I predicted §428's UID barrier would resolve func_8001B0D4's fence<->over-merge
coupling, reasoning that it changes no liveness. The escalation that tested it did not
use §428 at all. §3-B did it: seven in-block 'return 0;' -> 'goto L_ret0;' to one shared
tail removed the priority-1 hard-$v0 sets, freeing $v0 for the D_800747E4 reload and
$v1 for CdQueueBusy's result, AND fired all three cross-jumps (92->86). One edit, both
residuals.
The real law is the opposite of my framing: two residuals moving in opposite directions
under every lever are usually not in tension — they are two symptoms of ONE starved
resource, and every lever so far was paying for one with the other. Ask what they are
both competing for, and inventory the hard register sets the source forces. A repeated
'return <const>;' in switch arms is the commonest way to pin $v0 many times over.
The wrong prediction is kept in the section as the refutation (R14).
Drew T
c0724cb59e