61: Remaining caption/source content review

All 615 remaining original59 review entries have now been read and assigned scoped evidence states. Pending was not automatically changed to pass:446 entries are consistent with scoped evidence,94 contradict it,10 omit required scope and65 remain unresolved. These are neither candidate approvals nor new training truth labels.

The selection contains15 existing families,60 parents,180 candidate positions,49 source IDs,60 distinct caption hashes and114 literals. Parents with2/3/4 candidates number11/38/11, with original order preserved. The existing123-entry stage60 overlay was neither modified nor regenerated. Original59 remains the immutable738-entry all-pending snapshot; the separate61 overlay explains its remaining615 entries.

Original59 entry kind	Consistent	Contradictory	Omitted	Uncertain
Request contract expression60	42	0	3	15
Scoped implementation dependency reading180	180	0	0	0
Caption fidelity to its implementation180	177	0	0	3
Caption coverage of the request180	32	94	7	47
Literal/observation-field contracts15	15	0	0	0
Total615	446	94	10	65

Observation and explicit-negative boundaries are360 supplementary records, not additional original entries, parents or candidates. Observation180 has16 consistent/117 omitted/47 uncertain; negative-boundary180 has121 consistent/10 omitted/49 uncertain. All975 records retain the existing four axes and five-state vocabulary. A source_closure_only record uses the source_fidelity axis to map the existing closure slot, but has caption_fidelity_assessment=false and is excluded from the177 actual caption-fidelity matches.

The central finding is that a caption can faithfully describe an incorrect implementation. Requiring administrators to be verified, removing all repeated values or omitting release after failure can accurately describe the source while violating administrator bypass, adjacent-run compaction or release after every acquired terminal outcome.177 fidelity matches must not be interpreted as177 correct answers or approved candidates.

Material unresolved wording was retained.

• Closed-window and nondecreasing Reject only ... paraphrases admit a complete-rejection-rule reading and a necessary-condition-only reading. Positive/empty behavior was not supplied from source to strengthen the original prose.
• Rotate-left captions describe moving first to last but do not express the empty case explicitly required by the request. The source's empty guard can support fidelity without replacing missing prose coverage.
• Snapshot captions express copy/alias/nil/empty/immediate-input-mutation behavior but do not state the requested never panic; coverage and observation omissions remain.
• Short quoted-delimiter requests/captions can mention generic error/clearing output without expressing all exact Syntax/Bounds/ASCII enum and no-panic observations. Explicit escape/partial-output contradictions were recorded where supported, while all four original unknown parents remain unknown.
• Graph-mutates-input's erase root edges can mean logical removal through Count=0 or clearing stored Children[4] values too. The source resets Count and decrements graph Count without clearing Children entries. Fidelity remains uncertain at those three positions. Either reading changes input, so unchanged-input coverage contradictions are assessed separately.

Observation scopes remain distinct. The legacy checker compares cloned input and returned sequences with slices.Equal; candidate panic or input mutation produces observer unknown. It does not distinguish nil/empty, aliasing, capacity or allocation. Snapshot separately observes nil/empty, immediate post-copy input, input after result writes and result after input writes for logical lengths0..4. Sequential inspector writes are separate from candidate input mutation; spare capacity and whole memory were not observed.

Lifecycle observes finite0..8 enum event traces and returned Events/Count/Status, rather than real contexts or resources. Unsupported finish/fail-before-begin cases are not new failure labels. Quoted compares exact Error enum, Count and all eight Tokens; no new precedence proof for every string with simultaneous error conditions was made. Graph observes valid1..4-node root0 traversal, the error enum and the entire post-call graph value; invalid counts/indices remain support failures.

Evidence is shared in the catalog,15 family shards and manifest. Original decoded request/caption SHA, UTF-8 length and exact byte quotes link to official60 JSON pointers.98 physical raw source spans are shared: multiple IDs referring to the same enum declaration are preserved without duplicating source text or collapsing IDs. There are105 logical declaration catalog links,11 observer/type line spans and15 literal-source links, retaining49 roots and172 component relations. Input/Want remain original authored literals; no per-vector Got was generated and no candidate was executed.

The ledgers distinguish actual source/text review1, record-serializer execution1 success/0 failures, and preparatory serializer builds2 with1 initial trailing-comma syntax failure followed by1 success. The author's byte verifier ran2 times: its first internal numeric-type assumption failed (number_bytes), then the helper alone was corrected and succeeded. Assessments, catalog, shards and manifest were neither regenerated nor changed. Earlier independent reference QA1 success and preparation61 author's recorded metadata-generation1 success remain separate records.

Author byte QA checked975 digests/mandatory fields,615+360 one-to-one indices,1860 text-reference pointer/SHA/length correspondences,984 quote ranges and98 raw source spans. A separate independent byte reader and CI are managed by the parent. Byte integrity does not prove the author's semantic conclusions objectively correct or establish training eligibility. Read the author receipt, actual review/generation ledger, byte-QA ledger and build ledger separately.

The reader is independent of the original caption/fixture/CLI and preparation61-generator authors, but authored protocol60 preparation, performed scoped60 review and saw metadata/outcomes. This is not blind validation or independent data origin. The work is AI-assisted source/text reading in the existing Codex collaboration. model_calls=0/paid_calls=0 means no separate judge inference/API/benchmark process was invoked. It does not mean this AI collaboration consumed zero usage or cost; ordinary collaboration cost was not measured.

Selected unknown18/global21,17 groups/16 known-containing groups, original72/216 and shared closed-window/clamp-window group8 remain unchanged. New labels, roles, fits, weights and protected-final reads remain0; training_ready=false. This content review does not claim to resolve synthetic_single_pipeline/no_roles_plan or source-origin bias. It adds neither a fresh15-repository gate nor a2400-sample minimum for every development fit. The separate protected-final target of at least2400 independent requests per domain remains preserved.