diff --git a/ArchitectureBlueprint.md b/ArchitectureBlueprint.md
index 438ba6c..498621e 100644
--- a/ArchitectureBlueprint.md
+++ b/ArchitectureBlueprint.md
@@ -584,6 +584,28 @@ Without this rider A-16 becomes the thing it exists to prevent: a sound check re
 as establishing a property it does not carry. Raised by `informed-decision`
 against its own instance, which is the weak one.
 
+**The obligation attaches to the party that observed the route.** A-16 requires
+the record to say which route produced the state; it does **not** require every
+downstream holder of the value to restate a route it never saw. A party writing a
+route marker for a transition it did not observe is manufacturing the marker, which
+is the rider's failure in its most direct form.
+
+`audit-core` established this by declining an obligation offered to it: asked
+whether its envelope inherited `GH-DEC-2026-013`'s tenant-provenance requirement, it
+answered no — its `tenant` is not an identity claim it resolves but a value a
+credential is permitted to write, checked by exact match against a registration, so
+recording a route in an audit event would be restating something it did not see.
+The obligation lands on the party that resolved the value, and the record of the
+authority for the scope lives in the registration. Confirmed correct; the refusal is
+A-16 applied properly rather than an exception to it.
+
+**Applying A-16 relocates ambiguity; it does not terminate it.** `audit-core`'s
+declaration disambiguates *erased* from *never held* and creates a fourth pair —
+*false declaration* versus *honest declaration then loss*. That is not a defect in
+the rule and not a reason to stop applying it: the ambiguity ends up somewhere
+**attributable**, which is the point. Expect each application to move the question
+rather than close it, and judge the move by whether the new residual has an owner.
+
 ### A-17 — Fail-closed transitions
 
 A transitional deviation from an invariant is admissible only where it fails
diff --git a/decisions/decisions.md b/decisions/decisions.md
index da4a844..746eaf5 100644
--- a/decisions/decisions.md
+++ b/decisions/decisions.md
@@ -2259,6 +2259,33 @@ retrieval is a **conformance failure** attributable to the custodian rather than
 gap in the record. A commitment with no accompanying assertion that something is being
 committed to is indistinguishable from a commitment to nothing.
 
+**Amended 2026-09-10 — detection sits with the reviewer, not with the archive.**
+`audit-core` accepted this condition and corrected its wording, and the correction is
+load-bearing enough that leaving it as an assumption would have made this section wrong.
+The archive **carries** the declaration; it does not **detect** non-production. It
+performs no retrieval, holds no client for the emitting repository, and its egress policy
+permits nothing that would let it try — asserted by a test, because the claim silently
+stops being true the day someone adds one.
+
+So the mechanism is: the **reviewer** discovers non-production at retrieval, and the
+stored declaration is what makes that discovery a **finding** rather than a blank —
+because the reviewer holds a chained, timestamped statement that content existed and where
+custody sat. Nothing in this section requires an archive to chase content, and it MUST NOT
+be read as requiring it. An archive that fetched from the parties it audits would be
+acquiring exactly the dependency that makes it corruptible by them.
+
+**And the residual this creates, stated rather than left to be found.** A custodian that
+never held the content can emit a false `content_exists`; the archive validates the
+declaration's **shape**, never its **truth**. That is the same class as omission at source
+— an archive cannot retrofit a property the boundary did not have — and it is closed by
+neither the hash chain, nor attestation, nor `T-04`/`T-06`.
+
+What §4 actually buys is narrower than it first reads, and this is the honest statement of
+it: **the declaration converts an unattributable absence into an attributable false
+statement.** Strictly better, and not the same as proof. Raised by `audit-core` against
+its own delivered work, with the observation that the distinction is better in this text
+now than in a conformance argument later.
+
 This is `GH-DEC-2026-011` §3's rule in its third setting: two states, one observable
 appearance, and the record must distinguish them. There it was `unknown` versus `absent`
 in a stance map; in `GH-DEC-2026-013` §5 it was directory-asserted versus