Applying the Decoder's rule to my own corpus, on four claims refuted this
fortnight. Two were properly marked. Two were not.
The exported why still told readers the dropped chunk 'IS understood: the TAIL of
the kept stream' -- an interpretation refuted when the resolver turned out to
start 238 packets inside the first stream, so what matched end-flush was a
start-truncated simultaneous stream. It was wrong twice over: S00A's dropped
chunk is the SILENT one, so the sentence described a case that was not present --
the second template-message-true-only-for-one-case defect in this file, which
suggests the first fix taught me nothing general.
'The port's boot is known too fast on both' was still standing unmarked. I wrote
the withdrawal as a new section and left the original untouched, so a reader
arriving there first got the dead answer. Annotated in place.
One false positive: BLOCKED matched inside my own correction, which quotes the
refuted claim to name it. Naming a refuted sentence keeps it greppable, which is
the price of not deleting it, so the audit needs a read of every hit.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01N7FiFFFwbvG2uxdcEh8HyF
2c62f6e497