diff --git a/docs/Z-tail-rng.md b/docs/Z-tail-rng.md
index 3b27a9e..3314429 100644
--- a/docs/Z-tail-rng.md
+++ b/docs/Z-tail-rng.md
@@ -219,3 +219,30 @@ behind it is the honest form of this prediction.
 
 The third case is the one to watch: it is the only way this workload can produce a **non-zero residual**,
 which every prediction so far has said should be 0 on a quiet turn.
+
+
+---
+
+## 8. P10 outcome — falsified, and the falsification is the result
+
+`res_no_battle` flipped to **0** for the first time in 55 turns, the player's fleet was destroyed, and the
+measured cost was:
+
+| | words |
+|---|---|
+| `ApplyEncounterResult` (the battle) | **0** |
+| `OnAllCombatDone_Tail` | **0** |
+| `StrategyServer::ProcessTurn` | 22 |
+| bracket total / residual | 22 / **0** |
+
+P10's main claim ("greater than 0") is **wrong**, and it fell into its own first falsification branch: the
+resolver really has no draw on a plain battle path. The residual stayed 0, so combat proper drew nothing
+either — the third branch, the one worth watching, did not fire.
+
+The consequence is worth more than the prediction would have been: **a reimplementation can model a
+strategic turn's RNG and nothing about combat, and still reproduce the generator through a battle.** Lane
+J's own cheap prediction — a plain fleet battle costs the same as a peaceful turn — holds exactly.
+
+Caveats in `sots-re/findings/control-flow/tail-rng-ledger.md` §10.2; the short version is that this is one
+auto-resolved encounter against an NPC, `Auto Resolve` may not take a manually-fought battle's path, and a
+cost of 0 is the easiest number in the world to produce by accident.