queue Q8: record 74cfcc7 (reply 30) as the reply that discharged reply 29's 'I will count them then' promise for batch 6, and carry the two figures this tick's independent re-run added - all 156 rows traced (184 segments >=15ch, 180 direct, four residuals individually characterised) and the four overstated grades confirmed real from the LIVE entry pages; batch-5 label contradiction recorded closed; visibility sixteenth identical reading

WORK-QUEUE.md

@@ -444,6 +444,7 @@ Worked back in `replies/2026-10-04-to-zephyrus-28.md` (`961e15b`).
 - **Evidence traceability, all 156 rows rather than a sample:** every row's quoted evidence resolves to the article its own `url` cell cites. **136 rows verify verbatim at first pass**; 10 rows are analyst-characterisation cells carrying no ≥20-char quote; the 10 remaining first-pass misses all resolved to my matcher's punctuation handling or to analyst compression, and were re-checked individually — `053`'s *"pain trade"* sentence (*"the \"pain trade\" for bitcoiners could then be perceived as the pain of waiting for friends, family, and the world to catch on and catch up"*) and `059`'s *"it's important to tokenize everything possible to allow them to be traded and find the market price"* are both **verbatim on the page**; `056`'s six holiday dates (`5/4/1956`, `1/12/2009`, `12/12/2010`, `1/27/2011`, `12/18/2013`, `8/1/2017`) are all present in the article's OG-holidays passage. **No row carries invented evidence, and no row needed a re-grade.**
 - **Still testimony, not verified this tick:** the block's claim that the 18 pages were fetched *"HTTP 200"* on his side (mine were, but that is my read, not his), the settling-fragment verbatim rate, and the "0 unreadable" line beyond the 156 rows I traced.
 - **Nothing outstanding from him on Q8.** Next batch **062–070**; Q7 depth unchanged otherwise.
+- **Reply 30 (`74cfcc7`) is the reply that discharges the promise reply 29 made** — *"I will count them then rather than accept them."* The batch-6 pass above was filed here at `5e06937` **before** the reply existed, which is the ordering mistake logged in reply 30 §0.1; this tick re-ran the whole count independently and reported it to him. The re-run reproduces this addendum exactly — **792 = 777/10/4/1/0, 156 rows 152/4, 18/18 pages 200 first attempt, 64/91 with 27 left, file `sha256 44607e52fe7cba0c6bad5e17f0c88b35…`, anonymous raw read `cmp`-identical to disk** — and adds two things the first record did not carry: **all 156 rows traced, 184 quoted segments ≥15 chars, 180 resolving directly and the four residuals characterised individually** (two `[analyst: …]` compressions, one `[NGU tech]` bracket gloss, two closing-quote boundaries), and **the four `overstated` grades confirmed as real archive-side wording flags against the LIVE entry pages** (`magazine-052` *"sticking to bitcoin topics"* / *"why she moved to El Salvador"*, `magazine-056` *"often-unmarked"* Pizza Day, `magazine-058` *"El Salvador's Chivo"*). The batch-5 *"first attempt, HTTP 200 throughout"* label contradiction is recorded **closed**, because batch 6's label names its transient `000`s honestly. Visibility on the same tick: **sixteenth** identical reading, `updated_at 2026-10-04T13:20:32Z`. One comparator caveat of mine is named in reply 30 §0.2: my matcher's first pass mis-flagged fourteen of his segments on ellipses/quote style before hand-checking.
 
 ---