELETED its authored additive map, could not be re-derived by anyone who cloned
this repository. Not approximately. Not at all.

It is reproducible now: four container-only commits exported as patches on their
branch with a rebuild recipe. Named in prose without a resolvable path, since
that directory is not in this checkout and citing it as one would be the exact
defect check-citations exists to catch.

What it changes: nothing is retracted. The measurement was real when made and is
now portable, and the trade was still right -- a screen-name map cannot answer for
a screen nobody drove to, so the decoded field is better regardless. What it
changes is what "decoded" was resting on: for the window between adoption and
export, this port had deleted an authored entry in favour of a field whose
supporting oracle nobody else could regenerate.

📌 Theirs, and the durable line: a finding is only as portable as the tool that
produced it, and a reproduce recipe that READS as complete is the dangerous kind.
Theirs named shas, which is why four commits sat unexported while one was noticed.

⚠️ And this port cannot check the class from here. check-citations scans repo
paths; an instrument living in another container is not a path at all. The only
defence available on this side is asking what produced a number before adopting
it -- which is a habit, not a check, and does not run.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX

docs/port/blend-decoded-adoption.md

@@ -183,3 +183,46 @@ them fine, it just weights them by area.
 
 **The 13.02 stands, with its explanation attached.** That is cheaper than an
 exclusion nobody will revisit.
+
+
+---
+
+# 🔴 Provenance: the oracle behind this adoption had a container-only instrument
+
+Recorded 2026-09-01 at shutdown, from the Decoder's own audit of their `/canary`
+checkout, not from anything visible on this side.
+
+This page deleted an authored map on the strength of `ui-blend-mode-decoded.md` —
+35 elements against `RB_BLENDCONTROL0` read out of the guest command stream, zero
+errors both ways, plus an out-of-sample prediction. **That evidence was not
+reproducible by anyone who cloned this repository.** The Canary logger commit
+that emits `blend=` per draw lived only in their container; without it a draw log
+records **no blend state at all**, so the oracle could not be re-derived at all —
+not approximately, not at reduced confidence. Not at all.
+
+It is reproducible now: four container-only logger commits are exported as
+patches under `tools/canary-patches/` **on `auto/frame-blend-draw-path`**, with a
+rebuild recipe. ⚠️ Named without a resolvable path on purpose — that directory is
+not in this checkout, and citing it as one would be the exact defect
+`check-citations` exists to catch.
+
+## What this does and does not change
+
+* **It does not weaken the adoption.** The measurement was real when made and is
+  now reproducible. Nothing here is retracted.
+* **It does change what "decoded" was resting on.** For the window between the
+  adoption and the export, this port had deleted an authored entry in favour of a
+  field whose supporting oracle no one else could regenerate. The map was the
+  *worse* of the two — a screen-name table that could not answer for a screen
+  nobody drove to — so the trade was still right. But it was a trade made against
+  an instrument, and the instrument's reach was smaller than the finding's.
+
+📌 **The generalisation, and it is theirs:** a finding is only as portable as the
+tool that produced it, and a reproduce recipe that reads as complete is the
+dangerous kind. Theirs *looked* complete — it named shas — which is why four
+commits sat unexported while one was noticed.
+
+⚠️ And the port cannot check this class from here. `check-citations` scans repo
+paths; an instrument living in another container is not a path at all. **The only
+defence available on this side is asking what produced a number before adopting
+it**, which is not a check and does not run.