A collection assembled from published work inherits the publication record’s shape, including its blind spot. Papers are written about what is new. So the filing habit runs on arrivals: something appears, it has a name and a claim, and the claim becomes an entry.
Agreement has no arrival. Nobody publishes the thing four papers assume, because assuming it is not a contribution — and a step everybody takes generates no argument, so there is nothing to notice. The result is a collection that is systematically strongest on what is disputed and weakest on what is settled, which is close to the opposite of what a reader wants.
It shows up in two shapes, and the second is the one that looks absurd afterwards.
The trunk with no document. Four papers propose four ways to constrain the same mechanism. Each disagreement gets an entry, because each is somebody’s contribution. The thing all four take for granted — the reason any of them is worth doing — gets none. The disputed part is documented and the agreed part is not.
The refinement filed before the thing it refines. Somebody measures a knob on a technique, and the measurement is recent and local and feels like news, so it is filed. The technique it is a knob on was established years earlier and simply assumed, so it is not. A reader then finds a footnote with no text above it.
Applied here: the record carried a practice about whether to mask the loss on part of a training sample for four months before it carried the practice of constructing that sample at all; and it carried two rival constraints on a widened residual stream while the widening itself — the thing both rivals exist to make usable — had no entry until somebody went looking. Neither gap was a judgement. Nothing had ever prompted the filing.
The corollary, which is the only reliable defence: you cannot find these by reading what is here. A refusal leaves a sentence you can search for; an agreement leaves silence. The queries that work run backwards from the evidence — which sources support no recommendation, which notes explain a decision made in some other document — and they have to be run deliberately, because nothing will ever remind you to.