Sample report
A comb of fixtures/worked-over-note/input.md. The draft is a cache-invalidation note after many passes. Nothing in the draft was rewritten. Why we wait is not broken merely because Usage did not ask that question. The app sample is a sibling comb, then what was fixed. A continuity example sits in fixtures/reader-continuity/.
Detangler report — worked-over-note.md
814 words. 9 sections. 2026-08-26.
Broken: 7. Intentional but verify: 1. Judgment calls: 3.
Broken
- F-001 · s1 (line 9) — reference_orphan
see the Resources section Action: Restore a Resources heading, or retarget every pointer that names it. Evidence: No heading or definition named Resources remains. The same pointer appears in s2, s3, and s6.
- F-002 · s2 (line 19) — reference_orphan
Figure 1 is the sequence. Table 1 is the field list. Appendix A holds leftover commands Action: Restore those artifacts, or delete the sentences that promise them. Evidence: No figure, table, or Appendix A heading exists. s9 mentions Appendix A again.
- F-003 · s2 — heading_gap
## 1. Purpose … ## 2. Setup … ## 4. Usage Action: Insert a ## 3 or renumber 4–10. Evidence: Numbered headings skip 3. A common miss after a cut.
- F-004 · s3 (line 23) — misdirected
See Section 5 if you need the hook itself. Action: Point at s5 (How we invalidate), or name the hook section by title. Evidence: The heading numbered 5 is Why we wait. The hook is defined in s5 / heading 6.
- F-005 · s7 (line 60) — misdirected
See Section 2 for the hook that this section assumes is present. Action: Point at s5, or drop the pointer. Evidence: Section 2 is Setup. It uses CacheHook; it does not define the hook.
- F-006 · s4 (line 29) — count_mismatch
There are three reasons to wait Action: Change the count to four, or drop the fourth item. Evidence: The list has four items. The sentence still says three.
- F-007 · s4 (line 36) — stale_edit
The retry window on the writer path is 30 seconds Action: Pick 30 or 90 and make both sentences agree. Evidence: s6 says 90 seconds in a near-verbatim recap.
Intentional but verify
- F-008 · s2 (line 17) — forward_undefined
Writers call CacheHook after every durable write. Action: Confirm the term may appear before s5 defines it, or add a gloss, or move the definition up. Evidence: CacheHook is named in Setup. The definition sentence is in s5.
Judgment calls
- F-009 · s4 (line 38) — repetition_redundant
after every durable write the process calls the invalidation hook Action: Keep the sentence in s5. Cut it from Why we wait, or turn it into a pointer. Evidence: s5 is the how. s4 added the same sentence “for clarity.” Same job, adjacent sections.
- F-010 · s8 — repetition_redundant
Install the CLI, then copy the overlay. Action: Keep Setup or Playbook. Cut the other, or make Playbook a pointer to s2. Evidence: Playbook covers the same ground as Setup, written later as a “runbook voice.”
- F-011 · s4 — section_bloat
Why we wait Action: Cut the leftover paragraph that exists so the section looks finished, or accept this as the centerpiece. Evidence: About 2.5× the median section. The last paragraph says it is leftover from a later editor.
Reverse outline
- s1 1. Purpose (108 words) — This note maps how the writer path invalidates a cache after a durable write.
- s2 2. Setup (119 words) — Install the CLI, copy the overlay, and call CacheHook after each durable write. - s3 4. Usage (61 words) — Run the comb on a finished draft and keep the report next to the file. - s4 5. Why we wait (175 words) — Freeze the hook change for four operational reasons, while the lead sentence still says three. - s5 6. How we invalidate (139 words) — After a durable write the process calls CacheHook; skipping it leaves readers on a stale blob. - s6 7. Recap (53 words) — Restates the retry window as 90 seconds and the hook sentence. - s7 8. Limits (55 words) — Multi-region replicas are out; the note reports and does not rewrite. - s8 9. Playbook (50 words) — Same install-and-run steps as Setup, in runbook voice. - s9 10. Leftovers (30 words) — Commands from the deleted Resources chapter wait here.
Argument spine
| Section | Question it answers | Raised by previous | Progression basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| s1 | What is this note for? | — | not applicable |
| s2 | How do you install the overlay? | partial | purpose names the overlay; the heading establishes install |
| s3 | How do you run the comb? | yes | setup already raised install |
| s4 | Why is the hook change frozen? | no | the heading establishes the freeze; Usage does not promise this section |
| s5 | How does invalidation work? | partial | the note's job is invalidation; Why we wait already treats the hook as settled |
| s6 | What should an operator remember? | yes | recap of the window and the hook |
| s7 | What does this note refuse? | partial | limits of the map |
| s8 | What are the run steps? | no | the heading establishes a runbook; the duplicate of Setup is F-010, not a spine break |
| s9 | What remains from the cut chapter? | yes | leftovers from the chapter the note already says was cut |
Continuity overview
No actionable continuity findings. Why we wait follows Usage without Usage promising that section, so the heading is enough and the old automatic spine break is not a finding. How we invalidate says it is answering a question the previous section already treated as settled.
Deferred line notes
No line-level observations were captured.