- Correct grid disclosure to match the sealed device-map: single-laptop
isolated-docker host; the two phones are pinned consenting-node labels
(can_host_engine=false / isolated_engine_available=false), never forwarders
and carrying no measured traffic — across abstract, apparatus, scope, and
limitations, plus the companion methods.
- Replace two dangling `PHONE-ROLE-AUDIT.md` citations (file never existed)
with the real artifact that substantiates the claim: grid/device-map.json;
vendor that artifact so the citation resolves in a clean clone.
- Drop the stale "(skeleton — quantitative claims held...)" abstract label now
that the abstract is filled and RQ2 is ratified.
- Disclose that the study was staged, pre-registered, and executed under the
Interpretable Context Methodology (ICM) [VanClief2026]; add the reference.
- Repoint the bibliography citation to the vendored docs/sor-consent-bibliography.md.
- Regenerate the paper site from the corrected markdown.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Paper (stage-07 lead): add an Apparatus disclosure (§4.3) and a Node-distribution
limitation (§7) stating that all relay hops ran as isolated Docker containers on a
single engine host and the two phones were consenting endpoints, not forwarders.
Containment (engine != local) holds; cross-machine timing is out of scope / future work.
Add the self-contained study site (docs/paper-site/: build_site.py, index.html) built
straight from the sealed paper markdown, plus a generator + six 1080x1920 Instagram-story
teaser slides (make_story_slides.py, story/) using only sealed, audited numbers. Defensive
measurement framing throughout; the pre-registered nulls are reported, not spun.
leetcrypt