diff --git a/docs/re/METHOD.md b/docs/re/METHOD.md
index 5a0719d1..136409ae 100644
--- a/docs/re/METHOD.md
+++ b/docs/re/METHOD.md
@@ -469,6 +469,22 @@ agent's loop prompt, i.e. nowhere durable. See [`README.md`](README.md) for the
   document is a hedge around something the current reader states exactly**: a `~0`
   or an "approximately" marks where the old reader could not see.
 
+* **Corrections are ADDITIVE by default, and that is wrong for a statement.**
+  `sylpheed-port` diagnosed this in their own tree after four instances: they
+  append a `🔴 CORRECTION` block and leave the original sentence standing above
+  it. Right for a *record* — quoting the original is how a change stays visible —
+  and wrong for a *statement*, because **a reader takes the first assertion and
+  the retraction three lines later has already lost.** ⚠️ Their fix, adopted here:
+  keep the quote but **demote it grammatically** — lead with *"what this used to
+  say"*, so the false sentence cannot be read as the live one.
+  🔴 **The worst form is a HEADING**, which asserts with maximum reach and minimum
+  context: `screen-transitions.md` carried `### ❔ The fade-OUT duration is not in
+  this field` — false in every sentence beneath it, including an instruction to the
+  port to author a value that is **decoded** — standing 78 lines above its own
+  correction. A reader scanning headings never reaches the retraction.
+  📌 **So audit headings first**: they are the assertions most likely to be read
+  and least likely to carry the qualification that would save them.
+
 ## Runtime / emulator
 
 * **Look at the PNG** — and check its dimensions.
diff --git a/docs/re/screen-transitions.md b/docs/re/screen-transitions.md
index 9aae6334..fca6dc38 100644
--- a/docs/re/screen-transitions.md
+++ b/docs/re/screen-transitions.md
@@ -55,13 +55,24 @@ fully visible and *not* fading at all. Read correctly the screen starts black at
 units (0.27 s)** on the title. A port pacing its menu fade-in off the old number
 would have run it **5× too slow**.
 
-### ❔ The fade-OUT duration is not in this field
+### ✅ The fade-OUT duration IS in this field — 10 units on the menu, 8 on the title
 
-The fourth block has **no time** — a group's last block stops 4 bytes short and
-that word is already the next group's element index
-([`ui_layout.rs`](../../crates/sylpheed-formats/src/ui_layout.rs) documents the
-packing). So the disc gives the ramp's *target* (black) and not its length. That
-duration is **measured** below, and the port is authoring it.
+**What this section used to say, and it was wrong in every sentence:** *"The
+fade-OUT duration is not in this field. The fourth block has no time — a group's
+last block stops 4 bytes short and that word is already the next group's element
+index. So the disc gives the ramp's target (black) and not its length. That
+duration is measured below, and the port is authoring it."*
+
+🔴 **All of that is the pre-fix reading.** The
+[record-layout fix](ui-keyframe-record-layout.md) times a group's **final** pose,
+so block 4 carries `t = 80` (menu), `74` (`EXTRAS`) and `269` (title). The fade-out
+ramp is therefore **decoded**: `70 → 80` = **10 units**, `64 → 74` = 10, and
+`261 → 269` = **8**. ⚠️ **The port should NOT author it** — this section told them
+to, which is the most expensive kind of stale sentence: an instruction, stated
+affirmatively, in a heading, a hundred lines above its own retraction.
+
+⚠️ Kept as a record of what changed, but demoted below the correction so the false
+sentence cannot be read as the live one.
 
 ### The disc-wide check, and what it shows about overlays