Turn 2: what does unexplained success let us learn?

Boundary decision

Turn 1 completed four fresh sequential roles; returned session and execution paths are in its *-return.json records. Accept the integration's limited finding: a recovery example may be misclassified; this is not yet a refutation of the scoped mechanism or evidence for superior curiosity. Grounding added eleven excerpts to the priority source. Worker-reported validations passed. Costs will be read from audit records; currently not aggregated.

Pursue whether success attributed to recovery exposes a missing condition, mere evidence correction, or missing acquisition. This serves learning from regularities across cases, not just defect repair. Strongest alternative: jump directly to general retention design or measure compression; parked because the actual discriminating information should constrain retention first. Avoid spending all remaining turns on the supplied discrepancy: this turn must yield what inquiry can and cannot originate from it.

Assignments (fresh, sequential): A examines the actual recovery account and cited cases, preserving scope and evidence absence; B independently examines what recoverable records and qualitative comparisons would discriminate explanations of successful work, including a different KB case where useful. Neither reads the other's current result. Both have depth 2/workers 2 and own only their respective result. No source mutation destinations allocated. Critic and integrator have no delegation and own their named files. All inherit run boundaries. Conceptual model inherited. No operator intervention since authorization; no experiments.