Turn 4: evidence that can challenge apparent progress

Boundary decision

Turn 3 completed four fresh sequential roles; returned paths are retained. Accept bounded clarification as a candidate entry route, not an established new steering theory. Renewal requires a changed allocation reason, which can still be rationalized. Actual incumbent distinctions must remain visible: some apparent discoveries merely restated existing notes.

Select the recommended question: what must be acquired, retained and reconsidered to detect when a locally improved account loses an older distinction or future learning opportunity? This serves the brief's compression/retention axis and connects it to question selection. Strongest alternative is solving the confidence note's assurance premise alone; park exclusive pursuit because this turn needs the cross-case evidence requirement, not another local repair. No prose residual is presumed lossless and no whole-history test is demanded.

A: work through confidence/inference constraints and before/after preservation of consequential distinctions; produce a concrete qualitative comparison, not an empirical experiment. B: independently investigate acquisition, selective retention, reacquisition and hidden deterioration across other existing cases, including how lost relevance could become discoverable. Specify what cannot be recovered. Both own their result only, depth 2/workers 2, no current-peer reading. Critic/integrator zero delegation. No new source allocation or source mutation. No experiments, storage design or edits beyond run outputs. Model inherited; no operator intervention. Costs pending aggregation before final turn.