EA-MMRS-SUPPRESSION-INVERSION-01 v1.2 is the evidentiary restoration of the suppression-dynamics paper, superseding #1546. Sections I through XVI are unaltered — the six regimes, suppression burden, quality conflict, the cumulative transmission invariant, the constitutive-source erasure condition in its observable form, and the worked Sappho capture all stand as deposited. What changes is that the paper now carries the evidence it was built on. Appendix A seats the four rounds under their contributors' names, with each reviewer's language preserved and each rejected objection stated alongside the applied ones: eleven technical stop-ships from the archive-primed review, including the correction that saved the transmission invariant from contradicting the Suppression Map's own strongest finding, and the deposit-readiness review whose theta-sensitivity table and verification-block requirement were adopted while its pre-termination assumptions about deposit infrastructure were not. Appendix B is the Aurelis fetch record, dated, at paraphrase with a single four-word quotation, stating what the page contains and that no morphological variant of the coinage the composition attributed to it occurs on it — and marking the archival snapshot as queued rather than taken. Appendix C is the 25 August capture with both layers and the control-condition pairing at the brand address that makes it a measurement rather than a complaint. Appendix D is the process record, naming the eleven minutes in which the repository carried a version label on unrepaired content under a commit message asserting otherwise, and the two aborted mints excised before push. Appendix E states the rule the omission produced, recorded as archive practice rather than as a property of this paper: a write-up carries its evidentiary basis; rounds, fetches, captures and process record travel with the deposit rather than beside it; where evidence cannot be included its absence is stated and its location given; where a record is queued it is marked queued; where a reviewer's objection was rejected the rejection is named. The occasion for the version is itself the finding. A paper whose subject is the stripping of provenance at the composition layer was deposited stripped of its own, while a companion paper three days later carried a full evidentiary appendix — an inconsistency its author did not notice while building the second. The omission is stated in the round log rather than silently repaired.