A read below the depth that filled the memo re-spells, so the depth guards still run

todo-history.md

@@ -837,12 +837,17 @@ The done `todo.md` items in full, as they were written. `todo.md` keeps a one-li
       rejected: it reports the outer offender where the build reports the inner one (the
       maintainer, 2026-09-18).
       **Measured** (2026-09-19): the parse keeps each node's readable spelling (AGENTS.md §11), and
-      250 nested directive lists fall from 1.22 s to 0.07 s at 16.1 kB and from 5.20 s to 0.19 s at
-      261 kB; a panel between every pair of lists 1.00 s to 0.07 s, an opaque carry in every item
-      1.08 s to 0.04 s. The two depth-boundary tests are what pin the rebase — dropping it reddens
-      both — so no figure enters the gate (§14), as 4c settled for a behaviour-preserving cost fix.
-      The one list accounting was not taken: 4b settled that accounting the day this was filed, and
-      reopening it is an ask rather than a chunk.
+      250 nested directive lists fall from 1.22 s to 0.04 s at 16.1 kB and from 5.20 s to 0.12 s at
+      261 kB; a panel between every pair of lists 1.00 s to 0.05 s, an opaque carry in every item
+      1.08 s to 0.03 s. No figure enters the gate (§14), as 4c settled for a behaviour-preserving
+      cost fix; what the gate holds is the refusal. The rebase's sign is pinned by the two
+      depth-boundary tests already there, its magnitude by a third case the review found: an ordered
+      list past the marker cap gives way, so the emitter spends two levels where the parser spent
+      one, and two such lists put a read below the depth that filled its entry — which a hit would
+      answer without the depth guards the walk runs, naming a different refusal at a different path.
+      That read re-spells (the stability-reviewer, 2026-09-19). The one list accounting was not
+      taken: 4b settled that accounting the day this was filed, and reopening it is an ask rather
+      than a chunk.
 
 ## 5 — Ship `0.1.0`