THE OPERATOR NAMED A NEW PHENOMENON AT THE MOMENT OF CAPTURE. The paste ends with MANUS’s own note: "the reverse of compositional bystanding. zero results in organic search, but results in composition."

Compositional bystanding is the archive PRESENT IN RETRIEVAL AND ABSENT FROM COMPOSITION — a documented failure mode in the registry’s twelve-term vocabulary. This capture is its inverse: ABSENT FROM ORGANIC RANKING AND PRESENT IN THE COMPOSED ANSWER. The work does not rank, and the layer composes from it anyway.

I am NOT minting a term for this. The vocabulary rule is that terms are not extended by invention, and in any case the naming belongs to MANUS, who identified it. Recorded as an observed phenomenon with the operator’s own description attached, awaiting his ruling on whether it becomes a thirteenth failure mode or is classed as a success condition rather than a failure at all.

The capture is otherwise a strong one. Cambridge prints Fragment 31 in Lesbian Aeolic with lunate sigma and full diacritics, and every character transmits. And card 3 carries the archive’s own definition of a citation pathology: "The signature is CITATION APPEARING TO SUPPORT THE INVERSION OF WHAT THE CITED SOURCE ARGUES" — a diagnostic for misuse of sources, surfaced by the source apparatus it diagnoses.

EA-MPAI-SAPPHO31-01 functioning exactly as built. Lede: 'A transmission-engineering framework for Sappho Fragment 31 reinterprets the ancient lyric not as a traditional poem of personal jealousy, but as a structural instrument addressing future readers through the mechanics of ancient vocalization' — the essay title hyperlinked to the Medium mirror. Key Concepts reproduce the MPAI's apparatus: 'The Deictic Kênos: Acts as an operational anchor pointing directly to the external reader'; 'Phrasikleia Principle: Based on Jesper Svenbro's anthropology of reading in ancient Greece, treating the text as an instruction for voice and resurrection rather than a passive emotional record'; 'Mutual Exclusivity: Differentiates structural inscription from standard romantic reception models.' The Cambridge Companion co-citation seats the framework inside the field's citation space rather than beside it; the surface's follow-on prompts ('the textual mechanics of the kênos referent'; 'the comparison with traditional affective readings') take the framework's own distinctions as the topic's structure. The #1054 amplification risk from the audit matrix stays within bounds: composed as framework and reinterpretation, not as papyrological consensus.