Incident 0007

Subject 0447, then at cycle 1,106, attested at Ring-floor terminal 31 (depth 1,340 m) at 03:19:47.31.

A second attestation carrying subject 0447's identity commitment was appended at terminal 12 (depth 610 m) at 03:19:51.49, 4.2 seconds later and 730 vertical meters away, by a route whose fastest transit is 11 minutes.

Both attestations verify. Both carry witnessed state hashes consistent with Ring conditions at their respective depths and moments. Neither is a replay of the other; the witnessed state differs exactly as much as the two locations should differ.

Terminal 12 was isolated within four minutes and physically inspected within the hour. It was unoccupied. Access logs for the 610 m level record no entries for the preceding 46 minutes. The corridor cameras covering the approach were operating and recorded no one.

Subject 0447 was located at terminal 31, where they had remained. The subject was aware of no irregularity and reported an ordinary cycle. The subject has been consistent on this point across nine annual reviews and has never varied the account.

The substrate does not permit two attestations to be recorded as simultaneous; these were 4.2 seconds apart, which the substrate handled correctly and without flagging. Program Lattice's position is that the substrate performed to specification, which is not disputed and is also not the question.

Four explanations were considered. Terminal spoofing was excluded (terminals authenticate in hardware; terminal 12's attestation is signed by terminal 12). Commitment theft was excluded (an identity commitment cannot be replayed to produce a novel, location-consistent witnessed state). Clock fault was excluded on three independent references. The fourth explanation is recorded in Annex A and is not served in this extract.

Subject 0447 was withdrawn from cycles at their own request, eleven days after the event. The request gave no reason. Withdrawal does not revoke the two attestations, which remain in the chain, both valid, permanently.