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.
14 KiB
14 KiB