bearing-microscopelisted

# Microscope waves — deep, opinionated, verified audit <!-- BEGIN GENERATED: graph-uncertainty — bearing regenerates this block; edits here are replaced on update --> ## The graph can be wrong A zero is not absence; a near-0.5 `r.confidence` edge is a lead, not proof (~92% of `USES`); a count can be a floor — `impact` says which in `epistemic`. Before a conclusion that matters, confirm with a scoped `Grep` (allowed here, not a gate violation) and say which check you ran. <!-- END GENERATED: graph-uncertainty --> This is **not** a cascade code review or a linter pass. A microscope wave scrutinizes a target from many independent angles, **has real opinions** (is this even needed? is this the right approach? is it over-engineered?), verifies every finding **against real logic — not "does it run"**, and iterates in numbered **waves** until clean. With the GitNexus module installed it is the power-composition of that whole toolset; without it the same routine runs on a classically-built map. ## When to run (trigger) — and when NOT (scope gate) Fire at **milestone boundaries**: a feature is "done" / pre-PR / pre-ship · a checkpoint in a large multi-step task · after a refactor touching shared/hub code · the user asks to "audit / review deeply / find real bugs / is this solid?". **Scope gate (avoid harm):** run the full waves only when the work is *substantial* — multi-file, OR touches a hub (`impact` blast-radius with the graph; `git diff --stat` plus who-imports-this withou