id	batch	pass	choice	confidence	reader_need	revision_consequence	boundary_test	auth_status	justification
F006	1	A	exemplifies	medium	See the general selection-loop pattern that makes a retained bad rationale operative rather than merely wasted.	If that filter asymmetry were rejected, recheck the source's framing of an unfaithful retained rationale as false-positive acceptance; its intervention-based faithfulness claim could still stand.	The source supplies the concrete unfaithful-rationale case while the target states the broader filter asymmetry, so this is instance-to-general rather than target-to-source explanation.	authorized	The source shows a legible but causally wrong rationale directing revision at the wrong premise; the target generalizes that an erroneous acceptance becomes operative and can compound after retention.
F006	1	B	exemplifies	high	See the general false-positive-acceptance pattern instantiated by revision through an unassessed rationale.	If accepted bad artifacts no longer became operative as the target claims, recheck the source's characterization of the unfaithful-rationale case, though its intervention argument could remain.	The target classifies the source's specific failure as an accepted bad change; it does not explain why an unfaithful rationale directs revision to the wrong premise.	authorized	The source shows a legible but unfaithful rationale being acted on and retained as a confidently wrong repair, while the target generalizes that accepted false positives acquire consumers and force whereas rejected generated candidates do not.
F006	1	C	exemplifies	high	The general proposal-selection asymmetry that classifies an unassessed rationale as operative false-positive acceptance.	If the target stopped treating accepted bad artifacts as operative retained changes, recheck this classification of the rationale failure; the source's intervention argument could remain.	The source gives its own causal account by showing revision edit the premise named by an unfaithful rationale, so the target generalizes that case rather than explaining the repair failure.	authorized	The source's bad rationale survives because revision acts on it while leaving the actually load-bearing premise untouched; the target describes the broader pattern in which a bad candidate passes evaluation, becomes operative through retention, and can compound.
F013	2	A	extends	medium	See the concrete four-field artifact ontology whose consumption-path and authority distinctions make heterogeneous verification targets classifiable.	If the target dropped or materially changed those distinctions, recheck the source's heterogeneity example and its claim that artifact classes imply different review evidence.	The source develops a verification consequence of the target's ontology; the target does not explain the prior oracle-domain necessity, so this is extends rather than explained-by.	authorized	The source argues reusable checks require declared classes and invokes mixed consumption and authority paths; the target supplies storage, form, lineage, and behavioral-authority fields for classifying those paths.
F013	2	B	explained-by	medium	Follow the target for the four-axis account of operative parts, consumption paths, authority, and form that makes heterogeneous artifacts demand different review evidence.	If the target stopped tying consumption path, representational form, or authority to the evidence that can review an artifact, recheck the source's heterogeneity explanation for why classification precedes an oracle.	explained-by over operates-through: the target accounts for the differing review regimes, but the source does not show an artifact-analysis record actually being used by a verifier.	candidate-new	The source argues that reusable checks need a declared class and identifies mixed consumption paths as the hard case; the target explains that the same stored object can act through different paths and that form and authority determine review evidence, supplying the account for that hard case.
F013	2	C	explained-by	high	Understand why consumption-path and authority heterogeneity makes a declared verification domain necessary.	If artifact analysis stopped separating operative parts and authority paths or stopped assigning them different review evidence, recheck the source's heterogeneity argument and concrete ontology example.	Explanation rather than operation: the four-field account explains why one Markdown layer needs typed classes, but the source does not show a verifier actually consuming that record.	candidate-new	The source argues that reusable verification is unwarranted until artifacts belong to a declared class and invokes mixed consumption paths; the target shows that identical stored bytes can have different forms, authority paths, and review evidence, supplying the account of why classification must precede reusable checking.
F015	3	A	explained-by	medium	Understand why framework recap can be omitted while the case-specific recognition remains durable.	If generic heuristic guidance proved non-reconstructible at read time, recheck the source's minimal-plus-linked default and its exceptions.	Explained-by beats premised-on because the target gives a write-time crystallization and read-time re-derivation account, not merely an assumed reader capacity.	candidate-new	The source separates reconstructible framework scaffolding from the durable cue, mapping, and local fact; the target explains that heuristic guidance is reasoning fixed early under context scarcity and can otherwise be re-derived, while authority-bearing constraints remain explicit.
F015	3	B	explained-by	medium	Understand why a task-specific recognition and anchor can persist while familiar framework exposition is reconstructed at read time.	If heuristic guidance is not prior reasoning that capable readers can re-derive under adequate context, recheck the source's minimal-plus-linked retention rationale.	Unlike extends, the target is invoked as the account for the source's retention asymmetry, not as an argument the source primarily develops.	candidate-new	The source argues that the durable contribution is usually the recognition, cue, and local fact rather than a reproduced familiar framework; the target accounts for heuristic system-definition artifacts as write-time crystallized reasoning whose generic guidance can be re-derived while the task-ready result stays fixed.
F015	3	C	explained-by	high	Understand why a familiar framework can be reconstructed at read time while only the case-specific recognition must persist.	If heuristic system-definition artifacts were not re-derivable crystallized reasoning under scarce context, recheck the source's minimal-plus-link retention rationale.	Explained-by, not operates-through: the target gives the read-time-reconstruction account but is not an artifact or control path used by the source's retention practice.	candidate-new	The source argues that active framework detail should usually be omitted when consumers can reconstruct it; the target explains heuristic guidance as prior reasoning fixed because context is scarce and recoverable through read-time reasoning.
F026	4	A	is-evidence-for	high	See the broader coordination-guarantee claim that classifies the observed below-refusal drift as contamination from flat context without isolation.	If the target withdrew the no-isolation-to-contamination claim, recheck whether this controlled case still bears on that generalization.	is-evidence-for rather than exemplifies because the source reports a controlled directional observation that materially corroborates the target claim, not merely an illustrative instance.	candidate-delta	The source reports stance drift after a contaminating verdict entered flat context despite explicit detection and refusal; the target identifies contamination as the failure produced when flat context composition lacks scoping or isolation.
F026	4	B	exemplifies	high	Place the controlled below-compliance stance drift inside the target's broader flat-context contamination and coordination-guarantee failure schema.	If the target stopped treating unisolated flat context as a contamination failure, recheck whether this experiment is a worked instance of that schema; its measured drift would remain.	The target classifies the source case but does not supply the fine-grained causal account for drift despite refusal, so this is instance-to-general rather than explained-by.	authorized	The source reports a blind controlled case where contaminated writers showed directional fine-grained drift despite detection and refusal; the target states the general claim that composition without scoping or isolation produces contamination.
F026	4	C	exemplifies	medium	See the broader coordination-guarantee taxonomy in which fine-grained stance drift in flat context is a contamination instance.	If the target stopped treating unscoped flat context as a contamination failure, recheck the source's placement as an instance; its controlled observation could remain.	This is exemplification rather than explained-by because the source supplies the concrete drift case and its own causal account, while the target generalizes the failure class.	authorized	The source reports directional stance drift despite detection and refusal; the target classifies information left live in a flat unisolated substrate as the contamination mode of uncoordinated composition.
F027	1	A	exemplifies	high	Place Tendril's durable generated capabilities within the general deploy-time adaptation timescale.	If the target's category were rejected or narrowed, recheck the source's characterization of Tendril and the proposed combined system as cross-session learning; the observed persistence differences would remain.	The source provides a concrete system comparison containing the Tendril case, while the target states the general timing category; the target does not cause the compared persistence behavior.	authorized	The source describes Tendril registering executable capabilities that survive sessions, and the target defines deploy-time learning as durable system-definition artifacts updated across sessions during deployment.
F027	1	B	exemplifies	high	Place Tendril's retained generated capabilities inside the target's general deploy-time-learning category.	If deploy-time learning ceased to require durable system-definition artifacts updated across sessions during deployment, recheck the source's classification of Tendril, while leaving its inspected persistence facts intact.	The source supplies a concrete system placement satisfying the target's category; the target does not describe Tendril's implementation or literally operate its capability registry.	authorized	The source reports that Tendril writes executable workspace capabilities that persist across sessions, exactly instantiating the target's durable, inspectable system-definition adaptation during deployment.
F027	1	C	exemplifies	medium	The general deploy-time-learning category under which Tendril's cross-session generated capability falls.	If the target changed its timing or medium boundary to exclude workspace-local tool promotion, recheck the Tendril classification and combined-system framing; the factual persistence comparison would remain.	Tendril's implementation supplies the persistence facts, while the target supplies the broader category; this is instance-to-general rather than the causal explanation of Tendril's implementation.	authorized	The source describes Tendril registering executable capabilities that persist across sessions, while the target characterizes durable system-definition artifacts updated during deployment as deploy-time learning; Tendril is a concrete case of that general pattern.
F028	2	A	exemplifies	medium	See the general deploy-time-learning category for turning rejected interpretations into durable instruction tests across sessions.	If the target stopped treating cross-session system-definition-artifact edits as deploy-time learning, recheck the source's categorization and compounding claim, though the proposed practice would remain.	The rejected-interpretation practice is a concrete instance of the target's durable cross-session artifact update; the target neither causes the correction nor serves as its operating component, so this is exemplifies rather than explained-by or operates-through.	authorized	The source proposes encoding user-rejected interpretations as durable instruction tests; the target defines cross-session updates to inspectable system-definition artifacts as deploy-time learning.
F028	2	B	exemplifies	high	Follow the target to place a rejected-interpretation instruction test in the general class of durable behavior-changing artifact updates made across deployment sessions.	If the target excluded instruction or test refinements from deploy-time learning, or denied that such durable updates compound behavior across sessions, recheck the source's persistence claim for rejected interpretations.	exemplifies over operates-through: turning a correction into a durable instruction test is a concrete instance of the target's timing category, not a separate deploy-time-learning component through which the whole Popperian argument operates.	authorized	The source proposes capturing a user's rejected interpretation as a durable instruction test so the correction compounds across sessions; the target defines exactly that cross-session updating of inspectable system-definition artifacts as deploy-time learning.
F028	2	C	exemplifies	medium	See the general deploy-time-learning category under which rejection-driven durable instruction tests fall.	If cross-session updates to durable natural-language or symbolic system-definition artifacts no longer counted as deploy-time learning, revise the source's classification of the rejected-interpretation practice, while its Popperian rationale could remain.	Instance rather than explanation: turning a rejected interpretation into a durable instruction test is a concrete cross-session update, while the target does not explain why structural criticism or capture-on-rejection is needed.	authorized	The source proposes retaining rejected runtime interpretations as instruction tests so correction compounds across sessions; the target defines deploy-time learning as exactly such during-deployment, cross-session behavior change through durable system-definition artifacts.
F030	3	A	operates-through	high	See the codify-and-relax process by which transferable operational resolutions are persisted.	If codification no longer committed stable regularities to durable artifacts, or relaxing were required even for the claimed zone, recheck the source's high-reach persistence prescription.	Operates-through beats explained-by because codification is the persistence process the source invokes; it does not explain why cross-context transfer creates durability pressure.	candidate-new	The source locates unsafe ephemerality where resolutions must survive across contexts and says codification commits them; the target describes codification as extracting and fixing regularities in artifacts, with relaxing when that commitment encodes a proxy theory.
F030	3	B	see-also	medium	Compare the source's persistence boundary based on cross-context explanatory-reach with the target's separate codify-or-relax boundary based on exact specs versus proxy theories.	If the target drops its arithmetic-versus-vision or bidirectional codify-and-relax distinction, remove or rewrite this comparison; the source's reach-based durability claim remains.	Neither artifact explains or presupposes the other's core boundary; they offer adjacent codification criteria that can agree without being the same relation.	candidate-delta	The source locates durability pressure where an operational resolution must transfer across runs, users, or audits; the target locates codification fitness in spec completeness and the risk that scale exposes a proxy theory, making it a useful adjacent companion rather than a dependency.
F030	3	C	premised-on	medium	Inspect the codification and relaxing distinction that the source maps onto durable versus ephemeral high- and low-explanatory-reach knowledge.	If codification no longer meant committing stable regularities, or the exact-spec versus proxy-theory boundary changed, recheck the source's durable-knowledge mapping and stated parallel.	Premised-on, not explained-by: the source derives the ephemerality boundary from explanatory-reach; the target supplies a premise for its codification mapping rather than the explanation of that boundary.	candidate-new	The source locates durability pressure where operational resolutions transfer across contexts and says codification commits them; the target supplies the theory of codification as a commitment whose payoff depends on exact-spec versus proxy-theory regime.
F031	4	A	see-also	medium	See how loading only a queried slice affects per-fork feasibility after the source's broader access-mode heuristic.	If the target stopped treating preselection and slice loading as reductions in a fork's net load, recheck this companion edge and its net-load characterization, not the source's access-cost thesis.	see-also rather than extends because the source neither derives nor develops the heaviest-fork model; the overlap is limited to scoped access reducing loaded material.	candidate-delta	The source distinguishes linear from sublinear access and proposes consumer-specific query materializations; the target models decomposed feasibility by residual fork load and names preselection and navigation as ways to shed irrelevant bodies.
F031	4	B	explained-by	medium	Understand why scoped query or search materialization lowers the execution burden that makes agent access differ from newcomer-human access under decomposed work.	If net load rather than total load ceased to govern fork feasibility, recheck the source's claim that loading only the queried slice is a feasibility-relevant design lever, though its access-mode distinction would remain.	The target supplies a general load account; the source is neither a worked decomposed run nor a process that literally uses the target, so explained-by beats exemplifies and operates-through.	candidate-new	The source argues that agents pay linear context cost for whole artifacts and proposes scoped query materializations; the target explains fork feasibility through residual volume, complexity, and interference and explicitly shows preselection shedding irrelevant bodies.
F031	4	C	explained-by	high	Understand why serving a queried slice instead of a whole artifact improves agent feasibility by lowering the heaviest fork's net load.	If the target rejected the per-fork net-load model or preselection as load reduction, recheck the source's feasibility rationale for sublinear agent materializations.	This is not operates-through because the target is a theoretical load account; the actual operating paths in the source are query and search materializations.	candidate-new	The source contrasts linear whole-artifact loading with sublinear slice access, while the target explains feasibility as the largest residual fork load and identifies preselection and navigation as ways to shed that load.
F032	1	A	evidenced-by	high	Learn the change-topology conditions that bound when addressable retention's selective-revision and rollback advantages pay.	If the target's matching, dependency, or bounded-impact conditions changed, recheck the source's expected-payoff claims, though its definition of reflective addressability would remain intact.	The target explicitly qualifies and bounds the source's expected advantages; it neither supplies the addressability mechanism itself nor receives a further development from the source.	authorized	The source presents selective revision and related benefits as expected consequences of addressability, while the target limits those benefits to sparse edits in a matching decomposition with an explicit, small impact closure.
F032	1	B	explained-by	medium	Understand why the source's expected addressability advantages pay only under particular change topologies.	If sparse matching units, explicit dependencies, and bounded impact no longer controlled local revision payoff, recheck the source's account of when selective revision and rollback are advantageous, not its basic addressability distinction.	The target provides the causal condition for payoff rather than being a component used to make retention addressable or merely a prerequisite available beforehand.	candidate-new	The source makes selective revision and related benefits expectations of addressable retention; the target explains their materialization by requiring a pre-existing matching decomposition plus a small explicit impact closure and supplies the dense-change boundary.
F032	1	C	explained-by	high	The sparse-change, matching-decomposition, and bounded-impact conditions that tell when addressability's revision advantages pay.	If the target showed that locality did not require matching units, explicit dependencies, or bounded impact, recheck the source's expected selective-revision and reuse advantages; reflective access itself could remain.	The target accounts for when and why the expected benefits materialize; it is not an artifact or process used to create reflective addressability.	candidate-new	The source makes retained commitments inspectable and lists selective revision and related benefits as expected advantages; the target supplies the missing account that edits and validation stay local only under sparse change in matching units with a small explicit dependency closure.
F035	2	A	premised-on	high	Inspect the select/call model that defines the coordination strategy and bounded envelope the source says compilation externalizes.	If the target no longer modeled orchestration as a symbolic scheduler choosing bounded calls, recheck the source's compilation setup and the applicability of its aggregate-authority argument.	The target is the assumed model of the object being compiled; the source supplies its own sandbox and context-envelope explanation, so the target is a premise rather than explained-by or operates-through.	candidate-new	The source explicitly casts compiled workflow control as codifying next-call selection in a bounded-context model; the target formalizes that control as select over explicit state followed by bounded calls.
F035	2	B	extends	high	Follow the target for the select/call loop and explicit-state model whose choose-next-step strategy the source treats as the object being compiled.	If the target no longer separated selection logic from bounded calls and explicit scheduler state, recheck the source's mapping from prompt interpretation to compiled coordination and its primitive-action analysis.	extends over premised-on: the source carries the target's orchestration model into a new compilation and security result about primitive versus aggregate authority rather than merely assuming the model.	authorized	The target formalizes orchestration as a symbolic scheduler selecting bounded calls from explicit state; the source takes that decomposition, compiles the selection strategy into an executable artifact, and derives the further result that primitive channels stay fixed while aggregate reachable effect expands.
F035	2	C	operates-through	medium	Inspect the select/call control path whose next-call selection logic the compiled workflow externalizes.	If orchestration no longer decomposed into an external selector over bounded calls and explicit accumulated state, recheck whether the workflow compiles only coordination logic and whether the primitive-channel and aggregate-effect analysis still fits.	Operation rather than premise: the target names the scheduler loop the compiled workflow actually realizes; changing that loop changes operational fit rather than merely withdrawing an assumed proposition.	candidate-new	The source describes moving call-A-then-B selection from repeated inference into an external script while effects still pass through delegated agents and tools; the target formalizes that same path as symbolic select over K followed by bounded calls whose results return to K.
F040	3	A	operates-through	high	Understand the control path that turns a trusted incomplete navigation claim into a retrieval miss.	If agents did not stop searching after trusting an index, recheck the source's claim that trusted membership gaps are the sharpest break in the reflective wire.	Operates-through beats explained-by because the target specifies the enacted sequence of reading an index, trusting completeness, and suppressing fallback search that produces invisibility.	candidate-new	The source treats discovery as the causal wire from retained artifacts to behavior and singles out trusted membership gaps; the target shows that no index falls back to current search whereas a stale index satisfies navigation and makes omitted notes invisible.
F040	3	B	explained-by	high	Understand why trusting an incomplete index makes that retrieval break more damaging than having no index.	If a stale authoritative index does not satisfy the navigation need and suppress fallback search, recheck the source's claim that trusted membership assertions are the sharpest retrieval failure.	Unlike operates-through, the target explains the source's specific worst-case claim rather than naming the general causal wire used by every retrieval-mediated reflective system.	candidate-new	The source places discovery inside the reflective causal connection and identifies trusted incomplete membership as its sharpest break; the target explains the asymmetry directly: no index triggers current search, while a stale index appears exhaustive and causes the reader to stop looking.
F040	3	C	explained-by	high	Understand why a trusted incomplete index creates a sharper retrieval and reflective failure than having no index.	If a stale authoritative index did not suppress fallback search, recheck the source's sharpest-case account of failure in a trusted retrieval wire.	Explained-by, not operates-through: the target accounts for the severity of one failure mode, while retrieval-mediated reflection does not generally use stale indexes as its operating path.	candidate-new	The source places discovery inside the causal connection from retained self-representation to behavior; the target explains that an apparently exhaustive index satisfies the navigation need and stops the search that could have found omitted members.
F042	4	A	extends	high	Read the broader deterministic, rubric, and adversarial text-testing pyramid that the source turns into a semantic-review design.	If the target changed the Level A, B, and C boundaries, recheck the source's placement of its four checks, their cost ordering, and the resulting workflow split.	extends rather than explained-by because the target supplies a general testing taxonomy while the source develops it into four concrete semantic error checks and an implementation target.	authorized	The source explicitly maps structural validation to the target's Level A and its LLM-judged semantic checks to Level B, then adds enumeration, grounding, boundary-case, and consistency procedures absent from the target framework.
F042	4	B	extends	high	Recover the base deterministic, rubric, and cross-model text-testing pyramid that the source specializes into four single-note semantic checks and a separate review workflow.	If the target's Level A, B, and C boundaries or production workflow changed, recheck the source's classification of structural validation versus LLM semantic review and its placement at Level B.	The source adds concrete enumeration, grounding, boundary-case, and consistency checks beyond the target framework, so it develops the target rather than merely assuming it.	authorized	The target supplies a generic three-level testing framework and workflow; the source carries it further by defining four content-error checks, locating them at Level B, and deriving cost and failure semantics for Commonplace review.
F042	4	C	extends	high	Read the text-testing pyramid whose Level B region the source develops into concrete semantic checks and a review-system target.	If the target changed its deterministic, rubric, and adversarial levels, recheck the source's Level A and Level B mapping; the motivating content error could still stand.	This is extends rather than premised-on because the source adds four worked semantic checks, their methods, and an implementation split instead of merely assuming the taxonomy.	authorized	The target sketches Level A deterministic checks and Level B LLM rubrics; the source specializes that sketch into enumeration, grounding, boundary-case, and consistency checks that structural validation misses.
F043	1	A	see-also	medium	Compare the abstract full-state and bounded-prompt scheduler with a neighboring fast-path and live-fallback layering of retained knowledge.	If the target's two-layer model changed, recheck whether it remains a useful analogue for the scheduler's compact task-facing view; no substantive scheduler claim would need revision.	The target is not a scheduler component, prerequisite, or explanation of bounded-context orchestration; what survives is a useful structural adjacency rather than a causal edge.	candidate-delta	The source separates full symbolic state K from the bounded prompt selected for a call, while the target separates a narrowed methodology fast path from an accessible fuller theory fallback; their analogy is useful but neither artifact establishes the other's mechanism.
F043	1	B	see-also	medium	Compare per-call projection from full scheduler state with a durable fast-path and live-fallback layering pattern.	A change to the target's theory-methodology model would alter only the usefulness of this comparison, not the source's select/call model or its full-state and bounded-prompt invariants.	The target's derived methodology is neither the source's dynamically assembled prompt nor a component used by its scheduler, so explanation, operation, premise, and instance relations overstate the connection.	candidate-delta	The source keeps full symbolic state K outside bounded calls and selects task-facing prompts from it; the target instead retains a theory as live fallback beside a durable theory-derived methodology, making the two neighboring full-versus-shaped-layer patterns useful but not identical.
F043	1	C	other:exemplified-by	medium	A worked knowledge-layer instance in which a cheaper methodology fast path is selected while fuller theory remains accessible as fallback.	If the target stopped retaining accessible theory behind incomplete methodology or ceased to use a narrower fast path, remove or reclassify the instance edge; the generic scheduler model would remain.	The generic select-call architecture neither uses nor is explained by the target; the useful direction is general-to-instance, the inverse of exemplifies.	unknown	Here exemplified-by means that the target is a worked instance of the source's general model: the source keeps full explicit state K outside bounded calls and selects task-facing prompts, while the target keeps fuller theory available behind a cheaper derived methodology layer for out-of-coverage fallback.
F044	2	A	operates-through	high	Understand the precompute-and-insert process by which a remediation-bearing error avoids making the agent diagnose an already-known fix.	If the target's frontloading conditions excluded fixes known when an error message is authored or fired, or no longer saved realized execution context, recheck the source's context and reliability benefit.	The teaching error literally embeds a precomputed answer in the later call's context, so the target process is used to produce the effect rather than merely explaining it.	candidate-new	The source contrasts a bare warning with one that inserts the required remediation; the target defines frontloading as computing known instruction inputs before the consuming call and inserting the result to spare context.
F044	2	B	operates-through	high	Follow the target to understand the precompute-and-insert operation by which a teaching error replaces runtime diagnosis and saves execution context.	If the target's frontloading boundary changed so that a known remediation inserted before the next call did not count, or no longer removed repeated discovery work, recheck the source's claimed context saving.	operates-through over exemplifies: the teaching message directly inserts the already-known fix to produce the source's saved-diagnosis effect, so frontloading is the causal operation and not merely a general class illustrated by the source.	candidate-new	The source contrasts a bare warning with one that already states the corrective action and says the latter spares diagnosis; the target defines frontloading as computing known inputs before the consuming call and inserting the result to avoid precisely that execution-context work.
F044	2	C	operates-through	high	Inspect the precompute-and-insert path by which remediation-rich errors spare the agent from diagnosing a known fix.	If frontloading excluded author-known remediation or inserting the fix no longer spared realized execution context, recheck the source's claimed context and reliability advantage for teaching errors.	Operation rather than explanation: the teaching message contains the precomputed remedy in the error channel, so frontloading is the realized path and not only a principle cited after the fact.	candidate-new	The source contrasts a bare warning with an error that already states the violated bound and corrective action; the target defines frontloading as computing known instruction inputs before the consuming call and inserting the result to avoid discovery, tool, and reasoning cost.
F046	3	A	explained-by	high	Understand the cross-run cost behind the checklist's repeated-rediscovery reason to codify.	If discarded generated artifacts could still support testing, reuse, and cross-run learning, recheck the source's pro-codification heuristic for recurring operations.	Explained-by beats premised-on because the target derives the cost from the generate-execute-discard lifecycle rather than merely asserting that persistence is desirable.	candidate-new	The source includes repeated LLM re-derivation as one reason to codify while balancing four decision lenses; the target explains that ephemeral artifacts are discarded after execution and therefore cannot accumulate, be tested, reviewed, or reused across runs.
F046	3	B	explained-by	medium	Understand the recurring token, reuse, and learning cost introduced when LLM-generated work is discarded rather than persisted.	If ephemeral generation can accumulate, test, review, and reuse discoveries across runs without retained artifacts, recheck the source's rediscovery-cost heuristic for codifying work.	Unlike premised-on, the target supplies the causal discard-to-no-accumulation account rather than merely an assumed condition, and unlike see-also it grounds a specific decision prompt.	candidate-new	The source says repeated LLM rediscovery is a reason to codify and flags the structural cost of leaving work in the LLM regime; the target explains that generate-execute-discard loses cross-run learning, testing, review, and reuse.
F046	3	C	explained-by	medium	Understand the cross-run cost behind leaving work to fresh LLM generation: discarded artifacts cannot be tested, reused, or accumulated.	If ephemeral generation could accumulate discovered patterns without retaining artifacts, recheck the source's cost argument for the LLM side and its rediscovery heuristic.	Explained-by, not premised-on: the target gives the causal discard-to-no-reuse-and-no-learning account rather than merely an assumed proposition.	candidate-new	The source includes repeated rediscovery and lack of stable patterns among the codify-versus-LLM considerations; the target explains those costs by contrasting generate-execute-discard with saved, tested, versioned, reusable artifacts.
F048	4	A	see-also	medium	See a practical progressive-disclosure policy for deciding which instructions enter an otherwise flat context and how often.	If the target no longer recommended loading task-specific instructions on demand by specificity and frequency, recheck it as a mitigation companion; the source's no-intrinsic-scope diagnosis would remain.	see-also rather than operates-through because the loading policy controls membership before a call but neither produces flat concatenation nor supplies enforced scope among tokens already in the call.	candidate-delta	The source argues that concatenated tokens are globally visible and that real boundaries must be imposed outside the model; the target offers an always-loaded versus on-demand instruction hierarchy that limits exposure without creating within-window scope.
F048	4	B	see-also	medium	Move from the diagnosis of intrinsically flat in-window semantics to adjacent progressive-disclosure guidance for deciding which instruction material enters the window and when.	If the target abandoned its selective loading hierarchy, only this practical mitigation traversal would need recheck; the source's no-native-scope claim and empirical support would remain.	The target neither causes nor explains flat concatenation and is not its prerequisite; it is an adjacent loading response after the stronger exact relations are ruled out.	candidate-delta	The source shows that all loaded tokens share one unscoped attention field and says boundaries must be imposed outside it; the target supplies the useful neighboring rule that universal instructions load always while task-specific instructions load on demand.
F048	4	C	evidenced-by	medium	Inspect a concrete progressive-disclosure hierarchy showing architecture deciding which instructions enter context and when.	If the target stopped prescribing tiered on-demand loading, recheck it as support for architecture-imposed scope; the source's flat-concatenation diagnosis would remain.	This is evidenced-by rather than explained-by because the target does not account for the absence of native scope; it supplies a design case that corroborates architectural selection of context.	authorized	The source argues natural-language context has no enforced local scope and must be bounded externally; the target describes always-loaded routers plus on-demand skill bodies and task documents that impose such loading boundaries.
F050	1	A	exemplifies	high	Use the general artifact-verifiability ladder to interpret promotion from loose generated orchestration to tested library code.	If the target's ladder or placement criteria changed, recheck the source's description of test-gated promotion as movement toward verifiability; its cross-task persistence argument would remain.	The source is a concrete promotion design on the target's general gradient; the target categorizes that movement but does not explain the source's opposing reuse economics.	authorized	The source moves recurring model-authored select fragments into deterministic tested functions, while the target orders artifacts from loose prompts through schemas and tests to deterministic modules.
F050	1	B	exemplifies	high	See the source's test-gated promotion path as a concrete placement and movement on the target's general verifiability ladder.	If tested deterministic modules no longer occupied a more readily verified grade than loose model-authored code, recheck the source's trust-gate characterization, while its cross-task persistence asymmetry could remain.	The gradient is a taxonomy the proposed cache instantiates, not an executable control path through which promotion runs.	authorized	The source moves recurring model-authored REPL orchestration into tested deterministic library functions, a worked instance of the target's bidirectional placement gradient from loose prompts to testable code.
F050	1	C	exemplifies	medium	The general verifiability ladder under which promotion from loose model-authored orchestration to tested deterministic library code falls.	If the target no longer placed tested deterministic code above loose model-authored artifacts in verifiability, recheck the source's gradient classification and trust-gate framing; its cross-task persistence argument could remain.	The target does not explain why run state and selection strategies have opposite reuse value; the source's test-gated promotion is a concrete movement on the target's more general ladder.	authorized	The source proposes promoting recurring select fragments from ephemeral model-authored code into tested reusable functions, while the target describes learning as tightening artifacts from loose prompts toward tests and deterministic modules; the promotion is an instance of that movement.
F051	2	A	extends	high	Read the earlier boundary-statability argument and the open question about who can judge whether a proposed lesson's boundary is trustworthy.	If the target retracted boundary-statability as the abstraction discriminator or no longer treated stating a boundary as judgment, recheck the source's boundary-matching contrast and natural-language capability gap.	The source names and develops the missing assessment capability that the target explicitly leaves open; it therefore extends the target rather than merely assuming or explaining it.	authorized	The target says trustworthy abstraction requires a statable condition clause but leaves mechanical judgment unresolved; the source defines reach-assessment precisely as judging whether that claimed boundary has genuine explanatory reach.
F051	2	B	extends	medium	Follow the target for the antecedent boundary-statability test and its explicit gap about who can judge a boundary, which the source turns into a named evaluation capability.	If the target retracted the distinction between preserving an instance and abstracting only with a statable boundary, or made boundary judgment mechanical, recheck the source's natural-language reach-assessment gap and boundary-matching contrast.	extends over premised-on: the source does more than assume the target's boundary judgment; it names the missing capability and develops causal, proof, and world-model routes for assessing whether the stated boundary is genuine.	authorized	The target argues that trustworthy abstraction requires a condition clause and leaves the act of stating it as an unresolved judgment; the source explicitly picks up that opening, distinguishes mere boundary matching from judging boundary honesty, and develops it into reach-assessment across representational forms.
F051	2	C	extends	high	See the boundary-statability rule and open judgment problem that reach-assessment develops into a named evaluator capability.	If the target dropped boundary-statability as the abstraction discriminator or claimed that stating a clause mechanically verifies generalization, recheck the source's separation of boundary matching from genuine reach-assessment.	Extension rather than premise: the source adds a distinct capability, form-specific routes, and exclusions beyond the target's memory-formation rule instead of merely assuming that rule.	authorized	The target requires a statable applicability boundary before turning an episode into a lesson and explicitly leaves the judging mechanism open; the source carries that gap further by naming reach-assessment, distinguishing it from matching a stated boundary, and mapping causal, proof, and predictive routes.
F052	3	A	explained-by	high	Understand why verification strength sets how much each KB objective and profile can be automated and what judge it needs.	If oracle strength did not control reliable selection and automation, recheck the verification constraint and the claimed hard, behavioral, and wide-judge profile ordering.	Explained-by beats operates-through because the target supplies the general oracle-strength principle; the source, not the target, instantiates the actual profile-specific checks.	candidate-new	The source makes verification one of four constraints pruning objective choice and orders descriptive, prescriptive, and theoretical profiles by judge strength; the target explains the hard-to-no-oracle gradient and why weak discrimination limits automated verification and generator-verifier designs.
F052	3	B	explained-by	high	Understand why verifiability bounds automation and why theoretical, descriptive, and prescriptive profiles require different judging regimes.	If oracle strength no longer tracks the cost and reliability of checking correctness, recheck the source's fourth pruning constraint and its per-profile judge analysis.	Unlike operates-through, the oracle spectrum is a conceptual explanatory gradient for the source's verification constraint, not an operational component that executes objective selection.	candidate-new	The source makes verification one of four constraints that turn KB objective choice into engineering and differentiates profile judges by oracle strength; the target supplies the hard, soft, interactive, delayed, and no-oracle account and explains the consequences of hardening that gradient.
F052	3	C	premised-on	high	Inspect the hard, soft, interactive, delayed, and no-oracle framework assumed when the source differentiates profile judge strength and automation.	If oracle strength were not a meaningful gradient or did not bound reliable verification, recheck the source's fourth pruning constraint and per-profile judge hierarchy.	Premised-on, not explained-by: the target supplies the verification taxonomy and assumptions, while the source itself explains how four constraints prune the objective space.	candidate-new	The source treats verifiability as one of four inherited constraints and ranks descriptive, prescriptive, and theoretical profiles by their available judges; the target provides the oracle-strength spectrum on which those rankings depend.
F053	4	A	extends	high	Read the general deploy-time adaptation model that the source develops into selective promotion of reusable scheduler strategies.	If the target ceased to count durable cross-session system-definition updates as learning, recheck the source's characterization of strategy promotion and the loop its cache is said to close.	extends rather than exemplifies because the source adds a run-state versus strategy lifecycle asymmetry, separate fit and trust gates, and a cache design rather than merely presenting one instance.	authorized	The source proposes promoting recurring tested select fragments while leaving task state ephemeral; the target defines deploy-time learning as durable, inspectable system-definition change across sessions and describes reversible movement toward code.
F053	4	B	exemplifies	high	See the test-gated orchestrator cache as a concrete cross-session system-definition update on the target's deploy-time learning timescale.	If the target no longer classified durable repo artifacts updated across deployment sessions as learning, recheck whether selective strategy promotion instantiates it; the source's lifecycle economics would remain.	The target names the general timing category rather than an executable control path used by the cache, so the concrete promotion design exemplifies it rather than operates through it.	authorized	The source proposes retaining tested recurring select fragments in a durable library while discarding task state; the target defines deploy-time learning as durable, inspectable system-definition artifacts updated across sessions during deployment.
F053	4	C	exemplifies	medium	Place the source's tested cross-task orchestrator write-back inside the target's broader category of deploy-time learning through durable artifacts.	If the target no longer classified cross-session updates to durable system-definition artifacts as deploy-time learning, recheck the source's characterization of its promotion loop; the persistence economics could remain.	This is exemplifies rather than operates-through because the proposed cache is a concrete instance of the target's timing-and-medium claim, not a separate component that invokes the target.	authorized	The source proposes promoting recurring tested select fragments into a durable repository while leaving run state ephemeral; the target defines cross-session artifact updates during deployment as the missing learning timescale.
F057	1	A	extends	medium	Recover the frontloading account whose brief validity-window obligation the source develops into a lineage and change-interruption design.	If the target's account of frontloaded artifacts or their validity windows changed, recheck the source's application to generated instructions, while its broader source-dependency claim could remain.	The source carries the target's short lineage requirement into a fuller maintenance architecture, so it develops the target rather than merely assuming it or serving as its example.	authorized	The target says precomputed instruction content needs a validity window and lineage when inputs can change; the source develops how that dependency should surface downstream review targets and where its forward and reverse records may live.
F057	1	B	extends	high	Read the frontloading argument whose validity-window concern the source develops into a general downstream-review and lineage-placement policy.	If frontloading no longer precomputed source-dependent material or no longer needed validity tracking, recheck that application and the source's consumer-hidden lineage case, while its broader dependency rule could survive.	The source carries the target's precompute-and-insert argument into maintenance design; it is not itself an instance of frontloading and does not use the target as an operating component.	authorized	The target says frontloaded artifacts need lineage and regeneration when inputs change; the source develops that consequence into interruption-first forward dependency signaling while allowing reverse provenance to remain searchable and outside consumer-visible instructions.
F057	1	C	extends	high	The frontloading mechanism and its validity-window problem that the lineage policy develops beyond the instruction case.	If the target removed source dependence or validity-window maintenance from frontloaded artifacts, recheck frontloading as the motivating special case; the source's broader upstream-change policy could remain.	The source does more than instantiate the target: it generalizes the target's brief lineage requirement and specifies interruption placement, forward review targets, and searchable reverse lineage.	authorized	The target says precomputed inserted values need lineage or regeneration when their inputs can change; the source develops that observation into a general rule and storage design for surfacing every source-dependent downstream artifact when an upstream source changes.
F062	2	A	extends	medium	See the original cross-task reuse-value metric and scheduler lifecycle contrast that the source generalizes from orchestration parts to KB structure.	If the target changed the reuse metric or no longer separated reusable select strategies from task-specific run state, recheck the source's use of the metric and analogy; its structural-drift mechanism would remain.	The source carries the target's persistence criterion into a broader structural domain; the target does not explain why wikis accrete task-fitted structure, so this is extends rather than explained-by.	authorized	The target defines cross-task reuse value by contrasting reusable select strategies with task-specific K; the source applies that same quantity to constraint-derived versus task-derived KB structure under question drift.
F062	2	B	extends	medium	Follow the target for the definition and worked scheduler contrast behind cross-task reuse value, the quantity the source applies to retained KB structure.	If the target stopped treating benefit to a later different task as the persistence criterion, recheck the source's partition between permanent constraint-derived structure and replaceable task-derived structure.	extends over see-also: the source transfers the target's explicit lifecycle metric from scheduler parts to KB structural choices and derives a new harden-versus-configure rule, rather than offering only adjacency.	authorized	The target separates reusable selection strategies from task-specific run state by cross-task reuse value; the source applies that same measure to types, tags, schemas, and indexes, arguing that task fit spends future reuse while constraint-derived structure survives drift.
F062	2	C	extends	high	See the originating select-versus-K case for the cross-task reuse metric that the source carries into KB structure.	If cross-task reuse ceased to mean later-task gain or no longer governed persistence value in the target, recheck the source's named quantity and its constraint-derived versus task-derived partition.	Extension rather than explanation: the source transports the target's reuse criterion to a new artifact class and time-drift problem; the target does not explain why wiki structure accretes.	authorized	The target separates ephemeral run state from promotable scheduling strategies by later-task reuse value; the source generalizes that criterion to types, tags, indexes, and contracts, arguing that task-fitted structure loses value as a KB's question set changes.
F063	3	A	explained-by	medium	Understand why retained process and failure detail determines whether an agent can infer a bounded lesson instead of only score an episode.	If richer traces did not improve causal hypothesis formation over scores-only feedback, recheck the source's claim that inspectable failure evidence supplies lesson boundaries.	Explained-by beats operates-through because the target explains the evidential bottleneck generally, while the source names the actual feedback and verification paths used in abstraction.	candidate-new	The source says directives, uncompressed reflection, and process checks preserve the condition clause needed for safe abstraction; the target distinguishes diagnostic evidence from selection scores and shows that trace access lets an outer-loop proposer search through causes rather than outcomes alone.
F063	3	B	premised-on	medium	Verify the premise that inspectable traces and directive failure evidence let a learner form causal hypotheses and recover scope conditions before abstracting a lesson.	If scores or summaries alone support equally good causal proposals and diagnostic richness does not constrain learning quality, recheck the source's claim that surviving failure evidence supplies a lesson's boundary.	Unlike explained-by, the target does not explain why boundaryless abstraction overgeneralizes; it supplies the evidence-availability premise on which the source's boundary-extraction criterion relies.	candidate-new	The source requires a condition clause before turning an episode into a rule and says directive, inspectable failure evidence carries that boundary; the target distinguishes selection scores from diagnostic evidence and shows why traces and drill-down surfaces support causal hypothesis formation.
F063	3	C	explained-by	high	Understand why preserved traces and directive failure detail are needed to infer a causal hypothesis and a condition boundary for a reusable lesson.	If diagnostic richness did not constrain proposal quality in outer-loop learning, recheck the source's claim that inspectable failure evidence carries boundaries while scalar or compressed feedback strips them.	Explained-by, not premised-on: the target gives the causal account that richer evidence lets the proposer search through causes, explaining why boundary-bearing failure detail matters.	candidate-new	The source makes boundary-statability the test for safe abstraction and identifies directive and process evidence as boundary carriers; the target explains that traces, diffs, and tool state support causal hypothesis formation whereas scores alone mainly select winners.
F066	4	A	is-evidence-for	high	Interpret the cache-aware review telemetry as a concrete case of oracle hardening and the danger of trusting a convenient proxy metric.	If the target withdrew its claim that verification and measurement quality are an engineering bottleneck, recheck whether this cost correction materially supports that claim rather than merely standing alone.	is-evidence-for rather than exemplifies because the measured comparison shows that raw-token totals are a misleading soft proxy and that a stronger cost model changes the magnitude of the conclusion.	candidate-delta	The source reweights observed review runs by cache-write, cache-read, input, and output prices and finds a smaller but still substantial saving; the target argues for hardening weak oracles and investing in telemetry that discriminates the real objective.
F066	4	B	is-evidence-for	medium	Connect the cache-aware telemetry observation to the target's broader claim that oracle strength and correct signal interpretation govern verification investment.	If the target withdrew telemetry as oracle hardening or no longer treated proxy-objective mismatch as an oracle-strength problem, recheck whether this cost-weighting case bears on it; the measured run totals would remain.	This is an observed case in which reweighting the proxy changes the estimated gain, so it supplies evidence for a theory rather than merely implementing or instantiating its architecture.	candidate-delta	The source's review-store measurements show raw-token reductions overstating billing gains because cached and output tokens carry different costs; the target argues for manufacturing and monitoring better verification signals and warns that apparently strong proxies may track the real objective poorly.
F066	4	C	is-evidence-for	medium	Connect the measured cache-aware metric correction to the broader claim that weak telemetry proxies need hardening before they can guide engineering.	If the target narrowed oracle strength so that operational cost metrics no longer fell within its verification argument, recheck the evidential edge; the source's measured cost comparisons would stand.	This is is-evidence-for rather than exemplifies because the observed divergence between raw tokens and weighted cost empirically qualifies the target's telemetry prescription instead of only illustrating its vocabulary.	candidate-delta	The source shows that raw-token savings overstate billing gains until token classes are weighted by their actual prices; the target argues that proxy signals and telemetry must be strengthened because verification quality, not mere measurement volume, is the bottleneck.
F071	1	A	explained-by	high	Understand why heterogeneous partial checks can strengthen the weak operative oracle that underselects a quality.	If the target's discriminative-power or decorrelation account failed, recheck the source's proposed composite-oracle remedy; the source's primary oracle-asymmetry conjecture could still stand.	The target supplies a theoretical amplification account, not a check or control path actually deployed by the source, so explanation beats operates-through.	candidate-new	The source argues that weakly discriminated qualities drift and proposes combining genuinely discriminating, differently failing checks; the target explains that amplification works only with TPR above FPR and sufficiently decorrelated errors.
F071	1	B	explained-by	high	Understand why combining partial quality checks strengthens selection only under discrimination and error-diversity conditions.	If TPR greater than FPR or decorrelation were not required for amplification, recheck the source's composite-oracle prescription, while its unequal-oracle underselection conjecture would remain separately argued.	The target supplies the statistical account for when check aggregation works; it is not one of the checks literally executed by the source's selection loop.	candidate-new	The source proposes heterogeneous checks to strengthen weak quality oracles and warns that repeated correlated review amplifies blind spots; the target explains this with the TPR-FPR gap and decorrelated-error requirements and quantifies the amplification cost.
F071	1	C	operates-through	high	The repetition and aggregation process by which heterogeneous partial checks can produce a stronger composite oracle.	If the target's discrimination or decorrelation conditions changed, recheck the source's proposed composite-oracle construction and its claim that heterogeneous checks can expand warranted selection.	The target is not merely a premise explaining oracle asymmetry; its aggregation of discriminating, decorrelated checks is the process used to produce the stronger oracle proposed by the source.	candidate-new	The source proposes combining maintainability and KB-quality signals only when they discriminate and fail differently; the target specifies error correction by above-chance checks with decorrelated errors as the process that amplifies such weak signals rather than merely multiplying a shared blind spot.
F080	2	A	premised-on	medium	Understand the broader decomposition of a full memory system into storage, retrieval or activation, and learning against which the source scopes remembered-material quality.	If the target rejected that crosscutting decomposition or located remembered material differently, recheck the source's distinction between its triad and the surrounding memory machinery.	The target supplies the theoretical scope the source assumes; it neither explains why discoverability, composability, and trust are minimal nor operates those properties.	candidate-new	The source limits itself to remembered artifacts and places capture, activation, lifecycle, and governance around its quality triad; the target argues that full memory systems cross storage, context activation, and learning machinery.
F080	2	B	extends	high	Follow the target for the broader storage, activation, and learning decomposition that locates the source's remembered-material quality test inside a full memory system.	If the target rejected that memory machinery spans storage, context activation, and learning, recheck the source's decision to treat capture, activation, lifecycle, and governance as surrounding mechanisms rather than peer artifact properties.	extends over premised-on: the source specializes the target's whole-system decomposition by adding a discoverable-composable-trusted basis for the remembered artifacts themselves, rather than merely relying on the decomposition as an assumption.	authorized	The target argues that memory is crosscutting machinery distributed over storage, context engineering, and learning; the source explicitly narrows from that whole system to remembered material and develops a three-property artifact-quality basis while placing the target's machinery around it.
F080	2	C	contrasts	medium	Distinguish quality requirements of remembered artifacts from system-wide storage, activation, and learning concerns so the triad is not mistaken for an exhaustive memory architecture.	If the target's decomposition of whole memory systems changed, recheck the source's scope boundary and its placement of capture, activation, lifecycle, and governance around the triad, not necessarily the three property definitions.	Contrast rather than premise: the discoverable-composable-trusted claim does not assume that memory is crosscutting; the stable value of the edge is the explicit difference between artifact quality and whole-system machinery.	authorized	The source deliberately limits itself to the quality of remembered material and places capture, activation, and governance around that basis; the target analyzes the broader system as storage, retrieval or activation, and learning distributed across runtime concerns.
F086	3	A	defined-in	high	Resolve the technical meaning of constraining in the rejected-interpretation-to-test proposal.	If constraining ceased to mean narrowing valid interpretations, recheck whether encoding rejected interpretations as instruction tests is correctly characterized.	Defined-in beats explained-by because the target is the canonical definition under notes/definitions and the source uses the term to classify one proposed practice.	authorized	The source calls durable tests made from rejected interpretations constraining; the target defines constraining as narrowing valid readings and includes conventions, schemas, validators, and tests that rule out previously plausible interpretations.
F086	3	B	defined-in	high	Resolve the precise meaning of constraining when a user correction narrows the interpretations later instructions admit.	If the definition stops covering conventions or instruction changes that rule out previously legitimate readings, recheck the source's characterization of rejected-interpretation capture as constraining.	Defined-in outranks a causal relation because the target is the definition under kb/notes/definitions and the source explicitly applies the defined term.	authorized	The source calls instruction refinement after a rejected interpretation constraining; the target defines constraining as narrowing valid interpretations and explicitly includes conventions, structured text, and other natural-language artifacts without requiring runtime enforcement.
F086	3	C	defined-in	high	Resolve what constraining means in the source's claim that encoding a rejected interpretation as an instruction test narrows future readings.	If the definition stopped including instruction or test artifacts that rule out previously valid readings, recheck the source's characterization of rejected-interpretation tests.	Defined-in, not operates-through: the target is the definition under notes/definitions, while the concrete operating path is encoding the user's correction as a test or example.	authorized	The source explicitly calls correction-driven instruction refinement constraining; the target defines constraining as narrowing valid interpretations and lists conventions, structured sections, validators, and tests as instances.
F088	4	A	extends	high	Read the broader distinction between constraints on reasoning process and constraints on result shape that the source carries into evaluator design.	If the target no longer supported process and output as independent dimensions, recheck the source's route-versus-destination framing and its proposed validity checks.	extends rather than premised-on because the source adds the answer-reconstruction failure mechanism, VAIR evidence, and a concrete gate test, carrying the target's distinction into semantic review.	authorized	The source distinguishes producing the right answer from validating the submitted reasoning path and prescribes route inspection; the target establishes process structure and output structure as independent levers with empirical examples.
F088	4	B	extends	high	Recover the broader distinction between process and output levers that the source specializes to reasoning-route validity versus conclusion correctness in evaluation.	If the target showed process and output structure were not independent, recheck the source's analogy and its recommendation to test route and destination separately; the reported evaluator-substitution finding would still stand.	The source adds an evaluator substitution mechanism, VAIR evidence, and review consequences to the target's general two-lever distinction, so it extends rather than merely presupposes it.	authorized	The target separates constraints on reasoning steps from constraints on final result shape; the source carries that separation into review, showing that a model can reconstruct a correct answer while failing to inspect the submitted reasoning path.
F088	4	C	extends	high	Follow the general distinction between reasoning-process constraints and result-shape constraints that the source specializes to evaluator design.	If the target rejected the independence of process and output structure, recheck the source's process-validity framing and route-inspection tests; the VAIR observation could remain.	This is extends rather than premised-on because the source develops the distinction into a specific answer-reconstruction failure mode and concrete reviewer checks.	authorized	The target separates constraints on how reasoning proceeds from constraints on final form; the source carries that split into review, showing that a correct destination can coexist with an invalid evaluated route.
F092	1	A	exemplifies	high	See the general automation principle instantiated by the enforce-or-omit rule for mechanically recomputable copies.	If the target no longer located automation at cheap verification, recheck the source's framing of deterministic validation as the regime boundary; its stale-copy asymmetry would still stand.	The source establishes a specific derived-copy case and the target states the broader automation generalization, so the direction is instance-to-general rather than premise-to-dependent claim.	authorized	The source permits retained recomputable copies only where a cheap machine check can rederive and compare them, while the target says automation becomes viable where verification is cheap and stalls where it is expensive.
F092	1	B	exemplifies	high	Connect the checked-or-absent rule for derived copies to the broader class of tasks whose automation depends on cheap verification.	If cheap verification ceased to determine automatable trust decisions, recheck the source's placement of mechanical copies on that boundary, though its stale-copy asymmetry and four explicit preconditions remain independent support.	The source is a specialized enforceable-copy case of the target's general principle; the target is not the validator or derivation path used to check any copy.	authorized	The source permits automated trust only when a deterministic validator can re-derive and compare a copy and otherwise requires omission or live reading, concretely instantiating the target's claim that cheap oracles determine automation boundaries.
F092	1	C	exemplifies	high	The general verification-boundary claim under which deterministic enforcement of recomputable copies is a concrete case.	If the target no longer treated cheap per-instance verification as the structural condition for automation, recheck presenting the checked-copy rule as its instance; the source's local stale-copy asymmetry could remain.	The source has its own specific proof from bounded recomputation versus silent stale-copy error, so the target generalizes the case rather than supplying that proof.	authorized	The source permits automated enforcement only when a validator can mechanically rederive and compare a copy, otherwise requiring omission; the target's broader claim is that automation advances where verification is cheap and stalls where it is judgment-heavy.
F094	2	A	prerequisite-hold	medium	Understand why a process check needs inspectable traces or intermediate evidence rather than a final score alone before it can discriminate a transferable rationale.	If diagnostic evidence were unavailable or did not expose mechanisms, recheck the source's claim that process verification can distinguish the right answer for the right reason and license abstraction.	The target is the evidence surface that must be available before the process oracle can inspect a route; it is not itself the verification operation, so this is prerequisite-hold rather than operates-through.	deferred-family	The source distinguishes outcome checks from checks over intermediate steps and requires the latter for rule abstraction; the target shows that scores select winners while traces and structured evidence expose the mechanisms needed for explanation.
F094	2	B	explained-by	medium	Follow the target for the evidence-quality account showing why an outcome score can select a winner without exposing the intermediate mechanism that a process check needs.	If the target showed that scores or final outcomes alone reliably expose causal routes, or that richer traces do not improve mechanism inference, recheck the source's claim that outcome verification cannot license rule abstraction.	explained-by over prerequisite-hold: the target supplies the causal account for why process evidence changes what can be inferred, not merely a diagnostic resource that must be available first.	candidate-new	The source separates replay licensed by a final-outcome pass from rule abstraction licensed by inspecting the route; the target independently separates selection signals from diagnostic traces and explains that only the richer evidence exposes mechanisms rather than merely identifying what won.
F094	2	C	prerequisite-hold	high	Establish that inspectable intermediate evidence is available before a process oracle can evaluate the route rather than only the outcome.	If traces, steps, or equivalent diagnostic surfaces are absent or cease to expose mechanism, limit the source's process-verification license to settings where such evidence is available.	Prerequisite rather than operation or explanation: diagnostic richness supplies the evidence a process check must consume, but it neither performs the check nor by itself licenses transfer.	deferred-family	The source says process verification distinguishes a transferable mechanism from a coincidental correct result by inspecting intermediate steps; the target shows that scores can select winners without explanation while traces and structured drill-down surfaces expose the mechanism needed for that inspection.
F095	3	A	evidenced-by	medium	Inspect an independent model-authored-orchestrator case that corroborates the compiled-coordination pattern.	If RLM did not have the model emit executable orchestration over recursive calls, recheck the claimed reuse of its model-writes-the-orchestrator distinction; the aggregate-authority argument would remain separately grounded.	Evidenced-by beats premised-on because the RLM case corroborates a structural pattern but is not required for the Claude workflow derivation or its authority analysis.	authorized	The source characterizes dynamic workflows as model-authored compiled coordination while analyzing their primitive and aggregate authority; the target documents the concrete RLM case in which a model writes Python orchestration over recursive sub-agent calls for symbolic execution.
F095	3	B	extends	high	See the model-authored symbolic-orchestration case that the source develops into persistent compiled coordination and an authority analysis.	If RLM no longer has the model write orchestrator code for execution on a symbolic substrate, recheck the source's base-case comparison; its primitive-versus-aggregate authority conclusion can remain independently argued.	Unlike premised-on, the source's authority result does not require the RLM case for truth; it carries the model-writes-the-orchestrator argument further into persistent sandboxed workflows.	authorized	The target explains how RLM has a model emit ephemeral REPL orchestration over sub-agents; the source develops that distinction into compiled persistent coordination and derives the further result that primitive channels stay fixed while aggregate effect volume expands.
F095	3	C	contrasts	medium	Compare a persistent compiled workflow with an ephemeral model-written RLM orchestrator to isolate the persistence and aggregate-effect difference while holding symbolic sub-agent orchestration common.	If RLM orchestrators became persistent or ceased to be model-authored symbolic dispatch, recheck the neighboring-shape comparison and the claimed reuse of the model-writes-the-orchestrator distinction.	Contrasts, not premised-on: the source's authority claim does not depend on the RLM case; the useful relation is a shared authoring shape with opposed persistence and resulting capacity.	authorized	The source analyzes reusable external coordination that escapes a single-context envelope and expands aggregate authority; the target describes the same model-authored symbolic sub-agent orchestration but emphasizes that its REPL code is discarded after each run.
F102	4	A	extends	high	Read the four-field risk triad whose authority-plus-lineage security question and sovereignty account the source develops into an authorization boundary.	If the target revised the authority-lineage security conjunction or stopped treating rollback as owner sovereignty, recheck the source's boundary diagnosis and control allocation.	extends rather than premised-on because the source develops the target's risk framing with two ingress mechanisms, a gate-bypass distinction, and version-bound consumption controls rather than merely assuming it.	authorized	The source explains how high-force channels admit content without matching authorization and requires enforcement tied to content version and use; the target frames security through behavioral authority plus lineage and defines rollback as a sovereignty capability.
F102	4	B	extends	high	Trace the authorization-bypass boundary back to the target's broader behavioral-authority plus lineage security question and its sovereignty account of rollback.	If the target changed the authority-lineage security conjunction or ceased treating rollback as owner sovereignty, recheck those foundations of the source's boundary and controls.	The source develops a general risk-triad question into a specific causal boundary and enforcement architecture, so extends is more exact than explained-by.	authorized	The target identifies security risk where untrusted or stale artifacts reach high-authority channels and defines rollback as a sovereignty capability; the source carries this further by separating authorization bypass from evaluator error and requiring version-and-use checks at consumption.
F102	4	C	extends	high	Read the four-field risk triad whose authority-plus-lineage security question the source develops into an authorization-to-force boundary and control set.	If the target changed its authority-lineage security conjunction or its sovereignty account of rollback, recheck the source's derivation of the boundary and recovery control; its attack examples could remain.	This is extends rather than explained-by because the source explicitly carries the target's review framework further into failure modes, authorization semantics, and enforcement requirements.	authorized	The target identifies security where untrusted or stale lineage reaches high behavioral authority and sovereignty in owner rollback; the source specializes those concerns into version-and-use authorization checks at every operative consumption path.
F103	1	A	defined-in	high	Resolve the technical meaning of codification used for promoting tested orchestration fragments into symbolic library artifacts.	If the definition's symbolic-crossing boundary changed, recheck the source's claim that test-gated promotion of select fragments is codification.	The target is literally the definition under kb/notes/definitions and the source uses its defined term; that is more exact than treating the cache design merely as an example.	authorized	The source calls promotion from model-authored orchestration into tested library code codification, and the target defines codification as constraining that crosses into a symbolic artifact with formal semantics or assigned consequences.
F103	1	B	defined-in	high	Resolve the technical meaning of codification used for promoting a recurring control strategy into library code.	If the definition stopped requiring a crossing from natural language into a symbolically consumed artifact, recheck the source's claim that its promotion step is codification.	The target is under kb/notes/definitions and defines the exact term the source applies; a causal or instance label would lose that lexical role.	authorized	The source calls promotion of model-authored orchestration into tested library code codification, and the target defines codification as constraining that crosses into code or another symbolic artifact with formal consequences.
F103	1	C	defined-in	high	The repository's exact technical meaning of codification used to classify promotion of a select fragment into library code.	If the target definition ceased to include executable code or required a different symbolic crossing, recheck calling the promoted control strategy codification.	The target is a definition artifact under kb/notes/definitions and the source uses its defined term, making defined-in more specific than explanation or premise.	authorized	The source calls promotion from model-authored orchestration into tested library code codification; the target defines codification as the natural-language-to-symbolic crossing into artifacts whose formal consumers assign consequences, with executable code as the main case.
F104	2	A	explained-by	high	Understand the discard-versus-persist trade-off that explains why RLM avoids artifact governance while Tendril gains reuse and inherits lifecycle costs.	If the target revised the claimed accumulation benefits or burdens of ephemerality, recheck the source's interpretation of the RLM and Tendril persistence placements, though their implementations would remain.	The source already identifies each system's discard or persist behavior; the target explains the consequences of those facts rather than adding an operating control path, so this is explained-by rather than operates-through.	candidate-new	The source compares task-local RLM artifacts with Tendril's durable capabilities and names their governance and reuse consequences; the target derives those same consequences from ephemeral generation-execution-discard versus accumulation.
F104	2	B	explained-by	high	Follow the target for the accumulation tradeoff that explains why task-local RLM code avoids lifecycle burden while persistent Tendril capabilities gain reuse and governance costs.	If the target overturned either side of the discard-versus-persist tradeoff, recheck the source's interpretation of the RLM and Tendril persistence placements and the costs assigned to them.	explained-by over exemplifies: the multi-system comparison uses the target's principle to account for the consequences of its persistence boundary, rather than serving only as a worked member of a general class.	candidate-new	The source contrasts discarded RLM orchestration with Tendril's retained capabilities and assigns reuse and lifecycle consequences to that boundary; the target explains those consequences as ephemerality's exchange of accumulation, testing, review, and reuse for a clean slate.
F104	2	C	operates-through	high	Inspect the generate-execute-discard lifecycle that realizes RLM's task-local persistence boundary and separates it from durable Tendril capabilities.	If RLM retained generated orchestrators after a task or the target's ephemeral lifecycle no longer included discarding them, recheck the source's RLM placement and its accumulation comparison.	Operation rather than explanation: discarding the generated program constitutes the task-local persistence behavior; the target is not merely a rationale for why that placement is convenient.	candidate-new	The source places standard and typed-combinator RLM variants at a per-task boundary because their orchestration state is discarded, while Tendril keeps generated tools; the target describes that exact generate, execute, discard process and its no-reuse and no-governance consequences.
F107	3	A	extends	high	See the broader abstraction rule that this note specializes by separating replay from rule promotion.	If boundary-statability no longer separated replayable instances from transferable lessons, recheck the scope and usefulness of the source's outcome-versus-process licensing rule.	Extends beats explained-by because the source adds the missing oracle axis and right-answer-wrong-reason argument to a target that already states the replay-versus-abstraction boundary.	authorized	The target says success is only an existence proof, recommends preserving it as a replayable instance, and requires an articulable mechanism and boundary for abstraction; the source develops that argument by showing why outcome checks license replay while only process checks inspect a transferable mechanism.
F107	3	B	extends	high	See the broader boundary-statability framework that the source sharpens by distinguishing what outcome and process oracles license.	If the target drops boundary-statability or its demonstration-versus-rule asymmetry, recheck the source's placement of process verification in the abstraction pipeline, though its right-answer-for-wrong-reason argument may stand.	Unlike explained-by, the target does not cause the oracle distinction; the source develops the target's process-verification observation into a finer replay-versus-rule licensing result.	authorized	The target says successes warrant replayable demonstrations and that process validation makes a rule's basis articulable but is not sufficient for a statable boundary; the source carries that argument further by separating outcome and process checks and assigning replay only to the former and abstraction to the latter.
F107	3	C	extends	high	See the broader abstraction rule that the source sharpens by distinguishing what outcome checks and process checks license.	If the target no longer required a statable boundary or preservation of an unbounded instance, recheck the source's claim that process verification is necessary but insufficient for abstraction while outcome verification licenses replay.	Extends, not prerequisite-hold: the source develops the target by adding an exact verification-axis distinction; the target is not something that must be available or completed before the source works.	authorized	The target says safe abstraction requires a condition boundary and that successes without earned boundaries should remain replayable instances; the source carries that argument further by showing why outcome checks license replay while only process checks inspect a transferable mechanism.
F111	4	A	evidenced-by	medium	Inspect a concrete hybrid-VM case of an interface-level mapping across natural-language and symbolic components while keeping wider reflective-coverage obligations distinct.	If the target no longer demonstrated shared interfaces and name-based dispatch across agents and tools, recheck the source's concrete mapping example and its evidentiary value.	evidenced-by rather than operates-through because unified calling is a case that corroborates and bounds interface-level mapping; the source explicitly says such an interface can support but does not establish reflective coverage.	authorized	The source grades coverage by represented forms and operation profiles and separates mapping coverage from authority, lineage, and modifiability; the target shows llm-do moving calls across neural and symbolic implementations through one stable convention.
F111	4	B	evidenced-by	medium	Inspect the target's llm-do shared namespace as a concrete interface-level cross-form mapping against the source's claim that mapping support is only one part of graded reflective coverage.	If the target no longer demonstrated implementation-agnostic dispatch between neural and symbolic callees, recheck it as support for the interface-mapping case; the source's coverage criterion would remain.	The source explicitly says shared callable interfaces may support but do not establish coverage, excluding operates-through; the target case therefore corroborates and bounds the claim rather than explaining it.	authorized	The source distinguishes mapping coverage from inspectability, modifiability, authority, and lineage; the target provides a concrete name-dispatched hybrid VM where agent and Python implementations share call sites, evidencing one mapping while leaving those other obligations open.
F111	4	C	evidenced-by	high	Inspect llm-do as a concrete interface-level mapping across neural and symbolic components while applying the source's stricter reflective-coverage criteria.	If the target no longer demonstrated a uniform cross-form call interface, remove or recheck it as case support; the source's graded coverage theory would remain.	This is evidenced-by rather than operates-through because the source says shared interfaces may support a mapping but do not themselves establish causally connected reflective coverage.	authorized	The source distinguishes mapping support from coverage, authority, lineage, and self-representation; the target supplies the concrete name-dispatched common interface that lets agent and Python implementations exchange places without call-site changes.
F112	1	A	exemplifies	high	Apply the general verifiability ladder to llm-do's movement between agent-backed and code-backed implementations.	If the target's gradient changed, recheck the source's placement of llm-do implementations along it; the persistence-boundary comparison would remain.	The source supplies a concrete interface and system comparison on the target's general ladder; the target does not explain why llm-do's stable calling convention reduces caller churn.	authorized	The source describes llm-do moving components between neural agents and symbolic Python behind one interface, while the target characterizes movement from loose LLM-interpreted artifacts toward deterministic testable modules.
F112	1	B	exemplifies	medium	Use the llm-do comparison as a concrete case of implementation moving between looser neural artifacts and deterministic symbolic ones.	If the target's grades or bidirectional tightening and loosening ceased to describe such movement, recheck the source's placement of llm-do, while its unified-call-interface evidence would remain.	The target names the general ladder instantiated by llm-do's refactoring affordance; it neither implements that interface nor explains why callers remain stable.	authorized	The source says llm-do preserves one calling convention while components move between agent-backed and Python implementations, furnishing a concrete case of the target's bidirectional movement between loosely interpreted and deterministic, testable artifacts.
F112	1	C	exemplifies	medium	The general verifiability-gradient claim under which llm-do's agent-to-code and code-to-agent refactoring can be understood.	If the target stopped treating tightening and loosening between LLM-interpreted and deterministic artifacts as bidirectional learning movement, recheck the source's interpretation of llm-do; its unified-interface facts would remain.	The source's unified calling convention explains how llm-do makes the movement cheap, while the target supplies the general ladder that this system-specific movement instantiates.	authorized	The source describes llm-do preserving callers while components move between agent-backed and Python implementations; the target describes bidirectional placement and movement between loose natural-language artifacts and deterministic code, making llm-do a concrete interface-level case.
F113	2	A	see-also	medium	Follow a downstream application that turns the source's naming-amortizes-discovery principle into an optimization over vocabulary for a bounded newcomer.	If the target stopped applying the naming principle to extraction-cost reduction, remove this companion edge; the source's general account of conjecture would be unaffected.	Direction rules out extends and exemplifies: the target, not the source, develops the source's naming claim, and the target-to-source edge already carries the specific mechanism.	candidate-delta	The source argues that naming a discovered structure makes later recognition cheap; the target uses that argument as one of two mechanisms for defining a minimum viable vocabulary, making it a useful downstream companion rather than a premise of the source.
F113	2	B	other:reframed-in	medium	Follow the target to see the source's naming-amortizes-recognition insight recast as an observer-relative optimization over vocabulary size and extraction cost.	If the target stopped using named concepts as the unit that reduces extraction cost, recheck or remove the downstream-reframing edge; the source's conjecture claim itself would remain independent.	other:reframed-in over see-also or extends: the target explicitly recasts a named source subclaim into a new analytic formulation, while extends would reverse the direction and see-also would lose the transformation.	unknown	reframed-in means that the target recasts a source subclaim in a new analytic frame without making the source depend on the target; here the source argues that naming a discovered structure amortizes later recognition, and the target uses that mechanism to formulate minimum vocabulary as maximal extraction-cost reduction for a bounded observer.
F113	2	C	other:developed-by	medium	Follow the source's naming-amortizes-discovery subclaim into the target's observer-bounded vocabulary optimization.	If the target ceased deriving minimum viable vocabulary from pre-named discoveries, recheck or remove the downstream-development edge; the source's conjecture account could otherwise remain unchanged.	Developed-by means the target carries a source argument further; it is the inverse direction of extends, because the source does not develop the target and is not an instance of the target's general claim.	unknown	The source argues that naming a newly conjectured structure amortizes recognition cost for later instances; the target explicitly takes that result as one of two mechanisms and develops it into a smallest-name-set objective for reducing a bounded observer's extraction cost.
F115	3	A	rests-on	high	Inspect the theoretical regularity-extraction claim on which the ADR bases its script-promotion signal.	If repeated stable behavior were not a sound trigger for extracting deterministic artifacts, recheck the ADR's multiple-unmodified-use promotion rule.	Rests-on beats operates-through because the ADR is a descriptive system decision depending on a theoretical claim; spec mining is not a runtime component of scripts/.	authorized	The ADR adopts repeated unmodified use with a stable interface as the signal for promoting a reusable script into a package command; the target theorizes the same watch-for-recurrence then extract-to-deterministic-artifact sequence as spec mining.
F115	3	B	rests-on	high	Inspect the theoretical basis for using recurrence with a stable pattern as the signal to promote reusable scripts into package commands.	If spec mining no longer treats repeated stable behavior as the trigger for extracting a deterministic artifact, reconsider the ADR's promotion signal.	This is descriptive-reference dependence on a theoretical notes claim: the adopted rule applies spec mining rather than merely presenting an adjacent example.	authorized	The ADR adopts repeated unmodified core logic across unrelated uses as the promotion signal for scripts; the target defines spec mining as observing recurring behavior and extracting stable regularities into deterministic, testable artifacts while warning against premature codification.
F115	3	C	rests-on	high	See the theoretical basis for the ADR's adopted stable repeated-use promotion signal from a reusable script to an installed command.	If spec mining no longer treated repeated stable behavior as the trigger for deterministic extraction, recheck the ADR's promotion signal and its rationale.	Rests-on, not operates-through: the ADR is a descriptive system-decision artifact depending on a theoretical claim, while the spec-mining note is not a runtime component of script promotion.	authorized	The ADR adopts repeated unmodified use with a stable interface as its promotion criterion; the target theorizes spec mining as observing repeated stochastic regularities and extracting them into deterministic, testable artifacts.
F116	4	A	extends	high	Read the single-call frontloading principle that the source generalizes into an iterative scheduler over explicit state and bounded calls.	If precomputing known inputs no longer spared realized execution context, recheck the source's single-step base case and part of its efficiency rationale for select-call separation.	extends rather than operates-through because frontloading is an optional single-step case that the source develops into a general iterative loop, not a process every conforming loop must literally use.	authorized	The source formalizes repeated selection from symbolic state into bounded prompts and explicitly treats frontloading as its single-step case; the target explains how precompute-and-insert moves known derivation and discovery work outside the consuming call.
F116	4	B	extends	high	Recover the single-call precompute-and-insert mechanism that the source generalizes into an iterative symbolic select and bounded-call loop.	If the target's claim that precomputing known inputs spares realized execution context were rejected, recheck the source's single-step foundation and scheduler-separation rationale.	The source turns the target's special-case transformation into a repeated architecture over explicit state; it develops the target rather than requiring frontloading as a component of every loop iteration.	authorized	The target explains how computing known inputs outside a consuming call saves volume, complexity, discovery, and tool-output load; the source generalizes that separation into a scheduler that selects prompts from explicit state and absorbs each bounded call's result.
F116	4	C	extends	high	Read the one-call frontloading mechanism that the source generalizes into an iterative select-call scheduler over explicit symbolic state.	If the target retracted the context saving from precomputing known inputs, recheck the source's claim that symbolic scheduling should do known work outside calls; the loop abstraction could remain.	This is extends rather than operates-through because the source explicitly generalizes the target's single-step mechanism into a repeated scheduling model.	authorized	The target explains precompute-and-insert as sparing one consuming call; the source makes external prompt assembly and state updates recurrent in its select-call loop and names frontloading as the single-step case it extends.
F119	1	A	exemplifies	high	Connect build-time and session-start configuration injection to the general rule of precomputing inputs known before a consuming call.	If the target's frontloading criterion changed, recheck the source's classification of template expansion, settings merge, and environment injection and their claimed context saving; the survey facts would remain.	The source catalogs concrete harness mechanisms and the target states their general precompute-and-insert pattern, so instance-to-general is more exact than target-to-source explanation.	authorized	The source describes resolving paths and settings before the first agent message, while the target defines frontloading as computing already-known instruction inputs before the consuming call to spare execution context.
F119	1	B	operates-through	high	Understand the precompute-and-insert process actually used to resolve installation or session configuration before the agent call.	If values were resolved inside the consuming call rather than beforehand and injected, the source mechanism would stop being frontloading even though conserving context could remain desirable.	Configuration injection literally performs the target's operation; the relation is stronger than an explanatory analogy because template expansion, settings merge, and environment resolution produce the ambient values.	candidate-new	The source's configuration surface resolves paths, settings, and environment-specific values before first use, while the target specifies frontloading as computing known instruction inputs before the consuming call and inserting the result to spare runtime context.
F119	1	C	explained-by	high	The partial-evaluation account of why resolving installation-specific values before a session avoids runtime discovery and context cost.	If the target changed the known-before-call or insertion conditions, recheck the source's explanation of configuration injection and its claimed context saving; the surveyed injection mechanisms could remain.	Actual injection uses templates, settings merges, or environment values; the target explains their shared context-saving effect rather than serving as one injected component.	candidate-new	The source describes build-time or session-start resolution of paths, settings, and environment-specific values before the agent sees them; the target explains how precomputing known inputs and inserting their results spares the later call's discovery, indirection, and reasoning context.
F122	2	A	contrasts	high	Compare reactive traversal-time noticing and deferred logging with a proactive dependency-and-timestamp scan that can prompt review before traversal.	If the target no longer relied on traversal noticing or no longer deferred fixes through a log, recheck the source's current-baseline and before-traversal distinction; its detector would otherwise remain.	Both notes address stale graph maintenance but place detection at different times and control paths; the target neither produces nor explains the timestamp mechanism, so contrasts fits better than operates-through.	authorized	The source walks outbound links and compares git modification times to flag possible staleness before a reader encounters it; the target captures staleness noticed during traversal and defers repair through a log.
F122	2	B	extends	high	Follow the target for the reactive traversal-and-log baseline that the source develops into proactive dependency-aware staleness detection.	If the target no longer claimed that traversal is where stale references are noticed and deferred for later repair, recheck the source's current-state premise and its claimed before-traversal improvement.	extends over contrasts: timestamp scanning adds a compatible earlier detection stage to the target's reactive logging workflow instead of presenting an incompatible neighboring design.	authorized	The target describes stale references as one class of defect noticed during ordinary traversal and captured for a later pass; the source starts from that happenstance detection path and adds link-graph plus git-time scanning so review can be prompted before traversal encounters the stale note.
F122	2	C	contrasts	high	Compare incidental traversal-time noticing and deferred logging with proactive link-and-timestamp detection before traversal.	If the target no longer treated traversal as the current noticing channel or no longer deferred stale-reference repair through logging, recheck the source's baseline and its claimed before-traversal distinction.	Contrast rather than operation: the target describes the reactive workflow the source proposes to precede, not a process used to produce the timestamp detector.	authorized	The source proposes dependency-aware timestamp review because staleness is currently found only when a note is reread; the target describes that neighboring traversal-time path, where an agent notices stale references during another task and logs them for a later pass.