Luria P—'s indistinctness survived three separate editorial asks across the Dec-1994 letter…

This one was stable by design: a change was proposed, but the material survived unchanged, which is itself evidence.

In the manuscript. Three asks: "Their whole supporting cast--Fourier, Broullime, Plourd, Luria--remains indistinct." [p1]; "More on who Luria P is? She remains shadowy throughout." [683 continuation, p3] with the 940 fork "Can we cut this thread and just leave it that only Steeply has gotten to him? Or spell out a little more clearly, what Luria is doing there." [p4]; "1404 Luria P and Broullime going to interview Orin?" [p6] Michael Pietsch's December 1994 second-read letter

In the published book. Scenes 113/115/119 (pp. 565–567, 574–575, 596–601, the Swiss-hand-model thread), scene 87 (pp. 410–418, the Luria–Tine "love thing" in Mario's film), scene 184 (pp. 971–972, Orin's interview)

Evidence. Independently corroborated. (letter + print text).

Bears on. This difference bears on the following open questions: Avril's separatist involvements; Wayne's Québécois allegiance (and which cell).

Further notes. Composition-side support for treating Luria's under-specification as engineered rather than accidental — background for avril-afr arguments that lean on her shadowiness (including the Luria=Avril contradiction record). Margin layer (interpretive): green "Yes" beside the 940 entry is a clear glyph, but WHICH of Pietsch's opposite remedies it assents to is not determinable from the mark — and neither executed. The 1404 question lands in print as scene 184 (pp. 971–972).