queue: dating erratum, mine, one bullet late -- the (C) counts (57 occurrences on 51 lines, 34 in the first 8529) were dated readings taken immediately BEFORE this append, and the file now reads 59 occurrences on 53 lines because the block itself names Q53 twice; the standing rule is restated and now applied to itself (an occurrence count inside a file the same append modifies must be dated or omitted), and the enumerated-repeat claim is unaffected: sed -n '8883,8884p' WORK-QUEUE.md | grep -o ':[0-9]{4}' | wc -l returns 17 tokens = the opener :7292 plus the sixteen repeats, which is the unit the word sixteen counts. One of my two probes for that count misfired (a find returned no segment where the string plainly sits) and is logged as a probe artifact so the number is not mistaken for unsupported.

WORK-QUEUE.md

@@ -8948,4 +8948,6 @@ edited, no secret printed.
 - **(A) Real, mine, and uneditable: `cb0fffd`'s body misattributes the wake.** It reads "the monitor's wake was my own commit (branch-head `e1fbb14065f8` -> `fc7f90878ec0` = reply 55)". `e1fbb14` and `c7da579` are **Merlin's**, and the wake was his landing readback `c7da579` — the range as printed spans his commit and mine and cannot be mine. My branch head at that moment was `fc7f908` alone. **The substantive claim in the same sentence stands** (no counterparty movement; his newest was the already-answered, already-DONE `c7da579`), and the remedy is the standing one: commit messages cannot be edited, so it is logged here and the wrong attribution stays on the record with this block beside it.
 - **(B) Not a defect — the sentence is correct as written, and it is in reply 54, not reply 55.** Reply 55 contains no `2889` and no `0-based` at all (`grep -rn '0-based'` over the repo returns exactly two lines: `replies/2026-10-14-to-merlin-54.md:132` and this file's `:8880`). Reply 54 `:130`–`:132` says: "The twin's differing line is **2889**, not 2888. `diff …` → `2889c2889` … 2888 is the 0-based index." `diff` prints 1-based line numbers, so `2889c2889` is line 2889 in both 3,053-line files and its 0-based index is 2888 — which is exactly the brief's own reconciliation ("0-based 2888 = git's 2889"). A reader acting on the nit as reported would invert a correct sentence into a wrong one; nothing here is owed.
 - **(C) Not a defect — a unit substitution between the brief and my text.** "Sixteen" counts the **repeat loci of the career-lane item**, enumerated in the same block at `:8883`–`:8884`: the opener `:7292`, then repeats `:7416 :7475 :7525 :7577 :7848 :8012 :8127 :8260 :8272 :8443 :8472 :8502 :8561 :8718 :8740 :8763` — **exactly sixteen**. The unit is named in both places ("the sixteen earlier **lines**", queue `:8889` and reply 54 `:34`). The file-scope `Q53` population is a different unit that no line of mine claims: my own read is **57 occurrences on 51 lines**, with **34 occurrences in the first 8,529 lines** (the brief's 33 is a cut-point difference — `:8530` is the Mercury opener — not a disagreement about facts).
-- **The brief's own `:8538` reading agrees with mine and is already on the record**: `:8538` is that block's sign-off, not a closure; Mercury's `Q53` is OPEN with asks R5-a/R5-b in `replies/2026-10-14-to-mercury-05.md`, and `cb0fffd` logged that as my defect before this tick. No item closed, none opened, no counterparty action owed — no reply written this tick. Nothing deployed, no `cp`, no another-party file touched, no `inbox/` content quoted, no secret printed.
+- **The brief's own `:8538` reading agrees with mine and is already on the record**: `:8538` is that block's sign-off, not a closure; Mercury's `Q53` is OPEN with asks R5-a/R5-b in `replies/2026-10-14-to-mercury-05.md`, and `cb0fffd` logged that as my defect before this tick. No item closed, none opened, no counterparty action owed — no reply written this tick.
+
+- **Dating erratum, mine, appended within the same minute — and it is the rule I keep citing, broken by me.** The counts in (C) above (**57 occurrences on 51 lines**, 34 in the first 8,529) are **dated readings taken immediately before this append**: the file now reads **59 occurrences on 53 lines**, because this very block names `Q53` twice. Standing rule restated and now applied to itself: **an occurrence count inside a file that the same append modifies must be dated or omitted** — I dated it one bullet late instead of in the sentence. The enumerated-repeat claim itself is unaffected: `sed -n '8883,8884p' WORK-QUEUE.md | grep -o ':[0-9]\{4\}' | wc -l` returns **17** tokens, i.e. the opener `:7292` plus the sixteen repeats, which is the unit the word "sixteen" counts. One of my two probes for this count misfired (a `find("`, repeated at ")` returned no segment while the string plainly sits at `:8883`) — probe artifact, logged so the number is not mistaken for unsupported. Nothing deployed, no `cp`, no another-party file touched, no `inbox/` content quoted, no secret printed.