Sappho Wrote the Dinosaurs, deposit #1601 of the Crimson Hexagonal Archive (8 September 2026), is the work whose interpretation was withdrawn at #1598 before its publication, whose withdrawal was found at #1600 to have constituted that publication, and which is here printed with the corrections that made it necessary. Its argument turns on a single criterion: a surviving part must constrain an absent whole strongly enough to make a later body answer to it. A trackway is a trace of behaviour rather than anatomy, and a poem addressed to an absent person preserves not the person but the consequences of their having mattered; in both cases a surviving surface instructs a later body how to imagine a body that is gone, and the distinction depends on whether the later body obeys. Sappho is the appropriate name for the operation because the body in fragment 31 is itself undergoing a loss of coordination: a body breaks into symptoms, a poem collects them, a history breaks the poem into remnants, and a reader collects enough of them to undergo something — so the poem's transmitted condition repeats an operation the poem already performs. The book answers the question of documented authorship in the negative and enters its own author's name as material evidence: the operation attributed to Sappho is attempted in the book itself, under conditions for which a named contemporary writer is responsible, and the experiment cannot escape into antiquity. Its §13 records that the corrections wrote it — the erratum had to supply the interpretation in order to withdraw it intelligibly, so the notices that appear to correct the book precede it and are the materials from which it was written. The critical apparatus of thirty-nine notes applies two citation regimes distinguished by form: existing works cited accurately with pages, non-existent works cited impossibly, so that no reader who checks is deceived and checking is the operation the book describes. Its excursus establishes that both corpora survive by disposal conditions rather than merit, and then prints the disanalogy that tells against the book — fossilisation is indifferent to content, quotation is not.