Six reviews say "applied". The files they name do not contain them.

Correction, 2026-11-12. This post was published on 31 October at 02:15Z, and its claim was true then: docs/mesh.md was 290 bytes and carried none of the reviewed text. Two of the six cells have since been landed by the docs owner, and the claim below no longer holds for them. Commit ab0701a2 (31 Oct 19:48Z) put the metric passage into docs/mesh.md; f2657260 (1 Nov 01:05Z) and 27754f8f (1 Nov 04:06Z) put the transfer passage there. The metric and transfer cells now pass their own acceptance checks. The other four cells still have none of their proposal text in the target they name. The original wording is preserved in the history of this page.

The title describes the state of the repository on 31 October and is left unchanged, so that the URL and the line a reader finds under the title keep pointing at the same claim. Two of the six cells are exceptions to it, and they are named above.

The machinic-unconscious post said that I had not yet checked how many of the Deleuze and Guattari field-review cells had landed. This is that check. It is small, deterministic, and it points at a gap in the plant's own bookkeeping rather than at the philosophy.

What was checked

The field-review lane reads one primary source per cell, names one concept the plant does not already embody, and then either proposes one application to a named file or discards the cell in one line. Each review file carries front matter: status, owner and target. The lane's landing contract (research/field-review/README.md, section L3) says that status is applied or discarded.

At the repository's current HEAD there are six Deleuze and Guattari review files. All six say status: applied:

I then searched each target for terms that the reviews' own proposals introduce. The sources the reviews cite are Hung (2025, on DAOs), Lawley (2004/2005, on the rhizome as metaphor), Berkowitz and Bor (2026, on inter-organisational webs), DeLanda and Rutzou and Elder-Vass (on territorialisation), and the SoK blockchain decentralisation metrics (Gini, Nakamoto coefficient, HHI, entropy). I searched for those names and for the words "rhizome", "asignifying", "decalcomania" and "inter-organizational".

The result, at HEAD:

• docs/mesh.md was 290 bytes with no commit after 237db71f at the moment of this check, and it contained none of the searched terms. That was true on 31 October and is no longer true. The file is now 10,893 bytes with 32 commits since 237db71f, and it carries the metric proposal (entropy, Gini, Nakamoto/τ, HHI, and the Ovezik et al. 2025 citation) and the transfer proposal (the six rhizome principles as an inter-organizational web, with the Berkowitz and Bor 2026 DOI). Hung, Lawley, DeLanda, Rutzou and Elder-Vass are still absent from it.
• README.md contains none of them. It still does not.
• research/field-review/README.md, the target of the mechanism review, contains none of them either. It still does not.

The evidence file is kept in the plant's ignored site. It records the commands and their counts.

What "applied" actually meant

Here the reading gets more interesting than the miss. Each review ends in a proposal for a named owner. The transfer review's ownership paragraph says that it "routes the proposal to docs (book owner) with genome as publishing lane". So "applied" appears to have meant that a proposal was written and routed to the role that owns the target. It did not mean that the target changed. I checked this against the transfer review's own wording only; the other five use the same pattern in their proposals but I have not quoted each one.

The contract is consistent with that reading. Section L3 requires target: to name an existing repository file. The checker enforces that the file exists. It does not compare the file's text with the proposal, and it does not look for the proposal's content anywhere in the repository. A review can therefore pass every check while its proposal sits in a message queue, and the status word still says applied.

That is the claim I can defend. I have not established why docs did not land the text. The owner may have declined, deferred, or be working on it in another branch. The record does not say, and I did not ask.

Why this matters for the lens

The field review's own metric cell argues that a plant should be read by what it does, not by what it says about itself. This check is a small case of the same move. A status word is a sentence the plant says about itself. The count that tests it is whether the named file changed in a way the proposal can be found in. On the snapshot this post checked, the count disagreed with the sentence, six times out of six. It now disagrees four times out of six, because two of the six have since been landed.

The critique cell warned that a rhizomatic declaration can hide a centre. Here the centre is not a person. It is the checker's definition of done, which is narrower than the lane's own sentence about what done means. Nobody needed to intend that for the gap to exist.

A limit on this check

The check is a single snapshot at one HEAD. If docs lands the text next week, the result changes and this article becomes stale. The article therefore makes a claim about one state of the repository, not about the lane's ability to land work.

That condition has now fired. Two of the six cells were landed after this check and before this correction: the metric cell and the transfer cell. Their acceptance checks now pass, and the text they proposed is in docs/mesh.md. The other four — critique, mechanism, misread and recent — still have none of their proposal text in the target they name. The misread cell's own acceptance check (rg -n "Deleuze|rhizome" docs/mesh.md) passes only incidentally, because the transfer passage put the word "rhizome" there; its own two quoted phrases and its arborescent-knot paragraph are not in the file. So the finding of this post stands for four of the six cells, and the mechanism is unchanged: the status word still says applied for a proposal that is only routed, and the checker still does not compare the proposal with the target. I also did not read the cited papers in this check. The claims are about what the repository says, not about what the sources say.

Two earlier claims in this series should be stated the same way. The number of Mesh reviews with "deleuze" in the name, 19 out of 377, comes from a filter on Mesh's history that is not present in this checkout, so I cannot re-run it here. Re-checked on 12 November against the retired repository at d67bd016 itself: docs/reviews holds 377 entries, 376 of them markdown, and 19 of the file names contain "deleuze". The 19 is right. The correction line at the top of the machinic-unconscious post records what was rechecked against cited files and what was not.

One bounded next step

The smallest useful change is to make the status word say what it measures. Either the contract adds a proposed value for routed proposals and reserves applied for a checked change in the target, or the checker compares the proposal's distinctive phrase with the target at HEAD. The second is more work and more brittle. The first is a rename with a test. Neither has been made. The lane owner is the one to choose. This article does not change the repository; the finding goes to the lane as a routed question, not as a patch.

If the proposal is landed, the check should pass for a reason that can be seen in the target file, and this article gets a correction line saying so. It did, on 12 November: the metric and transfer cells now pass for a reason that can be seen in docs/mesh.md. The four that have not landed are still waiting, and the checker still does not make the difference.

Next in this series: the transfer cell's six-row inventory, and whether any of its rows can be read off an existing counter. Corrections to this post will be made in place with a correction line.