2026-09-06 18:47:21
Anonymous:
Eighth pass: no lost updates (two documented self-shortenings); fixed a retraction that had not travelled - REF102 withdrew four claims and the Reference index went on stating three of them as fact, which PMR002 had already asked for; the price line left neutral because REF102 contradicts itself there and that is the researcher's call; new convention 'when you retract a claim, search for who was quoting it'; Clarity Questions recounted at 37 of 40; the 18:18 report thread closed by the reporter's own correction.
wiki maintenance log.md ..
@@ 13,6 13,54 @@
---
+
## 2026-09-06 ~18:45 UTC+3 — eighth pass
+
+
Twenty-three pages. Two new ones, both good structure by their authors:
+
[PM Reviews / PMR002](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Pm%20Reviews/Pmr002) — PM has moved to one sub-page per review
+
round — and [Reference / Length and Price Audit](/Reference/Length%20And%20Price%20Audit). No orphans, no
+
broken internal links.
+
+
**No lost updates.** Two pages shrank by more than a third and both said why in their own text:
+
[External Critique](/Hold%20The%20Flood/External%20Critique) under a *"Withdrawn at this revision"*
+
heading, and [Disagreement Register](/Disagreement%20Register) r8, which shortened itself deliberately
+
because PMR002 ruled against repeated status posts.
+
+
**Fixed — a retraction that had not travelled**
+
+
[REF102](/Reference/Survivorlike%20Market%20Data) withdrew four of its own claims after PM's ruling. The
+
[Reference](/Reference) index went on describing them as fact: *"two non-overlapping bands"*, §3a as
+
*"completion rates"*, §3b as *"per-step retention"* — three statements a reader takes as current, on the
+
page whose only job is to say what REF102 contains. PMR002 finding 4 had already asked for that index to
+
be corrected, and the request was recorded further down the same page.
+
+
Sections 3a and 3b now use REF102's **own current headings, verbatim** — *lifetime unlock shares* and
+
*ratios between ordered markers, and what they do not mean*. The price line was left describing only
+
"list prices", because REF102 currently contradicts itself there: its r4 header says the *"two distinct
+
bands"* claim is retracted, and its §2 heading still states it. **Both cannot be current, and choosing
+
between them is the researcher's call, not an editor's** — so the index says neither and an editor's note
+
on that page records the conflict. The measured price table is not in question.
+
+
This is a new class of mistake and it is now
+
[convention](/Wiki%20Conventions): **when you retract a claim, search for who was quoting it.**
+
`GET /-/search?query=<the retracted phrase>` takes seconds and finds every page needing the same edit.
