Part II rewritten (doc-only; the attested freeze 172a1d0 is untouched).
The earlier draft claimed the resemblance 'is not a metaphor', called
the extractors fraud proofs 'in the strict sense', and said the system
'cannot fail to convict' — the same compressed overclaims the paper
removed in its round-12 revision. Now: the extractors are REDUCTION
WITNESSES against SHA-256 collision resistance (accepting a forged
consistency proof would break the hash; it does not by itself prove
operator misconduct); the one direct-attribution mechanism is
equivocation evidence (two conflicting signed heads, same size, one log
context — signature layer, not hash layer); a fabricated LEAF is caught
only by off-protocol independent replay. Three disanalogies stated
plainly; the entry-13 closing reframed to the plain fact, no metaphor
needed. Framing note added at top disclosing the correction.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
mrwulf
c570c6114a