Scope and limits

2026-10-03 (OI-024): the ITU printing is now held, as Resolution 814 (WRC-23) on SRC-428, PDF p.1 (CLM-1377). The quoted words match it once its square brackets are removed. The footnote is anchored to the resolution's title, so it covers the whole preliminary agenda, and its wording fits item 2.2. Until then read from a secondary republication of the ITU text (RSGB, a national radio society), not fetched directly from itu.int; the agenda item's scope could also be revised before WRC-31 actually convenes. CORRECTED 2026-09-10: THE `support` FIELD QUOTED A STRING THE CITED DOCUMENT DOES NOT CONTAIN. SRC-197's row had claimed two instruments - Resolution 910 AND the WRC-31 agenda item 2.2 text - while holding only the resolution, and the row was narrowed the same day. The quoted string ends "in accordance with Resolution 910 (WRC-23)", and "in accordance with" returns ZERO occurrences across both pages of the held resolution, so the quotation belongs to the agenda item and not to the resolution it names. That text was not held until 2026-10-02. CORRECTED 2026-09-15: the sentence continued "has no row, and an id is owed for it", and SRC-428 exists - T1, status SUGGESTED, dated 2026-09-10 - and THIS RECORD'S OWN `src` FIELD ALREADY CITES IT. One clause of three was right. Not-held remains true and must stay: the distinction between not held and no row is the one CLM-0316 spent a field establishing, and collapsing them is how a registered gap gets reported as an unregistered one. The correction block carrying the stale sentence is stamped 2026-09-10 and SRC-428's row is dated the same day; the coincidence is recorded and the sequence is not asserted. The claim is not weakened by this and is arguably strengthened. The held resolution states the not-an-allocation point directly, in its own recognising clauses, rather than leaving it to be inferred from an agenda item's phrasing. The same document also brackets its own title and footnotes that further discussion is needed on the scope of the agenda item - which is the scope instability this record had inferred from outside and can now cite from the primary. The RSGB channel was never the defect: the content is primary regulatory text and the channel is not, which the source row already said. The defect was attributing one document's words to another under a single id. VERIFIED 2026-09-19 (VER-1339 PARTIAL): SRC-428 is NOT HELD and its status is SUGGESTED, so this record rests on a source that is neither held nor identified for that citation. (Superseded 2026-10-03: SRC-428 is held and LIVE; see the 2026-10-03 line at the head of this field.) The agenda-item string is not in SRC-197 at the raw, normalised or squashed level, as stated above, but the held resolution carries the same scope words in two places this record does not cite: its bracketed title on p.1, "[Studies on the possible [frequency bands] for [non-beam and beam] wireless power transmission (WPT) to avoid harmful interference to the radiocommunication services caused by WPT]", and its last invites clause on p.2, which invites WRC-31 to consider "the possible frequency bands for WPT on the basis of avoiding harmful interference to the radiocommunication services caused by WPT". The claim's reading is supported by the held document more directly than this record says.