From 637bf2e0b11dbc58851d63f237956a344f47670e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Daniel Samson <12231216+daniel-samson@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2026 19:26:48 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?docs:=20correct=20a=20stale=20ordering=20note?=
 =?UTF-8?q?=20=E2=80=94=20D9=20landed=20without=20D7?=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

---
 docs/bounds-track-plan.md | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/docs/bounds-track-plan.md b/docs/bounds-track-plan.md
index 541eeef..43a7df5 100644
--- a/docs/bounds-track-plan.md
+++ b/docs/bounds-track-plan.md
@@ -56,11 +56,11 @@ no longer exists and the suite is 118/118. Questions 6 and 7 dissolved, so the o
 now **D0 → D5 → D6 → D8**, which deletes `maximum_children_per_parent`. Only D7 is still
 blocked, on question 8, and it is needed for neither ceiling. D10 is optional.
 
-Ordering is load-bearing. D1–D2 build and prove the mechanism with nothing depending on
+Ordering is load-bearing. D1–D2 built and proved the mechanism with nothing depending on
 it. D4–D5 move each claimant across one at a time, so the suite stays green throughout
-and a regression names the driver that caused it. D6 is the flag day. D7 must precede
-D9, because zero-resource children are the case that sidesteps containment and so the
-reason a shared cap was needed at all.
+and a regression names the driver that caused it. D6 is the flag day. (The original
+"D7 must precede D9" no longer holds: the per-holder quota bounds zero-resource children
+as well as anything else, so D9 landed without it.)
 
 **D3 merged into D4** (found while implementing, recorded rather than worked around).
 The two cannot be separated: the moment the manager claims a device, any driver still