docs(ms-ai-architect): R11 §9.5 — kryss-korpus-sjekk: ingen dinglende referanser; idx 33s innhold overlever fem steder under CAF-attribusjon [skip-docs]

docs/r11-pilot-results.md

@@ -704,6 +704,38 @@ test suite is unaffected (1032/1032) because it drives `checkRow` with a
 synthetic stub. **Any future reading of that CLI's V1 tally must subtract the
 applied rows** — the number is only meaningful against an unedited corpus.
 
+**Cross-corpus check — the dimension every check so far has missed.** Cond 2 is
+ratified as *whole file*, and §9.3's sweep, §9.4's verification and the driver's
+invariants are all **within-file** by construction. But the corpus is 389 files
+that agents read together, so a citation of deleted content in *another* file
+would be dangling in publicly distributed material — the same trust defect, one
+scope out. Run over all of `skills/**/*.md` after the edit:
+
+- **idx 17** — no file cites the deleted APIM bands. `semantic-caching-patterns.md:79`
+  carries its own `0.70-0.84: Liberal matching` rubric for a different threshold;
+  the transcription-confidence bands at `audio-video-transcription-workflow.md:420,547`
+  are unrelated.
+- **idx 19** — `Automatic indexing` occurs nowhere else in the corpus.
+- **idx 14** — every other `SharePoint` hit is SharePoint as a general M365 source,
+  channel or connector. None claims it as AI Builder feedback-loop storage.
+- **idx 33** — ~40 corpus hits for `Azure Resource Graph` / `Insider Risk Management`,
+  and **not one attributes them to Defender for Cloud AISPM.** They are independent
+  claims in their own files, and the closest matches — `ai-incident-response-procedures.md:505,
+  575, 603`, `data-leakage-prevention-ai.md:780`, `norge-ai-strategy-government.md:150,152`
+  — attribute them to the **Cloud Adoption Framework Secure AI** document, the same
+  attribution that survives at line 357 of the edited file.
+
+**No dangling reference, but note what the idx 33 result actually shows.** The
+deleted capabilities are asserted in at least four other files under CAF
+attribution, several stamped `Verified MCP 2026-04`. §9.5 records that the edit's
+benefit is smaller than it looks because the content survives at line 357; the
+corpus-wide measurement is that it survives in *five* places, not one. The
+subtraction is still correct — the AISPM attribution was unsupported — but anyone
+weighing whether this class of edit is worth the review cost should weigh it
+against that number. This is the first cond-2 evidence gathered at corpus scope
+rather than file scope, and whether corpus scope becomes a standing third reading
+of cond 2 is unratified and deliberately left open.
+
 ## Appendix A — the 15 admitted proposals, hand-verified
 
 Every proposal the classifier (§4 + context condition) admitted over the whole