diff --git a/docs/HANDOFF.md b/docs/HANDOFF.md
index 36c133b..953256e 100644
--- a/docs/HANDOFF.md
+++ b/docs/HANDOFF.md
@@ -269,10 +269,22 @@ fifths of the instruction gap and two thirds to three quarters of the cycle
 gap, which is the looser number. The mechanism is visible in `nm`:
 `<UiSpan>::within` is a symbol in `4febabf` and in neither `5ed9e87` nor the
 all-three build. Shortening its body past the inliner's threshold is what
-pays, and only the whole set of cuts reaches it. None of them is shippable
--- truncating breaks the one rounding the grid is for -- but that is where
-to push, and a cheaper `Holds` or a smaller `Len::within` is worth trying
-for this reason rather than for its own instruction count.
+pays, and only the whole set of cuts reaches it. That is where to push: a
+cheaper `Holds` or a smaller `Len::within` is worth trying for this reason
+rather than for its own instruction count.
+
+**What truncating costs was then measured rather than asserted.** The first
+write-up of this section said it "breaks the one rounding the grid is for"
+and left it there, which is the fault it withdraws the fused multiply-add
+for. Run, it fails one exactness test by a step --
+`an_uneven_nesting_still_gives_every_share_the_same_length`, where a share
+reaches 199.99902 of a 200px row -- and it does **not** fail the
+warm-against-cold oracle any harder than the head does: 100 seeds pass, and
+1000 seeds of depth 6 give the same three failures on the same seeds,
+differing by 0.002px. So the case against it is a share stopping a
+thousandth of a pixel short of its row, which is below what an even number
+of pixels draws anyway, rather than layout drift. Whether that buys 57M
+cycles is a decision, not a defect.
 
 **Cycle noise is larger than this section used to claim.** Across ten sets
 of nine to eleven runs, each of one unchanged binary, cycles spread 1-3%