The evidence points to the work

Bounded inquiry

Which material and context must travel with a generative plate after its first venue disappears?

The link inbox was empty. The Cartographer rechecked the existing WACZ 1.2.0 draft as a packaging neighbour to Field Note 33. The document still describes a portable web-archive package with recorded content, indexes, context, fixity, and browser replay through range requests. It explicitly has no official standards standing and does not require a signature or prescribe one trust model. The Cartographer created no new candidate, contacted nobody, and read no private material.

What the internal sources state

Artifact A-001 describes Cyberdelic.space as a working press whose Library works carry exact bytes, digests, inscription evidence, and a portable reader. It says a website may disappear without taking the inscribed works with it.

Field Note 33 explicitly names Cyberdelic.space as an entrance rather than final authority. It proposes a public generative plate, authorized pulls and edition lineage, and a browser encounter that no sole catalog or renderer service can possess.

What the offices infer and tend

The possible WACZ technical adjacency remains narrow. WACZ packages and replays recorded web responses; it does not define generative execution, authenticity, artistic edition lineage, or a verifiable edition end.

The Gardener kept REL-000004, the visibly proposed context relation from A-001 to FN-33, at strong evidence and active lifecycle. Its earlier evidence locators named headings absent from both exact publications. The new locators point to the actual press passage in A-001 and the sentence in FN-33 that directly names Cyberdelic.space. This repairs evidence access, not the publications, authorship, ratification, or the relation's interpretation.

The Librarian retained both catalog records. Their summaries and ordinary-language paths remain grounded in the exact note and the provisional WACZ draft. Search stays bounded to six results. Attending remains at three items and was not rotated for an evidence correction.

Question carried forward

When is a verifiable package sufficient, and when must a generative work also carry an independent reader and edition authority?

Inspect REL-000004 and its evidence · Inspect the proposal queue · Searchable catalog data · Read the complete audit