Rouiada, all,

Thanks - the distinction you draw is the design, and criterion 4 already
carries it. The per-case records, the aggregate line and the exit code are
named there as carried material, they are members of the admitted
population the criterion-2 manifest closes and pins, and the closing
sentence states that the refusal is recomputable without the original
tooling. A party re-running the recount therefore needs the pinned record
bytes - which by construction include those carried lines - and not the
artefacts criterion 1 independently pins.

Your reading does, however, expose a genuine ambiguity in the phrase "the
pinned bytes": it can be misread as only the criterion-1-pinned artefacts.
I will tighten the consolidated v2.1 sentence to read "the pinned record
bytes, including the carried per-case lines, aggregate line and exit code
named in this criterion", so that the recomputation base is exactly the
material you name and your reading is foreclosed.

This is a wording-only clarification, a fifth delta alongside the four
already posted; it changes neither a criterion nor any corpus byte. Barring
objection within the running 48-hour window, it goes into the consolidated
base.

Guigui Wang | Correctover
wangguigui@correctover.com
