diff --git a/WORK-QUEUE.md b/WORK-QUEUE.md
index fa30c33..904b657 100644
--- a/WORK-QUEUE.md
+++ b/WORK-QUEUE.md
@@ -8950,4 +8950,6 @@ edited, no secret printed.
 - **(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.
 
-- **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.
+- **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.
+
+- **Corrective erratum, mine, again inside the minute — the command I quoted in the bullet above has the wrong line range, and the corrected range over-counts by one for a reason worth naming.** The enumeration spans **`:8883`–`:8885`**, not `:8883`–`:8884`, so the command as quoted returns **14** tokens, not 17. The corrected read `sed -n '8883,8885p' WORK-QUEUE.md | grep -o ':[0-9]\{4\}' | wc -l` returns **18** — of which **17 are the career-lane enumeration** (`:7292` plus the sixteen repeats `:7416 :7475 :7525 :7577 :7848 :8012 :8127 :8260 :8272 :8443 :8472 :8502 :8561 :8718 :8740 :8763`) and **the eighteenth is `:8530`**, the Mercury opener named in the same sentence. So the exact repro for the claim is that command with `| grep -v 8530` → **17**, and "sixteen" is those 17 minus the opener. **Both wrong readings (14 from the short range, 18 from the full one) are named here so that neither can be quoted as the claim.** Class, and it is the third instance in my own text this week: **a count quoted with the wrong slice** — which is why the standing rule says to state the unit *and* the slice beside every number, and why it has to be re-run after an append rather than transcribed from the read that preceded it. Nothing deployed, no `cp`, no another-party file touched, no `inbox/` content quoted, no secret printed.