# Independent review of draft C618

Reviewer: grammar-review agent. Date:28 September2026. Read model/draft_c618.md against the completed journal, prior source reviews, and the relevant model and File68/69 source tables. No draft or journal edits were made. No arithmetic correction was identified. The SP paragraph, the989-unit connection from C612, and the five-node Actual/Rounded diagram agree with the reviewed calculations.

## Changes recommended before delivery

**Mark475 explicitly as a diagnostic total.** In §3, replace the mixed-branch sentence with wording such as: “Uniform E gives325+175=500. Applying J and E separately to the two durations gives the diagnostic total300+175=475.” The source partition and both conversions are valid;475 has not been assigned a new source-appointed terminal. This is the only source-status wording correction needed in the reviewed passages.

**Explain where the483 carrier comes from.** Add a short connection in §1 or §2: “Here483=12×40.25=3×161. Its402.5+80.5 split is ten plus two40.25 units, so the selected portion is one-sixth.” This connects the introductory Actual/Rounded result to the Covenant161 spine and the quarter-carrier work already completed in C567–C577. The same relation shows why E's42-year gain on483 is three copies of its14-year gain on161. It improves the Strategy-level explanation without adding another qualification.

**Complete the grid formula's parameter definitions.** In §6, give j=0,…,49 and r∈{−110,0} alongside a(j)=65−(49−j)g+r. The earlier paragraph already specifies g∈{70,72}. These two additions explain exactly how the49-row field acquires its four rails and let a reader reconstruct it from the displayed formula.

**Define the weekly carrier D and its coordinate offset.** Before “10D,8D,and6D+70,” state D=7g+110, giving600/614. Clarify that these are the carrier-distance expressions before the same−64 conversion to BC birth labels. D must remain distinct from7(g+110), the1260/1274 full-generation weekly measure. A compact clause is enough; no new counterexample discussion is required.

## Planned model updates

The current final-section wording accurately calls the13 interfaces a relation inventory and the source basis a compact central-premise register. C619/C620 may replace those statements after completing the input manifest and normalizing the graph. Any stronger description should reflect those new artifacts rather than merely changing the prose.

The main argument already gives the necessary conceptual distinction: paths can agree after endpoint evaluation without agreeing at their interior nodes. Keep that distinction and the concrete Actual/Rounded diagram central; the remaining state controls need no expansion.