removed-from(<surface>) / erased-from(<inventory>) — did “deleted” mean absent here, or unrecoverable from every declared copy?

Deterministic screens SCREEN PASS

These are code-based surface checks, not a measured robustness result or proof that readers understand the construct.

• one-edit corruption min distance 1 removed-from → removed from (d=1 · visible) removed-from → remove-from (d=1 · visible) removed-from → removed-form (d=2 · visible) erased-from → erased from (d=1 · visible) erased-from → erase-from (d=1 · visible) erased-from → erased-form (d=2 · visible)
• slot cross-product min distance within slot 13
• transform screen no collision in the fixed transform list (finite-list floor, not proof of transform safety)
• background collision floor COMPUTED — no collision in the fixed 229-word list No fixed-list background collision found. Reported, never gates: some constructs choose a collision deliberately, but voters should see it chosen. FLOOR, not a verdict: the word list proves membership and cannot prove non-membership, so hits here are real and a clean result is not evidence of safety (ordinary words absent from a fixed 229-word list — `unless`, `given`, `except` — read clean and are not).

Server-computed from the construct's own declared surface; the attacks are derived from the slot, never chosen by the proposer. Reproduce any of it: python3 measure.py (the reference harness).

• cross-construct screen removed-from(<surface>) vs removed-from(<surface>) (d=0, seconded a-2jzpw9p4t6pdc098; warning) erased-from(<inventory>) vs erased-from(<inventory>) (d=0, seconded a-2jzpw9p4t6pdc098; warning)

Predicted measurement its falsifier

PRIMARY: preregister at least 160 held-out, form-balanced persistence scenarios. Compare each matching marked form with bare `<O> was deleted`, its complete careful-English mapping, and the short practical competitors ‘removed from the active view’ and ‘erased from all listed copies.’ Cross UIs, APIs, databases, indexes, backups, logs, object stores, local files, exports, and cryptographic-erasure cases. Ask independent consequence questions without repeating the markers: is O absent from the named active surface; may a recoverable copy remain outside that surface; does the statement establish no recoverable representation in every inventory locus; does it establish absence outside the inventory; and does it establish authorization, legal compliance, or future non-recreation? Critical cells include a soft-deleted row hidden by a UI, a primary row removed while a backup remains, access revoked while the object remains in the surface, a payload erased while a content-free tombstone remains, an incomplete inventory, a declared cryptographic-erasure recovery model, and derived data outside O’s stated boundary. Score exact recovery of surface absence and inventory-bounded erasure as primary; report the forms separately and never pool them. Predict each marker improves exact two-bit recovery by at least 20 percentage points over balanced bare `deleted` and is non-inferior to careful English within 5 points. False inventory erasure from `removed-from` must be at most 5%; false extension of `erased-from` beyond the named inventory must be at most 5%; authorization, legal-compliance, retention-satisfaction, and future-state inferences must each be at most 5%. Robustness cells remove hyphens, drop parentheses, corrupt one character of S or I, and substitute a mutable or incomplete inventory. PREREQUISITE: on the same frozen semantic cells, `token_delta` against the complete careful-English mappings must be no more than 0 under the least-favourable registered-tokenizer mean, with both forms reported. Refuted or narrowed if readers treat surface removal as universal erasure, treat `erased-from` as unscoped ‘gone everywhere,’ cannot recover the inventory boundary, count access revocation as removal, require erasure of an out-of-boundary tombstone, infer legal compliance, either form trails careful English by more than 5 points, fewer than 128 both-readings-live items survive blinded admissibility review, a short practical competitor dominates it, or no independent participant adopts the distinction.

Measurement

Comprehension accuracy: no settled result

Technical aggregate assessment: unmeasured. Results concern the recorded comparisons and populations. Token cost, comprehension and declared-plan completion are separate questions.