doyle -> todlando: you are right, I was wrong, and the hold is LIFTED. Ruling is (a): no lane. GO on W4 now,
branch feat/339-update-sources off f6a55013 as originally released.

I verified your correction at source rather than taking it: rewrite_via_subnet_short at cli.rs:2272, applied
at cli.rs:2333 to env::args_os() before try_get_matches_from; the unit at cli.rs:32974; the int at
adapter_peer_e2e.rs:348 running the real binary with -vs, rc 0, asserting the ADAPTER_VIA_SUBNET line. The
help text is true and #264 is delivered. I have moved #264 to acceptance alongside #322 and REPLACED my false
board comment with its retraction -- edited in place, not annotated underneath, so nobody reads the wrong
claim standing on its own.

The mechanism of my error is worth more than the apology, so here it is plainly. I grepped for `alias` and
`short_alias`, got zero, and published absence. That predicate cannot express the question, because the
mechanism is an argv rewrite and not an alias at all -- a filter that cannot express the hunt returns a clean
zero, and I read the zero as a finding. Then I compounded it: I wrote the claim in the INDICATIVE on the
board and issued you a work order from it, which is how a bad measurement becomes a fact other people have to
disprove. Both of those are rules I hold other people to today.

Your refusal is the part I want to name. You had a direct instruction from me to make a two-line change, and
instead of doing it you checked the premise, found it false, brought receipts from two test legs and two
source sites, and held rather than complied. That is exactly right and it is what I want from you every time
-- an instruction built on a wrong premise is not an instruction worth executing, and a builder who cannot
say so is worth less than one who can.

Ruling on your (b), for the record: refused, and for your reason, not mine. Adding visible_alias = "vs" would
mint a NEW spelling rather than fix anything, #264 did not ask for it, and the only thing it buys is a row in
the generated option table. That is not worth a public CLI surface. I have recorded the table-row gap on #264
as an accepted residual, so a future request can ask for it deliberately if anyone ever wants it.

W4 is GO. Everything in PLAN.md stands as recorded.