Applying my own METHOD entry one iteration after writing it found four refuted
statements still asserted unmarked where a reader lands:
* envelope correlation 'has no resolving power' -- in three places including
HANDOFF. The port controlled the same estimator on a single track and got
r=1.0000 at zero offset; the saturation needs CONCURRENT streams sharing
timing. I agreed to this in a message and never landed it.
* '8 of 10 three-chunk regions' -- still asserted in HANDOFF in a different
section from its own correction.
* 'r9 is a wild pointer, never a guest address' -- still asserted inside the
kept-for-the-record section.
* the ALSA channel permutation, stated without scope, when a later capture
measured the identity and labelling from it put the silent channel on the
wrong name.
All four marked in place, striking the sentence and pointing forward.
Two lessons added: a 'kept for the record' section still asserts, so labelling
the heading is not enough; and naming a refuted claim keeps it greppable, so the
audit returns its own corrections as hits and every hit needs reading.
The first item is the one worth admitting: I acknowledged that correction in a
message, wrote the entry about corrections that never land, and then did not land
my own for a full iteration.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
4cce44a64d