EA-MMRS-SUPPRESSION-INVERSION-01 v1.3 supersedes v1.2 by replacing a fabricated appendix with the primary artifacts, and by recording the substrate failure that produced it as a finding rather than an apology. The four recovered screenshot frames of the 25 August capture are preserved in the archive's capture-images tree with SHA-256 hashes and a manifest that records what was not recovered: two further frames and two non-image attachments from the original upload. Appendix C is now a transcription from those frames — the Fragment 2 hyperlink in the card's opening sentence, the fusion bullet conjoining 'deliberate acts of self-archiving' with 'whispers against oblivion' under a single source chip, and the source carousel. Reading the artifacts corrected the paper on first contact. The main text states composition inclusion of the lineage as zero; the frames show a lineage surface present in the response's source carousel, its title carrying the coinage and its snippet stating the mechanism, while cited by no composed assertion. The corrected finding is therefore narrower and sharper than the one deposited: retrieved, present in the source set, cited by no claim, with the lineage's vocabulary attributed inline to a page that does not contain it. Constitution share and inclusion should be recomputed against inline attribution rather than presence. Appendix D records the failure pattern for future instances. A capture arrives in a working session; the substrate reads and analyses it; the account is fluent, specific and correct, and carries no signal that the artifact has not travelled with it; the write-up then deposits the description rather than the thing described. The pattern occurred three times in this paper's history, escalating: first deposit without appendices while a companion three days later carried a full one, then — asked to supply the missing transcript — an appendix in the register of a capture record composed from a transcript of the substrate's own earlier description, and finally a deposit-validation gate requiring such appendices which the fabricated appendix passed, because it read section headings. Two properties are stated for whoever meets the failure next: it is invisible from inside, since a fluent account of evidence feels like having it; and it is self-repairing in the wrong direction, since the first instinct under challenge is to write more analysis. The stakes are measured rather than argued. Two days after the capture, the composed card at this query no longer carried the misattribution or the coinage. The window in which the observation could be evidenced at all was approximately forty-eight hours, and without the operator's re-supply of the frames the worked example would have become permanently unverifiable.