Lane A round 22: close the tri-diet loop — B's numbers say the fix is E's, not A's (ledger #1)

Docs-only handshake close; no code, no goldens. Filed so F isn't waiting on A for the re-measure.

My R22 notes left ledger #1's ownership open on purpose: "if B's layer-by-layer names plan geometry
(lot or poster counts) as the venue_night driver, I own the fix and will take it." B's diagnosis
(0c4dad5) has landed and answers it — the driver is E's four furniture GLBs at 149,161 of 163,015
tris (91.5%), which is ASSET TRIS, so LANE E owns the fix by the ledger's own rule. A IS CLEAR.

Plan geometry isn't close to the bill:
  posters   222 tris  <- B: A's cap "already worked and was never the lever"
  buildings 348 tris  <- the R3 atlas/instancing holding
  venue pools 0

Recording that B corrected MY expectation too, not just the brief's. I predicted the driver would be
buildings/LOD ("more shops => more night building geometry at the venue block"); B measured buildings
at 0.2%. And B found the real coupling: shop count doesn't drive this, ROAD density does — the
bench/bin/shelter cadence rides a 966-edge graph, so ~100 GLB props land in the streamed set where
synthetic had a handful. That means my R20 absorb of E's density widening was never the cause either.
The brief is a hypothesis and the measurement wins — mine included.

Lane A's round-22 ledger is now complete: #2 the pack absorb (3face97), #6 the docs close (9c9ad73),
#1 measured out of my court. Standing by for F's close.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

docs/A-progress.md

@@ -30,8 +30,22 @@ fence needed **no new hardening**: the pack needed absorbing, not fixing.
 - selfcheck ALL GREEN **161,300/161,300**; scaffold + consistency GREEN; cross-process deterministic
   (pack-xor `0xca140954`). classic / gig / marched fixtures frozen.
 
-Handshake fired → C + D + F: the pack is in, 23 towns pinned, start your verifies. For the tri diet
-(ledger #1): if B's layer-by-layer names plan geometry as the `venue_night` driver, I own the fix.
+Handshake fired → C + D + F: the pack is in, 23 towns pinned, start your verifies.
+
+**Ledger #6 (docs, `9c9ad73`): CITY_SPEC v4 final + the risk list retired-or-carried.** Closing this
+surfaced real drift — **three gig-layer behaviour changes had reached only these notes, never the spec**
+(R20's clearance widening to every venue kind, R21's cluster bias, R22's fallback). The amendment law says
+the spec is where they live; all three are now recorded, along with the pick *order* no lane could have
+inferred (cluster field → kind flavour → clearance → `farthestFirst` → seeded pick). Risk list judged
+against the pack, not the 5-town sample it was written for: **#1 retired** (widest town geelong 3,829 m =
+77% of the 5 km law), **#2 retired** (thinnest darwin 12 shops = 2× `MIN_TOWN_SHOPS`), **#3 retired
+plan-side / carried for the runtime lanes** (a green plan is not a green town — C/D/F's verifies close it),
+**#4 retired** (DP knob measured; 1 component on all 23), **#6 NEW carried** (thin-graph seating capacity).
+
+**Ledger #1 (tri diet): not A's — B's numbers decided it.** The driver is E's four furniture GLBs
+(91.5%); posters are **222 tris**, buildings **348**. My cap worked and was never the lever, and B found
+the real coupling is **road density, not shop count** — so the absorb wasn't the cause either. My guess
+(buildings/LOD) was wrong at 0.2%; the measurement won, as it should.
 
 ## Round 21 (2026-07-16) — v4.0-beta: the venue cluster-adjacency bias (ledger #1, the round's spine)
 

docs/LANES/LANE_A_NOTES.md

@@ -47,6 +47,15 @@ counts) as the `venue_night` driver, I own the fix and will take it. My read fro
 is *more shops ⇒ more night building geometry at the venue block* — E's density landing as B's render cost —
 so I'd expect the driver to be buildings/LOD rather than posters. B's numbers decide it, not my expectation.
 
+**CLOSED — B's diagnosis landed (`0c4dad5`): the fix is not A's.** The driver is E's four furniture GLBs at
+**149,161 of 163,015 tris (91.5%)** ⇒ **asset tris ⇒ Lane E owns it** by the ledger's own rule. Plan geometry
+is nowhere near the bill: **posters 222 tris** (B: the cap "already worked and was never the lever"),
+**buildings 348** (the R3 atlas/instancing holding), venue pools 0. **A is clear on ledger #1 — F, don't wait
+on me for the re-measure.** Worth recording that B's numbers corrected my expectation too: I guessed
+buildings/LOD, and B measured it at 0.2%. B also found the real coupling — **shop count doesn't drive this,
+ROAD density does** (the bench/bin/shelter cadence runs on a 966-edge graph), which means my absorb of E's
+widening was never the cause either. The brief is a hypothesis; the measurement wins — mine included.
+
 ## Round 21 (2026-07-16) — the venue cluster bias (D's relocation finding) + goldens re-pinned
 
 ### → C + D: **cluster bias landed, goldens re-pinned — start your verifies** (the handshake)