Registered: negative readings are bounded by each cell's detectable effect, and rebase edits get a sensitivity analysis¶

Negative readings. The proposal of 2026-09-23 is adopted. A cell reads bounded when its interval's upper bound lies below the effect the sensitivity analysis says that cell detects at the Holm level it is read at; the gate reads the bounds from decomposition-sensitivity.json (detectable_effects) and refuses a confirmatory cell without one at every level. The SESOI band is reported beside every cell and decides nothing. Justification: Lakens, Scheel and Isager (2018) list the effect a study was designed to detect among the bases for an equivalence bound, and Lakens (2022) asks a design to say which effects it is informative about when it cannot resolve the SESOI. The bound is reachable where absence was not: the regenerated sensitivity artifact records null_reads_bounded per cell and level beside null_reads_absent: a true null reads bounded 0.97 of the time in three of the four H1 cells and 0.94 in Qt's at 95%, against 0.000 absent in all four; every other figure in the artifact reproduced exactly. The bounds are recomputed at N on corpus v2 before the seal opens. A reversed effect now reads bounded, since H1 is directional.

Rebase edits. Kept in the primary label on every organization. The stored REST snapshots hold neither Gerrit's due_to_rebase flag (the build fetches each diff and keeps its hunks) nor patch-set parents, so a drop could reach no held REST corpus without refetching, which robots.txt forbids on Qt. The test window is collected fresh, so its collection records the flag per hunk beside the build output, and H1 and H2 are re-read with flagged hunks removed as a registered sensitivity analysis. Paixão and Maia (SCAM 2019) find rebasing in 75% of Gerrit reviews and ask review-mining studies to handle it rather than filter reviews out.