diff --git a/docs/port/blend-decoded-adoption.md b/docs/port/blend-decoded-adoption.md
index eae5c972..fe2d8f4b 100644
--- a/docs/port/blend-decoded-adoption.md
+++ b/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.