Failure mode

The prose claims that a concept in this note IS a concept from a linked note, but the linked note defines or discusses that concept differently. The reader who follows the link will find a mismatch between what the prose promised and what the target says.

Test

For each sentence that identifies this note's concept with a concept from another note — phrases like "this is the X problem from [note]," "this is X in architectural form," "the same mechanism as [note]'s Y" — check the identity against the target. Read the target's title and opening paragraph first; judge there when the concept is the target's title claim. When it is an interior concept, judge this note's verbatim quotation of the target if it gives one; only otherwise locate the target's treatment of that concept.

Check every identity claim. Name any target that cannot be resolved.

An attribution is valid if the linked note's core concept supports the claim being made, even if the exact phrasing differs. Only flag when the linked note's treatment of the concept is substantively different — not merely when the vocabulary doesn't match verbatim.

Example (fail)

"This is the return-value problem from the scoping note in architectural form" — but the scoping note's "return value problem" section discusses progressive typing of sub-agent returns, not trace leakage through implicit interfaces. The two problems are related but not the same.

Example (pass)

"This is the scoping note's frame-boundary problem in architectural form" — and the scoping note does discuss frame boundaries as the place where isolation breaks down, matching the claim.