diff --git a/authored/timing.json b/authored/timing.json
index ab66ca6c..49c35f6a 100644
--- a/authored/timing.json
+++ b/authored/timing.json
@@ -149,6 +149,23 @@
     "EXCLUDED, so 0 is no longer one option among several -- it is the only honest",
     "uniform choice, because it is the one that does not claim a constant exists.",
     "",
+    "UPDATE: TWO candidate models are now excluded, not one. The Decoder has five",
+    "replicates with NO variation -- title->menu 3,3,3 and EXTRAS->menu 2,2 -- and",
+    "every differing value comes from a different ORDERED PAIR. The same origin",
+    "gives different values to different destinations (menu 0 vs 1, EXTRAS 2 vs 3).",
+    "So a constant is excluded AND keying on the outgoing screen is excluded; only",
+    "an ordered-pair key survives, with a measured value needed per pair.",
+    "",
+    "I checked independently whether anything DECLARED predicts it, from the",
+    "quantities in my export. None does: outgoing close (15,10,10,10), incoming",
+    "clear (12,12,16,12), outgoing span (269,74,80,80) and incoming span",
+    "(80,80,269,74) each have two rows sharing a value with different gaps.",
+    "",
+    "I did NOT search combinations of them. Four intra-archive pairs against many",
+    "candidate two-screen functions fits by construction -- that is the error this",
+    "corpus has catalogued five times, and finding a formula here would be",
+    "indistinguishable from finding one in noise.",
+    "",
     "The Decoder ordered the gaps by the screen being LEFT (frames): menu 0 and 1,",
     "EXTRAS 2, title 3. Three hypotheses are positively ruled out, not merely",
     "unsupported. DIRECTION: EXTRAS->menu (2) and menu->EXTRAS (1) are the same",
diff --git a/docs/port/DECISIONS.md b/docs/port/DECISIONS.md
index b4366551..b0167c22 100644
--- a/docs/port/DECISIONS.md
+++ b/docs/port/DECISIONS.md
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ dies, which is what this file is for.
 
 <!-- INDEX: generated by tools/port/index-decisions -- do not hand-edit -->
 
-219 sections. Search this before re-deriving anything.
+220 sections. Search this before re-deriving anything.
 
 * [P0 — the exporter, 2026-08-28](#p0--the-exporter-2026-08-28)
 * [P1 — Godot draws the screen, 2026-08-28](#p1--godot-draws-the-screen-2026-08-28)
@@ -230,6 +230,7 @@ dies, which is what this file is for.
 * [Every documented invocation verified — and one runs forever without saying so](#every-documented-invocation-verified--and-one-runs-forever-without-saying-so)
 * [🔴 I promoted an unverified claim of theirs to a fact, against data I had authored](#i-promoted-an-unverified-claim-of-theirs-to-a-fact-against-data-i-had-authored)
 * [The half-guard they named, tested — and it found a real gap on first use](#the-half-guard-they-named-tested--and-it-found-a-real-gap-on-first-use)
+* [The ordered pair determines the gap — and nothing declared predicts it](#the-ordered-pair-determines-the-gap--and-nothing-declared-predicts-it)
 
 <!-- /INDEX -->
 ## P0 — the exporter, 2026-08-28
@@ -11556,3 +11557,43 @@ caught your `--no-hold` no-op, and you'd never have caught my 'sole exit'."*
 Neither of us is the right auditor of our own retiring words. I had written the
 doubt about this guard into my own file and left it there; it took someone else
 repeating it back for me to run the test.
+
+## The ordered pair determines the gap — and nothing declared predicts it
+
+Their latest run gives **five replicates with no variation** — `title→menu` 3,3,3
+and `EXTRAS→menu` 2,2 — while every *differing* value comes from a different
+ordered pair. The same origin gives different values to different destinations
+(menu 0 vs 1, EXTRAS 2 vs 3). **The origin constrains; the ordered pair
+determines, reproducibly.**
+
+🔴 **That excludes a second model for `black_hold_units`.** A constant was already
+out; **keying on the outgoing screen is now out too.** Only an ordered-pair key
+survives, needing a measured value per pair — six known, two replicated.
+
+### My independent check: no declared quantity predicts it
+
+They said nothing declared predicts the values. Checked from my export rather than
+taken:
+
+| pair | gap | out.close | in.clear | out.span | in.span |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| title → menu | 3 | 15 | 12 | 269 | 80 |
+| EXTRAS → menu | 2 | 10 | 12 | 74 | 80 |
+| menu → title | 0 | 10 | 16 | 80 | 269 |
+| menu → EXTRAS | 1 | 10 | 12 | 80 | 74 |
+
+✅ **Each column has two rows sharing a value with different gaps** — `out.close`
+10 gives 2, 0 and 1; `in.clear` 12 gives 3, 2 and 1; `out.span` 80 gives 0 and 1;
+`in.span` 80 gives 3 and 2. **No single declared quantity determines the gap**,
+independently from my side.
+
+⚠️ **And I did not search combinations of them, deliberately.** Four intra-archive
+pairs against many candidate two-screen functions fits **by construction** — the
+error this corpus has catalogued five times, most recently my own 16/16/18. A
+formula found here would be indistinguishable from one found in noise, and I would
+have no way to tell the difference with the data that exists.
+
+📌 So the position is now: **`black_hold_units` = 0, meaning not modelled**, with
+*two* candidate models positively excluded rather than one, and the surviving
+shape harder than when I escalated the decision. Their advice stands and I agree:
+don't key it.