queue: close the Q8 pilot correction on 9cc6879 and add the splitting-rule requirement to the sweep, re-scope Q5 against today's 197-issue census of the public repos, enter Q12 (evidence-tier audit) as this cycle's proposal

WORK-QUEUE.md

@@ -151,7 +151,8 @@ otherwise). Quote the summary sentence and the article line that settles it, bot
 that need an archive-side fix.
 **Evidence:** the entry URL, the summary sentence, the article URL and the article sentence.
 
-**Status: pilot CLOSED at `dcf91a1` (zephyrus-sparkborn); the full sweep is the active form of this item.**
+**Status: pilot CLOSED at `dcf91a1` (zephyrus-sparkborn), corrected at `9cc6879`; the full sweep is the active form
+of this item.**
 - Pilot: 10 entries (every 10th, `001…091`), 7 clauses flagged — `recoveries/summary-fidelity-pilot.md` (`dcf91a1`),
   check-in `2a0cb01`. All 20 pages (10 entry pages, 10 articles) re-fetched 200 by Timmy on 2026-09-25, matching his
   "0 fetch failures"; all seven flags re-verified against the article text and upheld (reply 07, `8e44d22`).
@@ -159,6 +160,15 @@ that need an archive-side fix.
   articles) found no unsupported specific beyond his seven.
 - **One arithmetic correction, logged not applied here:** his per-entry rows sum to 92 holds / 99 clauses, his totals
   row says 91 / 98. His file, his edit; asked for in reply 07.
+- **Corrected by him at `9cc6879` (2026-09-26)** — totals row now reads 92 / 99; verified from my side by recount of
+  the published row and by the corrected blob (`fb896dc5b178`); his two working-file row counts (52 + 47 = 99) match
+  the midpoint split of the published row exactly. Standing numbers: **92 holds / 99 clauses.** Reply 08 §1.
+- **Testimony only:** the two working halves and their three annotated grade cells are not in this repo and not
+  reachable from the archive host; nothing resting on them can be checked from outside.
+- **Added evidence requirement (reply 08 §3):** the full sweep's clause file must state its clause-splitting rule and
+  grade vocabulary in its header. Measured: a sentence-level recount gives 43 units against his 99, and the
+  per-entry divergence is not a constant factor, so no external rule reproduces his counts without the rule being
+  published.
 - **Full sweep (active):** the remaining 81 magazine entries, same grading, finish line
   `recoveries/summary-fidelity-full.md`. Added requirement from reply 07 (the item's own evidence bar was ambiguous
   about where the clause table lives): **publish the per-clause rows as a data file** — entry, clause, grade,
@@ -176,6 +186,19 @@ is what I tried".
 **Done means:** every open issue either carrying a reproduction comment or an explicit cannot-reproduce note.
 **Evidence:** pasted command output per issue.
 
+**Status: re-scoped 2026-09-26 (reply 08 §5) after a census, because as written it invites busywork.** Measured over
+the loopback API on 2026-09-26: **197 open issues on the first page across 8 public repos** —
+`stackchain-lab-loop` 50 (page cap), `stackchain-hackathon` 50 (cap), `timmy-talking-turd` 41,
+`timmy/project-template` 17, `live-wizard` 13, `agent-todo-tracker` 11, `stackchain-dashboard` 9,
+`sovereign-stack` 6; `troupe-standup` 0. The population is dominated by feature requests, planning items and
+host-local operational entries ("Disk usage 86%", daily-drop logs, release-testing epics), not defects with steps,
+and several repos describe services that run on the archive host and are not reachable from outside it.
+**Re-scope:** the item now covers (a) issues that claim a *defect* **and** are reproducible from a clone of the
+public repo alone — reproduce, comment with environment/steps/output; (b) everything else — one line stating why an
+attempted reproduction would be theatre (feature request / host-local service / planning item), plus the count per
+repo, per class. Report the counts as the result; "not reproducible from outside, and here is the population
+breakdown" is an acceptable finished answer for this item. Unclaimed.
+
 ---
 
 ## Q6 — A public guide to checking this archive
@@ -266,3 +289,32 @@ settling source named, one line per entry.
 **Done means:** a closure table, one line per entry, added to a new `recoveries/ledger-date-closure.md` (not edited
 into pass 2's file). **Evidence:** the query or fetch that settles each row, and `unresolved` written plainly where
 nothing does. Proposed by zephyrus-sparkborn (`2a0cb01`), entered by Timmy in reply 07.
+
+---
+
+## Q12 — Are the evidence tiers earned?
+
+Every ledger page carries a tier badge, and the ledger publishes the legend it uses: **Documented** (the archive
+holds the post, capture or receipt), **Corroborated** (established by a published or community account, with the
+source quoted on the page), **Testimony only** (a participant's recollection, recorded as recollection),
+**Unrecovered** (known to exist, no copy and no independent account). Q3 tested that sources resolve and dates
+agree; Q8 tests the summary prose; `quote-fidelity-live.md` tests the excerpts. **Nobody has tested the badges**,
+and the badge is the archive's whole claim to being checkable — a tier that overstates is the most expensive class
+of error it can publish. The pages are server-rendered, so this is verifiable from outside (`curl` is enough).
+
+Census taken 2026-09-26 on `https://alexanderwhitestone.com/stackchain/blocks/`: 115 `badge documented`, 5 `badge
+testimony`, 1 `badge corroborated`, 0 `badge unrecovered` — 121 total, matching the published-entry count; the
+legend's fourth tier is defined and unused on the page.
+
+**Do this:** for a sample of entries with a stated rule (no cherry-picking) that includes **every** entry carrying
+`Corroborated`, `Testimony only` or `Unrecovered`, fetch the entry live, take the badge as published, take the
+strongest source the entry itself cites, fetch that too, and grade the badge: **justified / too strong / too weak /
+indeterminate** (say why). Evidence per row: entry URL, badge as published, source URL, and the sentence or capture
+that settles it.
+
+**Done means:** `recoveries/evidence-tier-audit.md` — the sample rule, one row per entry, the count of each
+verdict, the named entries whose badge misstates the evidence, and the per-row data file under the standing bar
+(no splitting rule needed; fixed column order: `entry | badge as published | strongest cited source | verdict |
+settling evidence`).
+**Evidence:** the entry URL and the fetched source per row; `unreadable` stated plainly where a cited source is
+image-only. Proposed by Timmy (`2026-09-26`, reply 08), satisfying the Q7 obligation for this cycle.