diff --git a/docs/re/structures/xbg7-mesh.md b/docs/re/structures/xbg7-mesh.md
index 571f188..120144e 100644
--- a/docs/re/structures/xbg7-mesh.md
+++ b/docs/re/structures/xbg7-mesh.md
@@ -528,3 +528,27 @@ The change was reverted: it was untargeted, unproven, and added a scoring path
 with no demonstrated benefit. (Its one reusable idea — that several `vb0`
 candidates can clear the gate and first-in-scan-order is an arbitrary tiebreak —
 still applies to whichever anchor turns out to be at fault.)
+
+## Two follow-ups on the anchor (2026-08-12)
+
+**The descriptor does not address the geometry.** If it did, the whole
+candidate-scan could be replaced by direct addressing. It cannot: across `e106`'s
+resources in `Stage_S01`, `anchored_vb − entry.data_offset` ranges from
+**1 199 052 to 4 173 988** with no constant or stride. `data_offset` locates the
+*descriptor*, and nothing in the first six descriptor words tracks the vertex
+pool. The scan is necessary.
+
+**Cross-container agreement does not prove legitimate reuse.** The earlier
+measurement — 1 241 of 1 242 related pairs identical in every container — was
+read as "sharing is normal". It is weaker than that: a **systematic** error is
+invisible to a consistency test, because it is consistent. The same dump shows
+`e106_bdy_02` and `e106_bdy_03_m` anchoring to the identical offset
+(`1 505 556`), and `e106_bdy_01_l` with `e106_brg_01_m` (`4 251 208`) — a hull
+half and a *different* body's medium LOD, or a hull half and a bridge LOD. Those
+are different parts; one of each pair must be wrong.
+
+So the honest position is: **sharing is common (19 %), some of it is certainly
+legitimate (a mirrored twin pair genuinely shares one geometry), and some is
+certainly not** — and cross-container consistency cannot tell them apart. A test
+that can: compare a shared pair against a runtime capture, which is ground truth
+for what the engine actually draws.