Both files read. The Round 1 orders targeted June's pity-misread (Order 1) and Asha's hustle-math blind spot (Order 2). Comparing the current chapter text against the executable specs in each order, then sweeping the new passages for repair-induced damage (dialogue-diagnosis ban, plain-speech floor, banned strings). Here is the completed Round 2 audit:

---

# Round 2 Verification: Let-Characters-Be-Wrong / Competence-Default — Chapter 09 ("Local Work")

Scope: narrow verification of the two Round 1 revision orders only. Inputs read in full: current `output/chapters/chapter_09.md`, Round 1 audit, chapter card 09, voice cards (gets-wrong fields for June Park and Asha Ibrahim), reading guide §2/§6.

---

`ORDER 1:` **RESOLVED**

The pity-misread now fires on the page, at the specified beat, and it is momentarily believed before the craft-brain corrects it — exactly the sequence the order demanded. Immediately after Nia's second text ("*Not a favor. I need someone who can run a job and fix the press. You're the shortest list I have.*"):

> "June read it once and got mad. She opened the reply field and typed, *I didn't say it was a favor.* She deleted it. Nia had not written charity. She had written *run a job*, *fix the press*, *shortest list*."

This is the order's first option executed cleanly: a prickly drafted reply, deleted, with the anger preceding the correction rather than being preempted by it. The previously clean swatch-examination insight ("examined at the angle you would examine a swatch") now arrives as the *second* read, after the flinch — the composure is recovery, not immunity. Nia's "Not a favor" line survives intact as required.

The closing non-answer is now legibly caused by the misread, not by generic overload:

> "The sentence from lunch came back first: *I didn't say it was a favor.* Wrong, and still the only sentence she had. She typed nothing and backed out."

The deleted prickly sentence is named as the blocking object at 4:47 — June cannot answer because the only reply she has is the misread itself. The bill Asha priced ("Once it posts, she's calling whoever answers first") sits two paragraphs above the non-answer, so the cost of the flinch is on the page and adjacent. Field clause "mistakes being understood for being pitied" now operates; the choosing-alone clause (foamcore hidden, thread unanswered) continues to operate as it did in Round 1.

---

`ORDER 2:` **RESOLVED**

Repair (a) is executed as specified. The 2019 anecdote has been re-aimed from calibrated warning to proof-the-math-works:

> "I took a museum prep job in 2019 for health insurance, didn't stretch a canvas until May, and caught up. You catch up."

"You catch up" is the projection the field describes — Asha's survivability universalized onto June — delivered as reassurance, which keeps her generous and plausible. The required cost lands in the next paragraph, as June declining to share the next true thing *in response to Asha*:

> "June looked at the inventory label Asha had pressed to the bucket, the little white rectangle already lifting at one corner, and did not say that she had spent six years not catching up."

The gap is absorbed silently and at June's expense, exactly per the order ("June knows she would not catch up"). The strain is additionally visible one beat earlier — "June laughed, and the laugh came late" — the lead-stack now lands as pressure deflected with June's spec'd smoke-screen move (the late laugh) rather than pure gratitude. Repair (b) (Kessler pays-late vs. June's float problem) was not taken, but the order required at least one of the two, and (a) plus the cost clause is satisfied. Asha remains right about logistics throughout (truck math, "People tell three people before they post"), so the field operates as spec, not demotion: she is wrong about *whose* math it is, and the chapter now shows June paying for that.

---

`NEW REPAIR-INDUCED FAILURE:` **None.**

Candidates examined and cleared:
- "Wrong, and still the only sentence she had" — checked against the zero-tolerance dialogue-diagnosis rule (§2/§6). It rates the *truth-content* of June's own unsent claim (she had in fact read it as a favor), not the phrasing, rhythm, or delivery of anyone's speech; no style descriptor is applied to a sentence. Not a violation.
- "Nia had not written charity. She had written *run a job*, *fix the press*, *shortest list*." — restates content as evidence; does not characterize language. Clear.
- "The sentence from lunch came back first" — the draft was typed moments before Asha sat down with the sandwich on the same bucket; "from lunch" is loose but within continuity tolerance, not a blocker.
- New Asha line scanned for banned strings and plain-speech compliance: "You catch up" is plain, direct, and in her register. Clear.

`REVISION ORDERS:` None.

`OVERALL: CLEAN`
