# REM first-run project page: evidence before prose

## What was compared

- **Problem:** a written project `Insight` paraphrased recent requests, while a fixed 17-section note exposed unsupported fields. The published 1.9.0a15 private five-day run had one investigated project with 17 headings, 7 `Unknown` occurrences and no internal links. Its lead did not establish a verified change.
- **Change:** a bounded local packet now supplies README, package metadata, checkout freshness and up to five commit subjects as separately citable evidence. The writer compares these with user messages and omits unsupported optional sections. Commits do not count as proof of tests or deployment.
- **Real candidate check:** two isolated five-day a17 inits each exited 0 with 3 mapped and 3 final project pages, one project and the owner written, and 0 source errors. The first still led with a dated request. After a writer-guidance revision, the second project's 14 headings held 1 `Unknown` in required Facts and 3 cited Insight bullets. One joined a local commit with a repeated user request, without claiming the commit proved a passing test. It still had 0 internal links. The owner page had 5 links but its lead remained a broad request summary.
- **Privacy:** real names, page text and local source bodies are not in these public screenshots. The screenshots use the invented Harbour notebook from the browser fixture.

## Screenshots

The same synthetic project is shown with its full note expanded, so the reader's first viewport and the underlying Markdown can both be reviewed. Chrome headless, light theme, 100% zoom, 1440 × 900 and 390 × 844; screenshots cover the full document.

| | Before: generic request and empty optional sections | After: cited consequence and compact note |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Desktop | [before-desktop.png](before-desktop.png) | [after-desktop.png](after-desktop.png) |
| Phone | [before-phone.png](before-phone.png) | [after-phone.png](after-phone.png) |

In the first viewport, the old lead says only that the owner asked to improve the brief. The new lead names the repeated long threads and the decision owed before renewal, while a second Insight connects pilot engagement with the unresolved design choice. The raw note loses six empty optional headings. At both widths, `document.documentElement.scrollWidth <= innerWidth`; there were no page errors or network requests. The existing reader design browser suite passed all nine tests.

## Independent visual judgment

**Partial pass.** The hierarchy now puts a consequential, source-backed state above the article and the expanded note reads faster. The first real a17 run exposed a weak lead despite clean citations; the second joined repository and request evidence. It remains a long page when expanded; the Facts card still shows an unavailable field, and the real project still lacks cross-page links. Repeated runs of one project do not prove that every project type will yield a useful finding. The next review must sample several projects, verify claims against their source packet, and test canonical relationship navigation under #2060. The owner page and other first-run record types remain outside this fix.