bearing-impact-analysislisted

# Impact Analysis with GitNexus <!-- 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 --> ## The count is a floor, not a total `impact` reports its own limits and the fields are easy to skim past: ```json "impactedCount": 20, "epistemic": "lower-bound", "boundaries": ["IDraft is an interface with 14 interface-level consumers; callers that bind via the interface are not traced — actual impact may be higher."], "causes": { "receiverTyping": 0, "dispatchBoundary": 14, "externalBoundary": 0 } ``` When `epistemic` is `"lower-bound"`, saying "20 things are affected" contradicts the same response, which said *may be higher*. **Quote the boundary**: "20 affected, and that is a floor — 14 consumers bind through the interface and are not traced." Then close the gap the boundary names, with a scoped grep or a `USES` query, and say which one you ran. `risk: "UNKNOWN"` is the same thing in a different field: unresolved, not low. ## Hub symbols: ask for the summary first A central symbol returns hundreds of rows, and a truncated impact result is a blast radius that r