diff --git a/goodwe_controller/CHANGELOG.md b/goodwe_controller/CHANGELOG.md
index 1ec6f33..8412c33 100644
--- a/goodwe_controller/CHANGELOG.md
+++ b/goodwe_controller/CHANGELOG.md
@@ -266,12 +266,14 @@ shipped `sum` is correct and must not be "fixed".**
   it does not belong on"* and asserted `"peak" in scope_errors[0]`, which is
   still true after the two swap roles. Measured this round: **0 bytes, 21/21
   green**; now red on 2 checks, pinned on the ordered pair.
-* **14 more zero-byte mutations measured, and 11 SURVIVORS ARE DISCLOSED RATHER
+* **14 more zero-byte mutations measured, and 10 SURVIVORS ARE DISCLOSED RATHER
   THAN CLOSED**, each with its file fingerprint and its 21/21 verdict, in
-  `DECISIONS/SAFETY-38-site-standing-pin.md` §7e–§7g: three in
+  `DECISIONS/SAFETY-38-site-standing-pin.md` §7e–§7g: **two** in
   `allocator.py`'s `UnitPlan.explain()`, three across `arbiter.py`'s two
   `explain()`s, two in `tariff.py`, two in `arbitrage.py`'s trade reasons and
-  one in `main.py`'s SoC-floor notification. **An enumerated list with honest
+  one in `main.py`'s SoC-floor notification. The other four of the fourteen are
+  kills: `allocator.py:162` was already caught by `test_alloc.py`, and
+  `clamp.py:253`, `peakguard.py:493` and `arbiter.py:264` are closed here. **An enumerated list with honest
   gaps beats a fifth round finding a fifth instance.**
   ⚠️ **And the probe that grades those mutations was itself the defect, once.**
   Its first cut numbered the operands **by order of appearance**, so after a
diff --git a/goodwe_controller/DECISIONS/SAFETY-38-site-standing-pin.md b/goodwe_controller/DECISIONS/SAFETY-38-site-standing-pin.md
index c86a774..2010492 100644
--- a/goodwe_controller/DECISIONS/SAFETY-38-site-standing-pin.md
+++ b/goodwe_controller/DECISIONS/SAFETY-38-site-standing-pin.md
@@ -640,11 +640,21 @@ below, unpinned.
 
 **Open, named, and measured — see §7f for the ledger:**
 
-* **Nine further zero-byte survivors** found by the widened scan, each measured
-  at 21/21 green on this tree: three in `allocator.py`'s `UnitPlan.explain()`,
-  three in `arbiter.py`'s two `explain()`s, two in `tariff.py`, and one each in
-  `arbitrage.py`'s two decision reasons and `main.py`'s SoC-floor notification.
+* **TEN further zero-byte survivors** found by the widened scan, each measured
+  at 21/21 green on this tree: **two** in `allocator.py`'s `UnitPlan.explain()`
+  (C1 :154, C2 :160), three in `arbiter.py`'s two `explain()`s (C4a, C4b :344,
+  C5 :392), two in `tariff.py` (C8, C9), two in `arbitrage.py`'s trade reasons
+  (B17, B18) and one in `main.py`'s SoC-floor notification (B19).
   None is a control decision; every one is a sentence an operator reads.
+  ⚠️ **CORRECTED after review, and the error is worth keeping visible.** This
+  bullet first said "Nine" while listing eleven, and the CHANGELOG said eleven
+  while listing eleven — and BOTH counted `allocator.py:162` (C3) among the
+  survivors when §7f records it as a KILL, red in `test_alloc.py`. The
+  authoritative tables in §7e and §7f were right throughout; only the summary
+  sentences a reader actually relies on were wrong. That is this card's own
+  recurring defect in prose rather than in code: a claim wider than the
+  measurement beneath it. Arithmetic, from §7f: 14 measured = 10 surviving +
+  1 already caught (C3) + 3 caught by this round (C6, C7, B12).
 * **The action-log surface of the peak-guard idle line** (`main.py:1951`) is
   not pinned. The status row (3313) is, and both come off the same `explain()`,
   so the *sentence* is closed and the *second call site* is not — which is