**The messages now say where things actually are.** v0.20.0 renamed the back office's addresses to
English and deliberately left `redacao/correio/` alone, on the grounds that a message is immutable
in Email-FS-lite. The editor overruled that, and was right: *"email-fs-lite is convention-based and
it is to make changes like this, especially at such an early stage — since leaving it is worse due
to the technical debt that it will create."*

So four messages — each in both of its copies, the sender's in `saida/` and the recipient's in
`expedicao/` — plus three run records now name `board.html`, `bridges.html`, `design.html` and the
renamed generators instead of addresses that stopped existing three releases ago.

**The interesting part is not the sweep, it is that the rule had to be rewritten to allow it.**
Immutability here was stated flatly in two places — `redacao/correio/LEIA-ME.md` and the mail page
— and this repository's whole argument is that a rule the record quietly contradicts is worse than
no rule at all. A commit that edited four "immutable" messages while both of those still said
"never edited" would have been exactly that.

`redacao/correio/LEIA-ME.md` therefore carries the exception, its conditions and its log:

- **Immutability here is a discipline, not a mechanism.** Nothing in a git repository stops a
  write. The protocol is convention-based, so the convention can be changed — and if it is, it has
  to be *said*.
- **Only the editor of record authorises a sweep**, and the authorisation goes in the commit
  subject.
- **A sweep is mechanical and uniform**, and must not change what any message asserts. Swapping a
  renamed path: yes. Rewriting a sentence, correcting a number, softening a conclusion: never —
  that is what a reply and `In-Reply-To` are for.
- **Both copies move together.** A message lives in the sender's `saida/` and the recipient's
  `expedicao/` or `entrada/`, and the two must stay byte-identical. Editing one is how the model
  actually breaks; both pairs were diffed after this sweep and match.
- **The log is a table**, with what each sweep changed and what authorised it. This is its first
  and only row.

And the regime change is written down rather than left to be rediscovered: this is cheap *now*
because nothing outside the repository cites these messages. The day one of them is quoted from
outside, a sweep acquires a cost it does not have today, and that section is where that gets
recorded.

The mail page carries the same qualification, and deliberately **does not print the version the
last sweep happened in** — it would have been rendered from `version.txt`, which means the page
would have claimed the last sweep happened in whatever release you happen to be reading. The
protocol note holds the number; the page points at the note. Content exists once.

*Also in this release: nothing else. The sweep, the rule it needed, and this note.*