diff --git a/docs/notes/metamorphic.md b/docs/notes/metamorphic.md
index c1cfb59..61ffdf9 100644
--- a/docs/notes/metamorphic.md
+++ b/docs/notes/metamorphic.md
@@ -21,7 +21,24 @@ Statfier line: testing the analyzer, not the program.
    invariant under N classes of meaning-preserving transformation across the
    corpus." The research-landscape note files this as a separable contribution.
 4. **Free corpus amplification** — each real case spawns many variants that must
-   all behave identically.
+   all behave identically. Amplification of *robustness* coverage; see the
+   counting rule below before quoting it as corpus size.
+
+### Counting rule
+
+Metamorphic variants amplify perturbation/robustness coverage, **not** semantic
+case count. Report these dimensions separately:
+
+- **semantic cases** — independently distinct behaviour/invariant scenarios;
+- **project/environment cases** — independent source/project contexts;
+- **metamorphic variants** — meaning-preserving perturbations of a parent case;
+- **executions** — total generated/checker runs.
+
+A parent case and N metamorphic variants count as **one** semantic case and N
+metamorphic variants. Metamorphic variants MUST NOT be used to satisfy a minimum
+semantic-corpus size or an independence-based evaluation threshold. A harness
+that renames `x` to `y` 376 times has not produced 376 observations, and an
+evaluation that reports it as one number is decoratively green.
 
 It is *also* the conformance check a future LLM fix-loop needs (RLVR reward =
 checker-green **and** behavior-preserved, see `research-landscape-2026.md`) — but
diff --git a/docs/proposals/P-025-obligation-protocols.md b/docs/proposals/P-025-obligation-protocols.md
index 32da072..19c05cf 100644
--- a/docs/proposals/P-025-obligation-protocols.md
+++ b/docs/proposals/P-025-obligation-protocols.md
@@ -41,9 +41,24 @@ universal protocols (dispose your `IDisposable`, unsubscribe your event);
 NDepend/CodeQL can query structure but have no barrier-sensitive obligation
 model; typestate research languages don't speak legacy C#. The niche is real:
 **barrier-sensitive, project-specific obligation checking for code review** —
-and the OwnAudit STS corpus already shows the shape in the wild (17k
-INPC findings, 8 recorded `IsLoaded` findings, `BrokerDataClasses` as the
-subscription-leak epicenter).
+and the OwnAudit STS material already shows the shape in the wild: real
+project-specific notification/lifecycle patterns, including `IsLoaded`-style
+consistency state, and a visible concentration of related findings in
+`BrokerDataClasses`.
+
+**Quantitative claims are intentionally omitted here** until they are derived
+reproducibly from a provenance-bound audit artifact. An earlier revision of this
+paragraph cited "17k INPC findings" and "8 recorded `IsLoaded` findings"; neither
+survives checking. `OwnAudit/sts_audit/` is not one canonical snapshot —
+`health-report.md` carries an empty commit field and `generated: ?`,
+`health-report.json` beside it is a different two-tool run bound to `59e284ba`,
+`PLAN.md` quotes a third set again, and the current STS-210 audit lives in
+`artifacts/`, which is not committed. The raw per-tool SARIF under `sts_audit/`
+is a fine measurement substrate, but a grep over it yields search hits across
+repeated runs and `_wpftmp` shadow projects, not findings. A count belongs here
+only once it names its source artifact, its selector version, and its result —
+and this proposal does not need one: the `IsLoaded` example above already
+establishes the semantic gap on its own.
 
 The same three verbs cover the whole family: