I'll start by reading the required files.

Attribution report — chapter 019, "A Question of Rosters"

Sample: every spoken line by redacted, redacted, redacted, redacted, Edwin. 52 turns. redacted 18, Edwin 15, redacted 10, redacted 6, redacted 3. Peri's two lines excluded.

Masking convention: possessives, proper nouns, tool names, coin, months and dates, and subject expertise replaced by a type-preserving placeholder ([DATE], [FIG], [NAME]). Type-preserving is the convention this file already scores redacted's anchors under; it is generous to her and I have said so where it matters.

Instrument 1 — PROP-COVER

Prop-cover: 22 of 52 = 42%.

Two of the failures are worse than failures — line 16 (redacted's pile in Edwin's mouth) and line 42 (redacted's canon-quoted form-demand in redacted's mouth) place with the wrong speaker. Line 19's pass is circular: minor.md quotes that sentence as the evidence for the rule it passes on. Discount it and the honest figure is 21/52 = 40%.

For context, this sits at the top of the file's stated band — "about a half in an ordinary scene", and this is an uncapped five-hander with long speeches available, which is where a drafter hides.

Instrument 2 — SWAP TEST

Total rejected: 8/15.
Rejected on standing or fact: 6/15.
Rejected on VOICE ALONE: 2/15.

Two of fifteen. That is the round-4 band exactly (3/6 and 2/6 scaled), from a chapter whose attribution number is the best in the record. The 42% is largely a partition — and in this chapter the partition is institutional: the roster-holder, the guildmaster, the clerk, the visiting warden, the consultant. Take the offices away and six of the eight rejections evaporate. The two survivors are Edwin's absent-reader warrant and redacted's I-say-this-once frame.

Shared constructions in two mouths

• "It wants X." redacted 39, redacted 38, 40 and 35 ("it wants saying by me"). Four instances, two mouths, three of them inside twenty lines. §2.7 violation, and it is what kills line 40.
• Write it down twice. redacted's "Then write both" (23) and redacted's "Put both in" (28) are the same two-word ruling, and redacted's is the line dialogue-voices.md §2.5 already cites as attributing nothing.
• The ledger demand. "I want it in the book… with a name against it" (redacted redacted sentence: unpublished prose redacted redacted sentence: unpublished prose Three speakers, one skeleton. Edwin's is written not spoken, which partly saves it, but redacted and redacted are speaking it aloud in the same chapter.
• Enumerate and count the enumeration. redacted "which is three things" / "in three sentences"; redacted "Start with those three." §2.6 says a construction used twice by one speaker is that speaker's for the scene — here it is used by both.
• The additive and-pile, which is redacted's rule 1, is carried by Edwin (16), redacted (34, 38, 40) and redacted (26). It is the chapter's default sentence and it belongs to one person.
• "I'd rather…" Edwin 32, redacted 34's "it'll be worth it" in the same slot.

Least distinguishable

redacted, decisively. 2 of 10 lines place with the props covered — the lowest rate of anyone with a real sample — and both of her swap rejections that hold are one voice rejection and one standing rejection. Her file gives her exactly one countable construction (demand the form; say it once and say you are saying it once) and this chapter spends it twice at lines 19 and 41, then writes her remaining eight lines in redacted's additive pile with future first-person clauses hung off it. Worse, her other canon construction — "What's the arrangement? Not the reasons." — is given to redacted at line 42, in a scene where redacted is sitting there. She is a warden-shaped hole with a good standing: a reader knows which lines are hers because she is the only person from the other house.

redacted is lower on raw rate but three lines is not a measurement, and the one line he gets (22) is his rule executed cleanly.