2026-09-02
User:
You are doing a facts-only consistency check for the project at redacted. Do NOT edit any file. Report only.
STRICT: never read chapters/, rewrite/, draft/book-01/rejected-act2/, summaries/, or plans/book-01/arc-0*.md, unpublished or their git history. Do not use git log/show on those paths either.
Read these three freshly drafted scenes:
- draft/book-01/scenes/107-the-circular.md unpublished redacted sentence: unpublished prose
- draft/book-01/scenes/108-under-a-stone.md unpublished (Days 77–79)
- draft/book-01/scenes/109-eight-days-out-of-fenholt.md unpublished (Days 80–81)
Then check every checkable fact in them against these canon files (read all of them in full):
- notes/canon/world/institutions.md — specifically: the clearing-house and "redacted redacted sentence: unpublished prose
- notes/canon/world/timeline.md — Days 74–81: redacted at the counter 30 Fal; redacted in the fellows' passage; redacted asked on the 29th by R. redacted sentence: unpublished prose redacted sentence: unpublished prose redacted's boy's second, redacted redacted sentence: unpublished prose
redacted sentence: unpublished prose (the draft strikes cause four, ripening dates — check this against canon logic); the Wystow block; the plain statement.
redacted sentence: unpublished prose- notes/canon/characters/minor.md — redacted ("I will chase you"); redacted redacted sentence: unpublished prose redacted sentence: unpublished prose If so this is a NEW claim about the order's making not in canon — flag it); Ossett; the two second-years.
- notes/canon/characters/edwin.md — "E. Moss, of Appleford" as his own phrase; the frost list; "four nights in six"(?).
redacted sentence: unpublished prose flag if so).- the sealed silent-soil file: DO NOT read or open notes/sealed/silent-soil.md directly if reading it would require you to reveal its content in your report — you may read it for verification purposes only, but your report must describe SHAPE ONLY (how many constraints satisfied, what discrepancies, confidence), never content. Specifically check: does the second column's line "the redacted can do nothing... there is nothing here to hold" merely restate canon's own line "the ewe blessing can do nothing" (i.e. does NOT explain cause), and confirm nothing else in the scenes explains the cause of redacted mystery.
Also specifically resolve/flag these:
redacted sentence: unpublished prose These are different claims — flag the ambiguity/mismatch.
(2) Edwin's list of four causes (referenced from scene 86 unpublished presumably, check timeline/silent-soil.md for it) — scene 109 unpublished strikes cause four. redacted sentence: unpublished prose Does the 24 Fal reading (gap persisting) definitively STRIKE cause four, or merely SUPPORT striking it? Make a ruling with reasoning.
(3) The Pellings were warned "a fortnight before their date" — what date, exactly? Check canon and the draft's arithmetic (12th + a fortnight, etc.) and confirm/flag.
(4) Is "eleven" confirmed as Fallowmonth's leakage count in canon? Confirm or flag.Output format:
- Numbered findings, each with: the quoted line from the draft scene, the canon source (file + relevant quote/fact), and a minimal fix (or "no fix needed — confirmed" if it checks out).
- Then a "New facts" section listing anything in the drafts that is new information not previously in canon (e.g. Tess's line about cows, the "seven of us thirty years" claim if present, or others you find), so it can be routed to consistency-backfill later.
Do not edit any file. Do not read plans/, unpublished summaries/, or the forbidden draft directories. Keep the report thorough but focused — this is a mechanical fact-check, not a prose critique.
🔧 Read draft/book-01/scenes/107-the-circular.md unpublished
✅ 46 lines, 7444 chars
🔧 Read draft/book-01/scenes/108-under-a-stone.md unpublished
✅ 40 lines, 5833 chars
🔧 Read draft/book-01/scenes/109-eight-days-out-of-fenholt.md unpublished
✅ 44 lines, 6819 chars
🔧 Read notes/canon/world/institutions.md
🔧 Read notes/canon/world/timeline.md
✅ 787 lines, 50971 chars
🔧 Read notes/canon/world/silent-soil.md
🔧 Read notes/canon/characters/sorrel.md
✅ 870 lines, 56502 chars
🔧 Read notes/canon/characters/minor.md
✅ 844 lines, 52279 chars
✅ 670 lines, 42638 chars
🔧 Read notes/canon/characters/edwin.md
✅ 628 lines, 40049 chars
🔧 Read notes/canon/characters/mattie-ordish.md
✅ 973 lines, 64921 chars
✅ 480 lines, 29431 chars
🔧 Bash: grep -n -i "sick-beast\|nothing to hold\|blessing can do nothing" redacted/notes/sealed…
✅ 1 lines, 68 chars
🔧 Bash: sed -n '2540,2560p' redacted/notes/sealed/silent-soil.md
✅ 21 lines, 1088 chars
**2. Scene 109 unpublished's "Strike four off my list of four" overstates what canon says the 24 Fal reading proves.
Draft: "Strike four off my list of four. Leave one, two and three. Write that Mattie's twenty-fourth struck it and I didn't."
redacted sentence: unpublished prose One reading weakens; it does not kill. This is a direct contradiction, not just an emphasis difference.
Fix: reword to "weaken" rather than "strike/kill" — e.g. "That weakens four. It doesn't kill it. Leave one, two and three, and four with a mark against it" — and defer the full strike to the Saltmonth reading, per canon's own test design.
4. Finding (1) — the frost-list ambiguity is real and the draft has resolved it in one direction without flagging that it's a resolution.
Draft: "the warning had been right four times in six, and the two it had been wrong it had been wrong by a night, early."
redacted sentence: unpublished prose
No fix strictly required — canon didn't rule this — but it should be logged as a new interpretive commitment for backfill, since it resolves a load-bearing ambiguity in the standing arrangement's flagship success story.
5. Finding (3) — the Pellings' "fortnight" arithmetic — CONFIRMED, no fix needed.
redacted sentence: unpublished prose
redacted sentence: unpublished prose No fix needed.
6. Finding (4) — "eleven" as Fallowmonth's leakage count — CONFIRMED, no fix needed.
Draft: "redacted redacted sentence: unpublished prose redacted redacted sentence: unpublished prose Eleven. Posted the thirtieth."
redacted sentence: unpublished prose No fix needed.
Finding (2) — redacted's "It took seven of us thirty years" is a new, unestablished, and likely conflicting claim.
Draft: "The order was well made. It took seven of us thirty years."
redacted sentence: unpublished prose 005; institutions.md: taught unchanged 180 years, entered as "Moss's" for 140). Nothing in canon supports a seven-person, thirty-year collaborative origin for "the order," and if "the order" in redacted's mouth means the same six revealings, this directly conflicts with sole authorship. It's also possible redacted means a different, broader "order" (general magical pedagogy/discipline, distinct from the revealings) — but that reading isn't established either.
Flag for the author: this needs a ruling before it stands — either redacted is talking about something other than Edwin's six revealings (needs to be made clear on the page), or the claim should be cut/reworded to avoid contradicting sole authorship.
Second-column line on the redacted — CONFIRMED not to leak the sealed cause.
Draft: *"the redacted redacted sentence: unpublished prose
Checked against the sealed silent-soil answer (shape only): the sealed file's explicit "Deliberately NOT resolved" list includes whether the redacted works on a person and related priestcraft mechanism questions, confirming this line is a restatement of canon's existing "the ewe blessing can do nothing" (institutions.md) with added flavour text, not an explanation of the underlying cause. No leak. No fix needed, though "hold" as a term for what a blessing does is not explicitly sourced in the files I checked (healing.md was not read) — worth a quick confirm there but not blocking.
redacted's "I will chase you" is redeployed to a different context than canon's citation.
redacted sentence: unpublished prose
Canon (institutions.md): "redacted redacted sentence: unpublished prose 028) — tied specifically to getting an address out of him, not to future numbers of redacted. This may be a legitimate second use of a recurring verbal tic, but as written it changes what she's chasing.
Flag for backfill, not necessarily an error — confirm whether this is meant as the same beat relocated or a new instance of her established phrase.
"I'm of Appleford. redacted sentence: unpublished prose
No canon file states how long Edwin has specifically been "of Appleford" as opposed to when he stopped walking (~200 years ago) or when the clearing-house was built (his 110th–150th year). 140 years is plausible but unestablished.
Flag for backfill as a new datable fact about Edwin's residence history.
Mattie's "ten-years sentence" — appears omitted from scene 107 unpublished's rendering of the standing arrangement.
redacted sentence: unpublished prose unpublished redacted sentence: unpublished prose
Flag as an omission — not necessarily wrong, since scene 107 unpublished may simply not need every clause of the standing arrangement on the page, but per the check instructions this should be noted rather than silently passed.
12. Quoted lines that are close paraphrases rather than verbatim matches — flag as a style note, not an error.
redacted sentence: unpublished prose redacted sentence: unpublished prose redacted sentence: unpublished prose redacted sentence: unpublished prose
13. Everything else checked and confirmed with no fix needed:
institutions.md's established four-column structure.timeline.md and institutions.md.silent-soil.md.