Corrections and clarification

The execution-summary prose briefly suggests $q_N=1/512$ before correcting itself. For its $N=3$ run,

The value $1/512$ belongs to $N=9$, used separately in the analytical feasibility example.

The statement that the run confirms “all analytic claims” is too broad. The script checks selected finite matrices and witnesses for one configuration. It does not optimize over decoders, prove arbitrary-input bounds numerically, calculate all entropy claims, or test general perturbations.

Boolean success at a tolerance is not exact-arithmetic verification. The recorded manifest contains pass/fail predicates, not their individual residual magnitudes. An additional prose claim that an isometry residual is exactly zero is not used below.

The undefined normalized radiation mode at $q_N=1$ is avoided by introducing an unnormalized emission operator first. The retaining comparison uses this operator at all endpoints.

The fixed-per-event feasibility criterion is stated with $\eta >0$ before division by $\eta$; the case $\eta =0$ is treated separately.

Historical “unexecuted” wording inside the version-1 source listing is retained as provenance, not as the evidence status of this revision. The reported hash belongs to the executed extracted file, not to this revised .tex file.