docs: two retracted claims that outlived their retraction

Both are the defect class this fix round existed to close, which is why
they are worth recording rather than quietly overwriting.

CLAUDE.md still carried F1's retracted design rationale -- describing
entry_14_movable_band as "negative so it can never collide with a real
table position" -- and F2's retracted transcription-defect attribution,
verbatim, in the one tracked file the project's own workflow tells a
fresh session to read first. The fix round struck both everywhere else
and missed this file. A session following it as instructed could have
re-derived the negative sentinel for entry 20's or entry 23's movable
half and re-introduced the inversion in a new branch.

precedence_ef.ml's replacement justification for the x10 rescale then
introduced a fresh misstatement of the same primary text it was
correcting: it attributed "primum mobilia, deinde fixa" to "entry 12's
own ninth sub-item" and counted three such rows. Both photographic
scans, and the register's own section 4 table, put that clause at entry
13; entry 12 has eight sub-items and no such clause. The split occurs at
five rows -- 13, 14, 20, 23's third sub-item, and 24. Entry 24 is the
most-evaluated band in the whole domain and is unsplit in the code,
which is precisely the sub-rank the new headroom exists to hold.

Corrected in the .mli and the register too. No behaviour change; 290
tests green.

0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions