diff --git a/findings/subsystems/ai-order-capture.md b/findings/subsystems/ai-order-capture.md
index 36d527f..b15d0a0 100644
--- a/findings/subsystems/ai-order-capture.md
+++ b/findings/subsystems/ai-order-capture.md
@@ -257,6 +257,11 @@ measured to move an autosave by four bytes.
 
 ### 3.1 And a control that did **not** pass — the turn-1 workload is not reproducible
 
+**Lane L5 got here first, on VM146, from the other end.** `turn1-to-turn2-nondeterminism.md` is the
+owner of this result and it is the better-designed experiment: three runs including a pair with
+*identical* hooks that still disagreed, which rules out the instrument in a way my configurations
+cannot. What follows is an independent third-instrument corroboration and one thing it adds.
+
 `turn1-state.sav` + one End Turn does **not** reproduce `turn2-state.sav`, on this build, with or
 without instruments. Three runs, three different files:
 
@@ -279,15 +284,23 @@ techId **288** on the instrumented run, a different id on the others.
 So: **the research-target choice of an AI player that owns nothing is not reproducible run to run.**
 Players 16, 32 and 496 are stable across all three; only 512 moves. Three samples, one field.
 
-This is a correction to an assumption, not to a published claim: `determinism-oracle.md` verifies
-the oracle for the **`ref-turn2` workload** and says so; nobody had run the turn-1 workload three
-times. It is now on the record that the turn-1 workload is **not** an oracle, and any lane
-comparing bytes on it is comparing against noise.
+**What this instrument adds to L5's result.** L5 measured the divergence in the *save*. This lane
+sees it in the **`TurnCommands` block**: player 512's research-target gate carried techId **288** on
+the instrumented run and a different id on the others, in the block the client submits. So the
+divergent decision is made **client-side, before submission**, and reaches the save as a command
+like any other — it is not the sim diverging on identical input. That is consistent with L5's
+inference (a tie broken by per-process iteration order over a pointer-keyed container) and it
+removes the sim from the list of suspects, which their instrument could not do.
 
-I did not find the mechanism. It is not the instrument (the `hooks=off` run diverges from the
-reference too, and by a *different* value). The shape — one player, one choice, stable everywhere
-else — fits a tie-break that reads a heap address or an uninitialised word, and that is a
-watchpoint on the selection site, not a reading exercise.
+Second corroborating detail: across L5's three runs and this lane's two, the observed values are
+`BIO_GnMod`, `XNC_TrnsLir2`, `XNC_TrnsHvr2`, `XNC_TrnsHum2`, `XNC_TrnsMorr2` — **five distinct
+values in five runs**, and four of the five are the same tech with a different **species** suffix.
+A selection walking a species- or player-keyed container and taking whichever arm it reaches first
+fits that shape exactly; a numeric roll over a flat tech list does not.
+
+The right probe is the one L5 names: read the AI client's generator state after construction in two
+processes, and — from this side — put a write watchpoint on the block's research-target payload at
+`block+0x10` to catch the writer with its call chain.
 
 ---