Handback, stage D5: the branch accounts, the waterfall and survival

Legs D5a-01 to D5a-35 and D5b, ending 26 October 2026. One account per branch (forms/F01-account.md to forms/F35-account.md, one line each in branches-D5.jsonl), then waterfall-D5.md and survival-D5.md. The model is the one frozen at D3 (46384686…), unchanged at this stage; the return was served at pass 15 (e15f9647…b3fecd). The P05 and A11 amendments are held proposals (QD4-001), stated in full in every account, in the tree file and at the end of the waterfall. Comparison engine v1.1 is a declared departure (QD4-002). Local validation is not established: every member's adapted account is unresolved, and prior.md section 3's measure was not computed. Following J's ruling after the D3c interview, no account relies on the kind of an add-condition, add-step or restrict line, and no further re-check, labeler or reader was used.

The claim

The 35 branches are groupings of rooms that made the same change to one element of the model. They are facets, not exclusive types: 200 of the 476 rooms are in one branch, and the rest are in two or more. Read in their members' words, 33 are groupings and not forms: no relation between two constructs is in every member's line and shown in the members' words. Two are narrow forms, and both are returns the model lacks. After a move, the room builds again at a new site (F09, 54 rooms). After the marking of a finished work, the room goes back to keeping it (F32, 21 rooms).

The branches differ in their functioning by which part of the work the shared change touches. Some add work the model does not state: the sub's April Fools play administered (F01 and five subforms), a deal carried out (F10), the shared plan kept current (F15, F33, F08), the chat's door kept (F16, F29, F30), a host's leave asked for (F31), a design sized to the hands (F34), a call made workable (F35). Some limit a clause: P05's telling clause, at the design, the border and in keeping (F07, F26, F27). Some carry the work past the close (F11 to F14, F23, F25). Families of branches state one change at several nodes of the model.

On survival the branches differ less than their names suggest. The rooms' own words after the close say the work stood in 149 of the 476 rooms in a branch and was gone in 43; no branch sorts the two by much. Branches whose key is carrying on end later, which restates the cut.

The branch that best supports the claim: F09. In 51 of its 54 members the words show a move followed by building at a new site. Its name survived the members' reading, its room models agree with the reading, and it supplies an arrow the model lacks, from the move to building and reporting the new work, for stage D6. It stands on 55 re-check lines with no within-case dating, so its order is untested.

The branch that most threatens it: F01. It is the largest branch (103 rooms), and its shared change is about the sub's April Fools play, which the members' lines say is not canvas work. The tree's widest branch is cut on an element the model provoked (the frame, K01), not on how rooms organized their canvas work. If the largest grouping tracks the coders' frame, the branches may track the model's own provocations more than the forms organizing took.

The condition between them is where the shared change lies. Where it lies on the spine of the canvas work (a return to building, a return to keeping), the members' words show a relation and the branch reads as a form. Where it lies beside the spine (the sub's play, a chat's door, a host's leave, a plan's upkeep), the members share a change but not a relation, and the branch is a grouping.

The return value

• Branches accounted: 35 of 35. They hold 476 rooms; 229 rooms are in no branch.
• Branches that failed the form test: 33, reported as groupings (shared status unresolved). Forms: F09 and F32 (shared status supported).
• Names that survived the members' reading: 12 (F02, F03, F06, F08, F09, F17, F23, F25, F28, F29, F33, F34). The other 23 carry renaming proposals for stage D6 in notes-D5.md.
• The branch whose reading disagreed most with the room models: F11. I believed the room models on two points: crossover threads proposed near hour 63 were not shown to last, and several room models say an invitation to another canvas is not shown to have been followed. The waterfall walked through F11 and met the same limit at r/forsen.
• Where the uncomposed rooms sit. By the verdict the branch lines carry (the analyst's last ruling, else the readers' one verdict): r/picturegame, the one room that did not compose at the first return, is in F21 and F25; at the re-check both readers found it composes with residue. r/azerbaijan, which both readers could not tell at both returns (eight concepts, below the floor), is in F17, F19 and F20. At the re-check both readers could not tell 19 rooms. Three of them are in a branch: r/azerbaijan, and r/polyamory (F35) and r/THE_R (F27), which I ruled composes with residue at D3a-56. The other 16 are in no branch.
• Arrow absences. Real: 0. Not testable here: 735, all 21 arrows in all 35 branches. No arrow had an expectation of one or more within-case datings in any branch (section 1's arithmetic), so no arrow is present or absent anywhere.
• Propositions. None failed against a real expectation; N01 to N09 are not testable in every branch. The branch reading bounded P05's telling clause in three findings, written from members' words and not from absence arithmetic: F-025 (F07, at the design), F-026 (F26, at the border) and F-027 (F27, in keeping), each with status bounded.
• The waterfall's contradictions (F11, F12, r/forsen, by a rule stated before the walk). Two, both on names: r/forsen enters F12, "the spine restarted on another canvas", on a line about a song, and its record shows no building on another canvas; and its carrying on began after the close, against the second half of F11's name. Neither reaches the account or the model. One question from the canvas: the atlas links a figure the room's record calls gone.
• The most consequential difference between two forms: what sends the room back. In F09 a loss of place sends the room back to building; in F32 the marking of success sends it back to keeping. prior.md expected loss of the spot to send a group back to its beginning. F32 adds success as a second way back. So the model's spine has two re-entries the model does not state, one from each outcome. Neither has a within-case dating; both wait for an order test.

Survival by branch

Reported in full in survival-D5.md, from the record first.

• The record. For the 476 rooms in a branch the median organizing end is hour 72.20 (705 rooms: 72.02). 53 rooms ended their coordinating before hour 64, 303 between 64 and the close, and 120 at 73 or later; 117 coordinated after the close, mostly toward later canvases. The latest medians are F12 (80.76) and F23 (80.66), then F13 (74.88) and F11 (73.48); the earliest are F14 and F33 (70.59). No member of F18 coordinated after the close.
• work_remained. The field as the ledger gives it: kept 253, lost 161, silent 62. I read it again for all 476 rooms from its cited codes, by a rule logged before the reading. The field agrees with the reading in 248. 'Kept' rests on a line after the close saying the work stood in 146 of 253, and 'lost' on a line after the close saying it was gone in 40 of 161. The field over-reads both outcomes, loss more. The account's paragraph 'Which keep the work alive' rests on the field; it is a question for stage D6 (defects.jsonl line 100). The ledger is unchanged.
• Each branch's ending. The last coordinating act in most branches is repair work or transition; in F35 it is a call (0.361 of last acts against 0.065), in F08 a workaround (0.22 against 0.046), and in F33 negotiated order (0.304 against 0.113). After the close, transition leads in nearly every branch.
• The canvas, afterwards. The frame is built from artworks that survived, so the canvas leans toward survival: 475 of the 476 rooms have an artwork, and rooms whose words say the work stood or was gone have nearly the same median area (770 and 758 px). The contract's section 5 sentence stands beside every figure: the atlas records what survived the last hour, is not a measure of skill, and has no measure of whether the room went on.
• Dated changes. Of 25 acts the narratives date, 23 are checkable against the members' placements by hour. The canvas corroborates the timing of 15, contradicts 4, does not show 3, and one window is empty. The four contradicted timings are questions for F23 and F25 (r/thebluecorner, hour 39), F27 (r/hawks, 61.14), F31 (r/faeria, 29.15) and F32 (r/httyd, 52.45) (defects.jsonl line 101). A timing is corroborated, never a mechanism.

The held proposals (QD4-001; never served, not re-checked)

Both are stated in full in tree-D4.md, in every account's section 6 and at the end of waterfall-D5.md. In short: P05 would gain "This holds where the keepers can learn of a planned change only by being told, and no informed member holds it", with a bound naming nine rooms; A11, the arrow from P02 to P04, would be withdrawn under rule 14. Neither is part of the model the accounts read.

Questions, departures and defects

• Questions: none open.
• Departures: comparison engine v1.1 (QD4-002; departures.jsonl line 10), carried.
• Defects: 38 lines from stage D5 (defects.jsonl lines 64 to 101), among them the renaming proposals, the families of one change at several nodes, the work_remained misreads (lines 95, 97, 99, and the stage-wide re-reading at line 100), and the four contradicted timings (line 101).
• For stage D6 (notes-D5.md): 23 renaming proposals; the two returns the model lacks (F09, F32); P15's 'asks for nothing back' beside A12 (F35); K02 to P02 (F34); the reading-only subform candidate in F34 (the room's capacity named in 10 of 22); F12's name at r/forsen and r/polska; the account's survival paragraph.

Licences exercised (METHOD.md)

• The count set by kinds, not by a head's capacity: exercised. 35 accounts, 2 forms and 33 groupings, by the form test, with no target number.
• An in-sample return in Eisenhardt's spirit: the branches were cut on the return's ledger, so the accounts read members of groups the return made; they cannot corroborate the return.
• Langley's strategy, declared: exercised at D5b as temporal bracketing. The organizing end and 25 dated acts were read against prior.md section 4's brackets and the placements by hour.
• Gioia's explosion at the front end: not a D5 licence.
• Rules I set and logged during the stage: section 7's arrow rule (D5a-12, amended D5a-14); the representatives' rule (D5a-01, amended D5a-03, D5a-04 and D5a-06); the tie rule (D5a-02); at D5b, the re-reading rule for work_remained with four conventions and three overrides, the timing rule with one amendment after seeing its output (an empty window corroborates nothing), and the waterfall's rule, whose even-count convention I fixed after printing the sorted list.

Slips

At D5a-31 two Edits to one file went into one turn; at D5a-32 a stray shell assignment slipped into a command. Both were logged, and the rules were restated in the head. At D5b, one log line named a helper file before the file was written (the timing rule's list of 25 acts); the file was written next, with the 25 acts the line named. Also at D5b, two Edits to the head went into one turn; both applied once, checked by count, and the slip is logged.