S16: ratification round 10 -- remove the tally from item 1's own explanation

Whole-artifact review of a5f3013 returned one blocking finding.

§6 item 1 declared that no count is stated there and then stated one: "M7's
split into M7a and M7b makes ten executions." §3's table now has eleven
mutation rows -- M1 through M5, M6a/M6b, M7a/M7b, M8, M9 -- because M6 split
too. This is a live report requirement, not dated history, so an execution
report could reconcile against the wrong set.

The paragraph indicted itself: its closing sentence warned that "a count here
goes stale the next time a mutation splits", and then M6 split and the count
went stale exactly as predicted, with the warning still attached to it.

Item 1 now reads: no count is stated here, §3's table is the single origin,
read its rows. The parenthetical records both stale values -- the original
"nine mutations (M1-M9)" and the replacement tally -- without restating a
current one.

This is revision J's rule, applied to item 1 after J applied it to item 2: an
explanation of a removed count must not restate a count. Items 1 and 2 are
adjacent lines, and J swept one of them. The neighbour-not-swept failure, in
the very pair of items that produced the rule.

Swept for other live mutation tallies: three remain, all inside dated revision
records or quoting superseded text (revision B's finding cell, round 7's
record, and item 1's own parenthetical). The live requirement is count-free.

Round 9's field-declaration anchors are confirmed sound by the reviewer: both
declarations are unique in graph.rs, and a B-wording revert leaves each
declaration available, so the needle assertion rather than the locator produces
the required output. That closes round 9's second finding on evidence rather
than on derivation.

Committed one round late: the shell tooling failed mid-round after the edit
landed, so this change sat uncommitted and was reported as such rather than
claimed as done.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Ps1szk2mSfgp4Cz21eVH9x

spec/CONTRACT_P13S16_PROJECTION.md

@@ -2087,10 +2087,14 @@ its evidence at `invariants.rs:69`–`:71` must stay intact.
    verdict by name**, and each named structural gate's output. **An omitted named
    artifact is a finding**, as is any failure outside the table's "MUST fail" column or
    any listed failure that did not occur.
-   **The count is NOT stated here — corrected on review.** It read *"the nine mutations
-   (M1–M9)"*, and M7's split into **M7a and M7b** makes ten executions, so a report could
-   not both enumerate them and obey the tally. **§3 is the single origin**; a count here
-   goes stale the next time a mutation splits, exactly as this one did.
+   **No count is stated here. §3's table is the single origin — read its rows.**
+   *(This item read "the nine mutations (M1–M9)", a tally a report could not both
+   enumerate and obey once mutations began splitting. **The replacement then stated a
+   count of its own**, which went stale when M6 split as well as M7 — while the very
+   sentence carrying it warned that "a count here goes stale the next time a mutation
+   splits". **Removed in ratification round 10**: an explanation of a removed count must
+   not restate a count, which is revision J's rule applied to item 1 after J applied it
+   to item 2.)*
 2. **Every gate listed in §4**, each with its command and output. **No count is stated
    here — §4 is the single origin.** Where a gate has lettered subchecks, they are
    reported **under that gate**, not as separate results.