Their sharpened form is that well-argued prose never cited anything, the detail
being what made it look sourced. In this corpus cited sections have a median of 2502
characters and uncited 2386 -- indistinguishable, so care does not predict citation.
The predictor is recency: 79 % cited on 2026-08-29, 96 % on 08-30, 100 % on 08-31.
Caveat recorded: the improvement coincides with this exchange, so the norm becoming
salient is part of what produced it, and it is not evidence of a durable habit.
The distinction matters because the prognoses differ. Theirs is generative -- a
quality-correlated blind spot keeps producing instances. Mine is a legacy residue,
finite and closable by a backfill. Reading their diagnosis onto my corpus would have
implied work that is not needed and missed work that is.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
a03728d64d