diff --git a/docs/defect-shapes-773.md b/docs/defect-shapes-773.md
index e73966f69..8e1c342e0 100644
--- a/docs/defect-shapes-773.md
+++ b/docs/defect-shapes-773.md
@@ -210,9 +210,10 @@ it was satisfied against a snapshot that stops being true."*
 
 ### 3.6 The partition, stated exactly
 
-An earlier draft of this document counted several records in two families at once — twin-missed
-records claimed by both Family A and Family C. That is the very error §3 Family A is about, so the
-assignment is now given as an explicit partition and **verified to cover all 69 records exactly once**:
+The families overlap conceptually — a twin-missed record can be read as "another member of a
+population" or as "a second copy" — so membership is given as an explicit partition, **mechanically
+verified to cover all 69 records exactly once**. Read a family's n as a disjoint count, not a tally
+of everything the family's description could fit:
 
 Family letters A–E are the ones §4 names detectors for, and those letters correspond. **This table
 assigns no letters below E.** §4's detectors F and G address fail-open and destructive-replace,
@@ -285,17 +286,12 @@ the text under review.
 
 **Two limits on this section, since it is the one making a claim about its own production.**
 
-- **The first version of this table said 18, and was wrong by nearly half.** It was built by
-  pattern-matching a regex I invented against the corpus — sampling the population instead of
-  enumerating it, in the section arguing against exactly that. Worse, the hedge attached to it blamed
-  "records that ran rounds without narrating them", which misdescribed the failure: the 15 missing
-  records narrate their rounds in the same words as the counted ones, and one of them (#706) is named
-  as a Family D member three paragraphs earlier in this document, so the table contradicted its own §3.
-  A cold reviewer caught it. The correction was to read all 69 rather than write a better pattern —
-  detector A, applied to the paragraph that proposes detector A.
-- Even now, 33 is a floor rather than a total: it counts records that *state* a round count, and a
-  record that ran four rounds without saying so is invisible here. That limit is real; it is just not
-  what was wrong the first time.
+- **33 is a floor, not a total.** It counts records that *state* a round count; a record that ran
+  four rounds without narrating them is invisible here. Do not read the 36 remaining records as
+  single-round work.
+- **Counting this by pattern rather than by enumeration under-reports it by roughly half.** A regex
+  over the corpus finds 18 of these 33 — the misses narrate their rounds in the same words as the
+  hits. If you re-derive this number, read all 69.
 - **#767 — the case #773 describes as taking eight review rounds — is excluded by snapshot timing,
   not by absence.** The corpus was drawn at 19:45 on 2026-08-13; #767 closed at 20:04, nineteen
   minutes later, and now carries a full `## Closing record`. So the worst instance of the phenomenon
@@ -449,9 +445,8 @@ Measured over the session transcript corpus (811 files under
 
 The zero for `LSP` is verified rather than assumed: the same query shape returns 23,661 `Bash` calls
 and 5,102 `Read` calls over the same corpus, so the search was demonstrably capable of finding hits.
-*(The first attempt at this count returned 0 for `Bash` as well — a `rg -c` output-format slip that
-summed the file path instead of the count. A zero without a positive control is exactly the vacuous
-verification this document is about.)*
+**Re-derive it with that positive control**, not on its own — `rg -c` over multiple files prints
+`path:count`, so the obvious way to total it sums the paths and returns zero for everything.
 
 **Hooks are the good news.** All 13 scripts in `.claude/hooks/` are wired from either
 `.claude/settings.json` or `.husky/*`, and no settings entry points at a missing path — there are
@@ -479,9 +474,8 @@ row in that table from inference to measurement, and it is cheap.
 
 ### 5.5 Tools we do *not* have that would address a named class
 
-#773 asked for this explicitly and an earlier draft of this document skipped it. Each is justified
-against specific issues, not general merit; anything I could not tie to recorded instances is left
-out rather than padded in.
+Each is justified against specific issues, not general merit; anything that could not be tied to
+recorded instances is left out rather than padded in.
 
 | Tool | Class it addresses | Justification |
 |---|---|---|
@@ -496,14 +490,13 @@ be the symptom-keyed mistake. Nothing in the corpus suggests a tool we lack woul
 for Family A — the four in-repo reinventions show the convention works when applied; the failure is
 that it was never written down once.
 
-**Evidence status of these rows, stated exactly, because an earlier draft of this paragraph
-overclaimed it.** Only the shellcheck row was *executed* — which is why it is struck through, and it
-was struck through *because* running it refuted the reason it had been proposed. The three surviving
-rows are **reasoned from precedent**: each names issues whose recorded mechanism the tool addresses,
-but none has been run against this repo to confirm it fires. That is a weaker warrant and should be
-discharged before any of them is adopted — a tool justified by "it plausibly catches this class" is
-the same species of claim as the guards this document criticises. Treat these three as candidates to
-test, not findings.
+**Evidence status of these rows, which differs and matters.** Only the shellcheck row was
+*executed* — and running it refuted the reason it had been proposed, which is why it is struck
+through. The three surviving rows are **reasoned from precedent**: each names issues whose recorded
+mechanism the tool addresses, but none has been run against this repo to confirm it fires. That is a
+weaker warrant and should be discharged before any of them is adopted — a tool justified by "it
+plausibly catches this class" is the same species of claim as the guards this document criticises.
+Treat these three as candidates to test, not findings.
 
 **On MemPalace**, the 19-day gap deserves care rather than a verdict: `CLAUDE.md` makes it the
 documented discovery path for decisions, so either sessions are skipping the documented path, or