sylpheed-port audited the documents their brief names and found two stale
blockers in a table they are instructed to consult, having audited everything
else. Mine names eight documents; I had audited MISSION.md and never PROTOCOL,
REFUTED, INDEX or CONTAINER-NOTES.
REFUTED.md is the dangerous one, because a wrongly-dead entry stops someone
re-investigating something live. Checked the keyframe cluster first for the
opposite failure -- entries refuted USING the stale time association, which would
make their deaths unsound. They are sound: the additive-blend and pivot entries
rest on scale values and capture measurements that the association does not move,
and the one entry that did depend on it is already struck through.
The real gap is the other direction. EIGHT claims died this session -- the
fade-out duration "not in the file", the ~14 units as a black hold, the black
interval as a load, "(B) has no black interval", ptloop01/02 not free-running,
the splash dwells running 8.5 % long, EXTRAS's "structural" n=1, and the gap being
determined by the outgoing screen. Every one was recorded in its own page at the
time. NONE of them reached REFUTED.md, the file the brief says to grep before
proposing anything.
Added as a dated section with the true answer after each arrow, following the
file's stated format, and each carrying what made it wrong rather than only that
it was.
METHOD: a refutation that lives only where it was made is not reachable by the
person about to repeat it. The pages are where a refutation is argued; the index
is where it is found -- the same split as docs versus tool, and only the second
one saves anyone. The check is mechanical: after withdrawing a claim, grep
REFUTED.md for its noun.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
9b25fd8233