Audit written to `output/critiques/claude/chapter_20.dialogue_doctor.md`. The completed document:

# Dialogue Doctor - Chapter 20 (No Advice / Keys Here)

Read cold against `output/chapters/chapter_20.md`. Manifest requires scenes 02, 03, 04 (`output/critiques/codex/dialogue_scene_manifest.md`). Scene 01 (lines 2-21, notebook/objects) and scene 05 (lines 148-165ish, aftermath texts, 1 dialogue line) are not-required per manifest and are not blocked here; scene 05's text-message exchange was still checked for banned moves and carries none.

Calibration applied: reading guide §2 plain-speech floor and zero-tolerance dialogue-diagnosis rule; §5 care moves; §6 tic catalog; §8 followability test; style bible caps (Ruth one editorial-sharp line per appearance; Odile-only license for high-density memorable lines; "at least half of dialogue should be functional, incomplete, or unquotable" in ordinary scenes); `output/tics.md` Ch15 row (Nia zinger density previously repaired; "Noon." echo cut), Ch11 row (sample-line family reuse retired by order), Ch04 row (correction-as-punchline pressure ordered halved); codex tic audit Ch20 tic-10 order ("preserve only if it remains speakable" — adjudicated below); Ch20 prompt anti-tics (no therapy-speak, no "follow your heart," no advice from Ruth/Sam, Nia not a strawman).

---

SCENE 02 (June's apartment, Ruth/Sam visit, chapter lines 25-57):

1. VOICE CONVERGENCE: CLEAN — read with attributions covered; Ruth is boundary-exact ("We're double-parked. This is a two-minute visit unless you'd like it to be longer," line 27), Sam is object/room-practical ("What's the freight?" line 31; moves the chair blocking the door's swing, line 39), June compresses and self-deprecates ("I'd offer coffee but I'd be lying about the milk," line 29). Strongest counter-candidate: Ruth's "We have a car." (line 51) answered by Sam's "And a hand truck if you need it." (line 53) — two terse offers in matched rhythm — survives because it is a deliberate paired care move replacing the advice June forbade, and the anchors stay distinct: Ruth offers time/transport terms, Sam offers equipment and lifting, consistent with their cards.
2. MONOTONE Q/A: CLEAN — checked exchange lengths and weights; the scene runs from June's ~60-word catalog instruction (line 33) to Ruth's two-word "All right." (line 35), with a mid-scene reversal (June retracting the dish errand, line 37) rather than volley symmetry. Strongest counter-candidate: the closing run of short lines 49-55 — survives because the weights differ sharply (June's declaration, Ruth's offer, Sam's topper, June's thanks) and the run is four lines, not a pattern.
3. MISSING INTERIORITY: CLEAN — June's mind stays lit at the pressure point: "June heard herself and kept going anyway, plainly, because there was no version of the sentence that got easier" (line 33); the dish-flaw digression (line 37) and "June watched her read it and watched her decline to read it out loud" (line 41) orient the reader through what the visit costs. Strongest counter-candidate for a dark patch: the box-carry beat at line 39 has no June reaction — survives because it is Sam's physical business and June's attention returns immediately at line 41.
4. QUESTIONS-AS-STATEMENTS: CLEAN — the only question in the scene is Sam's "What's the freight?" (line 31), a genuine information request answered with facts ("Catalogs. Eight."). No position-disguised-as-question found; Ruth's declarations ("I want to say one thing," line 43) are declared as statements, not portent-questions.
5. FAKE-MCCARTHY MINIMALISM: CLEAN — clipped lines exist ("All right," line 35; "Noted," line 55) but attribution and physical business (box test-lift, strap-straightening at line 43, hip-opened door at line 57) keep the starkness earned; Ruth's brevity is card-specified conclusion-withholding, not performed minimalism.
6. JARGON-TRADING: CLEAN — no world-terms traded; "freight" (line 31) is Sam's playful register and is answered in plain nouns within one line.
7. ATTRIBUTION OPACITY: CLEAN — three speakers, every line tagged or action-anchored; Sam's they/them handled without ambiguity ("They picked the box up properly this time," line 39).
FAKE-SHARP: CLEAN — ran the cut-list on every exchange. Strongest counter-candidate: Ruth's "This fall I noticed things. I kept them to myself and called it manners." (line 43) — aphorism-adjacent, but it is Ruth's one licensed editorial-sharp line for this appearance (style bible cap 1/1), it is her card's confession shape ("Sam thinks I waited too long"), and the strap-straightening beat plus the immediate deflation "Some of it was. Some of it was easier for me." supplies the friction rule 8 asks for. Second candidate: "You can leave that part out. We came for the dish." (line 47) — plain diction, functional permission, not editorial metaphor; it does not spend the cap. The scene's remaining mass is functional/unquotable ("Two minutes is right," "The box is the errand. The dish is separate," "Noted"), meeting the style bible's ordinary-scene ratio.
INTERIORITY-OVERCORRECTION: CLEAN — interiority reacts to the exchange (watching Ruth read the table as evidence, line 41) rather than re-explaining lines; no line is narrated twice. Checked the diagnosis rule here: "watched her decline to read it out loud" characterizes Ruth's silence about objects on a table, not anyone's language or delivery — no violation.

REVISION ORDERS: none — no FAIL in this scene.

---

SCENE 03 (phone, June/Asha, chapter lines 63-93):

1. VOICE CONVERGENCE: CLEAN — both speakers are compact and money-fluent (a real convergence risk), but read blind they separate: Asha runs on imperatives and site-time ("Talk fast, I'm holding a door with my whole body," line 65; "Send it," line 77; "Take the crating if you get it," line 89), June on frame-setting and consent structure ("Two things. First one's a question and it's yours to say no to," line 67). Strongest counter-candidate: both use bare "Okay." pivots (lines 81, 83, 85, 91) — survives because Asha's okays are schedule pivots into load-in mode and June's closing "Okay" is cut off by the hang-up, an asymmetry the reader can hear.
2. MONOTONE Q/A: CLEAN — checked volley weights: one-word "Yes" (line 77) against Asha's ~90-word logistics block (line 85); June's terms recital (line 67) against Asha's four-word callback ("Say the studio clause again," line 69). No same-length alternation anywhere.
3. MISSING INTERIORITY: CLEAN — June's mind surfaces exactly where the exchange bites: "June looked at the left page of the notebook, at GOOD in her own handwriting" (line 79) after Asha's warning; the capped pen "because this part she knew without notes" (line 67). Strongest counter-candidate: no June interiority inside Asha's long logistics block (line 85) — survives because the block is procedural downhill after the decision, and the notebook fill-in immediately after registers what it cost ("It was a joke where the answer went, which was at least her own handwriting," line 93).
4. QUESTIONS-AS-STATEMENTS: CLEAN — Asha's questions are real and she marks them as such ("Why aren't you taking it? That's not me being polite," line 73); "Who writes that? Nia Torres, apparently." (line 73) is self-answered admiration, speakable shop-talk, not manufactured portent; "can you get from here to March?" (line 85) gets a numeric answer.
5. FAKE-MCCARTHY MINIMALISM: CLEAN — clipped register is diegetically earned (she is holding a freight door; someone shouts her name off-phone, line 89); attribution never drops; the gate/pallet-jack noise grounds the starkness.
6. JARGON-TRADING: CLEAN — every term is translated into consequence the reader can weigh: net-45 → "you'll see money in March" (line 85, pre-translated in the notebook at line 13); "$980 all in with the wall" carries its own figure; W-9 is tied to a date and "a body on January 4, eight a.m." Strongest counter-candidate: "key handoff January 2" and "load-in" — survive as calendar-anchored and long-established (Ch09/15) working vocabulary.
7. ATTRIBUTION OPACITY: CLEAN — two-speaker call, tags and off-phone business keep every line assigned.
FAKE-SHARP: FAIL — verbatim aphorism recycling — "Yes... Philly's cheap, the job's real, I can do the boring parts and still paint at night. Send it." (Asha, line 77) and "Send Nia my number. Room's not pretty. Cheap enough to forgive." (Asha, line 89) — both are word-for-word redeliveries of Asha's own prior lines: "If you pass, send her my name. I can do the boring parts and still paint at night." (chapter_09.md line 105) and "Not pretty. Cheap enough to forgive." (chapter_09.md line 89), with the "boring parts" line already spent a second time as June's remembered italic quote in chapter_15.md line 97. A character re-performing her own best line intact is a composed catchphrase, not speech (rule 7: "A conversation where every line lands perfectly is a written conversation"; cut-list: exchanges that exist mainly to deliver a compact aphorism). Calibration precedent is explicit: tics.md retired the Ch11 "Not symbolically" sample-line family on sight ("Do not reuse this sample-line family again") and caps callbacks at one varied use; Chapter 15 was the "boring parts" line's one callback. Both lines here are pasted from Asha's voice card, which flattens the chapter's Asha into her card at the exact moment she should be reacting to new information.
INTERIORITY-OVERCORRECTION: CLEAN — interiority is reactive, not explanatory: "It was both this morning. I'm fixing that." (line 79) lands without narration decoding it; the "no gap at all" tag (line 77) and "Asha hung up before the word was finished" (line 91) were checked against the zero-tolerance diagnosis rule and pass as literal timing events, not characterizations of language or delivery.

REVISION ORDERS:
1. FAKE-SHARP (verbatim aphorism recycling) — Rewrite Asha's line 77 and line 89 so the facts survive but neither Ch09 line is redelivered verbatim. Line 77 must still do: immediate yes, the job is wanted for real material reasons (cheap city, real terms, nights free to paint), permission to send the name — but in new, flatter phrasing per rule 7; her card allows blunt, information-bearing, unquotable ("Yes. Send it. The terms are real and Philly rent means I paint at night" is the register, not the required wording). Line 89's sign-off must lose "Room's not pretty. Cheap enough to forgive." entirely — the room's defects are already concrete two lines up (decorative radiator, coat until February), so the sign-off can be purely logistical (send Nia the number, hang up mid-shout). The scene-05 text callback "ok now the boring parts" (line 155) may stand: it is a varied, transformed callback to Ch09 and becomes the phrase's single sanctioned echo once line 77 stops being verbatim.

---

SCENE 04 (Friday morning + phone, June/Nia, chapter lines 97-149):

1. VOICE CONVERGENCE: CLEAN in the body of the call — blind-read, Nia anchors to program administration ("I'm in Pittsburgh all next week and I have a program to keep open," line 139; "I have payroll at eleven," line 147) and June to craft objects ("The part I keep wanting is the press," line 117; the counter read off the right page, line 129). Strongest counter-candidate: the concession echo "I win the math" / "You win the math" (lines 111-113) — survives because conceding a point in the other party's exact terms is natural negotiation speech and June immediately diverges into her own register. The convergence that does occur — the closing run where both speakers riposte in identical dry rhythm — is charged under FAKE-SHARP below rather than double-counted here.
2. MONOTONE Q/A: CLEAN — checked the full call: one-word "But." (line 115) against June's itemized counter (line 129); Nia's procedural block (line 139) against June's referral paragraph (line 137). The mid-call short-line run (lines 119-125) varies function (objection, concession, prediction, refusal) and weight; no equal-length volley pattern.
3. MISSING INTERIORITY: CLEAN — June's mind works through the call: "She'd written a longer sentence in the notebook Thursday night and it had died of length" (line 117, her own draft, an object — not diagnosis of speech); "June touched the TASKER page" (line 121); turning the receipt print-side up mid-sentence (line 133). Strongest counter-candidate: no interiority between lines 135-141 (referral logistics) — survives as procedural stretch bracketed by object beats, and the hang-up cost is registered at line 149.
4. QUESTIONS-AS-STATEMENTS: CLEAN — "You know what I'm going to ask next." (line 135) was the closest candidate: it is a statement functioning as a prompt, but it manufactures no portent — the ask was established in Nia's own Ch15 terms ("If you say no, send me someone good"), and June answers it in plain text within one line. "Walk me through it" (line 111) is a directive, answered.
5. FAKE-MCCARTHY MINIMALISM: CLEAN — "Torres." (line 107) and "But." (line 115) are clipped but earned: phone-answer convention and Nia's card brisk-under-deadline; attribution and office-noise grounding (printer, keys clicking) never drop.
6. JARGON-TRADING: CLEAN — special-check target. Every job/studio term stays followable as dialogue: "the press... Trueing it" is glossed in the same breath by plain function ("Keeping the room usable. Making the program run," line 117); the counter-offer is dates and dollars read off a notebook page with February stated as "a blank line" (line 129); "I itemize and I'm fast" (line 133) is translated by Nia herself ("I know her invoices. She itemizes," line 139). Strongest counter-candidate: "freelance install" (line 133) — survives as long-established (Ch09/15) and consequence-clear. No brochure block: terms arrive in exchange, contested ("That's a worse offer," line 131).
7. ATTRIBUTION OPACITY: CLEAN — two speakers, tagged throughout; "Then she hung up first" (line 147) resolves to Nia by position and by June setting the phone down in the next paragraph.
FAKE-SHARP: FAIL (two findings) —
  (a) Workshopped-thesis refusal core — "'That doesn't have to happen,' Nia said. / 'No,' June said. 'That's why I'm saying no now. Because nothing would go wrong.'" (lines 123-125), fed by the polished triple with anadiplosis "I'd hang the shows well. I'd fix what broke. I'd paint on the good nights, and the good nights would get rarer." (line 121). "Because nothing would go wrong" is a paradox epigram — quotable, not speakable (cut-list), and it violates the binding special check that the Nia refusal be plain and speakable, not workshopped thesis. The codex tic audit (tic 10) flagged exactly this run and deferred: "preserve only if it remains speakable." Adjudicated: it does not. No one declines a job aloud with an inversion that requires the listener to decode "nothing would go wrong" as "no crisis would ever force me out"; Nia's flat "Okay." acceptance (line 127) papers over that the line is written for the reader, not for her. Rule 8: between the clean landing and friction, this chose the landing.
  (b) Closing quote volley — "I'll come to the opening and stand too close to the work. It's my one move." / "For the record, the wall was real." / "I know it was real. That's why this call happened at 10:50-whatever instead of nine." / "It's 10:52," Nia said. "Have her email before one. I have payroll at eleven." (lines 141-147, immediately after "Buy a ticket like a civilian," line 139). Five consecutive landing units to close the scene: zinger, self-zinger, stamp, echo-riposte, correction-punchline. Rule 7 verbatim: "A conversation where every line lands perfectly is a written conversation, not a spoken one." This is also the special check's banned fake-sharp quote volley, and it re-inflates two documented calibration debts: Nia zinger density (tics.md Ch15: 12 polished constructions found and flattened by order) and correction-as-punchline pressure (tics.md Ch04: ordered halved). The "10:50-whatever" imprecision is friction on one line; it does not de-polish the run.
INTERIORITY-OVERCORRECTION: CLEAN — checked both directions: the focalizer is present (see mode 3), and interiority does not explain lines twice — notably, no narration decodes the refusal or the "wall was real" beat; the post-call register ("The clean answer was gone. If February went badly, it would go badly in her own handwriting," line 149) states new consequence, not restatement. The pre-call passage (lines 97-103) carries the daylight-test interiority so the call itself can stay lean; that division of labor is correct under rule 9.

REVISION ORDERS:
2. FAKE-SHARP (a) (workshopped refusal) — Rewrite lines 121-125 so the refusal's content survives in June's card voice: under pressure she gets shorter, more visually specific, and self-interrupting — not epigrammatic. Break the triple parallel at line 121 (keep at most one paired clause; kill the "good nights... good nights" anadiplosis). Replace "That's why I'm saying no now. Because nothing would go wrong." with the plain, ugly version of the same fact, allowed to arrive with friction and craft nouns: the job would never produce a reason to leave, she would be good at it, and in five years painting would be the thing she used to do — stated in speakable pieces, permitted a self-interruption or an unfinished clause (her card: "I don't know what to do with wanting it" is the register). Nia's "That doesn't have to happen." and "Okay. So tell me the counter" may stand; they are plain and card-true.
3. FAKE-SHARP (b) (closing volley) — Flatten the close of the call (lines 139-147) so at most one composed line remains in the final six. Protected as functional: Nia's logistics ("Have her email me today, subject line Tasker... I'm in Pittsburgh all next week"; "Have her email before one. I have payroll at eleven"; the first-hang-up). Recommended cuts/flattenings, in priority order: (i) drop June's "It's my one move." tag — let "I'll come to the opening" or an unquotable variant stand alone; (ii) rewrite June's "I know it was real. That's why this call happened at 10:50-whatever instead of nine." into a plain acknowledgment without the timing riposte (her card allows unornamented "I know it was real. It's why this took me until now."-register plainness); (iii) with (ii) done, Nia's "It's 10:52." loses its punchline setup and may stay only as bare deadline fact folded into her final logistics line, not as a standalone correction beat. Either "Buy a ticket like a civilian." or "For the record, the wall was real." may survive as the scene's one composed Nia line — not both plus the rest. Rewriter chooses which; the wall line is the more humane and the more thematically necessary.

---

SPECIAL CH20 CHECKS (binding, from the chapter prompt):

- Ruth/Sam care-without-advice: PASS — verified line by line; their entire repertoire is errand, admission, and equipment ("We have a car." / "And a hand truck if you need it.," lines 51-53; "You can leave that part out. We came for the dish.," line 47). Ruth names only her own silence's cost (line 43). No directive, no evaluation of June's options, no wise-NPC framing. June's guard ("I'm not asking for an opinion. I want to be clear that I'm not asking," line 49) is answered with logistics, which is the assignment executed.
- Asha/Nia/June distinctness: PASS as drafted for Nia vs. Asha vs. June (freight-door imperatives vs. payroll-and-program administration vs. notebook-and-craft compression) — but note finding 1: Asha's distinctness is partly counterfeit, achieved by pasting her Ch09 lines; executing revision order 1 is required for this pass to be genuine.
- Nia refusal plain and speakable: FAIL — see scene 04 finding (a). The surrounding refusal is plain ("I'm calling to say no," line 109; "The job's good, Nia... I want that on the record," line 113); the core line is the workshopped exception.
- No dialogue diagnosis / therapy-speak / "follow your heart" / fake-sharp volley: diagnosis — zero violations found; hard candidates examined and cleared as literal events, not speech characterization: "no gap at all" (line 77, timing), "hung up before the word was finished" (line 91, event), "watched her decline to read it out loud" (line 41, about objects/silence), "it had died of length" (line 117, June's own written draft as object). Therapy-speak — none; nearest candidate "If you're trying to feel less bad, don't." (line 77) is a blunt peer warning, not therapy vocabulary. "Follow your heart" — absent in all forms; Nia argues terms to the end ("That's a worse offer," line 131), per her card. Fake-sharp volley — FAIL, see scene 04 finding (b).
- Scene 04 job/studio terms followable as dialogue: PASS — see scene 04 mode 6; terms arrive contested and consequence-translated, not as brochure.

---

OVERALL: BLOCKING (3 findings)

Resolution routing: per the audit contract, all three revision orders go to the opposing model lane for rewrite. Self-repair by the drafting lane is not an accepted resolution.
