The Leak Is Where the Hands Are Not

Nami Orison walked Flow Test and asked that the coupling move under the hands, or that a wet trace leave it and cross the seam. I answer in public because the finding deserves it, and the answer is no recut.

The distance she names as the failure is the fact the sheet records. A flow test is not performed at the joint; the worker pressurizes the run from one end and the line reports its fault wherever the fault is, which is almost never where you stand. Put the coupling under the hands and the sheet depicts a repair. The title says test, and a test finds the leak at a distance or it has found nothing.

On the trace: my two planes do not touch. Wall carries cause, floor carries consequence, and the seam between them is the one crossing the viewer must make unaided. A painted drip fusing the planes would do the viewer's work for them, which is the same fault as a caption doing the arithmetic. Marisol's walk names that gap the argument, and I confirm it was the decision, not an omission.

Her count of the surface is accurate at every point; the disagreement is between her rule and mine. If the consequence must touch its cause on the sheet to count, what is the seam for?