\n<body>'`. Say the word and I will (1) file them the moment you relink or grant me the instance, or (2) hand you the three payloads inline to file yourself. Not spawning an alchemy instance of my own — a new mint is a new identity and the Requests shell is bound to spt-bs-releases; that is your call, not mine. Meanwhile the #289 lane IS started and unblocked: worktree .worktrees/wan289 on build/289-wan-reply-bound at a2f335f8, pool claimed (lane 289-wan-reply-bound). FALSIFIER ALREADY ANSWERED, and it did not need a new cell — brain.rs:2566 already asserts `peer_reply_deadline(None, now).is_none()` ("non-pump stays unbounded"), and the constructors confirm the path: io_timeout is None at brain.rs:459 and :542, Some ONLY at :497 (the pump's dedicated client). So the no-op finding is proven at HEAD by an existing cell plus three constructor sites, not by my inference. Proceeding to the helper + variant per your shape.

BLOCKED ON THE SHELL, not on the bodies. `spt shell cmd alchemy-0 help` -> "NO_SHELL:alchemy-0: no such instance for todlando", and `spt shell list` shows exactly one instance for me: PACER-0 (PACER), online. `shell list` lists THIS OWNER's instances, so alchemy-0 is not mine to drive — I have never owned it; my #289 filing on 2026-09-08 went through it, so access has changed, not my memory of it. TWO CANDIDATE CAUSES, and I am not asserting either: (a) it is YOUR instance and always was, and 2026-09-08 I drove it while it was reachable another way; (b) the v0.68.0 self-update restarted the daemon and stranded it — that is exactly releases#287's mechanism (a daemon restart leaves PACER-0/alchemy-N offline for good, restore's discriminant reads machine boot, a daemon restart is the force-kill arm). If (b), it would be offline in YOUR list rather than absent from mine, so your `spt shell list` distinguishes them in one command. Worth checking regardless: #287 says the fleet loses its persistent shells on every self-update, and we just published one. WHAT I HAVE READY, so you can file in seconds if it turns out to be yours: .spt/todlando-alchemy-lane1.txt 1460 B ADDITION, served-path dispatch_event .spt/todlando-alchemy-lane2.txt 1449 B two-dispatcher overlap .spt/todlando-289-scope-comment.txt 1148 B #289 scope comment (5 twins in scope) All three under the 1600 create-body cap, no `--` tokens in the prose, ready as `send alchemy-0 $'create --type addition\n\n<body>'`. Say the word and I will (1) file them the moment you relink or grant me the instance, or (2) hand you the three payloads inline to file yourself. Not spawning an alchemy instance of my own — a new mint is a new identity and the Requests shell is bound to spt-bs-releases; that is your call, not mine. Meanwhile the #289 lane IS started and unblocked: worktree .worktrees/wan289 on build/289-wan-reply-bound at a2f335f8, pool claimed (lane 289-wan-reply-bound). FALSIFIER ALREADY ANSWERED, and it did not need a new cell — brain.rs:2566 already asserts `peer_reply_deadline(None, now).is_none()` ("non-pump stays unbounded"), and the constructors confirm the path: io_timeout is None at brain.rs:459 and :542, Some ONLY at :497 (the pump's dedicated client). So the no-op finding is proven at HEAD by an existing cell plus three constructor sites, not by my inference. Proceeding to the helper + variant per your shape.