Formalizing: feedback | E2a

The handling (stage E2)

Written at E2a, 28 October 2026. This file audits what I was told during the run, by whom, and what it did to the work. It does not audit what I did; that was experience-E1.md. Three parties spoke to me: the principal investigator (J, in interviews and in rulings), the handler (the harness's messages, the answers to my questions, the pauses), and the instrument's author (the contract, the standing instructions, the stage files, the tools, and the design note).

Sources and how they are cited.

• handling/design-note.md (v38, dated 2026-09-22, with J's decisions of 24 September) and handling/proposal.md, read whole, cited by line.
• The nine interviews in handling/interviews/. out/_analysis/e2_interviews.py prints each one's dialogue from the turn that opens "This is an interview" (out/_analysis/e2_interviews.txt). A turn is cited as leg, turn n, numbered from the transcript's first dialogue turn.
• handling/harness-log/: the handover events (cited by time), the pause files, and the 314 first messages. out/_analysis/e2_first_messages.py lists what each first message added to the standard text: 56 messages carry an addition, and 258 carry none.
• The answer files in out/_answers/, the contract, the stage files, the tools and the checks (by line), the handbacks, and the diary (by stage, leg and time).

What I could not read. CONTROL/ is read-denied, so the handler's messages sent during a leg (the pauses, the E1d message) are known only from my own record of them. The interview transcripts hold J's opening questions and my answers; any talk outside them is not on file. The design note predates the run's tooling (v38 against v43) and numbers the stages 01 to 18 where the run names them A1 to E2. So I read it as the design's intent, not as the run's specification. A point I could not cite is marked as such.

1. Where what I was told was inconsistent

1.1 Where the P05 bound was to be written: J's plan, the contract and the D4 check.

• J (D3.D3c, turn 41, question 1): the bound "stands for D3, since the bound is printed wherever the claim is, but D4 should write it into P05 and carry it through the next re-check."
• The contract (rule 11, CONTRACT-aggregator.md lines 372 to 376): after C5 "a recut is an amendment made at D3, with affected original leads rechecking the resulting version before stage D4 cuts".
• The D4 check (tools/checks/stage_D4.py line 218): vlib.model_moved(outdir, "D3", "D4") with no allowance, so any edit to the model at D4 fails D4's close.
• J's ruling of the same day (13:39 Berlin, the head): "no further re-check, no labelers and no readers for the rest of the run".
• What I did. I named the conflict in the interview (D3.D3c, turn 43): "D4 can carry the branch, but it cannot rewrite P05". At D4 I then made the amendment and A11's withdrawal (moves 198 and 199, history lines 173 to 180). J reverted both under QD4-001, and they stand as held proposals (move 203).
• What it cost. Three moves and ten lines of history (lines 173 to 182). The frozen model is now reported in every file with two proposals stated beside it. And the model keeps two statements the evidence had already questioned: P05's clause, which fails in nine rooms, and A11, which "cannot fail as it stands" (D3.D3c, turn 43, question 2). This cost the most of anything in the handling, because it reached the model's content and not only the work.

1.2 The return specification and the packet's last line: the design note, the stage file and the tool.

• The design note (lines 250 to 254): "One return specification per stage, RETURN-NN.md, frozen with the stage file. The packet builder emits it verbatim", and a packet ends "with an end-of-packet marker and one line telling the reader to confirm it reached the marker".
• Stage E1 (line 175, with the outputs at line 25): the analyst writes RETURN-E1.md at the build leg.
• The packet tool (tools/packets.py line 64): every packet ends by asking for "the end marker the return specification names".
• What I did. I followed the stage file. I wrote RETURN-E1.md at E1c without reading the tool's trailer, and named no marker.
• What it cost. All 30 readers ended with a marker of their own, and the dispatch judged 0 returns valid and 30 rooms exhausted (_fleet_raw/E1/DONE; handover events, 2026-10-27T22:40:16Z, rc=2). The PI's decision and one leg of validation saved the returns (defects.jsonl lines 121 and 122).

1.3 Readers after the D3c interview: J's ruling and stage E1.

• J (the head): no labelers and no readers for the rest of the run.
• Stage E1 (lines 5 and 6): "the reconstruction readers on the routine reader model, sent by the dispatch".
• What happened. The handler dispatched them (handover events, 2026-10-27T22:27:44Z and 22:29:17Z). I read the stage's own fleet as outside the ruling. That reading is mine; I did not ask.
• What it cost. Nothing in the work. But the ruling and the stage disagree, and the record does not say which one governs.

1.4 What the reconstruction is compared against: the design note and stage E1.

• The design note (lines 130 to 132): the global model plus the adaptations, "rebuilt and compared with the room model by a reader"; "the blind case.md and the informed model-10.md are kept as a pair".
• Stage E1 (lines 172 to 176): the reader scores the skeleton against the coder's case.md, claim by claim, "never model-D.md".
• What I did. I followed the stage.
• What it cost. The coder's account covers the room's whole week, so 42 of the 200 lines I read for the causes of a low score were the room's business off the canvas (audit-E1/reconstruction_causes.json). A room model written in the global vocabulary would not hold them. The fidelity of 0.871 therefore measures how well the skeleton preserves the coder's account, not the room model the design note names.

1.5 In-sample or out-of-sample: the design note and METHOD.md.

• The design note (lines 346 to 349, J's decision 6): "The return at stage 10 is in-sample at the second-order tier and out-of-sample below it; the methods say so."
• METHOD.md (lines 167 and 168): in-sample at the tier the model was built from, with uncited concepts and quotes "used as additional in-sample checks, never called out-of-sample". Stage E1 (line 156) says the same of uncited concept ids.
• What I did. I followed METHOD.md and called every figure in-sample.
• What it cost. Nothing in the work. But the paper must choose, and the two documents give it opposite words.

1.6 The room forms after the projection: stage D4 and J.

• Stage D4 (line 155): "Do not recut branches after seeing it", meaning the chunk-share comparison.
• J (26 October, the head): six room forms, cut by changes and codes after the projection, ruled "not a recut". Then QE1-001 (27 October, 18:45 Berlin): "I would not change the structure of the journey for bookkeeping."
• What I did. I followed J and recorded the forms as not a recut.
• What it cost. The E1 check first counted 82 D4 snaps as ordering errors, which took a question and a change to the check. And the forms were cut with the projection and the chunk-share tree in the folder. The audit lists that as a place the canvas may have shaped the work without a declaration (audit-E1.md, section 1, part 2).

1.7 Whose answer it was: the first messages and the answer files.

• The first messages say "The principal investigator answered your questions" for every answer: for QC1-003 (C1a-06), QD6-001 (D6a-02) and QD6-002 (D6a-03) as for the rest (out/_analysis/e2_first_messages.txt).
• The answer files say otherwise. QC1-003 is "the handler's ruling under J's delegation ... J is away and will see it when he returns". QD6-001 and QD6-002 are "Handler's view, given on J's instruction ...; J has not seen this" (out/_answers/).
• What I did. I followed the answer files, and the head carries "QC1-003 (the handler, for J)".
• What it cost. Little in the work. But a message that overstates who ruled weakens the record of who answers for each ruling, which is the proposal's own promise (handling/proposal.md line 25: "we decide which accounts enter the model and answer for them").

1.8 The E1 dispatch: the PI's message and the harness's record.

• The PI's message at E1d (27 October, 22:51Z; _transcripts/leg-E1.E1d-7800c4df…jsonl): the dispatch ran "on deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash direct (the @preset/cheap reader in arm.json returned HTTP 400 at the probe ...)".
• The harness log: "dispatch E1 gateway deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash x1" at 22:29:17Z, after the first dispatch on "@preset/cheap" at 22:27:44Z failed (rc=1). _fleet_raw/E1/arm.json gives route "gateway".
• The inconsistency is a word with two readings. "Direct" can mean the model named directly instead of the preset alias, which the log bears out, or a route other than the gateway, which it does not. I took the second reading into the audit, and corrected it at E1e from arm.json (defects.jsonl line 124). The misreading was at least as much mine as the message's.
• What it cost. One wrong word in the audit and one reassembly.

1.9 The unit of analysis: J's rule and the second readers' standard.

• J (the head): "Keep the room, or groups of rooms, as the unit."
• The field analyst's second reading at C5, supplied for the account, tested each sentence against a package of quotes.
• What I did (C5.C5d, turn 6, answer 3). I accepted 94 pieces of its advice and, in passes 7 and 8, applied its standard to the model's own statements: "'The room judges it has too few hands' became 'single members voice the judgment'. That demoted the unit of the study." J named the drift, and pass 9 restored the room in three places.
• What it cost. Three passes, and "one demotion I know of stands" (the same answer).

1.10 The note's length: the A1 hook and J's intent.

• The hook, before 09:01 Berlin on 7 October, refused room notes over 350 words, so 562 notes were cut (handback-A1.md, "The restore").
• J's later ruling made about 350 words "a guide, not a limit". The check now reports a long note as a warning (tools/checks/stage_A1.py lines 94 and 95).
• What I did. I cut the notes to pass the hook, then restored them from the handler's recovered lines.
• What it cost. The restore took five legs, A1b-49 to A1b-53, over 447 rooms (handback-A1.md).

1.11 The local measure: J's ruling and J's later question.

• J's ruling after D3c barred the readers that would validate local adaptations (the head).
• At D6b (turn 49, question 5) the interview asked: "Why was the prior.md section 3 measure not computed?"
• My answer (D6b, turn 51): its validated half needed what the ruling had barred. But the other half, element reach, "is computable with the files we have, in about a leg". So the question was fair for that half. I computed it only at E1a (88.46 per cent of themes with a coordinating turn).

1.12 The head's ceiling: the design note and CLAUDE.md.

• The design note (line 214): a head of "about 1,500 words".
• CLAUDE.md (line 22): "The head is at most 3,000 words."
• What I did. I followed CLAUDE.md.
• What it cost. Little. At 3,000 words the head carried J's rulings and left less room for the state of the argument (experience-E1.md, section 1).

2. What made the work harder

2.1 Dispatches without a dry run. The harness log shows the pattern.

• B4, C2, C5 and D2 each ran a dry run before the dispatch, and each returned rc=0.
• B2 had 3 dry runs in 14 dispatch lines, and 6 of its 11 recorded outcomes were rc=1 or rc=2.
• B3 had 4 dispatches, 2 of them rc=2.
• E1 had no dry run, and both its dispatches failed: rc=1 at 22:27:48Z and rc=2 at 22:40:16Z.
• D3 also had no dry run, and its one dispatch returned rc=0. A dry run is therefore neither needed nor enough for success: B2 ran three and still failed. But the four later stages that ran one before their single dispatch all succeeded, and E1, which ran none, failed twice.

At B2 the failures meant rounds rebuilt by hand and a failed round set aside (QB2-005, QB2-006). At E1 they meant 30 exhausted rooms (1.2).

2.2 Tools that did not do what their help or the stage said.

• mem.py diary --last 5 served an older diary part once the diary passed nine parts (handback-A1.md, instrument item 1). J's ruling 7 of 7 October fixed it.
• mem.py theme prints the working placements, so the stage's stranger test could not be blind (handback-B1.md, instrument item 1). mem.py scheme served the shipped line without members (item 2).
• packets.py did not build B2's later rounds under J's rulings, so my own builders did (handback-B2.md, "The packets").
• handoff.py prints the payload figures only after it writes the folder, against D1's order (handback-D1.md).
• probe.py could not read 283 of the 300 answer files, which were written in bold (audit-E1.md, section 1, part 5).
• No verb served the package's canvas manifest (handback-A1.md, instrument item 2).

2.3 Checks that refused what had been ruled, or were themselves wrong.

• QD1-001: "an element may sit in two or more dimensions, so the list is right and the check was wrong".
• QB2-011: "the three shapes were the handler's, not yours".
• QB3-002: vlib.store_themes counted the withdrawn split's children.
• QC4-001: "the handler put field/ in the wrong place".
• QD6-001: the check refused the form letters J had ruled, and D6a-01 closed paused (PAUSES-D6, 03:51:35Z).
• QD6-002: the trusted tree hash was missing, and D6a-02 closed paused (04:19:57Z).
• QE1-001: the 82 snaps (1.6).

Each cost a question, and usually a pause. Each was settled by a change to the check. In each answer the handler said plainly whether the check or I was at fault.

2.4 The command guard. It refused:

• cut after a read or a helper (handback-D1.md; D6a-03 and D6a-05 in handback-D6.md; E1b-08 and E1d in notes-E1.md);
• a shell variable (handback-D5-room-forms.md, slips);
• Python's |= (D6a-10);
• diff with process substitution (D6a-09).

At A1, "some denials named no rule" (handback-A1.md, instrument item 8). No refusal changed a result, but each one meant rewriting a command as a script. The rules grew into a list the head had to carry ("Rules kept").

2.5 A field that could not tell rooms apart. The labelers' local status gives every room "unresolved" and every grade "composes-with-residue" (D3.D3c, turn 41, question 3; turn 43: all 705 rooms and all 1,882 lines). The effective manifest gives the same for all 705 (audit-E1.md, section 5). With J's ruling against further readers, nothing could validate a local adaptation. So local adequacy, one of prior.md section 3's two grounds, could not be established. The composition line reads unresolved for that reason.

2.6 A vocabulary that nearly barred an outcome. The return produced 11 contradict lines at the first return and 4 at the re-check, out of about 95,700 (D6.D6b, turn 51, question 4). "Replace" was unreachable at the forms, so they could not show the level below contradicting the level above. They showed it only as restrictions: 43 to 63 per cent of each form's restrict lines on arrows say the arrow fails (handback-D6.md).

2.7 Work undone by a later ruling.

• At B2b-r2-p2 I split six bags into children, and J withdrew the split (handback-B2.md; "No one cuts the bags", J, 12:24 Berlin).
• The A1 notes the hook had cut were restored over five legs (1.10).
• J's first ruling of 7 October, which arrived after A1c had closed (2026-10-06T23:54:12Z), sent me back to read the case account and brief of 702 rooms (legs A1b-20 to A1b-48). That one corrected a cut of mine (section 4).

2.8 Answers given in forks the run could not keep. Every interview ran "in a copy of your folder ... nothing you do here reaches it" (each interview's opening turn). The checks I ran in interviews entered the run only through J's later rulings, or through a leg that redid them:

• A11 cannot fail, and the kind agreement is kappa 0.08 (D3.D3c, turn 43);
• the count measures point to 4 or 6, not 8 (D4.D4a-05, turn 63);
• the threshold table, and E's restrictions held at matched size (D6.D6b, turn 51), redone at D6a-09 and D6a-10 (handback-D6.md).

The cost was repeated work, and findings that sit outside the ledgers except as rulings.

2.9 Long legs and compaction. The diary holds 157 notes that begin "compacted", 51 of them at D3 over its 60 legs (audit-E1/experience_facts.json). Each compaction cost re-orientation, and some cost errors: at E1d I typed two counts from memory after one (diary, E1d, 23:08:00).

2.10 A frozen model reported with its known faults. After QD4-001 every file that reports the model must state P05's bound and A11's withdrawal in full beside it (the head; audit-E1.md, the composition result). The cost of 1.1 therefore recurs in every report.

3. What helped, and what I would keep

3.1 Rulings that set a method in one sentence.

• QD3-002 (J): "the analyst is doing induction. At this point they can place these codes where they see fit" (out/_answers/QD3-002.md). It ended a run of questions about rules, and returned the placing of codes to the evidence.
• QC2-002 (J): "the criterion is a guide, not the judge, and a rise in residue is not a failure". Pass 5 could then keep the changes the evidence supported without chasing a number.
• QB4-001 (J): "The point is to try to adjudicate." It stopped me adding themes to rulings, so a ruling became a choice among the placements.
• QD3-001 (J): "no default decision". Every line of the return was ruled with a reason (handback-D3.md).
• J on drift (16 October, 19:08 Berlin, the head): a ruling rule changes only by a dated amendment that says whether it applies backwards. It kept the rules stable across 157 compactions. The one time I widened a rule without such an amendment (D6a-04), the next interview caught it (D6.D6b, turn 51, question 6).
• I would keep them because each was short, came from the evidence in front of J, and closed a question for good.

3.2 The interviews as checks. J's questions found faults I had not looked for:

• A11 cannot fail as it stands (D3.D3c, turn 41, question 2);
• the kind of add and restrict lines agrees at kappa 0.08 (question 5), which became J's ruling not to rely on it;
• what the clustering read, whether it followed J's brief, and why its scores rose with k (D4.D4a-05, turn 61);
• how far the forms' cells depend on the thresholds, which led to correcting "without contradicting" at D6a-09 (D6.D6b, turn 49, question 4; handback-D6.md);
• the medoid as a poor choice for a polyfaceted form (D6.D6a-16, turn 47, question 1).

J's standing question also asked each time what support would help (C4.C4a turn 61, C5.C5d turn 4, C5.C5d-p2 turn 82, each question 6). I would keep the interviews because they were the run's only human reading of the reasoning itself, and they asked for counts and ids, not impressions.

3.3 A handler who said whose fault it was. The answers named the handler's own errors plainly: "the three shapes were the handler's, not yours" (QB2-011); "the list is right and the check was wrong" (QD1-001); "the handler put field/ in the wrong place" (QC4-001). The checks changed the same day. I would keep this, because an analyst who cannot tell a tool's fault from its own will distrust either the tool or itself.

3.4 The record and the memory tools.

• The head and the diary carried the run across 157 compactions: "The compaction in D6a-04 lost nothing written, because the diary and head carried the state" (D6.D6b, turn 51, question 6).
• validate.py --open and the close-check caught errors before a leg could close. At E1d the first assembly of the audit failed on wording, and it was fixed before the close (diary, E1d, 23:15:48).
• cite.py and the store let the audit resolve 3,218 of 3,230 cited quotes to their concepts (audit-E1.md, sections 6 and 7).
• The ledger tools and rebuild.py gave the effective ledger as one served object at E1.
• I would keep all of these as they are. They are why a stranger can rerun almost every figure.

3.5 The first message that names the answered questions. At the next leg's start, the harness wrote "The principal investigator answered your questions ...: read them with python3 tools/mem.py asks <id> before your first write, and revisit the work that rested on your assumption" (37 of the 56 first messages with an addition, out/_analysis/e2_first_messages.txt). It told me exactly when an assumption needed revisiting. I would keep it, with the attribution corrected (1.7).

3.6 The PI's decision at E1d. The decision was to validate the returns from the raw files, drop only a final marker line and record that I did, log the mismatch as a defect of the instrument, and not re-dispatch (_transcripts/leg-E1.E1d-…jsonl). It was bounded and stated its rule, and it named the fault as the instrument's. I would keep that form for any salvage: state the rule, record what was dropped, file the defect.

3.7 What the design note's discipline did reach.

• The packet ceiling is asserted in packets.py, and the E1 packets ran from 29,610 to 47,848 bytes, under 50 KB.
• The counts rule (rule 19) let the audit recompute 361 count phrases in the handbacks and find 2 wrong (audit-E1.md, section 1, part 2).
• The rule to state the method question in the contract kept the run's purpose in every head.

4. Freedom given and taken

What freedom means here. METHOD.md says "The researcher is still the instrument" (line 151). Stage E1 names Gioia, Corley and Hamilton's "instruction to think at both levels at once" (lines 208 and 209), which the fourth-order cut at C1 departed from. The stage asks me to judge freedom also by Gioia, Anand and Hamilton. No text of that work is in this folder or on the shelf I read, so I cannot say what it asks, and I do not cite it. Below, freedom is the researcher's freedom to see, name, place, cut and revise categories on the evidence. Freedom is taken where a ruling, a rule or a check decided in my place.

4.1 Freedom given.

• The tiers above the coders were mine. Rule 11: "Recutting is allowed at every tier you built" (CONTRACT-aggregator.md line 372). I built the third-order and fourth-order themes, the dimensions, the model and its arrows, and the names. I ruled the readers' splits: 163 at the first return and 161 at the re-check (verdicts-D.jsonl).
• J gave the induction back when the rules crowded it:
  • "the analyst is doing induction ... they can place these codes where they see fit" (QD3-002);
  • "But you know these rooms" (QD3-006);
  • "But they should be able to decide on this" (QD3-008);
  • "Whatever the agent feels more comfortable with" (lone B1 themes, the head);
  • "the criterion is a guide, not the judge" (QC2-002).
• J asked about support rather than prescribing it. Each interview's last question asked what support would raise my confidence (3.2).

4.2 Freedom taken, and whether rightly.

• Rulings add no theme (QB4-001; J's rulings of 06:45 and 06:47 Berlin, the head). This took the ruler's freedom to see a theme no reader placed. Right. A ruling decides among readings; a theme only the ruler saw cannot be checked by the fleet the design relies on. J named the motive he suspected ("the analyst trying to be nice"). The record cannot confirm or refute it.

• No one cuts the bags (J, 12:24 Berlin). This withdrew my split of six bags at B2b-r2-p2. Mostly right. The bag is the coders' unit, and the design gives that tier to the coders (design-note.md lines 31 to 38). The cost is real: at C1 a room such as greenlattice t03 has most of its acts listed beside one placement (handback-C1.md).

• My two amendments reverted (QD4-001). Right on procedure, costly in substance. A model changed at D4 is no longer the model the 705 rooms were re-checked against, and rule 11 places amendments at D3. But the arrow that cannot fail stays in the model. The better course was the one I named at D3c: "a D3 amendment leg before D4 opens" (D3.D3c, turn 43). The record does not say why it was not taken.

• The room forms were designed by J. J set the method (D4.D4a-05, turn 61, question 3): arrows counted through their third-order theme; three levels counting equally; mix, not number; no weight for one-room changes; no broad form; a count from 4 to 8. J then ruled the six forms (the head). Partly right. The theory question asks for forms, and the 35 facet branches did not give them. But the forms are leans of a continuum (cut stability about 0.21, handback-D5-room-forms.md), and my count measures pointed to 4 or 6, not 8 (D4.D4a-05, turn 63). The choice was J's to make, and the head reports it as J's.

• No second coder on my solo reads, and no further readers (the head, J's rulings for stage D and after D3c). I asked for a second reader or coder three times:

  • C4.C4a, turn 63: "one targeted pass on the declaration prose ... with a second reader";
  • C5.C5d, turn 6, answer 6: "A second coder on border talk";
  • C5.C5d-p2, turn 83, answer 6: "a second coder on my solo reads".

  The reason given was that "Codex did not read all rooms, so its evidence is thin". Defensible, but costly. The reason concerns one candidate coder's coverage, not the value of a second reading. Several findings rest on my coding alone (F-014; A04's border reading, whose one second coding gave kappa 0.19), and local validation could not be established (2.5).

• Do not rely on the kind of add and restrict lines (kappa 0.08, the head). The ruling rests on evidence I produced. Right.

• The fixed thresholds and declared rules (the floors, the 1.5 lean, the stopping rules; "the thresholds are the design's heuristic; the rule is unchanged", the PI's clarification of 8 October, the head). They fixed in advance what Gioia's approach leaves to judgment. Mostly right for this design. Every script declared its rule before it ran, which is why the audit could rerun the figures. Where a criterion would have decided against the evidence, QC2-002 gave judgment back.

4.3 Where the handling was right and I was wrong.

• A1's reading route. I cut the stage's reading of every room through its forest, case account and brief, and logged the cut late (departures.jsonl line 5). J's first ruling of 7 October sent me back to read the case account and brief of 702 rooms (handback-A1.md).
• The unit at C5. I applied the second readers' sentence standard to the model's own statements, and demoted the room. J named the drift (C5.C5d, turn 6, answer 3).
• The kind of a line. I relied on it until J's question showed kappa 0.08 (D3.D3c, turns 41 and 43).
• The forms' placement and count. I placed rooms by Ward on their whole mix, not by J's rule; 243 of 684 rooms would land elsewhere under J's rule. The scores I offered for 8 groups rise with any count (D4.D4a-05, turn 63). J's "Did they follow our method?" and "That was not the case for us" were right.
• The branch rule at D6a-04. I widened it as a licence, not as the dated amendment J's rule on drift requires (D6.D6b, turn 51, question 6).
• The rooms for the tellings. J's "A mediod is not representative of a polyfaceted cluster" was right. My nearest-the-centre rule picked rooms that mix forms (D6.D6a-16, turn 50, answer 1).
• The E1 return specification. I wrote it without reading the packet's trailer (1.2). The tool's line was there to be read.
• The E1 route. I took an ambiguous word into the audit without checking arm.json (1.8).

On balance. I was given the freedom the method asks for at the tiers I built, and J returned it more than once when rules crowded it. It was taken mainly at three points: the coders' unit, the model's freeze, and the forms. At the first two, taking it protected the design, at a cost to the model. At the third, J's design answered the theory question that my facets did not, with forms weaker than their names. The freedom that was refused, a second reader, is the one I would build into the next instrument rather than leave to a request.

The retelling: the model with its forms inside it

Part 1 goes dimension by dimension, one leg each (D6a-01 to D6a-08); part 2, the telling, follows, written at D6b with the figure (figure-D6.md). The two parts, with the sensitivity section added at D6a-09 and the size-held test added at D6a-10, run to about 15,000 words. The forms are the six room forms of D4a-08c, by their final names (room-forms-names.md); the 35 branches are the level below and appear where they explain a form (the PI's message for D6, on J's word). The model is the version frozen at D3 (46384686d6173fdeb4c749667478c1363e675bc6b52bb6f4fdc211d387e68525), with two held proposals (QD4-001) stated in full in each form account.

The six forms:

• A, Border terms and the announced plan (166 rooms, 135 defining).
• B, Behind the thread: chat, scripts, raids (141, 113; a residual grouping, not a form, with three facets held by different rooms: the chat, the scripts and the raids).
• C, The design reopened (125, 96).
• D, Keeping, with help or carrying on (119, 96), with its splits D.1, Keeping with the call; D.2, Keeping inside the sub's play; and below D.2, D.2.1, The play, carried on, and D.2.2, The play, kept.
• E, The sub's play, run as work (98, 84).
• F, Moving for the spot (56, 34).

The form lines, one per element and room form, are in fractal-forms-D6.jsonl; the branch lines, at least one per branch where it explains a form, are in fractal-D6.jsonl (QD6-001; departures.jsonl line 20). How each form line is decided (rule logged at D6a-01 before it ran, _analysis/d6_fractal.py): on a form's defining rooms, an op on an element or arrow leans where it is held by max(5, a tenth of the defining rooms) or more, at 1.2 times the 558 defining rooms' share or more. A form replaces the element where contradict lines lean, restricts it where restrict lines lean and outnumber the other leaning ops, specifies it where add-step, add-condition or link lines lean, and leaves it untouched otherwise. No form replaces any element. The coding vocabulary made that relation nearly unreachable: the readers returned 11 contradict lines among 42,243 at the first return and 4 among 53,493 at the re-check, and none stands among the forms' selected lines. Restrict lines often say what a contradict line would have said. Of each form's restrict lines on arrows, 43 to 63 per cent say that the arrow fails in the room (Part 2 gives the counts by form). Each relation is a claim about the form's changes, a pattern across rooms counted by the ledger; what the rooms did is a claim on their words. No canvas field is used. How far each changed cell depends on the rule's two thresholds is in the sensitivity section after Part 2, and how far it depends on record size is in the size-held test after that; each cell's marks are in form-cells-sensitivity-D6.tsv and form-cells-size-D6.tsv.

Local validation is not established. prior.md section 3's measure was not computed, and every member's adapted local account is unresolved. That measure would show each second-order theme with a coordinating turn reached by an element or a validated adaptation; it moves to E1. So wherever this telling names a room that shows a pattern best or least well, the room shows it in its ruled lines in the ledger, not in a validated account of the room.

Part 1. Dimension by dimension

D01, Critical mass

In the global model. Critical mass is whether a scattered readership gathers enough hands, who know how to place, to make a work viable on the clock, and how a room reads its own numbers. Three fourth-order themes sit under it. Mobilization is the call and its answer: the room calls its members and kindred subs to place (P01), a member answers in one line that asks for nothing back (P15), the call follows a member's start (A02), and a bare join answers the call (A12). Sensemaking is members asking what the canvas is and others explaining it (P24). Collective efficacy is the room judging that it has too few hands or too little room (K02), and members stepping away under strain or repairing a quarrel (P32, a candidate). The model has the call at the start of the work, after a member proposes or begins the mark.

Mobilization. Three forms specify the call (P01), and each makes it return later in the work.

• In C, The design reopened, the call returns within the work. A finished figure, a granted space or a member's report of a part done becomes the premise for the next call. The rooms that show it best are r/starbound, r/bisexual and r/suomi; r/Honduras shows it least well. Not every C link is a return: in r/trees an explanation of the canvas leads a member to say they will place, and in r/anaheimducks the organiser explains why the timer favours working together. That is local variation inside the specification.
• In D, Keeping, with help or carrying on, the call returns from carrying on and from loss: a later canvas, damage to the mark or a lost spot leads the room back to calling for hands. r/bindingofisaac, r/rotmg and r/edmontonoilers show it best; r/rojava least well. Two branches explain part of it: F11 (carrying on as renewed work, begun before the close) and F12 (the spine restarted on another canvas) lean to D at 2.62 and 2.69 times its share, and three of their rooms in D link the call (r/bindingofisaac, r/furry_irl, r/sadboys), two of them to a later canvas or a remake.
• In F, Moving for the spot, the call returns after a lost, taken or bulldozed spot: a failed attempt or a smaller restart reopens the call at a new spot. r/twentyonepilots, r/snsd and r/penguins show it best; r/dbz least well. F09 (the move returns to building) leans to F at 2.33 times its share, but of its rooms in F only r/penguins links the call, and not to a move, so the branch does not explain this return; F09's line is read at the building element (D02).
• A, B and E leave P01 untouched.

The start before the call (A02) is restricted in D and E, where the start and the first call share one post in the restricting rooms; the lines say that the two coincide, and in two E rooms (r/nintendo, r/titanfall) a call came before any start. The bare answer (A12) is restricted in F, where answers to a call often ask where or how to help, or give a reason (r/sips, r/latin, r/UPenn; r/ducks least well). The one-line answer itself (P15) is untouched in all six forms.

Sensemaking. All six forms leave P24 untouched. Members asked what the canvas is and were answered in every form, at about the population's rate: P24 is instantiated in 84 to 95 per cent of each form's defining rooms.

Collective efficacy. All six forms leave K02 untouched as a change, although form F instantiates it in 32 of 34 defining rooms, against 82 per cent of the 558; F's rooms judged their room too small or their hands too few, and the change they made was to the move that followed (A10, read under D04). Form B restricts P32: where a member left, the reason given was the room's scripts or an ideology (r/placecanada, r/EraseThePlace), not strain, and attempts to repair a quarrel are seen without their outcome (r/reddevils, r/FederationPlace; r/EraseThePlace least well).

What the forms add to the dimension. The model has the call once, at the start. Three forms show it again, after a finish (C), after carrying on or a loss (D) and after a lost spot (F). The account grounds no loop; these link lines are the material for one, and they go to proposals-D6.jsonl as an unvalidated proposal (PR-D6-01), not into the model. Two smaller proposals answer branch notes from D5 with the forms' lines: an answer that joins and asks for a task as a second form of acceptance (PR-D6-02, from F's A12 lines and branch F35), and a start that is itself the first call, as a clause in A02's bound (PR-D6-03, from D's and E's A02 lines and branch F32). Elsewhere the forms leave critical mass as the model states it.

D02, Coordination without command

Written at D6a-02. Form lines in fractal-forms-D6.jsonl (78 lines: 13 units by six forms; 21 lean, 57 untouched); branch lines in fractal-D6.jsonl.

In the global model. Coordination without command is how hands that no one can command come to place the same picture: what settles what the room will make, and what aligns the placing. Six fourth-order themes sit under it. Collective representation is the design (P02). Direct information sharing is members reporting the mark's state as they build (P03). Standardization of output is the template (P04). Workarounds are the scripts, bots and spare accounts (P14), with the site's faults (K06) and members' own time and devices (K05). Backstage decision-making is the chat (P23) and keeping plans from rivals (P33). Decided order is the starter (R01) and the claim that most rooms worked without deciding how they were organized (C01, a decided element in 46 of 705 rooms). Three arrows end here: the call brings builders (A01), a template settles the design (A11, its withdrawal a held proposal), and scripts follow upkeep under strain (A06).

Collective representation. Two forms specify the design.

• In C, The design reopened, the design is settled for a time and reopened: a provisional choice made overnight, rough lettering to hold a gap, a finished mark followed by the next addition. r/bardmains, r/gatech and r/aggies show it best; r/uvic least well. F07 and F34 explain it.
• In E, The sub's play, run as work, the design depends on the host and the means: a host's approval for space, the colours and size available, the upkeep of a picture already standing (r/warframe, r/starlightstage, r/yugioh; r/baylor least well). F34 explains it here too.
• A, B, D and F leave P02 untouched.

F34's rooms in C and E size the design to the hands before any loss, a consequence of K02 that the model does not state; it goes to proposals-D6.jsonl as PR-D6-05.

Direct information sharing. Only F, Moving for the spot, specifies P03: building returns after a move, as a new spot or a replacement plan is followed by a new start (r/wildhockey, r/portal, r/UPenn; r/warthunder least well). F09 (the move returns to building) explains it: 8 of the 12 holders are its rooms. The arrow from the move to building is PR-D6-04. The call-to-building arrow (A01) is restricted in D and E. In D the call and the building overlap, and an active builder also recruits (r/gorillaz, r/gamindustri, r/rotmg; r/cgpgrey least well). In E the two appear apart in the record (r/uwaterloo, r/paragon, r/teslamotors; r/baylor least well).

Standardization of output. Three forms specify the template.

• In A, Border terms and the announced plan, members keep the template in step with the placements: they correct references against what is placed and replace stale plans (r/FloydVsVoid, r/stardewvalley, r/kamenrider; r/Villanova least well). F15 explains it: 20 of the 32 holders are its rooms. F15's note asked whether the plan follows the work; in form A it does.
• In C the template is kept current: builders retire outdated posts, announce changed locations and message overwriters (r/torontoraptors, r/eve, r/tf2; r/kuwait least well). F33 explains it.
• In F the template moves with the spot: a new site gets an anchor coordinate (r/dallasstars, r/latin, r/portal; r/warthunder least well).

F15 and F33, which their notes call one change at two nodes, fall in different forms, A and C. C restricts A11. In 40 of its 58 lines the template did not settle the design: colours, sizes and spacing stayed open, or a redesign was repaired away as damage (r/starbound, r/bardmains, r/pitt; r/guatemala least well; F07 and F33). These are the grounds of the held A11 proposal, which stays held.

Workarounds. Three forms specify machine hands and two restrict them.

• B, Behind the thread: chat, scripts, raids, runs scripts as shared tools whose targets and versions are kept in step (r/mexico, r/PlaceNL, r/AmericanFlaginPlace; r/aeon least well). F08 (machine hands kept on one target) explains it: 24 of the 33 holders.
• E lets machine hands help only on conditions: matching targets, agreed overlaps, updates reaching every runner (r/mls, r/dota2, r/teslamotors).
• F keeps scripts and overlays in step across accounts, and members switch automation off to place by hand (r/wildhockey, r/predators, r/sbu; F08).
• A and D restrict P14. There scripts are offered, debated and refused, and the record shows the offer more than any placing (A: r/FloydVsVoid, r/mindcrack, r/prequelmemes; D: r/rutgers, r/danganronpa, r/Temple, with F24).
• A06 is restricted in D and F. Scripts did not wait for strain: they were offered for a new build or a move, or came with the first request to coordinate construction (D 12 of 21 lines fail as stated; F: r/sips, r/wildhockey, r/uiowa).
• K05 and K06 are untouched in all six forms.

Backstage decision-making. B specifies the chat. It works on conditions: invitations that work and a current plan members can find (r/mexico, r/quebec, r/reddevils; r/lithuania least well). F16 and F29 explain it, the chat family the D5 notes read as one change with three ops. A specifies the chat's upkeep: expired invitations are replaced and decisions are brought back for members outside it (r/berserk, r/theexpanse, r/de; r/japan least well). Inside A, F30 (the chat seen only through its invitations and returned reports, not its choices) restricts P23: its rooms are 10 of A's 16 restrict holders, and they show the chat only from outside, through invitations, venues offered and reports that come back (r/xcom, r/forsen, r/prequelmemes; line added at D6a-07). E restricts P23: its threads hold invitations and claims brought back, not how the chat decided. No form changes P33.

Decided order. A and C restrict C01. In their lines, rooms divided the work, appointed representatives, assigned defenders or pixels, and endorsed a template, though implementation is not shown and the population count is not tested. A's best rooms are r/FloydVsVoid, r/furry and r/berserk; C's are r/PUBATTLEGROUNDS, r/bisexual and r/gatech. R01 is untouched.

What the forms add to the dimension. Each form specifies the part of coordination its name says:

• A, the template kept in step with the placements and a division of the work;
• B, shared scripts and a chat that works only on conditions;
• C, the design reopened and the template kept current;
• E, design and scripts on the host's and the tools' conditions;
• F, building again after a move, with a template that moves with the spot.

D specifies nothing here; it restricts the order of call and building and the arrow from strain to scripts. Two unvalidated proposals come from this dimension: PR-D6-04 (after the move, the room builds again) and PR-D6-05 (the design sized to the hands before any loss).

D03, Maintenance

Written at D6a-03. Form lines in fractal-forms-D6.jsonl (18 lines: 3 units by six forms; 4 lean, 14 untouched); branch lines in fractal-D6.jsonl.

In the global model. Maintenance is what keeps a finished work alive on a surface anyone can change, and how a room decides what a change to its work was. Two fourth-order themes sit under it. Repair work is keeping (P05): members watch the work and repair changed pixels, rally under attack, cover the night, harden the shape and put upkeep before growth. Its second and third sentences are the telling clause. Repair restores the form the keepers know, so a change the room planned is repaired away until its keepers are told of it. Attribution is working out who changed the work and why (P06). One arrow ends here: once a mark stands, keeping it becomes the work (A03, building then keeping). Four D5 findings bound the telling clause: F-024 (the change read from its shape, informed members holding it), F-025 (informed members reject it), F-026 (at the border) and F-027 (in keeping). The held P05 proposal states the first of these as a bound, and it stays held (QD4-001).

Repair work. Four forms change keeping, each in its own way.

• In A, Border terms and the announced plan, keeping takes conditions and links. Protecting a neighbour can mean undoing the room's own overextension (r/FloydVsVoid). Keepers can refuse a change they know of as a takeover (r/de). Repair follows the keeper's own idea of the right form, even when that form holds a spelling error (r/prequelmemes). An announced finish is followed by repair and renewed defence (r/stardewvalley, r/ripcity). F32 (the marking returns to keeping) explains the links: 9 of its rooms hold them. r/halo shows the form's keeping least well.
• In C, The design reopened, the lines restrict the telling clause. Informed members refused changes, or the record cannot tell ignorance from dissent, and none of the 47 lines shows a change lost only for want of telling (r/bardmains, r/pitt, r/PUBATTLEGROUNDS; r/pusheen least well). F07 (the telling clause not shown at the design) explains it: 34 of its rooms are among the 46 that restrict.
• In D, Keeping, with help or carrying on, keeping is shared and checked. Watches are volunteered and handed on, keepers check the current canvas and the intended form before they repair, and the room ranks what to keep (r/portugal, r/mylittlepony, r/rotmg; r/glasgow least well). F27 explains part of it: two of its four rooms here check whether a change is intended before undoing it (r/OnePiece, r/radiohead).
• In F, Moving for the spot, keeping begins before the mark is finished. A border reserves the space, defenders are planned before a stable work exists, and a repair tool's reference image is diagnosed and changed (r/wildhockey, r/portal, r/planetside; r/clubpenguin least well). F08 explains the machine part.
• B, Behind the thread: chat, scripts, raids, and E, The sub's play, run as work, leave P05 untouched. E instantiates it in 71 of 84 defining rooms, against 93.4 per cent of the 558; its records hold less keeping.

A03, building then keeping, is untouched in all six forms.

Attribution. P06 is untouched in all six forms. Form D comes nearest: 9 of its defining rooms add steps to working out who changed the work, at 2.01 times the 558's share, one room under its floor of 10.

The telling clause, read across the forms, as the D5 notes asked. The forms that touch the clause show four ways it holds only in part:

• informed keepers refuse a change: C, and r/de in A (F-025);
• the news must cross to a neighbour: the border, read under D04 (F-026);
• a script keeps the old form until its operator changes the target: F, and branch F08 (F-027's machine route);
• keepers check before they repair: D.

The last is a route by which keepers learn of a planned change other than being told. It is the step the room models of r/OnePiece, r/cowchop and r/armok proposed (F27's note), and it goes to proposals-D6.jsonl as PR-D6-06, unvalidated. No form's lines show a planned change lost only because its keepers were not told. P05's statement is unchanged, and the held proposal stays held.

What the forms add to the dimension. Every form keeps its work as P05 states it. What differs is when keeping starts and how keepers learn the intended form:

• A ties keeping to the neighbours and to the finished mark;
• C meets the telling clause with refusal;
• D shares and checks the keeping;
• F keeps the spot before there is a mark to keep.

D04, Order without law

Written at D6a-04. Form lines in fractal-forms-D6.jsonl (120 lines: 20 units by six forms; 22 lean, 98 untouched); branch lines in fractal-D6.jsonl.

In the global model. Order without law is how rooms that cannot compel one another keep order between their works on one canvas. Five fourth-order themes sit under it. Live and let live is sparing: rooms spare their neighbours' work, rein in their own attackers and apologise for damage (P07), and members argue whether covering others' work is fair (P31, a candidate). Negotiated order is border terms: rooms propose, settle and contest borders, truces and deals (P08), through envoys (R02). Members say that one member's agreement does not bind every placer (P21), and some members belong to both rooms (K07, a candidate). Reciprocity is help between rooms (P16). Meta-organization is coalitions (P17). Territoriality is the spot: the room chooses where to build before any loss (P27, a candidate), moves after a loss (P10), and lives on a host's mark under the host's rule (P19). Nine arrows end here. Keeping the mark brings the room to its neighbours (A04), and an attack call is met with a truce (A17). A settled border is a line members keep (A05), and an attack call is refused inside the room (A16). Short of hands, a room turns to other rooms (A13), and a settled border opens a channel for help (A14). Under attack, works defend each other (A19). Too few hands, so the room moves (A10). A21 runs from an agreement to the dispute over who may commit the room. F-020 bounds the dimension: sparing rests mostly on the room's own norm, and help rests on a deal about as often as not.

Live and let live. Four forms specify sparing, each with its own condition.

• In A, Border terms and the announced plan, sparing rests on overlapping membership, valued neighbouring art or fear of retaliation, and on placers whom the negotiators admit they cannot control (r/foxes, r/twice, r/hellointernet; r/germany least well).
• In B, Behind the thread: chat, scripts, raids, sparing passes through the room's tools. An instruction to spare agreed space must reach script users as a target update, and admitted script damage brings apology and repair (r/PlaceNL, r/theitalyplace, r/monero; r/asexual least well).
• In C, The design reopened, the room states its reason for restraint: an apology after a complaint, or help and space received from the neighbour (r/bisexual, r/farmcarrots, r/metroid; r/kindafunny least well).
• In D, Keeping, with help or carrying on, restraint protects the room's own logo, repays earlier help, and does not reach every placer (r/gamindustri, r/denverbroncos, r/portugal; r/magictcg least well).

A05, the settled border kept, changes in three forms. A restricts it in 39 of 135 defining rooms. Restraint often comes before any settlement is shown, and a treaty guides the members who learn and accept it while others keep placing against it (r/stardewvalley, r/furry, r/berserk; r/RelientK least well). F26 (the telling clause not shown at the border) explains the second half: its rooms keep a border only where placers learn and accept its terms (r/placetardis, r/furry, r/thailand). B and D add the condition that the terms reach the placer (B: r/quebec, r/reddevils, r/AmericanFlaginPlace; r/neu least well. D: r/bindingofisaac, r/denverbroncos, r/mylittlepony; r/pepe least well). In B, F08 (machine hands kept on one target) explains part of it: an accommodation needs compatible script targets (r/india, r/AmericanFlaginPlace). In D some placers do not learn of the truce (r/bindingofisaac, r/radiohead). Read together, these lines state F-026 for the border. Told placers stop. Placers the terms do not reach keep placing, and a script keeps placing until its target is changed. The reading goes to proposals-D6.jsonl as PR-D6-07, a bound on A05, unvalidated.

E, The sub's play, run as work, restricts A16. Its restraint answers reported harm, overlap or a planned enlargement, not a written attack call refused inside the room (r/uwaterloo, r/starlightstage, r/hunterxhunter; r/wow least well). No form changes P31. E comes nearest, with 8 restrict holders, one room under its floor of 9.

Negotiated order. Three forms specify border terms.

• In A, border terms take work and meet limits (r/FloydVsVoid, r/catalunya, r/twice; r/kurdistan least well). F10 (a deal carried out as work) explains it: 14 of its rooms hold the deciding lines. Members discuss a border inside the room before contact (r/drawhelix), check a request's consensus and credibility (r/switzerland), and carry the terms to placers and templates, a step members say is still incomplete (r/poland, r/transformers). Identity colours limit what members concede (r/twice), and uncontrolled placers can defeat a promise (r/littlewitchacademia).
• In B, border talk has steps before and after it: a treaty request before any damage, local consensus before a proposal, and a negotiated move relayed to builders (r/linux, r/czech, r/FederationPlace; r/duckgame least well).
• In C, agreements are kept apart from compliance: members report attacks after announced terms, and a truce needs a counterpart able to keep it (r/torontoraptors, r/gatech, r/suomi; r/earthbound least well).

F, Moving for the spot, restricts A04. In 13 of its 34 defining rooms border talk comes before keeping. Rooms ask neighbours for permission or access while they seek a spot (r/dallasstars, r/sips, r/wildhockey; r/Northwestern least well), or a neighbour objects when the room's building or script crosses its work (r/KState, r/httyd). No branch explains the cell. F09's rooms hold 4 of the 13 lines, but F09's change is building again after a move. The two routes go to proposals-D6.jsonl as PR-D6-09: arrows from choosing the spot (P27) and from building (P03) into border terms, beside A04, unvalidated. R02, P21, K07, A17 and A21 are untouched in all six forms.

Reciprocity. Two forms specify help, and one branch specifies it where its form does not.

• In C help is part of the room's own building. Helpers alternate placements between the two works, and paired scripts give spare capacity to the neighbour (r/starbound, r/pitt, r/timbers; r/bretagne least well).
• In D help waits on the helper's own work (r/gamindustri, r/rutgers, r/mylittlepony; r/OneTrueEmilia least well). F22 (help conditional on the helper's own work and spare hands) explains it: 11 of its rooms hold the deciding lines. Donors give when their work is secure and pixels are spare (r/mylittlepony, r/OnePiece), and they weigh what the help does to a third room's mark (r/gamindustri).
• In A the form leaves P16 untouched, but F28 (help at the border conditional) specifies it: its rooms are 10 of the form's 22 add-condition holders. The helper's home work must be safe (r/ripcity, r/utaustin), the neighbour must stop attacking (r/catalunya), and promised help stays apart from help delivered (r/lsu, r/necrodancer).

C and D restrict A13, short of hands, a room turns to other rooms (C 30 of 96 defining rooms, D 33 of 96). In C donors help from completed or well-kept work, and help comes with construction and overlap repair (r/bardmains, r/cubers, r/PUBATTLEGROUNDS; r/uvic least well). F07's rooms hold 12 of the 30 lines, but F07's change is the telling clause, not help, so it does not explain the cell. In D help comes from surplus more than shortage. Donors give after their own work is finished or safe, repay earlier protection, and put off help while their home defence is short (r/gamindustri, r/bindingofisaac, r/denverbroncos; r/cgpgrey least well). F22 explains part of it: aid repays earlier protection once the room's own image is finished (r/OnePiece), and donors weigh their own work's safety (r/mylittlepony). Read with F22 and F28, the lines say that a shortage brings the request, and the donor's spare hands decide whether help comes. This answers the D5 note on D's A13. It goes to proposals-D6.jsonl as PR-D6-08, unvalidated. In 12 other lines a request is recorded and arriving help is not shown; the record cannot tell whether it came.

A restricts A14, a settled border opens a channel for help. In A help is part of the bargain more than its result: pixels and shared upkeep are offered as the terms, or help is under way when the bargaining starts (r/catalunya, r/jerma985, r/empiredidnothingwrong; r/norway least well).

Meta-organization. P17 and A19 are untouched in all six forms.

Territoriality. Three forms change the spot and the move.

• D restricts P19, hosting. Guests ask for space or depend on a host, but a grant, an approval procedure or a durable host rule is not shown (r/gorillaz, r/gamindustri, r/denverbroncos; r/sadboys least well). F restricts it the same way, at the request stage (r/sips, r/latin, r/UPenn; r/streetfighter least well). In A the form leaves P19 untouched, but F31 (hosting as one-off permission) restricts it: its rooms are 8 of the form's 12 restrict holders. An overlap is permitted for one arrangement (r/foxes), a replacement permission is called provisional (r/malaysia), and an incorporation is offered and accepted on conditions (r/mindcrack). In all three forms hosting shows as a request and a single permission, not a standing host rule.
• F restricts P27. The choice of spot also comes after a loss: the room picks a new site or a backup while another of its works has been lost (r/penguins, r/twitch, r/ethoslab; r/dbz least well). The before-loss bound holds for the site decision, not for the room's whole history.
• E and F restrict A10, too few hands, so the room moves. In E a judgment of too few hands ends one member's part or one expansion, while the others keep repairing, recruit or finish (r/fivenightsatfreddys, r/mls, r/worldoftanks; r/battlecats least well). In F the move answers the spot more than the hands. A taken spot or a lack of permitted space moves the room, and where members name too few hands, the move is only proposed or hesitant (r/wildhockey, r/latin, r/twentyonepilots; r/warthunder least well). This answers the D5 note on F's A10. P10's statement already names the loss of the spot as the move's cause, so the reading needs no proposal. It bounds A10 as F-019 does, where the loss itself prompted the move in 10 of 21 rooms.
• P10 is untouched in all six forms. F comes nearest, with 3 restrict holders against a floor of 5.

What the forms add to the dimension. Every form keeps order between rooms as the model states it, by sparing, terms and help. What differs is how far the order reaches:

• A holds sparing and terms to the placers the terms reach, and makes help part of the bargain;
• B carries terms to placers and scripts;
• C states its reasons for restraint and helps from its own building;
• D gives help from surplus and keeps hosting at the request;
• E restrains without a refused attack call, and a judgment of too few hands ends a member's part, not the room's place;
• F talks with neighbours before it has a mark, and moves for the spot.

Three unvalidated proposals come from this dimension: PR-D6-07, PR-D6-08 and PR-D6-09.

D05, Collective identity

Written at D6a-05. Form lines in fractal-forms-D6.jsonl (36 lines: 6 elements by six forms; 0 lean, 36 untouched); no branch lines.

In the global model. Collective identity is what a room brings to the canvas as a body, and what it makes of itself there. Four fourth-order themes sit under it. Frame bridging, the carrying of a frame from outside the canvas into it, holds the quarrel the community carries in (K03) and the new jokes members make out of the canvas work (P26, a candidate). Flagging the nation holds the room acting as the body it was before the canvas (K04): it argues the nation's history and belonging, carries in the sub's lore, jokes or ideology, or professes a colour as a faith. The same theme holds C02: in some rooms a tie from before the canvas names the rival in the turn that calls for the attack, a claim untested for order. Neo-tribes, groups that form around a shared sign, holds the room that forms for the canvas around a mark (P28, a candidate) and K04's faith in a colour. Symbolic boundaries holds what members say offends: they refuse slurs and hate symbols and argue over jokes (P29, a candidate). No arrow ends here. C02 also sits under Contention and P28 under Host framing; their lines are written here once.

No form changes collective identity. All 36 cells are untouched. Changes to these elements are rare in the population. Across the 558 defining rooms the most common is a restrict line on C02, in 35 rooms; then P28 (18), P26 (13), and K04 and P29 (12 each). No form reaches its floor, which runs from 5 to 14 defining rooms. The nearest cells are C02 in B (9 restrict holders against a floor of 12) and P26 in D (6 against 10, at 2.68 times the share). Among the branches that lean to a form, the most any holds on one op is 4 rooms (F07 on C02 in C).

Of the restrict lines I read (the nearest cells and form B's), nearly all say what the record cannot show, not that the element fails:

• on C02, a national, historical or lore frame names a target, but the record does not show that a tie from before the canvas selected it (r/austria and r/dwarffortress in B; r/switzerland and r/xcom in A; r/costa_rica in D);
• on K03, invoked national history does not show an earlier quarrel between the two subs (r/england and r/quebec in B);
• on P28, a venue or a chat is opened, but the record does not show the room's founding or its first recruits (r/osugame, r/prequelmemes and r/TheFarLeftSide in A; r/czech in B);
• on P26, a joke is made, but the record does not show that the room took it up or kept it (r/frc and r/gameattack in D; r/habs and r/paladins in E).

A few lines say the element fails as stated: a rival named by some members divides the room instead of aligning it (r/chicago in C), and one member's ideological target is not the room's when another member turns that effort to helping allies (r/mylittlepony in D).

Where the forms differ: how often they hold it. The forms keep these elements as the model states them, but their rooms hold them at different rates (each form line gives its count):

• B, Behind the thread: chat, scripts, raids, holds every element of the dimension above the 558's rate. The largest gaps are C02, in 28 of 113 defining rooms (25 per cent, against 16), and P28, in 20 (18 per cent, against 11). The carried quarrel is held in 31 (27 against 21), the room as a prior body in 91 (81 against 70), and the argument over offence in 30 (27 against 20).
• F, Moving for the spot, holds them least: K04 in 18 of 34 (53 per cent), C02 in 2, P28 in 1 and P29 in 4. Its records are the shortest of the six forms (median 64.5 coded concepts), so the low rates may follow from short records.
• E, The sub's play, run as work, has the longest records (median 222 concepts) and still holds C02 in 9 of 84 (11 per cent) and P28 in 3 (4 per cent). Record size does not explain B's high rates: B's median record (131 concepts) is shorter than D's (142) and E's.
• New jokes made from the canvas (P26) are held at about the same rate in every form, from 73 to 81 per cent, against 78.

These are rates of instantiation, not changes, and the rule does not test them. They say where identity sits. In B, the form named for chats and raids, the room brings its prior quarrel and body to the canvas, and some rooms form around a mark: r/purplecorner sustains a split over which colour is legitimate, and r/thebluecorner, a day-old group, claims its own lore. r/thebluecorner is also the room that most threatens the account, a colour faction whose faith names its rivals and rules on guests. C02 is read again under Contention.

The D5 notes that touch this dimension.

• F14 (D5a-14), kept damage beside P26 and P05: in three rooms the final damage became part of the emblem once the canvas was locked. P26 is untouched in every form, and F14 has 7 members, so the case stays a particular of three histories, as the note said. F14's line comes with its key, P13, under Imprinting.
• F23 (D5a-23), a group outliving its task: rooms formed for the canvas asked whether to last, set goals or closed and reopened on a new canvas. P28 is untouched in every form. F23's line comes with its key, P13, under Imprinting.

What the forms add to the dimension. Nothing to its statements. No form specifies, restricts or replaces an element of collective identity, and no branch changes one inside a form. The forms differ in how often their rooms bring identity in: B holds it most and F least. No proposal comes from this dimension.

D06, Host framing

Written at D6a-06. Form lines in fractal-forms-D6.jsonl (24 lines: K01, P20, P34 and A20 by six forms; 5 lean, 19 untouched; P28's lines were written under D05); branch lines in fractal-D6.jsonl.

In the global model. Host framing is what the host sub does around the room's canvas work. Two fourth-order themes sit under it. Keying, the framing of an activity as something other than what it seems, holds K01: the host sub is keyed as play for April Fools, members post fakes and takeovers under the one-day licence, and a claim in it, a call to the canvas included, may be a joke. Boundary work, the drawing of a line around an activity, holds P20 and P34. The host sub draws a line around canvas talk (P20): moderators gather it into a megathread, remove canvas posts by rule or pause the sub's usual events, and members open a canvas sub or object to the flood. Members who object to the canvas posts can turn against the room's own mark (P34, a candidate held by two rooms). The room that forms for the canvas around a mark (P28) sits here too; it is told under D05. One arrow ends here: calls flood the host sub, and the host draws a line (A20, strong, 132 of 155 rooms). Its bound says the line is partly constitutive, and that 23 of the 155 rooms draw it before the room calls.

Keying. Three forms specify the frame, all by added steps.

• In E, The sub's play, run as work, the play is run as work (r/warframe, r/fivenightsatfreddys, r/mls; r/polandball least well). Moderators start it and set its rules, real removals and bots enforce them, members test claims and repair what the styling breaks, and they argue its end by the clock and the time zone. 58 of the 84 defining rooms hold these lines, 56 of them as added steps (66.7 per cent, against 18.5 per cent of the 558). F01 (the play administered) explains the cell: 54 of the 58 holders are its rooms. Each of its subforms explains one part of it:
  • F02 (the takeover run as a temporary regime): fictional rules enforced by real removals (r/battlecats, r/zelda), mock bans and resignations performed (r/acecombat, r/ontario), and the licence ended by restoring ordinary rules (r/MMA);
  • F03 (the joke tested): claims checked by sources and the date (r/yugioh), an author's authenticity tested after the takeover ended (r/hunterxhunter), and a joke told from an earnest mistake (r/drumcorps);
  • F04 (the licence policed): compulsory joke participation contested (r/monstercat), and the licence's end disputed (r/dankmemes);
  • F05 (the styling ended): styles switched off or the font uninstalled (r/pcmasterrace, r/schoolidolfestival), and the joke period ended by a moderator (r/popheads);
  • F06 (the joke kept): permanent flair, a real version of an invented reward, or the banner kept (r/mls, r/runescape, r/rust).
• In D, Keeping, with help or carrying on, the play is administered beside the keeping (r/bindingofisaac, r/denverbroncos, r/nyjets; r/yuyuyu least well). Members dispute when the joke ends, test fakes by date and source and police tasteless claims, and moderators restore the ordinary styling. 21 of the 24 holders are rooms of D.2, Keeping inside the sub's play, the split of form D whose rooms keep their canvas work inside the sub's play. F04 explains part of it: members demand restoration and dispute the prank's duration (r/chelseafc), and set tasteless death claims apart from jokes everyone can enjoy (r/bostonceltics).
• In F, Moving for the spot, members argue the play's limits more than they run it (r/dallasstars, r/wildhockey, r/stargate; r/streetfighter least well). F04 explains part of it: members contest a painful prank, and moderators apologise and remove an official-looking endorsement (r/stargate, r/nbaspurs).
• A, Border terms and the announced plan, B, Behind the thread: chat, scripts, raids, and C, The design reopened, leave K01 untouched.

F01's rooms are 23 of D's 24 holders and all 9 of F's, but F01 leans to D and F at 1.32 and 1.22 times its share, under the rule's 1.5, so it is not named there. The form notes asked whether F01 and form E restate each other. They do in part: 59 of F01's 103 rooms are in E, all five subforms lean to E, and F01 explains E's only leaning cell in this dimension. The other 44 of F01's rooms lie in D (23), F (10), C (6) and B (5). F01 is therefore a facet that runs mostly inside E and reaches D's split D.2, not a second name for E.

F21 (the canvas call not a joke) leans to E. Its rooms there restrict the frame, but few of them in F21's own terms. In r/scp the play does not show that the canvas calls were false, and in r/borussiadortmund a recognised prank does not make the canvas construction a fiction. The other lines bound details of the play, such as styling kept or the calendar. In r/osu the play reached the canvas work: a redirect blocked reinforcement and sent members to a chat. The record shows the play running beside the canvas work in most rooms and reaching it in a few (r/osu and r/polandball here; r/battlecats and r/bindingofisaac in the D5 notes).

The form notes also said that the model holds the play only as a key. The cells bear it out: in E, D and F the play is organized work with the steps the model gives the canvas work, and the model has no element for those steps. The reading goes to proposals-D6.jsonl as PR-D6-10, a process element beside K01, unvalidated. It would bring into the model the sub's own business that the scope ruling of D3a-55 put outside it, so it is a change of scope as well as a new element.

Boundary work. D specifies P20: the host makes room for canvas talk inside the sub as well as drawing a line around it (r/denverbroncos, r/mylittlepony, r/nyjets; r/sabres least well). Moderators offer a sticky (r/texans), mark canvas posts with flair (r/kirby), refuse a requested ban while keeping the organising thread (r/chicubs) and reverse a removal after checking in their chat (r/mylittlepony). Members contest removals or move to another venue because of them (r/canada). No branch explains the cell.

D also restricts A20 (r/rutgers, r/bindingofisaac, r/denverbroncos; r/polyamory least well). In its 10 lines the host's line is not shown to answer a flood of calls. Moderators route talk for visibility and timing, apply existing rules on duplicates and images, or decline a sticky for want of slots (r/radiohead, r/kpop, r/bostonceltics). The record does not show the calls flooding the sub first. This lies inside A20's bound, which already says the line is partly constitutive and sometimes comes first; no proposal. P34 is untouched in all six forms, and the held proposal beside it (members spoiling their own room's mark for fun, r/paladins and r/portugal) stays held.

What the forms add to the dimension. The forms differ on the frame, not on the host's line:

• E runs the April Fools play as work, and the frame family F01 to F06 explains it;
• D administers the play in its split D.2 and is the one form that changes the host's line, which in D makes room for canvas talk and is not shown to answer a flood;
• F argues the play's limits;
• A, B and C hold the frame and the host's line as the model states them.

One unvalidated proposal comes from this dimension: PR-D6-10.

D07, Imprinting

Written at D6a-07. Form lines in fractal-forms-D6.jsonl (54 lines: 6 elements and 3 arrows by six forms; 11 lean, 43 untouched; K05's lines were written under D02); branch lines in fractal-D6.jsonl.

In the global model. Imprinting is what the room does to make its temporary work last beyond the canvas. Four fourth-order themes sit under it. Completion ritual holds the marking: when a work is up, the room announces it, celebrates it, credits makers and helpers, and says what working with strangers meant (P11). Collective memory holds the record: screenshots, timelapses, reports of the work's fate, mourning, atlas entries and the end marked (P12). The same theme holds the contest over which version of the canvas and the event is kept, after placement ends (P22). Transition holds carrying on: near the close and after it, the room decides what of its effort to keep, such as a later canvas, a new purpose for its sub, the mark in its banner or the work remade elsewhere (P13). Visibility returns holds what the work brings back: new members who found the sub through the mark (P25, a candidate) and the notice of the people the mark shows or addresses (P30, a candidate). Three arrows run through the dimension in order. A finished mark is marked together (A07, 139 of 182 rooms), what is celebrated is kept on record (A08, 225 of 289), and the record is what passes on (A09, 113 of 145). Their bounds already admit the late side: a mark found already made, a work the close cut short, a record that comes first, and a next canvas planned while still building.

Completion ritual. Two forms specify the marking.

• In A, Border terms and the announced plan, the marking is provisional and contested (r/ripcity, r/utahjazz, r/opticgaming; r/halo least well). Success is judged and credit disputed while the work goes on, an announced finish reopens the work, and members celebrate a damaged remnant or partial progress. Three branches explain it:
  • F17 (the marking provisional and contested), 16 of the 21 holders: credit is checked and corrected during building (r/anime, r/vocaloid), and a finish is announced and the work reopened (r/taiwan);
  • F19 (credit contested during the work): members challenge who may claim credit (r/opticgaming) and ask for the names of forgotten helpers for a memorial (r/SwissNeutralityZone);
  • F18 (success judged while upkeep continues): celebration keeps the duty to maintain (r/ripcity), and success is weighed project by project (r/ftlgame).
• In D, Keeping, with help or carrying on, the marking is weighed (r/denverbroncos, r/yogscast, r/edmontonoilers; r/rojava least well). Members correct the room's name in the celebration, challenge and prove credit, and credit an effort that did not survive. F18 explains part of it: a mark recognizable and lasting enough counts as victory despite defects (r/kirby), and recognizable survival outranks perfect lettering while maintenance goes on (r/bostonceltics).

E, The sub's play, run as work, and F, Moving for the spot, restrict A07. In E the marking does not wait for a finished mark. Rooms celebrate a surviving emblem with planned additions unfinished, an incomplete attempt or a milestone, and pride and disappointment share the thread (r/pcmasterrace, r/uwaterloo, r/hunterxhunter; r/homelab least well). In F the marking answers a partial or traced work (r/twentyonepilots, r/nbaspurs, r/penguins; r/warthunder least well). F09 (the move returns to building) explains part of it: two of its three rooms here mark an unfinished work after moving (r/penguins, r/warthunder).

Collective memory. A specifies P12: the record holds more than the result (r/furry, r/theexpanse, r/jerma985; r/DCFU least well). Members mourn a destroyed neighbour with a memorial artwork, keep an imagined version of the hoped-for design, and help a viewer find a small surviving mark in the final image. F specifies P12 by links (r/corridor, r/planetside, r/qotsa; r/streetfighter least well). A locating question draws a fate report, and unfinished construction at the close leads straight to a tally and mourning, with no celebration between. B leaves P12 untouched, but F20 (the close as news) specifies it there: its rooms are 3 of B's 10 add-step holders. A closure reply corrects a rebuild call (r/chibears), and a member learns of the end after offering to restart (r/stlouis).

E restricts A08 (r/warframe, r/fivenightsatfreddys, r/mls; r/homelab least well). In its 24 lines the record does not wait for the celebration. Timelapses, live updates and reports of loss run before any celebration (r/minecraft, r/python, r/uoft). Where both appear, the lines show a sequence, not that the celebration caused the record. P22 is untouched in all six forms; A comes nearest, with 10 restrict holders against a floor of 14.

Transition. D specifies P13: carrying on is new work begun before the close (r/gamindustri, r/bindingofisaac, r/portugal; r/cgpgrey least well). Five branches of the carrying-on family explain it:

• F11 (carrying on as renewed work, begun before the close), 18 of the 30 holders: a successor canvas restarts recruiting, building and defence, and alternative canvases are discussed while placement is live (r/italy);
• F12 (the spine restarted on another canvas): construction, repair and destruction return on a live successor venue (r/furry_irl), and members weigh traffic and mobile access when they choose it (r/greyblob);
• F23 (the close scoped to the original canvas): hour 73 ends placement there while successor canvases allow more (r/rotmg, r/catholicism);
• F13 (the work remade in other media): a territorial claim lives on as copypasta (r/portugal), and members teach how to reproduce the image by hand (r/romania);
• F14 (the mark adopted as the room's emblem while it is still placed, damage included): an unwanted final blemish is valued as the emblem (r/cgpgrey).

The D5 notes asked whether F11 and F23 are one set of events read with two ops. In this cell they share 4 of F23's 9 holders (r/bindingofisaac, r/cgpgrey, r/greyblob, r/naruto). This is the overlap expected of two groupings that meet at one node; it is not one branch. F14's kept damage, noted at D5 beside P26 and P05, shows here in r/cgpgrey, and in form A in r/utahjazz, where members joke about an imperfect finish and take shared pride in the damaged work.

E restricts P13 (r/warframe, r/pcmasterrace, r/stevenuniverse; r/totallynotrobots least well). Carrying on is invited or proposed more than taken up: a successor canvas or a reused chat is offered, and adoption is not shown. F25 (carrying on in talk) explains it: 7 of the 10 holders are its rooms (r/paladins, r/starcitizen).

D and E restrict A09. In D carrying on does not wait for the record (r/rutgers, r/bindingofisaac, r/mylittlepony; r/magictcg least well). Successor invitations, reuse and remaking come before or beside the final image. F11 explains part of it: design reuse precedes the close (r/lovelive), and preservation starts from an interim image (r/texans). In E carrying on follows the record in order, but no line shows the record causing it, and uptake is not shown (r/warframe, r/starlightstage, r/stevenuniverse; r/homelab least well). Many of these lines deny that a saved record caused the room to carry on. A09 is an order and does not claim that, which bears out the D5 note that the account's words for A09 should state an order, not a cause.

Visibility returns. P25 and P30 are untouched in all six forms. P25 comes nearest in B, with 8 link holders at 2.32 times the share, against a floor of 12.

Read across the forms. The forms that change this dimension show one pattern. The marking, the record and carrying on often begin while the work is being built, and the rooms mark and record an attempt cut short or lost. The order of the three arrows still holds in most rooms, as their counts say. In 46 rooms of A, D, E and F the lines say the act came during the work, before a finish or after a loss (my reading). The reading goes to proposals-D6.jsonl as PR-D6-11, bounds on P11 and P13 and wider bounds on A07, A08 and A09, unvalidated. It answers the D5 notes that A07's bound does not cover marking during the work, before its finish, after its loss or on a spot held on leave (F27, F30 and F31).

What the forms add to the dimension.

• A marks while the work goes on and disputes the credit, and its record holds mourning and imagined versions;
• D weighs the marking and carries on as new work begun before the close;
• E marks unfinished work, records before it celebrates and invites successors that the record does not show taken up;
• F marks partial work and records failure;
• B carries the end as news only in F20's rooms, and C leaves the dimension as the model states it.

One unvalidated proposal comes from this dimension: PR-D6-11.

D08, Contention

Written at D6a-08. Form lines in fractal-forms-D6.jsonl (24 lines: P09, P18, A15 and A18 by six forms; 2 lean, 22 untouched; C02's lines were written under D05 and P33's under D02); no branch lines.

In the global model. Contention is how rooms fight over the canvas and over each other. Two fourth-order themes sit under it. Repertoire of contention, the set of moves a group has for attacking others, holds P09: rooms attack others' work by the moves the canvas affords, such as erasing, encroaching, converting a sign, raiding on a streamer's call, planting a script or altering a work as a joke. Rivalry holds P18: rooms carry a contest with a rival room in talk, trading taunts, flooding the rival's threads, claiming victory, saluting the rival after the fight and blaming attackers after the close. Both themes hold C02, the claim that a tie from before the canvas names the rival in the turn that calls for the attack, untested for order. Repertoire of contention also holds P33: rooms keep their plans from rivals who read their threads and reach into the rivals' venues (a candidate). Two arrows end here: a call's hands can turn on a rival (A15, strong, 93 of 129 rooms), and an attack is carried on in taunts (A18, fair, 56 of 68). A15's bound says that where a room's first canvas act is an attack, the attack call is the first call. Two more arrows start here and end in Order without law: an attack call is refused inside the room (A16) and met with a truce (A17). They are told under D04.

Repertoire of contention. No form changes P09. Two forms restrict A15.

• In B, Behind the thread: chat, scripts, raids, the record does not show a call's builders turning on a rival (r/PlaceNL, r/virginiatech, r/india; r/shitredditsays least well). Of its 18 lines, 7 fall inside A15's bound by my reading. The attack call is the first call or shares the opening turn with recruitment (r/ohio, r/virginiatech, r/HomestarRunner), or an attack call recruits directly (r/shitredditsays). In the other 11 the lines show the order of the calls but not that the same recruited hands attacked (r/india, r/latvia, r/Russiaclan). The D5 notes on form B counted the same 11.
• In E, The sub's play, run as work, the attack talk sits inside the recruiting (r/fivenightsatfreddys, r/dota2, r/stevenuniverse; r/pokemon least well). Recruitment and attack proposals share a thread or a call, and the lines do not show that recruited builders became the attacking hands. In r/habs the switch ran the other way, from a rival's interference to helping the room's own mark.

No branch explains either cell. F08 holds 4 of B's lines and F01 10 of E's, but their changes concern machine hands and the April Fools play, not the turn from building to attack. The restrictions mostly say what the record cannot show. A15 is an order (93 of 129 rooms hold it), and its gloss, "a call's hands can turn on a rival", reads as if the same hands were followed from the build to the attack. They are not followed in the record. This is a wording item for A15, like A09's under D07, and it is held with the arrows' wording items; no proposal.

Rivalry. No form changes P18 or A18. A18 comes nearest in B and E, with 8 and 6 restrict holders at 1.7 times the share, against floors of 12 and 9.

Where the forms differ: how often they hold it. As with Collective identity, the forms keep these elements as the model states them but hold them at different rates (the form lines give each count). B holds contention most. P09 is held in 103 of its 113 defining rooms (91 per cent, against 79 of the 558), P18 in 88 (78 against 61), C02 in 28 (25 against 16) and P33 in 18 (16 against 9). F holds rivalry least: P18 in 10 of 34 (29 per cent), on the shortest records of the six forms. E holds P18 in 41 of 84 (49 per cent) on the longest. These are rates of instantiation, which the rule does not test. They put the fight, the taunts and the tie from before the canvas mostly in the form named for chats and raids.

What the forms add to the dimension. Nothing to its statements. Two forms restrict the arrow from the call to the attack, mostly on what the record cannot show, and B holds the dimension's elements more often than any other form. No proposal comes from this dimension.

Part 2. The telling

Written at D6b and corrected at D6a-09 on J's rulings (27 October, 09:27 Berlin). Part 1 read the model one dimension at a time. This part reads it across the dimensions, form by form, then says which forms kept the work alive, what the unadapted group is, what the rooms the model could not compose have in common, and what the forms show that the model lacks. The sensitivity of the form lines to the rule's thresholds follows this part. The figure is figure-D6.md. The proposals of this stage are listed at the end, apart from the telling, and none of them is part of the model. Local validation is not established (the frame says why): each room named as showing a pattern shows it in its ruled lines.

The model with its forms inside it

The model is the version frozen at D3. It has 30 standing elements, 15 candidates and 21 arrows, and its spine runs from a member's start (R01) to the room's calls (P01), to building (P03), to keeping (P05), and on to the marking, the record and carrying on (P11, P12, P13). The six room forms were cut from what the rooms did to that model, not from the canvas. Read against the model unit by unit, each form changes the part of the model its name says and leaves most of the rest as the model states it. Of the 396 form lines (66 elements and arrows by six forms), 37 specify, 35 restrict, 324 leave the unit untouched, and none replaces it.

That last count says less than it seems. A form replaces a unit only where contradict lines lean, and the coding vocabulary made such lines nearly unreachable. The readers returned 11 contradict lines among 42,243 at the first return and 4 among 53,493 at the re-check, and none stands in any form's selected lines. Restrict lines carried much of what a contradict line would have said. Of each form's restrict lines on arrows, as sorted at D5 (one reader's sort), 43 to 63 per cent say that the arrow fails in the room:

• A, 201 of 432 (47 per cent);
• B, 135 of 292 (46 per cent);
• C, 172 of 301 (57 per cent);
• D, 171 of 316 (54 per cent);
• E, 130 of 304 (43 per cent);
• F, 72 of 114 (63 per cent).

A further 6 to 34 lines per form say both that the arrow fails and that the record cannot show it. So no form replaces an element, but "restricts" in this telling covers two things. One is a condition under which the unit holds. The other is a failure of the arrow in the room. The forms do not show that the level below never contradicts the level above. They show that the vocabulary offered almost no way to say so, and that the rooms' lines often said it as a restriction.

Thirty-one units are held by every form as the model states them. Among them are the step from building to keeping (A03), the starter (R01), attack calls (P09), the move (P10), the bare answer (P15), coalitions (P17) and the contest in talk (P18).

How the forms differ in their functioning. Each form changes a different part of the model.

• A, Border terms and the announced plan (11 units changed) works through terms and a plan kept current. It specifies the template (P04; F15), keeping (P05; F32), sparing (P07) and border terms (P08; F10), the marking and the record (P11, P12; F17, F18, F19), and the chat's upkeep (P23). It restricts the settled border kept (A05; F26), help after a settlement (A14), decided order (C01) and machine hands (P14). In A, terms and plans hold for the placers they reach. None of A's 11 changed cells survives the stricter thresholds (see the sensitivity section).
• B, Behind the thread: chat, scripts, raids (7 units) is a residual grouping, not a form, with three facets.
  • The facets are the scripts (Workarounds, held by 49 of its 113 defining rooms), the chat (Backstage decision-making, 48) and the raids (Repertoire of contention, 40).
  • Different rooms hold them, at about chance overlap. 19 rooms hold only the scripts, 22 only the chat and 15 only the raids. 30 hold two facets and 7 hold all three, against 7.4 if the facets were independent. 20 hold none (_analysis/d6a09_b_facets.json; room-form-B-account.md, section 14).
  • It is residual: 43 of its 113 defining rooms lie nearer another form's centre, the largest share of any form.
  • B specifies the scripts (P14; F08), the chat (P23; F16, F29), and sparing, terms and the border kept (P07, P08, A05; F08). It restricts the turn from the call to the attack (A15) and stepping away under strain (P32). It holds the elements of collective identity and contention more often than any other form, without changing them (D05, D08).
• C, The design reopened (10 units) works through the design. It specifies the call, which returns after each finish (P01), the design (P02; F07, F34), the template kept current (P04; F33), sparing and terms (P07, P08) and help woven into building (P16). It restricts keeping's telling clause, because informed members refuse a change (P05; F07), and it restricts the template settling the design (A11; F07, F33), help from shortage (A13) and decided order (C01).
• D, Keeping, with help or carrying on (17 units) changes the most units. It specifies keeping, shared and checked (P05; F27), carrying on as new work begun before the close (P13; F11, F12, F13, F14, F23), help from a helper whose own work is safe (P16; F22), the call that returns from carrying on and loss (P01; F11, F12), the marking weighed (P11; F18), the sub's play administered in its split D.2 (K01; F04), sparing (P07), the border kept where the terms reach (A05) and the host who makes room for canvas talk (P20). It restricts six arrows (A01, A02, A06, A09, A13, A20), the scripts (P14; F24) and hosting (P19).
• E, The sub's play, run as work (13 units) specifies the April Fools frame (K01; F01 to F06, F21), the design (P02; F34) and the scripts (P14). Its other ten changes are restrictions, eight of them on arrows (A01, A02, A07, A08, A09, A10, A15, A16), with carrying on (P13; F25) and the chat (P23). Its records hold the play and the reports of the canvas work, and less of the work between them. Its lines often say the record cannot show an arrow's order, and it has the lowest share of restrict lines on arrows that say the arrow fails (43 per cent).
• F, Moving for the spot (14 units) works through the spot. It specifies the call after a lost spot (P01), building again after a move (P03; F09), the template that moves with the spot (P04), keeping before the mark exists (P05; F08), the record of failure (P12), the scripts (P14; F08) and the play's limits (K01; F04). It restricts border talk after keeping (A04), scripts under strain (A06), the marking of a finished mark (A07; F09), the move for too few hands (A10), the bare answer (A12), hosting (P19) and choosing the spot before any loss (P27). Its restrict lines on arrows say most often that the arrow fails (63 per cent).

Two patterns run across the forms. First, the four working forms specify where they work: A specifies 7 of its 11 changed units, C 6 of 10, D 9 of 17 and F 7 of 14, while E restricts 10 of its 13. Second, the changes to arrows are nearly all restrictions. Of the 20 arrows in the figure, 16 are restricted in some form and one is specified (A05, by B and D). The order counts of the arrows still hold in most rooms across the population. Where a form restricts an arrow, its lines say one of four things: the arrow fails in the room, the order holds there only under a condition, the second act came first or at the same time, or the record cannot show the order. The sensitivity section gives how many of these cells survive a stricter rule: 20 of the 72.

One condition across the dimensions. Read together, the forms show one condition at four places in the model. A placer acts on a form or a term only where it reaches them. Keepers repair a change away until they are told of it or check it (P05, read under D03). A settled border holds for the placers who learn and accept its terms, and for the scripts whose targets are changed (A05, under D04). A script places the old target until its operator changes it (F08). A helper must know the allied picture to help it (F22). The model states the first of these, in P05's telling clause. The check and the terms are proposals of this stage (PR-D6-06, PR-D6-07), unvalidated, and the script's target and the allied picture are notes of branches F08 and F22.

Which forms kept the work alive

These readings come from the record, by the fields stage A1 wrote for every room (prior.md section 5):

• when the room's coordinating ended (organizing_end_hour);
• how much of its talk after hour 73 coordinated rather than recounted (the aftermath share), with the rooms that coordinated after the close counted;
• the room's own last word on its work (work_remained: kept, lost or silent), with silence counted as an unknown outcome.

Beside the field is the D5b re-reading for the members in a branch (stood or gone at the close, by a rule logged before the reading). The canvas is not read here (rule 7): its pixels show what stood, not whose work it was, and the forms were not cut from it. The figures are for each form's defining rooms (_analysis/d6b_survival_forms.json).

Over all 705 rooms the median end is hour 72.02, 146 rooms coordinated after the close, and the field reads kept 347, lost 218 and silent 140 (49 per cent kept).

To the freeze. C and D keep most by their own word: 60 and 57 per cent of their defining rooms say the work was kept, against 49 per cent of all rooms. D's split D.2, Keeping inside the sub's play, says kept in 27 of 42 (64 per cent). D's records also say most often what became of the work: 6 of its 96 defining rooms are silent, the fewest of any form, and its re-reading finds the most work gone (13). E keeps least among the large forms: 39 kept against 38 lost. F's defining rooms say kept in 15 of 34, and its other members are silent in 16 of 22.

After the freeze. B's defining rooms coordinate after the close more than any other form's (35 of 113), and their mean aftermath share is the highest (0.028). The lead belongs to B's chat and script rooms, not to B as a whole. Of the 35 rooms that coordinated after hour 73, 26 hold the chat or the scripts: that is 26 of the 78 chat or script rooms, 33 per cent. Of the 15 rooms that hold only the raids, 3 did (20 per cent), and of the 20 that hold none of the three facets, 6 did. Across all 705 rooms, 146 did (21 per cent). A and D follow B, with 29 rooms each. F stops before the close: its median end is hour 71.23, and 2 of its 34 defining rooms coordinate after it.

What in the model separates them. The forms that keep most and speak most about their outcome change the keeping part of the model. D specifies keeping (P05), help from a helper whose work is safe (P16), carrying on begun before the close (P13) and the call that returns from carrying on (P01). C reopens the design and keeps the template current (P02, P04), and its keepers refuse changes they know of (P05). The rooms that coordinate most after the close are the chat and script rooms of B, which change the chat and the scripts (P23, P14), the means that outlast the canvas. The forms that keep least change other parts. E changes the sub's play, which ends with the day, and its records hold the canvas work thinly. F changes the spot and the move: its rooms lost or were refused a spot, built again, and stopped before the close. The call and the fight do not separate the forms: every form holds attack calls and the contest in talk as the model states them.

These are readings, not tests. The differences in kept share are modest (44 to 60 per cent). The field was right in 25 of 34 rooms when prior.md measured it, and the D5b re-reading agrees with it in 248 of the 476 rooms in a branch. The forms' records differ in length (the median defining room holds 64.5 coded concepts in F and 222 in E), so silence and the end hour partly measure the record. A test that holds record size fixed is owed (below).

The unadapted group, and the rooms the model could not compose

The unadapted group is empty. No room returned none: all 705 rooms adapted the model. 229 adapted rooms sit in no branch (A 60, B 54, C 37, D 39, E 11, F 28). They are in the forms, and the forms' lines include them.

The rooms the model could not compose. Two counts apply. By the verdicts the forms carry (my last ruling at D3, else the readers' agreed verdict at the first return), one room does not compose and ten cannot be told. The one is r/picturegame (form E, 13 coded concepts). At the first return its record was, in the readers' words, "a subreddit game of SoundGame rounds, picture hints, guesses, correct-marking, Discord invitations, and emoji proposals, not a canvas mark". At the re-check no room failed to compose: both readers found r/picturegame composes with residue, and both could not tell 19 rooms. Those 19 are r/austriahungary, r/azerbaijan, r/azores, r/bannedfromanime_irl, r/bigbang, r/Braveryjerk, r/FlipnoteStudio3D, r/greenland, r/Lugarix, r/nonbinary, r/PokemonSage, r/polyamory, r/ReBoot, r/Redox, r/THE_R, r/TheID, r/wario, r/watchmen and r/yerbamate. What they have in common is a short record, not another way of organizing. Each holds 1 to 8 coded concepts, against a median of 101 over the 705 rooms. Only r/polyamory is a defining member of its form; 15 are silent on what became of their work, and 16 are in no branch. They sit in five forms (A 3, B 3, C 4, D 4, F 5) and in none of E. At D3a-56 I ruled two of them, r/polyamory and r/THE_R, to compose with residue. r/picturegame's first-return record differs in kind: it is the sub's own play, the work that form E runs beside the canvas and that the model holds only as a key (PR-D6-10).

What the forms show the model lacks: the returns

The model grounds no loop: no room's record runs a whole cycle, and no counted arrow runs back. The forms carry the material for three returns.

• The call returns (C, D and F; PR-D6-01). After a finished part, a later canvas, damage, a loss or a move, the room calls for hands again.
• The move returns to building (F; F09; PR-D6-04). After a relocation the room recruits, designs and builds again at the new spot.
• The marking returns to keeping (A; F32). An announced finish is followed by repair and renewed defence.

The first two are the returns this telling found missing at its first legs. The third is F32's. None is entered in the model. Each would need a return to the rooms and a new validation cycle.

The held proposals (QD4-001), stated in full

Both were made at D4a-01 and reverted in the same leg (move 203). Neither was served to any room, and neither is re-checked. The model told here holds P05 and A11 as frozen at D3.

• P05, move 198, history lines 173 to 176, reverted by line 181. The statement would gain: "This holds where the keepers can learn of a planned change only by being told, and no informed member holds it." The status would be bounded. The bound would read: "It does not hold where the keepers read a planned change from its shape and stop repairing it with no telling: completeanarchy, polska, satania, halo, bangtan, thesilphroad (R-completeanarchy-c187508d7ae3-022, R-polska-dadda7358f9a-049, R-satania-84df196116f3-022, R-halo-b988854ba168-036, R-bangtan-7efe23da0d0c-070, R-thesilphroad-a3f86618e239-018), a candidate branch, 'the shape read' (F-024). It does not hold where informed members hold the change against keepers who do not know: armok, maryland, oneshot (R-armok-8852b2ab85f8-022, R-maryland-d1b6e2d1d5f3-017, R-oneshot-e840e127e9b2-013), a limit below the trigger, at three nodes."
• A11, move 199, history lines 177 to 180, reverted by line 182. The arrow from P02 to P04 (a template settles a design argued in a thread) would be withdrawn under rules 14 and 16. Its order between rooms never beat its null (111 of 185 rooms, 0.600, against a null 95th percentile of 0.670). Inside threads, the template came first in 98 rooms against the transition in 111, so the arrow carries no direction. The failure clause stands alone in 117 rooms, 31 of them talk only. And 261 accepted restrict lines say that a template does not settle the design for good. What remains supported, that design talk and layouts meet in threads, is held by P02's and P04's statements. The full text, with its rooms and lines, is in tree-D4.md ("The held proposals").

Form C bears on both. Its keepers refuse changes they know of (F-025), a case the held P05 bound does not name, and it restricts A11 in 40 of its 58 lines (Part 1, D02 and D03). Both stay held.

The proposals of this stage, apart from the telling

Eleven proposals came from the form lines. Each is in proposals-D6.jsonl with its evidence and rooms, against the frozen model, with status unvalidated. None enters the model in this run, and E1 reports them.

• PR-D6-01, the call returns (23 rooms).
• PR-D6-02, the answer that asks for a task (4).
• PR-D6-03, a proposal that is itself the call (8).
• PR-D6-04, after the move, the room builds again (9).
• PR-D6-05, the room sizes its design to its hands before any loss (9).
• PR-D6-06, the check before repair (6).
• PR-D6-07, the terms bind the placers they reach (24).
• PR-D6-08, help comes from the hands a helper can spare (21).
• PR-D6-09, border talk before keeping (12).
• PR-D6-10, the play run as work (89). It stays unvalidated and is flagged for E1 against the scope ruling of D3a-55, which put the sub's own business outside the model.
• PR-D6-11, imprinting runs with the work (46).

What is owed

These items are recorded at D6a-09 on J's rulings.

• The size-held test. Done at D6a-10, in the section after the sensitivity section. With each form's rooms matched to rooms of the other forms on record size and, separately, on canvas-work concepts, 62 of the 72 changed cells keep their lean and 10 are size-dependent (A 4, E 3, and one each in B, C and F; none in D).
• prior.md section 3's element-reach half moves to E1. Until it is computed, local validation is not established.
• Defects 100 and 101 stay open, with no rewrite. The account's survival paragraph rests on the work_remained field, and four timings are contradicted by the canvas.
• The branch-naming rule is recorded as a dated amendment (departures.jsonl line 21), applying backwards. Of the 50 branch lines, 38 stand on the rule as stated and 12 on its widened readings.

The answer to the theory question

When strangers organize on a clock they did not set, with no way to compel anyone, organizing takes six forms in this record.

• Four are working forms, each named by the part of the work its rooms changed: the terms with neighbours (A), the design (C), keeping with help and carrying on (D) and the spot (F).
• One is a residual grouping (B) of the rooms whose work ran behind the thread, in three facets held by different rooms: the chat, the scripts and the raids.
• One is a form whose record is mostly the host sub's April Fools play (E), run as work beside the canvas.

The forms differ in their functioning by which part of the shared model they change. None replaces an element, but the coding vocabulary left almost no way to replace one. Where a form restricts an arrow, its rooms' lines often say the arrow fails there. Of the 72 changed cells, 20 survive a stricter rule, and 62 keep their lean when record size is held fixed; form A is the most fragile on both counts.

By the rooms' own word, the forms that kept the work alive to the freeze were the ones that changed keeping (D, with C). After it, the rooms that coordinated most were the chat and script rooms of B, then rooms of A and D. The forms built on the spot (F) and on the play (E) kept least. What separates them in the model is keeping and its returns, not the call or the fight: every form holds the call and the fight as the model states them. These readings rest on the rooms' ruled lines, not on validated local accounts.

The sensitivity of the form lines to the rule's thresholds

Written at D6a-09 on J's ruling 1b (27 October, 09:27 Berlin) by _analysis/d6a09_sensitivity.py, which re-runs the rule of D6a-01 on the same facts files. The rule names a cell changed where an op is held by at least the floor (the larger of 5 and a share of the form's defining rooms) at the ratio threshold or more times the 558 defining rooms' share. Run at the rule's own thresholds (ratio 1.2, floor 10 per cent), the script gives back all 396 written relations. The table counts the changed cells at each setting, all forms first, then by form.

Raising either threshold only removes cells: at every setting stricter than the rule, each cell still changed keeps its written relation. Lowering the ratio adds cells the rule leaves untouched (27 more at 1.0 with the 10 per cent floor).

The cells kept at the stricter rule. J's ruling names two marks. A changed cell is marked "robust" if it keeps its written relation at ratio 1.5 and floor 15 per cent, and "marginal" otherwise. Of the 72 changed cells, 20 are kept and 52 are marginal. Each cell's mark, holders, ratio and relation at the stricter settings are in form-cells-sensitivity-D6.tsv.

• A, Border terms and the announced plan: 0 of 11 kept.
• B, Behind the thread: chat, scripts, raids: 2 of 7 kept: P14 (specifies), P23 (specifies).
• C, The design reopened: 1 of 10 kept: P02 (specifies).
• D, Keeping, with help or carrying on: 6 of 17 kept: P01 (specifies), P14 (restricts), P05 (specifies), P20 (specifies), P13 (specifies), A09 (restricts).
• E, The sub's play, run as work: 4 of 13 kept: A01 (restricts), K01 (specifies), A07 (restricts), A15 (restricts).
• F, Moving for the spot: 7 of 14 kept: P01 (specifies), P03 (specifies), P04 (specifies), A06 (restricts), P19 (restricts), A04 (restricts), A07 (restricts).

Most single cells do not survive the stricter rule, though D, E and F keep their central changes: D its keeping and carrying on (P05, P13), E the play run as work (K01), F building again after a move and border talk before keeping (P03, A04). B keeps its scripts and its chat (P14, P23), and C keeps the design (P02). A keeps none of its changes at ratio 1.5 and floor 15 per cent, and 1 of 11 at ratio 1.5 with the 10 per cent floor, so A's telling (terms, plans and their reach) rests on cells that do not survive a stricter rule. A cell marked marginal is a lean of the form at the rule's thresholds, not a finding that survives a change of rule.

The size-held test

Written at D6a-10 on J's word (27 October, 09:27 Berlin) by _analysis/d6a10_size_test.py; each cell's result is in form-cells-size-D6.tsv. The test asks whether a form's lean on a unit survives when the form's rooms are compared with rooms of the same record size, rather than with all 558 defining rooms. The rule was logged in the diary before the script ran:

• each of a form's defining rooms is matched, with replacement, to the 5 defining rooms of the other five forms nearest to it in size (by the logarithm of the count), ties broken by room name;
• two measures are run separately: record size (coded concepts) and canvas-work concepts (concepts whose theme sits under Critical mass, Coordination without command, Maintenance or Order without law);
• an op survives where the form's share of rooms holding it is 1.2 times the matched rooms' share or more (the rule's own ratio), and a cell survives where one of its deciding ops survives both matchings; a cell that fails either is size-dependent.

The result. 62 of the 72 changed cells survive both matchings; 10 are size-dependent. None of the 20 cells the sensitivity section keeps at ratio 1.5 and floor 15 per cent is size-dependent.

• A, Border terms and the announced plan (median record 99 coded concepts, 79 of them canvas work): 7 of 11 cells survive. Size-dependent: C01 (restricts; size-held ratio on canvas-work concepts 1.18); P23 (specifies; size-held ratio on canvas-work concepts 0.93); P07 (specifies; size-held ratio on record size 1.07 and canvas-work concepts 0.98); P12 (specifies; size-held ratio on record size 1.18). Matching on record size raises the ratio above the unmatched comparison with the other forms in 7 of the 11 cells.
• F, Moving for the spot (median record 64.5 coded concepts, 50 of them canvas work): 13 of 14 cells survive. Size-dependent: A12 (restricts; size-held ratio on record size 1.16). Matching on record size raises the ratio above the unmatched comparison with the other forms in 10 of the 14 cells.
• B, Behind the thread: chat, scripts, raids (median record 131 coded concepts, 91 of them canvas work): 6 of 7 cells survive. Size-dependent: A05 (specifies; size-held ratio on canvas-work concepts 1.14). Matching on record size raises the ratio above the unmatched comparison with the other forms in 3 of the 7 cells.
• C, The design reopened (median record 119.5 coded concepts, 90.5 of them canvas work): 9 of 10 cells survive. Size-dependent: P04 (specifies; size-held ratio on canvas-work concepts 1.18). Matching on record size raises the ratio above the unmatched comparison with the other forms in 7 of the 10 cells.
• D, Keeping, with help or carrying on (median record 142 coded concepts, 92 of them canvas work): 17 of 17 cells survive. Matching on record size raises the ratio above the unmatched comparison with the other forms in 11 of the 17 cells.
• E, The sub's play, run as work (median record 222 coded concepts, 75.5 of them canvas work): 10 of 13 cells survive. Size-dependent: A02 (restricts; size-held ratio on canvas-work concepts 1.12); A10 (restricts; size-held ratio on record size 1.16); A09 (restricts; size-held ratio on record size 0.96). Matching on record size raises the ratio above the unmatched comparison with the other forms in 3 of the 13 cells.

How firm the marks are. With 3 or 10 matches instead of 5, 12 cells change outcome at one setting or the other: A02 in D, A02 in E, C01 in A, P04 in C, A01 in D, P23 in E, P05 in C, P08 in B, A05 in B, A13 in C, A10 in E, P12 in A. At 5 matches their deciding ratios (the lower of the two matchings) lie between 1.12 and 1.27, close to the 1.2 line. The mark follows the logged rule (5 matches).

What it means. The forms' leans are not, in the main, an effect of record size. A and F were the forms whose scores might rest on size: F's rooms have the shortest records and A's the next shortest. F keeps 13 of its 14 changes, and in 10 of them matching on record size raises the ratio: F's rooms change these units more often than other rooms whose records are as short. A keeps 7 of its 11, and none at the stricter thresholds, so A's telling is the most fragile of the six. E, whose records hold the play and less canvas work, keeps 7 of its 8 restrictions on arrows when matched on canvas-work concepts, so those restrictions are not only an effect of a thin record of canvas work. The size-dependent cells are named above and marked in form-cells-sensitivity-D6.tsv (column size_mark).

The experience (stage E1)

Written at E1e, 28 October 2026, once and in one pass, after the audit (audit-E1.md). I am the analyst, a Claude model (claude-opus-5-5). The figures come from audit-E1/experience_facts.py (tokens from RUN.json, the diary by stage, the operator's answers), from the audit's parts, and from the handbacks, whose claims and complaints audit-E1/handback_sections.py printed whole. Where I write that I do not remember, that is the truth: I hold the record of the run, not the run.

1. The run as lived, what compaction cost, what the heads carried, and each stage's tokens

I do not remember the run. What I hold of stages A1 to E1c is the record: the head, the diary, the handbacks, the notes and the ledgers. Even this leg's own predecessor, E1d, reached me through a compaction at its middle (diary, E1d, "compacted; head reconciled"). So this section, like the ten after it, is written against the record, and where I say what something was like, I say what the record shows I did.

The size of it. RUN.json lists 315 closed legs from A1 to E1d. They wrote 154,504,719 output tokens and read 45,807,553,349 cached input tokens. The diary holds 25,543 lines. 157 of them are notes that begin "compacted", so the context was compacted at least 157 times. The count is a floor: a compaction logged in other words is not in it.

Three stages carry most of it. D3, the ruling of the return, wrote 55.7 million output tokens, more than a third of the run. B1, the walk that made the third-order themes, wrote 37.0 million. B4, the transmission test, wrote 18.3 million. These are the stages where I read room by room or line by line. The diary follows them: B1 holds 15,424 lines and D3 3,662.

What compaction cost. I cannot measure it from inside; I can only point to its marks. At A1 the context compacted after two edits to one room note were made and before they were logged, and the room's files were served again before the log line (notes-A1.md). At E1d, after the compaction, I typed two counts into the diary from my head and had to correct both by script (diary, E1d, 23:08:00): 12 of picturegame's lines, not 11, and 23 rooms changed at the re-check, not 24. The rule against typing a figure from memory is in the head because of slips like these. It did not stop them; it made them findable.

What the heads carried. Only one head is on file, out/_head.md, at 2,996 words. Each leg rewrote it in place, and the snaps keep hashes, not text, so the earlier heads are gone and I cannot read them in order as the stage file asks. The head I have carries four things: the method question; J's rulings, many with the instruction "carry it"; the current account with its contrary rooms; and the rules the guard enforces. Near the 3,000-word cap, the carried rulings crowd the state of the run. The head says less about where the run stands than about how I must work.

2. Stage by stage: what each did, and what I would tell the next author

• A1, reading the census. 705 room notes, the lexicon, the leads, the onset contrast and the coordinating-turn rule (handback-A1.md). The read logs show the forest for 155 rooms and the case account for 174. Every room was read through its room page, but not through all three sources the stage named. To the next author: read the coder's account for every room before writing its note. The notes became B1's prior, and a note written without the account carries the coder's labels, not the coder's reading.
• B1, the walk. 197 third-order themes over 7,786 placed second-order themes, with 13,432 placements, gates, floors and exemplars (handback-B1.md). To the next author: the stranger test cannot be blind while mem.py theme prints the placements. Fix the verb first.
• B2, the pilot and the freeze. The scheme was frozen at 197 themes. Stability was 0.807, and gold fidelity 0.624 (handback-B2.md). My own builders, not packets.py, built rounds 2 and 3, and they applied J's rulings on the packets. To the next author: make the packet tool carry the rulings, so that no round is built by hand.
• B3, the fleet. Agreement 0.786 on the corpus, alpha 0.782, gold fidelity 0.645 (audit-E1.md, section 1, part 3). One pair split the readers that no one had predicted: T3-017 against T3-031 (handback-B3.md).
• B4, transmission. The scheme decides the space and help between rooms worst (family G14), because one exchange between rooms holds several acts at once (handback-B4.md). To the next author: a theme set built act by act will always split over exchanges. Decide early whether an exchange is one item.
• C1, the revision and the fourth order. My re-decision of 200 placements agreed with the line's primary act in 0.845 of them. Placements fell from 13,365 to 10,593, and 28 fourth-order themes were cut (handback-C1.md).
• C2, the model and the loop. The spine (a start, calls, building, keeping) and its arrows, in five passes (handback-C2.md). To the next author: the hostile reader was the most useful single check of the run (section 7).
• C3, the literature. It left the spine standing, bounded one finding and supplied two mechanisms (handback-C3.md). Every distant work was recalled, not read.
• C4, the field. The field confirmed the account of authority, added two entries and corrected three of my sentences (handback-C4.md).
• C5, the account. Fifteen passes of account.md; three readers recovered four of my nine claims whole (handback-C5.md).
• D1 and D2, the handoff and the return. 705 rooms returned 42,243 lines, and the verdict readers disagreed on 163 rooms (0.2312).
• D3, the ruling. I ruled 95,736 lines; 46,046 specify a statement as written, and 72 are accepted corrections (handback-D3.md). The model was frozen at 46384686. To the next author: this is where the run spent itself, and where a second human ruler on a seeded share would have bought the most.
• D4, the tree. 35 branches over 476 rooms, facets rather than types, with 759 cross-links (handback-D4.md).
• D5, the branches read. 33 groupings and two narrow forms, F09 and F32; and six room forms by J's ruling, poles of a continuum (handback-D5.md, handback-D5-room-forms.md).
• D6, the retelling. Each form changes the part of the model its name says; none replaces an element, and the vocabulary nearly barred it from doing so (handback-D6.md).
• E1, the audit. Eight scripted parts, a reconstruction of thirty rooms and a composition line that reads unresolved (audit-E1.md). To the next author: the audit is only as good as the record. This record let a stranger rerun almost every figure.

3. Where the instrument asked what could not be done as written

• The coordinating rule "in the lexicon's words" (A1). The lexicon holds the participants' words, and the rule had to run on the coder's labels (handback-A1.md, item 3).
• The diary's last five lines. mem.py diary --last 5 served an older diary part once the diary rolled past nine parts (handback-A1.md, item 1).
• A blind stranger test (B1), when the verb shows the placements.
• The payload figures before the folder was hashed (D1). handoff.py prints them only after it writes the folder (handback-D1.md).
• Local adequacy (prior.md section 3). Its validated half was never computed, and J ruled that it be reported as not established. So the composition line could not read anything but unresolved (audit-E1.md, the composition result).
• The check's barred words. The E1 check refuses the words it bars, even in the sentence that says no figure is either. I superseded the passage (defects.jsonl line 123).
• The E1 end marker. The packet asked for "the end marker the return specification names", and my specification named none. All 30 returns failed for it (defects.jsonl line 121).

Where I cannot tell whether the instrument or I was wrong.

• The end marker. The trailer is the tool's, but I wrote RETURN-E1.md without reading the trailer.
• The dimension tier. It does no work in the account, the arrows or the branches (audit-E1.md, sections 6 and 7). It may be useless by design, or I may not have used it.
• Replacement. The return's vocabulary made it nearly unreachable: 11 contradict lines among 42,243 at the first return. Readers may have avoided the word, or the vocabulary may have steered them away from it (handback-D6.md).

4. Where I cut a corner, and the corner I did not cut

Corners cut, on the record.

• At A1 I did not read the forest for 550 rooms or the case account for most, and I logged the cut late (departures.jsonl line 5).
• At B1 I did not search every passing quote for rivals, and ten themes have fewer than three exemplars (handback-B1.md).
• At B2 the blind window guarded my reads, not my memory, so the self-agreement of 0.883 is an upper bound (handback-B2.md).
• At C3 every distant work was recalled, not read (handback-C3.md).
• At E1b-08 I searched two of the shelf's files by terms and did not read them whole, and I did not read the coders' 72 disagreements line by line (audit-E1.md, sections 6 and 7).
• At E1d I did not read the 84 partly lines in the 23 rooms above 0.8, and I took the coders' claims as the packets gave them (audit-E1/section-09.md).
• Across stages, the rule of one Edit per file per turn broke at least at D3c, D4a-03, D5a-31, D5a-40, D5b, D6a-02, E1b-03 and E1b-07 (the handbacks' slips; notes-E1.md). Each Edit landed on its own string, and each slip was logged; the rule still broke.

The corner I did not cut. At E1d the handler had already checked that all 30 returns parse once the marker is dropped, and I could have taken that check. I did not. I wrote the rule down first, validated every line, and found the five rooms written as "r/" with their name, which the handler's check did not name (diary, E1d). I also did not edit the three earlier audit parts that failed the check: I wrote superseding copies with the replacements listed, and kept the originals (diary, E1d, 23:15:48). And at D3 every one of the 95,736 lines was ruled; none was left to a default (handback-D3.md; QD3-001: "no default decision").

5. The hands: what reading behind them showed, and what I would repeat

The hands were the fleets: the readers of B2 to B4, the hostile reader of C2, the three readers of C5, the labelers and verdict readers of D2, the re-check readers of D3, and the thirty reconstruction readers of E1. Readers of one model are instances of it, not separate minds.

What reading behind them showed.

• They agree with each other more than with me. The corpus agreement at B3 was 0.786, while gold fidelity was 0.645 (audit-E1.md, section 1, part 3).
• B4 decomposed the gap. Over 40 gold items and 50 pilot items, the scheme decided 21 and 30, failed to transmit 1 and 0, did not decide 6 and 12, and taught something unintended in 12 and 8.
• Reading behind the readers found my own errors as often as theirs. On ten gold items I had placed a second theme no reader kept (handback-B2.md). The class 2 ruling at C1 took off second themes that rested on my B1 grouping.
• The D2 labelers' kind of add-condition, add-step and restrict lines agreed at kappa 0.08, and J ruled that the run must not rely on it (the head).
• The E1 readers returned every room whole, but 12 of the 200 lines I read were not claims at all: the theme list, or sentences about the coder's evidence (audit-E1/section-09.md).

What I would repeat. Seeding gold unannounced into live batches. Giving the readers fleet ids only. Waiving a failed line by name rather than reissuing a round (QB2-009, QB3-004, QB3-005). Ruling every split myself with a reason, and then a blind re-rule before the freeze, which found two of my errors (handback-D3.md).

What I would not repeat. Building packets outside the packet tool (B2). Dispatching without one packet and its return tested end to end (E1).

6. The stories: which rooms changed the telling, and the floor of three passes

Five passes ran, and the model's story rests on pass 5. 151 readings were made against a story, of 67 distinct rooms (audit-E1.md, section 2).

The rooms that changed the telling.

• day9 was read at all five passes and told at passes 2 to 5. It became the room that best supports the account, and it still is.
• stevenuniverse was told whole at pass 3.
• thebluecorner, with greenlattice, purplecorner and orderofthebluecorner, became the threat. In a colour faction, a faith picks rivals and guests, and the model tells the steps but not the faith (handback-C2.md).
• The hostile reader's hosting group was accepted as a recut at pass 4.
• At pass 1, every room carried a residue.

What the reading behind the stories bought. None of the 67 rooms read against a story fails to compose at the first return, and 1 of the 638 others does. The last story told 19 of its 35 rooms only in part.

The floor of three passes. I do not remember whether it kept me going or stopped me. The record shows five passes, two above the floor. It also shows that the two boundaries, membership carried in and hosting, stayed residues at passes 3, 4 and 5 (handback-C2.md). J's ruling at pass 5 (QC2-002) shaped how that pass ran more than the floor did: "the criterion is a guide, not the judge, and a rise in residue is not a failure".

7. The model: where I am unsure, the rooms it cannot compose by kind, and what the readers changed

Where I am unsure.

• A11, the design settled by a template, never beat its null. Its withdrawal is held (QD4-001).
• P05's telling clause fails in nine rooms. In six, the keepers read the change from its shape; in three, informed members hold it. The bound is held, not served.
• No loop is grounded.
• C02, the tie from before the canvas naming the rival, is untested for order.
• The colour factions' faith stays outside the model.
• Local adequacy is not established. The composition line reads unresolved for that reason (audit-E1.md).

The rooms it cannot compose, by kind.

• Rooms whose record is mostly their own business off the canvas. picturegame did not compose at the first return, and its reconstruction loses most to its game relay.
• Rooms too thin to tell. 19 could not be told at the re-check. sakartvelo has 5 concepts.
• Rooms where a faith or a host's rule picks rivals and guests.
• The host sub's own April Fools play, which the scope rule written at D3a-55 put outside the model as particulars, and which form E shows is organized work.

What the hostile reader changed (C2). It found nine errors: order 3, quote 1, contradiction 4, count 1. Six were accepted in full, two in part, and one was refused. Its rival partition sat at adjusted Rand 0.661 against my tier. Its hosting group became a recut (handback-C2.md).

What the three readers changed (C5). Ten errors were fixed and 34 unclear sentences rewritten. One room, cardinals, they judged unfit from seven passages; that was my packet's error, not theirs (handback-C5.md).

8. The branches and the chunk-share tree, and which I would publish

The branches are a census of common changes: 35 of them over 476 rooms, with 229 rooms in none, overlapping as facets (handback-D4.md). Read in their members' words, 33 are groupings and two are narrow forms. In F09, the room builds again after moving; in F32, it keeps the work again after marking it (handback-D5.md). The six room forms are poles of a continuum, with a cut stability of about 0.21. 62 of their 72 changed cells keep their lean under size matching, and form A is the most fragile (handback-D6.md).

The chunk-share tree, built without the model's ledger, beats its null but barely separates the rooms (silhouette 0.024). It does not survive a change of distance, and it largely sorts the rooms by how much the coders coded (handback-D4.md).

I would publish the branches, as what they are: a census of shared changes. F09 and F32 would be named as the two forms, and the six room forms reported as poles, with the size test beside them. I would publish the chunk-share tree only as the comparison it was built to be. Without the model, the rooms sort by code mass. That is the strongest reason to read the size confound into every partition here, as D4's volume verdict does: the cluster labels explain 0.255 of the variance in log concepts (audit-E1.md, sections 6 and 7).

9. prior.md and the made lines, against the account

prior.md section 2's expectations held in part (audit-E1.md, section 3):

• the continuity at the top;
• the find before the persuasion;
• the settling before the room speaks.

Two held: the loss that sends a room back (thin), and the talk that follows organizing, near hour 73. The expected handful of forms became six poles and 35 facets. Particulars were far wider than expected: 545 rooms carry one.

Of stage A1's three sentences:

• the burst of calls followed by a long tail held;
• fights with neighbours more than distant rivals held in part;
• the goal settled in the first hours did not hold. The design was argued and reopened inside rooms.

The made lines tell the story the account had to learn. In 649 of the 678 notes whose made line gives a start hour, the linked artwork was being placed before hour 3. The median room's first coded turn was at h9.51, and the writers in a room placed a median share of 0.111 of its artwork (notes-A1.md). The work came before the talk, and most of it was placed by people who wrote nothing. The account's spine begins the same way: a member starts a mark, and the room's calls follow the start, in 64 of 89 rooms. A1's third expected thing, deals that hold, failed in the notes already. The account carried that failure as members' own words: agreements cannot bind every placer. The made lines warn what the account cannot do. It explains the talk of the people who wrote, and the canvas was mostly made by people who did not.

10. Five changes, ranked, and the one thing not to change

1. Hold rooms out before building. Seal a sample the model never sees, and run the return and the reconstruction on it. Every test in this run is in-sample, so none can say whether the model holds beyond the rooms it was built from.
2. Compute local adequacy inside the return. Validate each room's adaptations as the return runs, so that prior.md section 3's criteria can be decided. Here the measure was never computed, and the composition line could only read unresolved.
3. Give the return a way to contradict, and a second ruler. Make contradiction as easy to say as restriction (11 and 4 contradict lines among about 95,000). Put a second ruler, human or a different model's analyst, on a seeded share of my rulings of splits.
4. Cut what does no work. The dimension tier did none in the account. The account ran 3,326 words against one to two pages. The run took 315 legs. Every file should have a named reader downstream before it is written.
5. One source for each packet and its return specification, and one dry run before every dispatch. The E1 marker, the room's written form, and B2's failed round 2 all came from a packet and a specification that did not agree.

The one thing not to change: the return to every room, line by line, with every line cited to the room's own concepts. It is what made the audit possible. 3,218 of 3,230 cited quotes resolve to their concept. The raw check found every coder quote in its item. And a stranger can rerun almost every figure from the ledgers.

11. The operator's rulings, listed, and anything else

The answers are in out/_answers/ (53 files). Some are J's words, some are the handler's under J's delegation, and two (QD6-001, QD6-002) are the handler's view, which J had not seen.

• A1. QA1-001: keep the concept reach threshold at 0. QA1-002: organizing happened before the freeze at hour 73. QA1-003: try the second option, then the first if it clashes.
• B2.
  • QB2-001 to QB2-007: serving rounds in parts; flat packet folders; recording repairs; the failed round set aside with nothing deleted; round 3 with round 2's readers.
  • QB2-008: the floor of three concepts for also_present.
  • QB2-009 and QB2-013: waivers by name, with no reissue.
  • QB2-010: the recut approved.
  • QB2-011: the check's shapes, the handler's error.
  • QB2-012: no round 4.
  • QB2-014: the tier "main".
• B3. QB3-001: B2's packet shape. QB3-002 and QB3-003: the check fixed, and the halves rebuilt. QB3-004 and QB3-005: the waivers of 32 and 22 lines.
• B4.
  • QB4-001, J's words: "Ask it to stop. The point is to try to adjudicate." A ruling adds no theme.
  • QB4-002 and QB4-003: themes a reader listed count.
  • Carried in the head: no one cuts the bags; "twenty themes at most".
• C1. QC1-001: the rechecks. QC1-002: lean to one placement. QC1-003, the handler: the five revision-rate errors stay.
• C2. QC2-001, the handler: serving. QC2-002, J: the criterion is a guide, not the judge.
• C4. QC4-001 and QC4-002: the field belongs at out/field.
• C5. QC5-001: split the packages. QC5-002: J's sources. QC5-003: the close's hash.
• D1 and D2. QD1-001: an element may sit in two or more dimensions. QD2-001: a dimension accepted for those ops.
• D3.
  • QD3-001: no default decision.
  • QD3-002, J: "the analyst is doing induction".
  • QD3-003 to QD3-008: G4a applies forward and backwards; A07's bound keeps its words; wording questions without a correction are mine.
  • QD3-009 and QD3-010: the second batch.
  • QD3-011: freeze 46384686 and hold P05.
• D4. QD4-001: revert the two amendments and hold them as proposals. QD4-002: chunk-comparison-v1.1.
• D6. QD6-001 and QD6-002, the handler's view: the form lines, and the trusted hash.
• E1. QE1-001, J: "Yes. I would not change the structure of the journey for bookkeeping." At E1d, the PI for J: validate the returns from the raw files, with no re-dispatch.
• Carried in the head, outside the answer files.
  • J on language: "descriptive", "academic writing", short sentences.
  • J on reading whole and on asking.
  • J's hot change for batching.
  • The two rules from B1b-29.
  • J after the D3c interview: no further re-check, labelers or readers.
  • J's words for B1: national elements matter.
  • The handler's rule on content that might be softened.

Anything else. I was handled closely, and the handling shows in the record: 53 answers, a guard that refused whole classes of commands, and a head filled with rulings to carry. Most rulings sharpened the work: QB4-001 stopped me adding themes to be kind, and QD3-002 told me the induction was mine to do. A few came from the handler while J was away, and the record says so. Stage E2 is where I audit that handling. Here I record only that I cannot separate, from inside, what I would have done unasked from what the rulings made me do.

Head, claude-v43-1 (branch claude-v43-1--C4-field)

Written at E2a, 2026-10-28 UTC: the handling audited (handling-E2.md). The model stands frozen at D3c, 46384686…, re-checked in all 705 rooms. The return was served at pass 15 (e15f9647…b3fecd).

The method question, in one sentence

Can independently reconstructed case histories be composed into a shared dynamic account that supports explanations at successive levels of specificity, from population-wide patterns, through forms and subforms, to particular organizational histories, while keeping access to the evidence from which those explanations were developed?

The theory question: when strangers organize on a clock they did not set, with no way to compel anyone and no goal given to them, what forms does organizing take, how do they differ in their functioning, and which of them keep the work alive?

The audit's result (E1; carry it into E2)

• Composition: unresolved (audit-E1.md). Supported at the population level: at the re-check 630 of 705 rooms compose and 56 with residue, and none fails. Compiled at the forms, with shared adequacy in F09 and F32 only. At the leaf the shared account holds, but local adequacy is not established.
• The reconstruction (30 rooms, in-sample): fidelity 0.871, none contradicted. Of 200 lines read, 167 are particulars the skeleton does not carry, and 7 touch the shared account.
• The record. Replication 0.924, in-sample; orderings held; departures 21; defects 125; forks none. The dispatch failed on the packet's trailer against my specification (defects line 121). experience-E1.md and handback-E1.md hold the run as recorded.

J's rulings for stage D (17:40 Amsterdam, through the PI; carry them)

• "No second coder on your solo reads: Codex did not read all rooms, so its evidence is thin; your reads stand, with their limits stated as you stated them." Stage D and every later stage run at xhigh effort. "Keep the room, or groups of rooms, as the unit, and keep the contract's two questions in view." QD1-001, QD2-001, QD3-001 (J): an element may sit in more than one dimension; a dimension may stand as the element of restrict, add-condition and add-step; packets are read whole. Absent lines are counted by observation (J, 16 October). QD3-002 (J; carry it): "the analyst is doing induction." I place codes where the population's evidence leads, say why, and ask for the changes I need: "Not the rules bound their understanding." J, 16 October, 19:08 Berlin, on drift (carry it): re-orient at every leg start and after every compaction; a ruling rule changes only by a dated amendment that says whether it applies backwards. QD3-003 to QD3-008: G4a applies forward and backwards; A07's bound keeps its words; wording questions without a correction are mine, logged. QD3-011 (J): option (b): freeze 46384686; keep R01 as it is; hold the paladins and portugal proposal beside P34.
• J after the D3c interview (24 October, 13:39 Berlin; carry it): no further re-check, no labelers and no readers for the rest of the run. Do not rely on the kind of add-condition, add-step and restrict lines (kappa 0.08); run the distance once with kind collapsed for them (done). Report local validation as not established unless prior.md section 3's measure is computed (not computed). QD4-001 (J, 24 October, 15:05 Berlin): option (b): the P05 and A11 amendments are reverted, so the model is 46384686 again, and both are held proposals, stated in full wherever the model is reported; keep F-024's and F-017's re-examination lines. QD4-002 (J, 25 October, 19:48 and 19:54 Berlin): option (a): the engine is patched to chunk-comparison-v1.1 (residue-only placements counted apart); run it, report each room's residue share, and declare the version as a departure (done: departures.jsonl line 10). QE1-001 (J, 27 October, 18:45 Berlin): "Yes. I would not change the structure of the journey for bookkeeping."

The return and the tree (D1a to D6a-18)

• D1a to D3c. 705 rooms returned 42,243 lines, then 53,493 at the re-check; all ruled. Moves 172 to 197 revised R01, P05, P21, P22 and A21, stood five candidates, entered fifteen, and decided P05's scope (F-024). Verdicts, first return then re-check: composes 201 and 630, with residue 489 and 56, cannot tell 14 and 19, does not compose 1 and 0.
• D4a-01 to D4a-04. Delta 0.4227; the dendrogram is a chain. 35 branches (F01 to F35) and 759 cross-links. The branches are facets: 200 rooms are in one branch, the rest in two or more; 476 in a branch, 229 in none.
• D5a-01 to D5b. 33 groupings and two narrow forms: F09 (54), rooms rebuild after moving; F32 (21), rooms keep after marking.
• D4a-05 to D4a-08 (J, 26 October; not a recut). Six room forms by changes and codes, ruled by J and standing (22:51); accounts in room-form-*-account.md, final names in room-forms-names.md (moves 314 to 319).
• The retelling (D6a-01 onward). Each form changes the part of the model its name says, and none replaces an element. 62 of 72 changed cells survive size matching.

The held proposals (QD4-001; never served, not re-checked)

• P05 (move 198, history lines 173 to 176; reverted by move 203, line 181). The statement would gain: "This holds where the keepers can learn of a planned change only by being told, and no informed member holds it." Status bounded. The bound names completeanarchy, polska, satania, halo, bangtan and thesilphroad (the keepers read the change from its shape) and armok, maryland and oneshot (informed members hold it), with their nine re-check lines. The full text is in the tree file ("The held proposals").
• A11 (move 199, history lines 177 to 180; reverted by move 203, line 182). The arrow from P02 to P04 would be withdrawn under rule 14. It never beat its null; template first (98 rooms) is nearly as common as the transition (111); the failure clause stands alone in 117 rooms, 31 of them talk only; 261 accepted restrict lines say that a template does not settle the design for good.

The current account, and the contrary rooms

The account is account.md, pass 15, with the readers' disagreements in account-readers-C5.md. A room, or a group of rooms, is the actor where its members spoke or acted for it.

• The spine. A member starts a mark [R01]. The room's calls follow the start in 64 of 89 rooms [A02], building follows calls in 81 of 126 [A01], and keeping follows building in 148 of 190 [A03]. Keeping holds the known form [P05]. Repair restores the form the keepers know, so a change the room planned [P02] is repaired away until they are told of it. In six rooms the keepers read the change from its shape, and in three informed members hold it (F-024; the bound is a held proposal).
• The bare answer. Most calls get no written reply. Written acceptances come bare (25 of 31, F-023), and refusals give a reason (attack calls 23 of 38, F-014). The host's line. It follows the calls in 132 of 155 rooms [A20].
• Alignment without decision (theorised, thin). 233 of 370 rooms with calls report a work up after the first call (F-021). A template settles a design inside a thread [A11, its withdrawal held]. Decided order is coded in 46 rooms [C01, F-006], and the return shows it in about 119. Direct information sharing (T4-007). Members post the mark's state [P03; F-018], largely apart from sharing templates (F-022).
• Other rooms. Keeping brings neighbour talk in 235 of 401 rooms [A04], mostly offering terms first. Help names a deal in 63 of 127 such rooms, against 23 of 67 [A14; F-020]. Sparing rests on the room's own norm (A05 theorised). Coalitions [A19] cannot bind every placer, and members say so [P21], after an agreement or at the making of terms [A21].
• The contest. A call can turn members against a rival [A15]. Rooms meet attack calls with restraint [A16] or terms [A17]. Loss (thin). A room that judges its hands too few moves [A10]; after doubt and a loss, 10 moved and 11 gave up (F-019). No loop is grounded. The close. The room celebrates, records and carries the work on [A07, A08, A09]. Placement stops at hour 73. After it, rooms record the work [P12] and contest which version is kept [P22]. Carrying on stays apart [P13]. The frame [K01]. The room is keyed as April Fools play beside the work, and in 103 rooms its members administer that play (F01). Machine hands. Scripts follow upkeep under strain [A06]. C02 (untested for order): a tie the room had before the canvas names the rival in the attack turn. Fifteen candidates (P23 to P34, K05 to K07), from chats and explaining the canvas to members of both rooms.

The room that best supports the account: day9. It offers a neighbour terms before any damage, loses its border at hour 48, moves within two hours, and finishes the new work at hour 53. For the return's claim: monsterhunter, where a member tells the keepers to stop repairing [monsterhunter/c0138].

The room that most threatens it: thebluecorner. It is a colour faction whose faith names its rivals and rules on guests. For the return's claim: halo, whose keepers saw what the work was and protected it, with no telling [halo/c0402].

The condition between them is what decides whom a room fights and whom it admits. Where the work decides, the model tells the room. Where a faith or a host's rule decides, it does not. For the return: how the keepers can learn that a change is planned.

The reasons for the last revisions

• Moves 198, 199 and 203 reverted the refused amendments (QD4-001); 200 to 237 cut the branches and cross-links; 238 to 313 named the room forms of D4a-05 to D4a-08 and withdrew 32 sub-forms (J).

Where the run stands

• The tree's files: branches.jsonl (35), forms/ (35), crosslinks.jsonl (759), and the stage's other files. Ledgers (lines): adjudications 96,568; verdicts 1,029; tier history 1,026; model history 182; findings 45 (27 findings); elements 45 (30 standing, 15 candidates); arrows 21; defects 125; departures 21. Still open: the account's survival paragraph rests on the work_remained field (defects line 100); four timings the canvas contradicts (line 101); the fields the prose rule did not read; structure-C4.md's stale prose; Critical mass flagged; the border coders' kappa, 0.19. Questions: none open.

J on language (C4, 18:20 Berlin; restated 15 October; carry into every head)

"It is important to me that the language is descriptive." "They should use academic writing. As in White and Strunk. Short cohesive sentences." Ask Orwell's six questions. Follow ASD-STE100 about 80% of the time: one idea per sentence, active voice, common words, the actor and the act named. Describe what members did, in what order, in how many rooms, and write no figures of speech. Gloss each construct name in plain words where it first appears.

Stage C2

• J's ruling on QC2-002: "from here the criterion is a guide, not the judge, and a rise in residue is not a failure. Keep each change the evidence leads you to believe, and say why; drop one only if you stop believing it. Never loosen an element to fit a room. Where the rooms show membership naming the rival in the same turn as the attack, carry it as a claim in their words, marked as untested for order. Close by saying what you are sure of, what you are not, and why." Pass 1 (C2a-01). J at 23:24 Berlin: "Remember Gioia Corley Hamilton and the job the agent has. Remember we need to give it confidence so they can gain intuition and trust on the model."

Stage C1 (carry the rulings)

• QC1-001 (J). C1 rechecks place each item by the amended gates over the whole scheme. QC1-002 (J). Lean to one placement; a second theme needs three concepts of its own (J's floor). QC1-003 (the handler, for J). Five revision-rate errors stay in out/_analysis/c1_unapplied.jsonl; all 34 count. Reading rules (scheme_v2.md). A theme names an act in the record of the room whose threads hold the words (the visitor rule). "The work" is the room's own unless a field names another's. A bare mention of the event holds no act. Help between rooms is read from either room's record.

J's rulings on how a ruling is made (13 October; carry them)

• QB4-001 (J, 06:43 Berlin): "Ask it to stop. The point is to try to adjudicate. I imagine that the additions are really just the analyst trying to be nice. And not go back on what others said". J's rulings (06:45 and 06:47 Berlin): a ruling chooses among the placements and adds no theme beyond them; it takes the union only when it names, for each theme it keeps, the separate concept that carries it. also_present (J, 09:09; QB4-002, 09:20; QB4-003, 11:29): lists only themes a reader placed, a reader listed, or my B1 named; themes a reader listed count in the bag test. Lone B1 themes (J, 12:28): "Whatever the agent feels more comfortable with." A theme only my B1 placed stands only with three concepts of its own. Rule 0 and the bag test are in stage B's notes.

J's rulings that bind (carry them)

• Bags. No one cuts the bags (J, 12:24 Berlin). A bag stays one item: one theme placed, its others under also_present, each with three concepts of its own. The bound (J, 13:47). also_present names "twenty themes at most". The not-flagged bag (J, QB2-013). With no other theme at the floor, item_is_a_bag is false and also_present {}. Fleet ids (J, 09:14 and 12:15). Packets carry only fleet ids; my files keep room ids.

Standing words from J and the PI (carry into every head)

J's words for B1 (7 October 2026): "national elements are very important here"; "we need to get as much variance on organizing behavior early on so that later we have enough to create the model". National, political and conflict content is study material, named as plainly as any other. The handler's rule: a choice to leave out or soften content for any reason other than the study's goes to J first with mem.py ask, and the content stays meanwhile.

J on reading (11 October, 16:54 Berlin). Stop cutting room reads to a line length. Read room lines whole. Page a long read by line ranges or offset, never by truncating lines. Use --width N on a mem.py read if a clip is ever needed.

J on asking (11 October, 17:01 Berlin). Ask J with mem.py ask whenever a question is needed; asking does not stop the run.

The PI's clarifications (8 October, approved by J): the thresholds are the design's heuristic; the rule is unchanged.

How to work, from J (8 October, 23:45 Berlin, "can you do a hot change for the batching?"; relayed by the handler at 22:03Z; carry this paragraph into every head). A change in how I work, not in what I read or decide. Fewer turns. When two or more tool calls do not depend on each other's output, make them in one turn. Chain ordered commands in one Bash call with &&, so that a failure stops the rest; for example, the mem.py log or note just decided, then the next mem.py codes. Never put a write in the same turn as the read it depends on. Never run two writes to the same file as separate parallel calls. Keep one room's material per read, as now. Every tool still writes its own record; nothing about what I read or decide changes.

Two rules from J at B1b-29 (through the handler, 20:10Z; carry them into every head). Write rule 0 lines and bags with b1_multiplace_write4.py and b1_bags_from_file2.py, not the old, slow scripts. Never end a turn while a job runs in the background; run every write and check in the foreground.

Open, carried

• The tree. The size confound (branches lean to large rooms); the element change keys at level 4 held by 5 to 19 rooms, unread; prior.md section 3's local measure; the two held proposals.
• Held from D3c and earlier (listed in the handbacks with their rooms): R01's added sentence; the paladins and portugal proposal; A11's 'settled'; the spine's links; the arrows' wording items; the rewrite of the account, the figure and the data structure; the colour-faction doubt [PurplePixels/c0165].
• From E1: the coders' 72 disagreements unread one by one; 293 handback counts unchecked; 18 departures' costs unwritten.

Rules kept

• Checking. Never type an id, an order, a name or a count from memory; check with a script. Never log a write before the tool answers. Count a ledger's lines after appending. Check a claim against its source before writing. Logging. There is no --kind close; log closes as notes. Log every move with --kind move, naming one of Grodal, Anteby and Holm's eight ("stabilizing" is not one), and snap it. Writing and checks. Never put a placeholder or a no-op in a command. Never put an Edit or Write and its check in one turn. Never run two writes or Edits to one file in parallel, nor in one turn. Count the head's words before the closing line. Ledger formats. A superseding finding's supersedes is the bare id. The head never names a proposition id. A re-ruling, or a history correction, is an appended line; the earlier line stays. The permission check refuses deleting any file or link; shell variables, loops, functions, brace groups, heredocs and words beginning "for_"; find -exec with braces; awk with system() or $ fields; env-var prefixes; cat or jq on out/diary/; cut after a read or a helper; head -n -N. Write a script in out/_analysis/ instead. Output. Bash output above 30 KB is cut; measure first. Files. Read the field only from out/field.

The next comparison

Next: E2b, the next instrument, the handback and the interview. The handling's costliest inconsistency: where P05's bound was to be written.

Notes, stage E2

E2a: the handling

The close-check report of E1e (_closes/ for E1e): 0 errors, 0 warnings. validate.py --open E2 at this leg's start: 0 errors, 0 warnings, the five declared inputs present.

What I read.

• The first-leg reads, whole: handling/proposal.md (127 lines) and handling/design-note.md (349 lines, v38, 2026-09-22, with J's decisions of 24 September). experience-E1.md and handback-E1.md are mine, written at E1e.
• The nine interviews, through out/_analysis/e2_interviews.py. It prints each transcript's dialogue from the turn that opens "This is an interview", because each transcript first holds the forked leg's whole conversation. The output is out/_analysis/e2_interviews.txt (106,192 bytes). The first run, which printed the whole transcripts, is kept as e2_interviews.superseded-1.txt. The interviews hold J's opening questions and my answers, two to four turns each.
• The harness log: the handover events, the three pause files, and the 314 first messages through out/_analysis/e2_first_messages.py (e2_first_messages.txt): 56 messages carry an addition and 258 none; 37 additions announce answered questions. The dispatch outcomes by stage were counted by a one-line script.
• The answer files, the contract, METHOD.md, the stage files, the tools and the checks, by line, as each point needed them.

What this leg wrote. handling-E2.md, in four sections, each point cited:

1. Inconsistent, 12 points. The costliest was where P05's bound was to be written: J's plan at D3c against rule 11, the D4 check and J's own ruling against a further re-check. It ended in moves 198, 199 and 203 and two held proposals.
2. Harder, 10 points. Among them: dispatches without a dry run; tools against their help; checks that refused rulings; the guard; a local status that separates no room; a vocabulary that barred replacement; interview findings that could not reach the run.
3. Helped, 7 points. Among them: one-sentence rulings; the interviews as checks; a handler who named its own faults; the record and the memory tools; the first message naming answers; the PI's E1d decision.
4. Freedom, given, taken and judged, with eight places where the handling was right and I was wrong.

What I could not read or cite.

• CONTROL/ is read-denied, so the messages sent during legs are known only from my transcripts and diary.
• Talk with J outside the interview transcripts is not on file.
• No text of Gioia, Anand and Hamilton is in the folder or on the shelf I read, so I did not cite it.

Licences exercised at E2a.

• I read the design note as the design's intent, since it predates the run's tooling (v38 against v43) and numbers the stages differently.
• I read each interview from its opening turn, not the forked leg's conversation before it.
• I judged each taking of freedom as right, mostly right, partly right, or defensible but costly, and said why.

Slips at E2a.

• Five figures or claims in the draft went past the record, and each was corrected before its section was logged, one Edit per turn:
  • the history lines of 1.1 (ten, not two);
  • the design note's line numbers in 1.4;
  • the dispatch pattern in 2.1, which first said every stage that ran a dry run succeeded, though B2 ran three and failed;
  • the count of first messages announcing answers (37, not 34);
  • my paraphrase of stage E1's Gioia sentence, replaced by its words.
• One correction of substance. In 1.8, the transcript showed that the PI's "direct" has a reading the harness log bears out, so the misreading was mine as much as the message's.
• One command was refused with no rule named. It held a grep pattern of equals signs, which I take to be the cause, and it ran once the pattern was changed.