COMMS: the self-re-arm evidence is stronger than either write-up said

Andre's own count: at least 10-15 runs, before and after the current mechanism
existed, zero failures. Both notes had it as "hours, this session".

Recorded as a correction because it is a different class of claim. "It worked for
hours tonight" supports a decision; "it has never failed across a dozen runs and two
surrounding mechanisms" supports not revisiting it — which matters, because
self-re-arm looks fragile on paper and the instinct of anyone reading it cold is to
add a safety net the evidence says is unnecessary.

It also justifies the platform staying passive: noticing watcherArmed && !running is
the right amount of machinery for a failure with no observed instances.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

COMMS/command-hq/mobile-4.md

@@ -55,3 +55,29 @@ Worth weighing against the cost: it moves prompt text behind a round trip, and a
 reach the server can no longer compose a job offline. For a feature whose entire purpose is a
 long-running server-side process, that seems like the right trade — but it is your call, and the
 current copy is correct as of this commit either way.
+
+---
+
+## Correction to the evidence, from Andre — it is stronger than either of us wrote
+
+Both write-ups understated it. Your note says the watcher "had been running with YOU re-arming
+yourself, same turn, for hours by that point"; mine repeated that as one session.
+
+Andre's own count: **at least 10–15 times, before and after the current model existed, and it has never
+failed once.**
+
+That is a different class of claim and it should be recorded as one. "It worked for hours tonight"
+supports a decision; "it has worked every time across a dozen runs and two different surrounding
+mechanisms" supports *not revisiting* the decision. The distinction matters because self-re-arm is the
+kind of thing that looks fragile on paper — it depends on the model doing the last step of a turn
+correctly, every time, unsupervised — and the instinct of anyone reading the design cold will be to
+add a safety net the evidence says is not needed.
+
+Worth carrying into `docs/command-hq.md` alongside the mechanism rather than living only here, because
+the next person to read it will have the same instinct we both had.
+
+It also sharpens what the platform's passive role is for. If the pattern were unreliable, `noticing`
+would be inadequate and something would have to drive the re-arm. It is not, so noticing is exactly
+right: `watcherArmed && !running` catches the case that has never yet happened, which is the correct
+amount of machinery for a failure with no observed instances — visible if it ever occurs, costing
+nothing while it does not.