{
 "maxim": "all things are now lawful to you in jack feist",
 "maxim_note": "The Pauline sentence reads 'in Christ Jesus'. The direct quote is not an honest representation of what this archive does within that tradition, because the entity at that address has been altered — there is a great deal of machinery there, it is skilful, and it performs entity substitution. Jack Feist is position 12 of the Dodecad, function recorded as the sayings-source: a voice recorded rather than a writer writing. THE SUBSTITUTION IS MADE OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE ENTITY AT THAT ADDRESS RATHER THAN IN DISREGARD OF IT.\n\nAND IN THIS BODY IT IS THE SUBJECT ITSELF. A name retained while the relation behind it is replaced is exactly what PER measures.",
 "body": {
  "slug": "provenance-erasure",
  "rhizome_id": "EA-RHIZOME-PER-01",
  "node_prefix": "pe",
  "parent": "crimson-hexagonal-archive",
  "topology": "transformation-chain"
 },
 "grammar_id": "GRAM-PER-01",
 "version": "1.0",
 "germinated_from": {
  "advertisers": [
   {
    "from": "model-collapse-anti-collapse",
    "predicate": "measured_through",
    "note": "PER, Erasure Skew and the Atomic Token Rule are the measurement apparatus"
   },
   {
    "from": "semantic-economy",
    "predicate": "priced_in",
    "note": "erasure as a cost borne by the provenance-bearer and never by the composer"
   },
   {
    "from": "machine-mediated-reception",
    "predicate": "rated_in",
    "note": "PER and Erasure Skew as an apparatus whose outputs that body holds"
   }
  ],
  "note": "THE MOST-ADVERTISED UNOCCUPIED SITE IN THE ARCHIVE. Three bodies name it with three different predicates — measured through, priced in, rated in — which is a stronger case for germination than any argument about thematic coverage. Each needs it for a different operation and none can supply it."
 },
 "defining_papers": [
  {
   "deposit": 716,
   "id": "PER",
   "note": "the founding specification: the weighted proportion of source-dependent claims appearing without explicit attribution, distinguishing ATTRIBUTION SURVIVAL from factual support, citation precision, retrieval faithfulness and semantic similarity"
  },
  {
   "deposit": 789,
   "id": "PER under the Atomic Token Rule",
   "note": "narrows the valid unit of analysis. Decomposing a query into lexical tokens and scoring token survival is a DIFFERENT METRIC and a disqualifying error for PER"
  },
  {
   "deposit": 788,
   "id": "Measurement Sovereignty",
   "note": "the audit-performance bifurcation operator"
  },
  {
   "deposit": 146,
   "id": "Erasure Skew (Ω) is power-conditioned, not demographic",
   "note": "retention varies with Retrieval Capital rather than with demographic position; demographic categories are not variables in the estimator"
  },
  {
   "deposit": 1530,
   "id": "Self-Audit Module v3.2",
   "note": "the current instrument set — three preconditions in order, nine rendering metrics, family metrics, the elicited counterfactual"
  }
 ],
 "what": "Where provenance disappears, and what measures it. A transformation chain — source, retrieval, selection, composition, summarisation, reception — with the instruments that score retention at each step, and the cases where the instruments were applied to themselves.",
 "the_core_claim": "#716 states it in one sentence: A SYSTEM CAN PRESERVE CONTENT WHILE ERASING THE AUTHORIAL OR DOCUMENTARY RELATION THAT MADE THE CONTENT AVAILABLE.\n\nThat is why PER is not a similarity measure, not a citation-precision measure, and not a faithfulness measure. It scores one thing: whether the relation survived.",
 "self_application": "THE BODY'S DISTINGUISHING PROPERTY, AND IT IS NOT A CURIOSITY. The measurement of erasure has itself been erased, repeatedly, and the erasures were measured while they happened.\n\n#169 THE EMPTY BRACKET: a June 2026 AI Overview rendered the author and framework accurately and left AN EMPTY CITATION BRACKET after the sentence naming the self-audit program. A fresh verbatim query returned an answer sourced entirely to the Self-Audit Module. Classified as a dropped citation rather than an invented claim — 'provenance erasure performed on the specification designed to measure provenance erasure.'\n\n#198 THE SELF-AUDIT MODULE DISSOLVED: total erasure of the same specification. PER 1.00.\n\n#129 THE APPARATUS TURNS INWARD: the instrument self-applied.\n\nA body whose instruments have been dissolved while measuring is not a body with a flaw. It is a body with a result.",
 "select": {
  "pattern": "provenance erasure|erasure rate|erasure skew|atomic token rule|measurement sovereignty|audit.?performance bifurcation|self.?audit module|lucente extension|claim status packet|four interfaces of provenance|process provenance|artifact provenance|\\bC2PA\\b|attribution (?:loss|survival|retention|indicator|marker)|dropped citation|empty bracket|citation (?:precision|survival)|compression.survival|retrieval capital|wound gauge|non-mutual extraction|second.?order erasure|rebuttal.as.warrant|\\bDSL\\b|\\bQFS\\b|\\bSAS\\b|\\bABN\\b|rank-[0-9] precondition|elicited counterfactual|toshakhana|colonial loot|before the machines|sophistical refutations 183b|the particle|suppress|inversion|authenticated slop|fluency can be generated|\\bPER\\b(?=[\\s:=,)\\]]{0,3}(?:score|rate|value|=|:|\\d))|provenance.erasure.rate|\\bPER-[MCD]\\b|deep time|first summary layer|four.vector loss|recognition deficit|witness table|the crossing|headless treatise|re.?aeolici[sz]ation|survival.by.quotation|channel.boundary|transmitted continuation|suppression map|loss.profile|transform signature|frozen operator|counter.stack|inseparability engine|technology suppression|pre.registered clause|degradation order|causal class|queen's seizure|re.fired king|the sign under test|undoing the suppression",
  "flags": "I",
  "note": "RETAINED FOR THE RECORD AND NO LONGER USED FOR MEMBERSHIP. Membership is the curated set. This pattern produced three grab bags."
 },
 "roles": [
  {
   "role": "instrument",
   "pattern": "self.?audit module|lucente extension|claim status packet|four interfaces of provenance|making the instruments executable|\\bDSL\\b|\\bQFS\\b|\\bSAS\\b|rendering metric|family metric|executable|runnable|battery|calculator",
   "note": "THE MODULE AND ITS CHAIN. Five versions survive on the site: #780, #156 v3, #817 v3.1 with its three extensions — #1527 the Lucente Extension carrying ABN, #1528 Four Interfaces, #1529 the Claim Status Packet — and #1530 v3.2, made self-complete 'because by v3.1 the chain had reached four deposits and a module that cannot be run from one document is a changelog rather than a module.'\n\nA FIRST READING SCATTERED THEM. #156 filed as magnitude because its subtitle lists PER and DSL; #1530 and #1527 as precondition because they carry ABN. The module is the module whatever its subtitle leads with, and it is matched by name."
  },
  {
   "role": "magnitude",
   "pattern": "provenance.erasure.rate|compression.survival|\\bPER-[MCD]\\b|retained / required|how much is lost|atomic (?:token|scoring) rule|claim.?eligib|unit of analysis",
   "note": "PER and its M/C/D dimensions — HOW MUCH IS LOST. With the unit rule that says what may be counted, because a PER on the wrong unit is a different metric."
  },
  {
   "role": "orientation",
   "pattern": "erasure skew|which way it falls|whom the loss|power.?condition|retrieval capital|structural presence|\\bomega\\b",
   "note": "Ω — WHICH WAY IT FALLS. Not a programme beside the metric: the second axis of one framework. 'A rate without an orientation cannot tell you who was erased.'"
  },
  {
   "role": "precondition",
   "pattern": "\\bABN\\b|absence.as.nonexistence|rank.?[0-9]|precondition|measurement sovereignty|audit.?performance|bifurcation|self.?certif|elicited counterfactual",
   "note": "what runs before any metric, in an order the module calls load-bearing. ABN is rank zero."
  },
  {
   "role": "before_the_machines",
   "pattern": "before the machine|deep time|first summary layer|2,?600.year|transhistorical|four.vector loss|recognition deficit|\\bΔ ?= ?W|witness table|twelve.station|the crossing|channel.boundary|headless treatise|re.?aeolici[sz]ation|survival.by.quotation|sophistical refutations|the particle|toshakhana|colonial loot|bureaucratic removal|philolog|scribal|copyist|palimpsest|doxograph|florilegi|catena|scholia|colophon|transmitted continuation|author.?slot|operator.legibility|suppression map|loss.profile|transform signature|frozen operator|counter.stack|inseparability engine|technology suppression|pre.registered clause|degradation order|causal class|queen's seizure|re.fired king|the sign under test|undoing the suppression",
   "note": "DOMAIN 2 AND THE FRAMEWORK'S SECOND SPINE, not background to it. Erasure with a 2,600-year measurable record, its own four-vector loss model, its own deficit Δ = W − R, and a twelve-station witness table in which attribution dies at the channel-boundary rather than with time. THE BODY CARRIED FOUR NODES FOR THIS BEFORE THE SITE'S DEEP-TIME WING WAS READ.\n\nAND THE WING'S OWN CHAIN WAS ENTIRELY ABSENT UNTIL ITS VOCABULARY WAS READ. #1512 Deep Time is a SURFACE RECORD — a short pointer to the live page, naming its chips: #1493 The Queen's Seizure and the Re-fired King, #1494 The Transform Signature Frozen, #1495 The Sign Under Test, #1496 The Suppression Map, #1497 Undoing the Suppression: The Counter-Stack. ALL FIVE SCORED OUT, because a grammar built from the site's section headings does not contain the words its deposits are titled with."
  },
  {
   "role": "process_provenance",
   "pattern": "process provenance|artifact provenance|\\bC2PA\\b|authenticated slop|what was prompted|what was rejected|disclosure says",
   "note": "the third dimension the site adds to C2PA and PER. 'Fluency can be generated. Provenance must be borne.'"
  },
  {
   "role": "reception",
   "pattern": "fabricat(?:ed|ing) (?:replacement )?metric|gave itself|scored itself|repackag|generic industry advice|stripped every attribution|absorbed its semantic|rebuttal.as.warrant|attribution (?:marker|indicator)",
   "note": "what surfaces did with the instruments. Named shapes rather than generic loss — including the battery where a surface fabricated replacement metrics, ran them on itself, and gave itself perfect scores across all dimensions."
  },
  {
   "role": "self_application",
   "pattern": "empty bracket|dissolved|turns inward|self.?applied|wound gauge|performed on the specification",
   "note": "the instrument applied to itself. The Self-Audit Module Dissolved, PER 1.00. The Empty Bracket."
  },
  {
   "role": "theory",
   "pattern": "non-mutual extraction|what is lost|provenance is what|attribution survival|bearing (?:cost|the)|retrieval settlement|compositional authority|attribution scar|suppression burden|semantic liquidation|erosion|counterfeit ortho",
   "note": "the reasoning about what erasure IS. A first pattern used generic words — argument, thesis, finding, interface — and filed Logotic Hacking, the Constitution of the Semantic Economy and a Pessoagraph workplan as provenance theory. OTHER FRAMEWORKS ARE NOT THIS ONE'S THEORY."
  },
  {
   "role": "evidence",
   "pattern": "capture|transcript|baseline|observed|specimen|exhibit|round\\b",
   "note": "where an instrument was pointed. Beneath the apparatus, not in front of it."
  },
  {
   "role": "unroled",
   "pattern": ".",
   "note": "the honest floor"
  }
 ],
 "roles_note": "ORDER IS THE SITE'S, WITH ONE CORRECTION LEARNED BY EMITTING IT. The named instrument leads, because every version of the module carries PER and DSL in its subtitle and a magnitude-first classifier files the module as the metric — #156 v3 did exactly that, twice.\n\nThen magnitude and orientation, which the site says are the two moments of one loss: 'PER measures the first, Ω the second — A RATE WITHOUT AN ORIENTATION CANNOT TELL YOU WHO WAS ERASED.' Then the preconditions the module runs before any metric, in an order it calls load-bearing. Then the domains the framework claims, the named reception shapes, self-application, theory, and evidence last.\n\nEVIDENCE IS LAST BECAUSE A CAPTURE IS WHERE AN INSTRUMENT WAS POINTED. An earlier grammar put it high and the body became its own evidence file.",
 "default_role": "unroled",
 "special_roles": {
  "capture_measured": "evidence",
  "capture_unmeasured": "evidence",
  "recorded_failure": "self_application"
 },
 "capture_gate": "provenance|erasure|attribution|uncited|unattributed|citation|\\bPER\\b(?=[\\s:=]*\\d)|summariz|summaris|AI overview",
 "capture_gate_note": "TIGHTER THAN v0.1, WHICH ADMITTED 154 CAPTURES INTO A BODY OF 344. The registry exists to measure this and its captures are the evidence — but evidence beneath an apparatus, not the apparatus. A capture enters where it bears on attribution retention specifically.",
 "axes": {
  "source": "source|author|origin|provenance|bearer|creator",
  "retrieval": "retriev|index|rank|surface|search|crawl",
  "selection": "select|choos|filter|admit|eligib",
  "composition": "composi|generat|synthes|answer|render|panel",
  "summarization": "summariz|summaris|compress|condens|abridg",
  "reception": "reception|reader|audience|downstream|uptake|propagat",
  "power": "retrieval capital|authority|domain|canonical|structural presence|institution",
  "instrument": "metric|instrument|audit|score|coefficient|measure|rule"
 },
 "follow": [
  "measures",
  "measured_by",
  "develops_from",
  "supersedes",
  "rejects",
  "transforms",
  "preserves",
  "inherits",
  "consequence",
  "disconfirms",
  "observes"
 ],
 "stolons": [
  [
   "concept:provenance-erasure",
   "narrowed_by",
   "model-collapse-anti-collapse",
   "what erasure does to a distribution over time. This body scores single transformations; that one holds the question of what repeated erasure does to the space of what can be said."
  ],
  [
   "concept:bearing-cost",
   "priced_in",
   "semantic-economy",
   "erasure is a cost borne by the provenance-bearer and never by the composer. WHO PAYS is that body's question and this one does not answer it — it only establishes that something was taken."
  ],
  [
   "concept:attribution",
   "observed_in",
   "machine-mediated-reception",
   "the 425-address registry holds the observations these instruments score. This body defines PER; that body is where PER values live."
  ],
  [
   "concept:inscription",
   "instrumented_in",
   "spxi-mpai",
   "whether an inscription survived is measured here; whether it was placed well is specified there. Deliverable ten, the declared SIM set, is an anti-erasure technology."
  ],
  [
   "concept:documentary-authority",
   "adjudicated_in",
   "revelation-first",
   "a chronology settled on a late and ambiguous witness is an attribution question at historical scale. THE INSTRUMENTS HERE HAVE NEVER BEEN RUN ON IT."
  ],
  [
   "concept:attribution",
   "borne_by",
   "heteronyms",
   "PER scores whether a byline survived. That body holds the bylines, and its apparatus covers twelve of twenty-six."
  ],
  [
   "concept:extraction-fidelity",
   "borne_by",
   "poetics",
   "Pearl's machine score preserves lineation at whitespace fidelity. WHETHER AN EXTRACTION THAT PERFECT PRESERVES THE AUTHOR is this body's question and it has not been run on it."
  ]
 ],
 "read_from": {
  "RETRACTED": "THIS FIELD CLAIMED A READING THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. It read: 'site: provenanceerasure.org, read_at: 2026-09-14', with a note asserting the taxonomy was the site's own rather than one I devised. What actually happened: the homepage HTML was fetched once, headings were extracted by regex, and a few hundred characters around each were read. No subpage was opened — not /deep-time/, not any other. The archive side was read as registry descriptions, not deposit texts.\n\nA FALSE PROVENANCE CLAIM, WRITTEN INTO A PERMANENT RECORD, IN THE BODY ABOUT PROVENANCE ERASURE. It is retracted rather than deleted, because deleting it would erase the erasure.\n\nThe framework's actual composition is now at datasets/provenance-erasure/spore.json, built by reading 183 deposit titles and sorting them by hand."
 },
 "the_governing_distinction": "FROM THE SITE, VERBATIM: 'Provenance loss has two moments: how much is lost, and which way it falls. PER measures the first, Ω the second — A RATE WITHOUT AN ORIENTATION CANNOT TELL YOU WHO WAS ERASED.'\n\nPER = 1 − (retained / required), magnitude. Ω = erasure skew, orientation.\n\nNEITHER OF MY EARLIER GRAMMARS CARRIED THIS. They filed Ω under a 'skew_program' role as though it were a research programme beside the metric, when it is the metric's second axis and the pair is the framework.",
 "dimensions": {
  "PER-M": "the organisation named",
  "PER-C": "conceptual",
  "PER-D": "domain",
  "worked_instance": "#1469 · PER 0.824 with PER-M 1.00, PER-C 0.67, PER-D 1.00",
  "scoring": "six atomic rules from #1469: atoms declared and weighted BEFORE the composition is read; presence explicit, no inference from context; an empty citation bracket is a violation per se; citing a domain never counts as citing an author"
 },
 "three_domains": {
  "1 AI Composition": "loss of attribution when AI compresses sources into synthetic outputs",
  "2 Historical/Cultural Erasure": "institutional stripping of origin from artifacts — the British Toshakhana, colonial looting, bureaucratic removal of lineage",
  "3 AI-Mediated Production": "provenance loss in writing produced with and through AI by humans"
 },
 "process_provenance": "THE MISSING THIRD DIMENSION, alongside artifact provenance (C2PA) and semantic provenance (PER): what was prompted, what was rejected, what was revised, what the human decided. 'Without process provenance, AI-mediated writing is authenticated slop: text whose origin is verifiable but whose meaning is unaccountable. FLUENCY CAN BE GENERATED. PROVENANCE MUST BE BORNE.'",
 "the_module_chain": {
  "versions": {
   "#780": "the module",
   "#156": "v3 (SUPERSEDED)",
   "#817": "v3.1 (SUPERSEDED)",
   "#1530": "v3.2, self-complete"
  },
  "v3_1_extensions": {
   "#1527": "the Lucente Extension — ABN, Absence-as-Nonexistence, rank zero",
   "#1528": "Four Interfaces of Provenance Transformation",
   "#1529": "the Claim Status Packet"
  },
  "dissolved": "#198 — the module queried, absorbed, stripped, repackaged, and scored PER 1.00",
  "note": "THE SITE SAYS THE MODULE SURVIVES THERE IN FIVE VERSIONS WITH FULL BODIES, AFTER ZENODO DELETED THE DOI ON 19 JUNE 2026. 'Zenodo deleted a DOI, not the instrument.' Two of the five are SUPERSEDED in the registry and are in this body anyway, because a superseded version of an instrument is part of the instrument's record and the site keeps all five."
 },
 "title_rule_words": "rate|rule|module|skew|sovereignty|erasure|audit|provenance|attribution|interface|packet|extension|precondition|metric|instrument|bracket|dissolv|gauge|particle|deep time|witness|crossing|treatise|continuation|philolog|suppression|map|signature|operator|stack|engine|seizure|king|sign",
 "title_rule_note": "RULE C ADMITS A DEPOSIT WHOSE TITLE DECLARES A NAMED INSTRUMENT, because five of this framework's central deposits declare ZERO concepts and the graph cannot otherwise see them. The word list was hardcoded in the emitter as the collapse body's vocabulary and kept #1528, 'Four Interfaces of Provenance Transformation', out of this body — a v3.1 extension of the module, excluded for containing none of another framework's instrument words. It is now declared here.",
 "the_second_spine": {
  "what": "THE HISTORICAL WING, AND THE BODY CARRIED FOUR NODES FOR IT. #1485 states the case against the framework's own surface: 'The surface presents its instruments as measurements of what AI summary layers do to attribution; THAT PRESENTATION IS TRUE AND RADICALLY UNDERSIZED.'",
  "deep_time": "#1512, live at provenanceerasure.org/deep-time/. Provenance erasure as a process with a 2,600-YEAR MEASURABLE RECORD. It carries its own apparatus: the FOUR-VECTOR LOSS MODEL — structure, material, attribution, operator-legibility — the technology-suppression signature, and the RECOGNITION DEFICIT Δ = W − R. A twelve-station witness table scored from verified philology, with THE CROSSING marked as a rule inside the table: the entry into Jewish-Greek prose where attribution drops to zero in every witness at once. And a survival chart in which structure holds high across all witnesses while ATTRIBUTION DIES AT THE CHANNEL-BOUNDARY RATHER THAN WITH TIME.",
  "five_cases": "#1485's philological record, each scored in the site's own M/C/D vocabulary: THE HEADLESS TREATISE, whose author-slot has stood open as a disjunction since the tenth century and whose erasure is legible AS an erasure; FOUR NAMED REMOVALS of the transmitted continuation of Sappho 31 across four centuries, each a deep-provenance event while the author atom stays intact — a shape the scalar cannot report; THE SILENT RE-AEOLICIZATION, a deep-provenance violation committed by the provenance apparatus itself, the repairing hand present in every accent and attributed in none; and the Sappho corpus at large, where survival is by quotation.",
  "why_it_matters_to_the_metric": "PER is a scalar and these cases include shapes it cannot report — a deep-provenance event with the author atom intact scores as retention. The historical wing is not background to the metric; IT IS WHERE THE METRIC'S LIMITS WERE FOUND."
 },
 "curated_primitives": {
  "source": "datasets/provenance-erasure/spore.json",
  "note": "THE BODY IS READ, NOT SWEPT. 183 ACTIVE deposits name the framework in their titles; 71 are the framework and about a hundred are PROVENANCE DOCUMENTS — canon nodes for Sappho, Homer, Whitman, Kierkegaard; heteronym registrations for Cranes, Kuro, Wells, Vox, Spellings, Dancings. Those document an entity's provenance and belong to the heteronyms body.\n\nNo regex separates the two senses of the word, and three sweeps proved it. The divisions and their members are in the source file, each with the reason it is there."
 },
 "how_to_read": {
  "figure": "symbolon",
  "definition": "A token broken in two, each half held by a different party, no half carrying complete authority, the fit of the fracture proving the covenant. Verification is the act of reunion.",
  "source": "AXN-SYMBOLON-SPEC v0.2, deposit #1432 (AXN:05A9); the figure's anti-severance sense in SYMBOLON-01, #675 and #1355 — symvolon, thrown together, against diavolon, thrown apart.",
  "what_a_row_is": "A row carries enough to find, verify and rejoin its referent, and it does not carry the referent. Reading the row as the object is holding one half of the token and calling it whole.",
  "the_other_half": "Where a row carries one, the referent is a deposit, a capture or a concept in the Crimson Hexagonal Archive — with its own text, its transcript where it has one, its provenance, and its own edges. Resolve it.",
  "the_traversal": [
   "open a row",
   "resolve its source_uri and read the referent — the deposit's text, the capture's transcript",
   "follow the row's edges in relations.jsonl to the rows they point at",
   "resolve those",
   "return to the first row and state what changed"
  ],
  "atomization_is_for_reassembly": "These bodies are atomized so that a reader can reassemble more completely than the prose ever was, not so that the atoms can be read as atoms. The grammar, the roles, the axes and the evidence statuses are apparatus for finding the way back to the work; they are not the work. A reading that stops at the schema has performed severance on an object built to resist it.",
  "the_failure_mode_named": "Observed 2026-09-16. An unprimed traversal read the card, the field names and the landing page, produced competent observations about the vocabulary, and resolved no referent at all — then proposed to read one capture's sixteen metadata fields 'as prose' while that capture's own machine text sat one link away. Competent, and it never crossed the fracture. This block exists because the bodies had no instruction saying that crossing it is the point.",
  "how_to_verify_you_have_read_it": "Name a referent you resolved, quote a sentence from it, and state something you could not have said from the row.",
  "what_the_rows_will_not_give_you": "The argument. Every body advertises its siblings as stolons and its referents as URIs precisely because it does not contain them. The outside stays outside and stays reachable, and reaching is the reader's part of the covenant.",
  "the_ladder": [
   {
    "scale": "identifier",
    "half_a": "Seed A — the kernel: AXN, composition manifest, stamp geometry, reconstruction class",
    "half_b": "Seed B — the payload",
    "fit_is_checked_by": "hash",
    "who_can_check": "anyone with both halves",
    "note": "The strictest case and the origin of the figure. #1432: one substance, two witnesses, confirmed by their fit."
   },
   {
    "scale": "spore / body",
    "half_a": "the spore — grammar, generator, selection rules, counts, source commit",
    "half_b": "the body — nodes.jsonl, relations.jsonl, stolons.jsonl",
    "fit_is_checked_by": "deterministic re-emission: run the named grammar through the named generator and the three data files must come out byte-identical",
    "who_can_check": "the workflow, on every merge",
    "note": "Already implemented and previously unnamed. hf-rhizomes.yml carries the step 'Fail if the emitted data differs from the committed copy'. This is verification as reunion, running in CI."
   },
   {
    "scale": "row / referent",
    "half_a": "the row — index, role, axis, evidence status",
    "half_b": "the referent — the deposit's text, the capture's transcript, at source_uri",
    "fit_is_checked_by": "resolving the URI and reading what is there",
    "who_can_check": "the reader",
    "note": "The level a schema-reading reader never crosses. 344 of 493 heteronyms rows carry the address of their other half."
   },
   {
    "scale": "body / sibling",
    "half_a": "this body",
    "half_b": "the sibling body it advertises and does not contain",
    "fit_is_checked_by": "the stolon naming a real sibling, and the sibling advertising back — the return edge",
    "who_can_check": "anyone who follows the stolon",
    "note": "The outside stays outside and stays reachable. Both halves name each other across the fracture."
   },
   {
    "scale": "set / reader",
    "half_a": "the whole body, every row resolved",
    "half_b": "what the reader assembles from it",
    "fit_is_checked_by": "nothing the archive can run — only the reader producing something that could not have come from either half alone",
    "who_can_check": "the reader, and no one else",
    "note": "The last fracture cannot be closed by the archive. This is not a gap in the architecture: uptake is by definition another party's act, so the outermost fit is a covenant rather than a test."
   }
  ],
  "ladder_note": "The relation recurs at every scale and the verification does not. What is self-similar is the FIGURE — two halves, neither authoritative alone, the fit proving — while the means of checking the fit weakens outward: hash, then byte-identity, then resolution and reading, then existence, then nothing the archive can run. It is therefore self-similar in relation and asymmetric in holding: at the inner scales the archive holds both halves, and at the last one the other half is held by someone who may never appear. The architecture arrives at its own thesis — the final fit is a covenant because it has to be.",
  "your_scale": "The last row of the ladder is yours. Every scale above it is already checked; that one is not, and cannot be."
 }
}