**Missing views.** The note said 10 articles without a clinical view and 13
without a short one; the real numbers were 8 and 11, and the eight originals
turned out to carry no `variant` key at all, so everything in them was being
read as the long view. 33 sections written across 11 articles, every sentence
traceable to that article's own body, and the legacy sections stamped with the
variant they were always being treated as. No doses appear anywhere, because
not one of those eight states one. Every article now has a high-yield view and
`mdm_pass check` reads 330 of 331 conforming with no placeholder sections.
**Pediatric Dentistry** was neither an educator's job nor a delete. Its body is
real — scope, disparities, records and consent, public health, biomaterials —
and only its clinical view was the disclaimer. The three placeholder sections
are gone and the article stays: the reader hides a view an article does not
have, and a discipline overview about consent and public health has no bedside
path to write. Inventing one was the thing not to do.
**The 15 tied conditions were stale**, ticked with the evidence rather than
worked: the taxonomy rebuild gave every one of them a single home, and the
duplicate-name query now returns nothing.
**The 31 tied questions were 3**, and reading all three showed none was a real
tie. The best of them: a question about acute flaccid paralysis after minor
trauma was filed between "Nursemaid's Elbow" and "Radial Head Subluxation" —
two names for one condition, neither anything to do with the question. It is
under Spinal Cord Injury now, cross-filed to Acute Flaccid Paralysis, and the
two elbow links are removed rather than cross-filed: a wrong link surfaces a
question under a topic it does not belong to, which is the opposite of what
cross-filing is for.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01TqXevQJhxFrM7jJg82cgZN
ab059673e5