The Decoder re-ran both flagged findings rather than arguing them. The pulse
ratio -- the leg under rate=0.5 that is independent of the other two -- came back
0.1000 over 16 clean cycles and 0.0993 on a second capture, unchanged by the
full-quad reader. Recorded in the authored why, because a leg that has survived a
challenge to its own instrument is worth more than one merely repeated.
Unit 10's conclusion survives (the parent multiplies in, so F6's gate is
unaffected) but its quoted numbers were a printed subset standing in for the
population -- the second time that exact error has appeared in evidence this port
consumed. Recorded as a pattern rather than a slip: a summary drawn from a subset
does not look like an error, it looks like a result, and neither instance was
reachable by reasoning because the argument was valid and the inputs were wrong.
No code change: both conclusions stand.
c69944b879