v0.35.0 — a worked example that is safe to ship, and one that was not

The axis that counts numbers could not see numbers written as macros, a public
repository was carrying an unpublished manuscript's method summary, and the
worked example that demonstrates any of this now runs on a synthetic paper
instead of a real one.

Numbers held in macros were invisible, in both directions

A manuscript that writes \newcommand{\Nfields}{63} in its preamble and
\Nfields{} in its results put a measured quantity where neither named text
projection could read it. RE_TEX_SIMPLE_CMD reduces a command to its
argument, so the use site contributed nothing while the definition site
contributed the digits once, in the preamble, attributed to no reported
section. Two errors running in opposite directions, which is why the net stayed
small enough to go unnoticed: on the manuscript that surfaced it, expanding the
uses adds 650 digits and dropping the definitions removes 493.

Found by running the tools on a real manuscript, not by a test. The salience
axis had been reporting recital percentiles for that paper computed on 91% of
its digits, and correcting it moved that paper from 16 recital findings to 26.

tools/tex_macros.py expands numeric-literal macros once, on the assembled
document root, because that is the only scope holding both a preamble
definition and a body use — the same reason read_tex_document folds
\include in the first place. Only a bare numeric literal expands, so
\newcommand{\Msun}{M_\odot} and every macro taking an argument are untouched.

Both salience baselines were rebuilt rather than left to score expanded
manuscripts against an unexpanded reference. They move by zero to four
decimals at the p90 and p95 gates, across all three features and all seven
buckets, in both wgl and wgl-letter: 88.2% of 390 corpus documents never
use the construction. That is what separates a correction from a rescaling, and
it means no published salience figure in EVALUATION.md changes (§22).

An unpublished manuscript's method summary was in a public repository

This repository is public. Content from the author's unpublished manuscripts
had accumulated in the evaluation record since 2026-07-12, in increments that
each looked locally harmless — a codename in a test fixture, a macro and its
value in a docstring, one fidelity-preserving rewrite quoted in full.

The aggregate was a complete method summary: enough of the method for a competitor to reconstruct the contribution. Public for 46 days.

The quoted rewrite was the largest single exposure, and it was labelled a
proposal rather than a quotation, which is exactly why it survived review: the
rewrite gate protects numbers, citations, macros, entities and claim/evidence
relations, so a fidelity-preserving rewrite discloses what the original
discloses. Being a rewrite is not a defence.

Removed: the quoted block, the method-component list, manuscript codenames
throughout, one real measured value, and manuscript-derived test fixtures,
which now use invented macros. Kept: every measurement. Finding counts,
percentiles, rule names, before/after tables and the panel results describe how
the tools behave, not what the paper found, and they are why the record exists.

Git history was rewritten to remove the same content from every earlier commit.
That does not undo publication — the content may persist in existing clones,
forks and upstream caches.

A worked example that is safe to ship

examples/ now carries a synthetic manuscript and the same paper after acting
on the findings. The topic is a textbook one and every value is invented, so
the demonstration no longer depends on anyone's unpublished work.

It is also a more honest demonstration than a clean sweep would be. L0 targets
go to zero and discourse-cohesion from 3 findings to 1, while
salience-recital rises from 4 to 6 — because carrying a noun forward to
link two sentences pulls the subject into sentences that also carry a numeral.
In a number-dense passage cohesion and recital want opposite things and no
rewrite satisfies both. Both findings are true, and which to act on is the
author's judgement, which is why neither is a blocker and there is no score.

Also

• The re-export contract test named its excluded module imports one at a time
  (re, defaultdict, Path), so it failed the moment a new import appeared.
  It now excludes module objects by type.
• Suite: 393 tests across 20 files; validate_plugin.py 9/9.