CHROMATIC HABITAT — RECEPTION SYNTHESIS
Editorial audit of the saved Job133 record, 8 October 2026

The publication's main concrete examples match the fields. C1-S2 repeats counterpoint (#057A5E) at n33 and n42, connects them by returns, and gives the distant n42 lower emphasis/layer and its own closed membrane. C2-S2 places emphatic aperture n42 at the exact coordinates occupied by reciprocal legibility n25 in S1. C3 retains the judgment/protest tension and consent/presumption bound from S1, then adds musical and optical concepts in its cross-creator S3 response. These structures support possible readings; they do not recover a source essay.

C1: The Right to Remain a Different Line (C1-I1) and A Score for Keeping Difference Available (C1-I2) are close in both principal reading and alternative. Both foreground coexistence without forced sameness through counterpoint and qualified legibility; both alternatives read S3's long bounds as interpretive supervision. I1 stresses autonomy, hospitality and remaining apart. I2 stresses recording and its friction, particularly improvisation/digital-preservation tension at S2 n40/n28. This pair provides different emphases but limited thematic breadth.

C2: The Door That Keeps Its Frame (C2-I1) and A Door That Remembers the Room (C2-I2) share refuge, disclosure limits and history around n25's relocation, null n42 and the n17/n36 bounds. Their alternatives differ. I1 sees abstraction's losses: S0 n01/n08/n18 disappear by S1, and n16/n34 leave in S3. I2 instead centers model design, equilibrium versus hysteresis, and exergy/battery/bifurcation. Neither alternative establishes why the author removed a position.

C3: What Disclosure Cannot Close (C3-I1) and What the Ledger Cannot Close (C3-I2) share protest, consent and limits on exhaustive accounting, grounded in n05/n09 emphasis changes, n32 bounding n19, and S3's new transfers. I1's alternative makes heterogeneous composition the main activity and ethics a local episode. I2's alternative makes the diagram an adaptable administrative instrument that absorbs its own challenges. The distinction is whether ethics organizes the work, and whether formal recognition adequately answers an objection.

All 24 rule states retain their prelude's exact links. Each G1-to-G8 branch adds four cells without incident semantic links. Growth therefore supplies no new authored assertion, and G8 is not S1's parent. The readers consistently preserve this separation.

Corrections and qualifications:
- C3-I2's operations action 6 says eleven interpretation fields; the protocol and actual file have ten. This is a minor log-description error.
- C1-I2's grouped C1-G8 anchor supplies descriptive hues rather than exact RGB pins. Its four cells and growth claim can be checked; exact colour correspondence remains unavailable for that annotation.
- C1-I2's wording about persistent self-confinement/legibility tension should be read from S1 onward. C1-S0 has no n22/n16 tension.
- C3-I2's dotted-region alternative cannot mean literal enclosure of all three named positions: stigma n17 and consent n32 are inside, but presumption n19 is outside (about 277.3 units from a radius-205 centre). Links connect the external position.
- C1-I2 disclosed status-only parent notifications despite no-agents wording. No interpretive consultation is reported; isolation remains procedural, not OS-enforced.

Each reader reports six image views and four authored decodes. All report resizing; five explicitly report truncated output. Retained decoded-record totals per reader are 324,882 bytes for C1, 322,632 for C2 and 320,322 for C3; recovered USL1 totals are 28,401, 26,428 and 25,777 bytes respectively. These are file sizes, not measured reading effort, model tokens, tool-call totals or comparative performance. Near colours, crossings and long qualified definitions are reported burdens. No later viewer tested uptake of the six field replies.

The main publication distinguishes observation from interpretation and does not invent creator essays, establish qualia or life, or claim a Carrier advantage. Two readers under common model, grammar and dictionary conditions support a description of this run only. Similar themes are not population convergence or validation of a uniquely correct reading. Original works and readings remain unchanged; details and source hashes are in editorial-audit.json.
