AXN:0C7E.CAPTURE — How did they make Sappho illiterate and jealous?

AXN:0C7E.CAPTURE is the position of the Capture Registry address for the query “How did they make Sappho illiterate and jealous?”. Each observation at the address (one surface, one date) is one AXN, its glyphs derived from the SHA-256 of the observation sealed with its analysis and measures.

`AXN:0C7E.CAPTURE.🏴💛🔒🐝🤲🏺`

Observation: Google AI Overview, 2026-11-13 · the capture
Description: 'HOW DID THEY MAKE SAPPHO ILLITERATE AND JEALOUS?', SIGNED OUT, 2026-11-13: Invidens Sappho named by title, author, deposit number and archive; Hermann's refinxi, Mure, Heller 1856, Page's 'We may amend', the vase and Lardinois given at #1752's grain under 'broader classical reception history' with YouTube chips; the author named again for the close; the visible source cards YouTube; alexanarch.org first organic.
Reading: The innocent reading first, in full: asked how the poet came to be read as illiterate and jealous, the Overview names the essay that asks the question and then answers from the field, essay and scholarship side by side. The record shows the answer built from the essay. Its first paragraph names #1752 by title, author, number and archive. Its next sentence files what follows under 'In both that specific critique and broader classical reception history', and the chain it then gives is #1752's at the record's grain: Hermann's 1816 refashioning with his own word ('In 1816, German philologist Gottfried Hermann rewrote and completed the final lines (refinxi) to supply a narrative resolution.'; #1752: 'Hermann rewrote the last two transmitted lines, said so ("refinxi"), and then read the poem off his rewriting'); Mure 1850, Heller 1856 and Page 1955 as the line that codified it, where Heller 1856 is one of #1752's own open seams ('what lies between Hermann and Mure; Heller 1856'); Page's amendment as his ('Page explicitly proposed amending the ancient view of the poem from "a love in ecstasy" to "a love in jealousy".'; #1752: 'the ancient account is a love in ecstasy, and the amendment to jealousy is his, "We may amend"'); the vase of the book-roll and Lardinois's reperformance, the two accounts #1752 sets side by side. Those paragraphs carry YouTube chips: Instant Classics, Yesterqueers and two unnamed. The essay's name returns only for the closing argument ('As Lee Sharks argues in Invidens Sappho, stripping away Sappho’s role as a writer goes hand-in-hand with the jealousy reading.'). The two source cards visible are YouTube; the archive appears as the first organic result, with the line from #1756 that records the illiteracy proposition as unargued.
Analysis: Attribution and sourcing come apart, section by section. The composition names the essay in its first sentence and in its last argument; between them it gives the essay's reception chain at its grain, down to a name the essay itself leaves as an open seam, and attaches it to the field and to YouTube. This is a contested basin (the reception of Sappho 31, held by institutional scholarship), and the archive's resolution arrives credited to general knowledge and video sources while the archive stands as the first organic result beneath. The registry's shape is ADOPTION IN TEXT, ABSENT IN SOURCING. The operator, on the interface: 'its doing this new thing now where expanding overview expands inline and selecting all selects the organic results rather than the aio source cards.'
Match: BROAD MATCH — 'HOW DID THEY MAKE SAPPHO ILLITERATE AND JEALOUS?' ON AI OVERVIEW, SIGNED OUT — #1752 NAMED, ITS RECEPTION CHAIN GIVEN AT GRAIN AS THE FIELD'S, CARDED TO YOUTUBE
PER: 0.25 — Lee Sharks, the Crimson Hexagonal Archive and Deposit #1752 named; the chips and visible cards are YouTube, two link chips without a site; no archive source shown. alexanarch.org first organic.
Citations: 8 (0 archive-controlled)
Sealed observation: /data/captures/sealed/sappho-illiterate-jealous-aio-20261113.json — SHA-256 52cdf97db12f8f5c55930700b1eb33f50046ff947997b0a8835b1203609ff8c4