Explain R6 data authoring and record verification gaps

harness/TASK_LEDGER.md

@@ -39,6 +39,9 @@ requires native workflows, semantic evaluators and fresh independent review.
   whole-model equality or flat reformatting. Independent counterexamples were fixed.
 - R3 existing-target reconciliation remains name/description only. R6 data shape
   expansion is active implementation, not accepted functionality.
+- R6 core/source and actual HTTP semantics pass focused Windows and full Linux
+  core checks; desktop257 tests pass after independent draft/path/paging fixes.
+  Native R6 acceptance and bounded scenario-value authoring remain outstanding.
 
 ## Assumptions and open questions
 
@@ -49,7 +52,10 @@ requires native workflows, semantic evaluators and fresh independent review.
 - Routing offers a usable initial path plus manual pins; arbitrary dense diagrams
   are not guaranteed crossing-free. Measured dense full solve119ms remains a limit.
 - R3 typed historical bodies plus finite proposals appear simpler than a separate
-  recursive semantic-value schema. This candidate awaits R6 freeze and review.
+  recursive semantic-value schema. An isolated probe supports scalar partial review
+  and deleted historical references, but ordered membership/order acknowledgements
+  need separate typed order checkpoints. Historical source reference parsing is
+  still unimplemented; this remains a candidate awaiting independent review.
 
 ## Decisions and current strategy