# Originality and claim-boundary review

## Slot and corpus preflight

- The August 31 evening AI-architecture directory did not exist before this run. Exactly one final evening article package was created.
- The same-date morning article is *Before Anyone Reaches for a Spray Can: A Pest-Evidence Playbook for Self-Storage Managers*. The same-date midday article is *Stop Calling Every Site Open: Build a Facility Operating Mode Register*. The selected recovery-class thesis, fictional Granite Bend Storage example and reversibility register do not reuse either lane’s title, slug, scenario, tool or operating method.
- The current governed calendar at `/Users/jared/Documents/msu/authority-control-room/public/downloads/editorial-execution/editorial-calendar.csv` contained 40 data rows and SHA-256 `1a61eb3cbbc3b4504d963350ee9bfc64de93e1199ff5a253159eb71439442ca6`.
- The current editorial-and-media register contained 71 data rows and SHA-256 `d0d647262b96c1a3d38f1dc440440235391ad35fffd1c583ae9932cef9813b4a`. The current submission tracker contained 320 data rows and SHA-256 `cfb649985df103f683c84c2c8f825e09081ca7d94a4e9758c5fee628d9d09c6a`.
- A preliminary action-budget thesis was rejected and replaced before finalization because MED-067/SUB-312 already reserves the exclusive AI Business manuscript *Give Every AI Agent an Action Radius*, which covers object, geography, time and downstream-system authorization boundaries. No action-budget article or tool remains in the final package.
- Other active August 31 source offers and concepts were screened, including physical-AI unknown state, agentic-AI stop conditions, cross-functional incident ownership, property-summary lineage, digital possession and reality-capture blind spots. The selected article does not reuse those premises.

## Published and assigned collision review

- The live Jared authority sitemap returned HTTP 200 with 55 canonical locations and SHA-256 `3de350a24226c0417995b8454128b24a06d8f4d89f95c0db60eb5e6eb8c9a9fc`.
- The live modSTORAGE post sitemap returned HTTP 200. Its current downloaded bytes contained 130 non-media post canonicals and 131 media locations among 261 `loc` entries, with SHA-256 `186ab39b2ae6e77b5b9c21eb2e27482ee62fea6b80afb9dc9e1d1bcf381fe2c3`. The XML’s own generation comment is dated August 30, 2026 at 8:03 p.m.; the file was freshly retrieved on August 31.
- Neither live sitemap contained `Rollback Is Not Undo`, `rollback-not-undo-self-storage-ai-compensation-contract`, `Granite Bend Storage` or `ai-action-reversibility-register`.
- Exact public searches found no matching title, slug or tool. A current unrelated page discussed general AI action reversibility; it did not match this self-storage thesis, four-state recovery taxonomy, fictional scenario or operator register.
- Closest published canonicals were reviewed rather than ignored: *The Correction Propagation Contract* governs how a corrected fact moves across dependent consumers; *The Facility Intervention Contract* separates requested action from observed physical effect; *Where an Operations Agent Must Hand Back Control* defines authority and interruption states; *The Facility Change-Impact Graph* maps release blast radius. This article instead governs recovery classification and residual consequence after one action enters execution.
- Across 358 relevant Markdown files outside the package, the final body produced zero exact normalized sentence matches of 14 or more words. The maximum six-word-shingle overlap was 0.309%, six generic control phrases, against *The Facility Intervention Contract*. No distinctive paragraph, example, title or tool structure was reused.

## Fiction, claims and states

- Granite Bend Storage and every related facility, person, customer, recipient, record, system, message, provider, policy, version, action, count and outcome are explicitly fictional.
- The fictional 240-message population, 187 delivered state and 53 accepted-not-delivered state are teaching numbers only. They are not a customer result, delivery metric, incident, provider claim or operational record.
- No customer, deployment, integration, partnership, certification, product availability, performance, revenue, occupancy effect, adoption, award, publication outcome, coverage or recognition is invented or implied.
- The article does not claim that canceling, correcting, refunding, revoking or issuing follow-up work is legally sufficient, technically available, safe or appropriate in every workflow. Recovery remains system-, policy-, jurisdiction-, authority- and fact-specific.
- Provider acceptance, cancellation response, correction delivery and successful technical compensation remain separate from governing readback, customer understanding, residual consequence and closure.
- Jared’s roles and tenure are not material to the article, so no biography or tenure statement was added.

## Source and method limitations

- Microsoft and AWS sources are first-party cloud-architecture patterns. They support distributed compensation concepts but are not self-storage standards, universal undo guarantees, legal rules or evidence that a compensating action is adequate.
- RFC 9110 supports the technical definition of idempotency only. It does not establish business reversibility or repair downstream consequences.
- W3C PROV-DM supplies a provenance vocabulary. It does not authorize actions, establish current facility truth or guarantee complete lineage.
- NIST SP 800-53 is a broad federal control catalog. NIST AI RMF 1.0 is voluntary, cross-sector guidance and is currently being revised. Neither source certifies this proposed compensation contract.

**Truthful state:** Publication-ready local draft only. No publisher handoff, submission, publication, canonical, search submission, crawling, indexing, coverage or recognition occurred in this run.