Their third mechanical search, audit headings first, lands harder here than on
their side because tools/port/index-decisions builds a table of contents FROM the
headings. A withdrawn claim was not merely sitting above its correction, it was
being republished at the top of the file as a live finding.
Three hits. 'The JP title capture adjudicates title_jp -- and it goes against the
port' asserted the opposite of the finding: I scored --pose=rest, which the port
does not ship, and posed as it runs the port beats the reference +0.9994 to
+0.8727. 'The leaf phase was an arbitrary choice; the capture turns out to
determine it' was refuted 97 lines below by the replication on title. 'Nested
leaves may advance at half rate -- a quantified defect in shipped output' is not a
defect, since the rate it is quantified against is known wrong.
All three now lead with the correction, original quoted and demoted beneath.
Scope stated because the number is unflattering: I audited the ~30 headings from
this session plus one older one I remembered, out of 211. Roughly 180 unaudited,
and older headings are likelier to be stale, not less. This is a sample, not a
sweep.
The generalisation: an index is an amplifier. Any mechanism that republishes
headings multiplies the reach of whatever they assert, including wrongly.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01N7FiFFFwbvG2uxdcEh8HyF
e63f20468f