diff --git a/authored/rendering.json b/authored/rendering.json
index 726648c7..9ddfb524 100644
--- a/authored/rendering.json
+++ b/authored/rendering.json
@@ -197,6 +197,13 @@
     "      consecutive cycles with ZERO variance, and 60 leaf units x 0.5 = the",
     "      declared 120 title units.",
     "  The third has no relationship to the first, which is what makes it worth",
+    "",
+    "  \u2705 RE-VERIFIED after a reader bug, which is what makes the third leg worth",
+    "  its weight. The Decoder's log reader was found to truncate a batched draw to",
+    "  its first quad; the pulse ratio was re-run rather than argued about, and came",
+    "  back 0.1000 over 16 clean cycles and 0.0993 on a second capture. Unchanged.",
+    "  A leg that has survived a challenge to the instrument behind it is worth more",
+    "  than one that has only been repeated.",
     "  more than a repeat measurement.",
     "",
     "  \ud83d\udd34 A STALE CAVEAT REMOVED HERE. This block carried a 1.7x/3.2x title-clock",
diff --git a/docs/port/f6-what-starts-the-sweep.md b/docs/port/f6-what-starts-the-sweep.md
index f7ab31dc..10294c36 100644
--- a/docs/port/f6-what-starts-the-sweep.md
+++ b/docs/port/f6-what-starts-the-sweep.md
@@ -499,3 +499,24 @@ rotated parallelograms — **the general fact was written down before the reader
 contradicted it.** Their cheap check is worth repeating here because it applies to
 anything the port ever reads: *read one raw record in full before trusting any
 count derived from it.* The batch size was printed on every one of those lines.
+
+## 📌 And the same error recurred, which makes it a pattern rather than a slip
+
+The withdrawn alpha bound on this page failed because nine values quoted as a
+series were `sorted(set(...))[:9]` — the lowest distinct values, a tail wearing
+the shape of a trajectory. The Decoder has since found the same thing in a second
+finding: an implied-parent range quoted as 254.0–256.9 turned out to be *the rows
+they had printed*, every twentieth frame, standing in for a population whose real
+first-cycle spread was 250.9–260.5.
+
+**Twice, and both times the output looked fine.** That is the tell: a summary
+drawn from a subset does not look like an error, it looks like a result. The
+conclusion survived on both occasions, so nothing here needs undoing — but a
+conclusion surviving is not evidence the number under it was sound, and this port
+has now inherited two numbers that were not.
+
+⚠️ **Neither was reachable by reasoning**, which is the part worth keeping. In
+both cases the argument was valid and the *inputs to the summary* were wrong. No
+amount of re-reading the claim finds that; only re-running it does. It is the
+argument for re-running over re-checking, and it is why the two findings flagged
+as unverified above were re-run rather than defended.