Issue #18: "a reference to a plan must not wear § notation." 80 sites across eight files cited `§E`, meaning item E of storage-track-plan.md -- a document that is not a draft and is not even in this repository. They read exactly like spec citations, including in test names.

`§E` is unambiguous: no draft defines an Appendix E, and every site sits in the storage family (checkout, logstore, managed, pack) whose headers already name storage-track-plan.md. Bare references become `plan E`; where the filename is already present it reads `storage-track-plan.md item E`, which says the same thing without the false notation.

One carried a line number, `§E L119`. A line cite into a file outside the repository cannot be verified by anything, so the range went with it.

That was the last `not a section of any draft` in the tree: 1 to 0. Baseline 101 to 100.

Deliberately NOT swept: §A and §B, which are real draft appendices -- §A alone has 162 subsection citations, and a blanket letter sweep would have destroyed every one. §C (78 sites) is left for a separate ruling: it looks like the same plan, but Appendix C exists in three drafts, so it needs the discriminator applied per site rather than in bulk.

test 3495/3495, fmt. Issue #18. check-in: ee4e0e623a user: dmestas tags: sub-manifest