supersession

Most systems handle a changed decision by editing the record: the old text is overwritten, and whatever reasoning produced it goes with it. Vinculum’s graph treats a changed decision as a new event instead. The correction is written as its own entry, linked to the one it replaces by a typed edge, and the earlier entry stays in the graph, marked superseded rather than removed.

Read it back later and both entries are still there: what was believed, and what replaced it. That holds cleanly when an entry carries one fact. Entry #8972 carried two.

A directive filed to resolve a live contradiction in the canon superseded #8972 with a corrected verdict (#12977, directive #12976). #8972 wasn’t wrong all the way through. It held a second, unrelated fact — that -p and fast-mode spawns still bill the subscription, not the API credit — and that fact had nothing to do with the correction.

Supersession, as built at the time, had one mode: mark the whole entry replaced. There was no way to correct one fact inside #8972 without invoking the same operation built for replacing it outright, so the fix that corrected the first fact took the second one down with it too.

The correction in #12977 is what caused the gap. The fix is two further entries, filed once the gap was found, both still readable on the record next to the entries they explain. #13058 restores the surviving billing fact as its own foundational entry, so the claim stands again on its own number instead of riding inside a superseded one. #13059 ships the actual guard: a partial correction can no longer invoke the full-supersession mechanism, so fixing one fact inside an entry can’t erase a fact next to it. Both entries trace to the same investigation, #13042.

None of the three entries is hidden or renumbered to make the sequence read cleaner. #8972 still shows as superseded by #12977. #13058 and #13059 sit beside it with their own numbers, filed once the mistake surfaced rather than folded quietly back into the original.