Two readers decide irreversibly about the owner's raw media and they do not apply the same predicate. Recording the disagreement as committed data rather than as prose, in the tree's established pattern for accepted divergence. 23 shapes, each built on a real filesystem and each reference verdict OBSERVED by running the reference over it -- never hand-typed. The unified verdicts are derived mechanically from one rule, so a row cannot be argued into agreement individually. The fixture's invariant is that no row may record the port RELEASING raw media the reference held. Writing the matrix out found the one row that would have: a record claiming "analyzed" whose analysis rows are gone. Terminal proof accepts it -- its question is whether a device may drop its copy -- and the reference's state derivation holds it, because the raw is then the only surviving copy of that content. Deriving the predicate from the conjunction alone would have dropped that, so it is a fifth condition: "analyzed" asserts derived output exists, and "empty" is the one terminal state that legitimately has none. With it, 13 rows narrow, 2 narrow onto disclosed pre-record row evidence, 8 agree, and none widen. Two rows are the still-image case: the gate globs audio and screen extraction names while the media test accepts all eight image formats, so an image is released today with no evidence it was processed -- including with no sidecar at all. The unified predicate resolves an expected handler before reading any record, so no handler in the closed set means no obtainable proof, which never releases. Verified the invariant is load-bearing: disabling the fifth condition fails the gate and names the row.