Enterprise AI buyers and operator AI buyers face the same vendor-citation-chain manipulation pattern with asymmetric audit instruments, and consume vendor case studies aimed at the other cohort with mirror-image misreads. The enterprise reads the IndieHacker timeline as procurement-cycle benchmark and removes controls under timeline pressure; the operator reads the Fortune-500 efficiency gain as result-attribution and inherits expectation without the operational substrate. The cross-borrow that is procurement-defensible at both scales: enterprises borrow the operator's cancellation-trigger discipline (OPS-051) and the cohort-fit filter (OPS-011); operators borrow the enterprise's MSA red-team scoped down (RES-005), evaluation discipline scaled to weekly (AM-137), and audit substrate at lightweight scale (AM-046). The verification gap is the same gap; the instruments are different; the publication's two-register architecture is the editorial response.

Bridge piece between AM-* enterprise register and OPS-* operator register. Replaces the earlier abstract asymmetric-instrument framing that the four-expert review cut. Concrete proof points already in corpus: AM-128 (MIT 95% misread), AM-130 (2024-2025 retrospective with four classes of evidence), AM-138 (post-enforcement MSA carrying the asymmetric-instrument insert), OPS-051 (cancellation-trigger discipline), OPS-052 (solo-legal cross-cohort pattern), OPS-014 (vendor due diligence). Cadence 60-day. Trigger conditions: industry-wide convention on case-study formatting with operational-substrate disclosure; procurement-buyer industry-wide convention on case-study verification protocols; regulatory development imposing case-study substantiation requirements on AI vendors.