FABRIC.md §25: item 2.2 rests on grounds bounding can actually deliver

Review item REVIEW-D2, following from REVIEW-A1/B1.

Item 2.2 claimed the unbounded registry "makes fleet K an identity that cannot
fail" and accepted on VM-CONSERVED? becoming able to fail. Both were wrong.
Heat is transferred rather than renormalised (§20.2), so conservation is already
a real invariant and already falsifiable -- via the dropped-remainder path at
capsule_vm_physics.c:240-244 and integer truncation at :304-305. Bounding the
population changes neither, so the item promised something it could not deliver.

The bound is still needed and now rests on the two grounds §2 states: finite
state for §13's induction and model checking, and density requiring a capacity
to be dense within, without which §19.3's admission rule has nothing to compare
against. Acceptance is now the bound existing, birth-at-bound behaving as 1.5
specifies, and the three-architecture boot unaffected.

Fixing the truncation leak is a separate and larger piece of work and stays in
§25.7 rather than being folded in here.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

FABRIC.md

@@ -2102,10 +2102,26 @@ document and committing that amendment as its own item.*
   > regression guard — but it is not evidence for 2.1.
 
 - [ ] **2.2 — Bound the VM registry.**
-  The registry is a `kmalloc`-backed unbounded list, which makes fleet K an identity that
-  cannot fail (§20.2). Give it the hard bound decided in 1.5.
-  *Done when:* the population is bounded and `VM-CONSERVED?` can, in principle, fail.
-  *Refs:* §2, §20.2.
+  The registry is a `kmalloc`-backed unbounded list (`capsule_vm_physics.c:71-72`). Give it
+  the hard bound decided in 1.5.
+  *Done when:* the population is bounded, birth at the bound behaves as 1.5 specifies, and
+  the three-architecture boot is unaffected.
+  *Refs:* §2, §13, §19.2, §20.2.
+
+  > **Justification corrected.** This item previously read that the registry "makes fleet K
+  > an identity that cannot fail" and accepted on `VM-CONSERVED?` becoming able to fail.
+  > Both were wrong, and the reason is now in §20.2: heat is **transferred**, not
+  > renormalised, so conservation is already a real invariant and already falsifiable —
+  > by the dropped-remainder path at `:240-244` and by integer truncation at `:304-305`.
+  > Bounding the population changes neither.
+  >
+  > The bound is still needed, on the two grounds §2 now states: **finite state** for §13's
+  > induction and model checking, and **density requires a capacity to be dense within**
+  > (§19.2), without which §19.3's admission rule has nothing to compare against. Those are
+  > the honest justifications and this item now rests on them.
+  >
+  > Making conservation *more* falsifiable is a different and larger piece of work — fixing
+  > the truncation leak — and is recorded in §25.7 rather than folded in here.
 
 ---