Correct the cross-reference verdict: unproven on this bed, not refuted

The earlier "retrieval-time edge following is DEAD" conclusion was an overreach
and is withdrawn. Four reasons the measurement cannot carry it:

1. The metric structurally cannot reward the mechanism. LegalBench gold is
   where the answer text is, not what must be read to understand it, so
   resolving "as defined in Section 1.1" to fetch a deal-term definition -
   correct legal behaviour - scores as precision loss by construction.
2. Small n: 15/168 contractnli and 14/153 cuad gold fragments had an edge at
   all. The "cuad loses 6x" headline is fourteen fragments.
3. Half instrument strength: 24/69 documents refused by the integrity gate,
   including 8/17 maud, and the resolver's ceiling (the skeleton section
   inventory) was only repaired mid-run.
4. It measured a proxy - pool expansion scored by character overlap - not the
   registered proposal, which is structure as orientation for a composer.

Edge-following is therefore UNPROVEN here: it earns no arm yet, and no positive
claim either. The similarity-edge retirement stands, since those lost to a
deterministic control and do not depend on the gold-span objection. The
resolver stands on its own as a working legal primitive.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01H9ToHYJVDxfeJcJwdzrP2H