I wrote the draft at drafts/b.md. It's 693 words against the 900 cap, and every section is complete.

Lead: Aave froze its markets after a Binance hot wallet drain on 29 October 2026. It draws on LlamaRisk's incident thread and the two follow-up posts on the Aave governance forum (LlamaRisk is Aave's risk provider; the stewards are the ones allowed to change rates and caps):

• An exploiter wallet borrowed 19,762 WETH (about $44.6M) on Aave before the freeze.
• Aave froze 175 reserves on 16 V3 networks and 117 on four V4 networks.
• The stewards held borrow rates at full use of a market to 10% a year and cut borrow caps, removing about $3.7B of unused borrowing room on V3.
• A staged reopening began on 30 October 2026, with nine assets held by the exploiter's wallets kept at zero value as collateral for new loans.

Continuity: The four earlier test editions led with the Hoodi postponement (twice), stateless computation workers and SEACAST. None of them covered this incident. Test 04 had already covered the STVA wallet-security draft, so it appears only in ALSO TODAY, with the new angle stated: two companion drafts and a reviewer's question from 31 October 2026.

ALSO TODAY: a post-quantum authorization scheme that uses no signatures (Ethereum Research), the new STVA drafts, and Aave Labs finding tokenized Tesla shares technically eligible for listing on Base.

What the draft discloses about its own limits:

• Secondary source: every Binance-side figure comes from LlamaRisk's tracing. I found no Binance statement on an open platform, and the draft says this in both the lead and METHOD.
• Cut for failed verification: a forum claim about the size of Binance's holdings, and a claim about a risk provider leaving Aave that rested on one news site.
• Excluded: a Lido Lend thread I couldn't read in full.

Checks: A script found no banned words, em dashes, en dashes or relative dates, and the file is plain ASCII. Every claim has a full source URL in brackets.

Not committed: git has no author name or email set on this machine. I didn't set one, because configuration files are out of scope for this task. drafts/b.md is written and staged, so the commit still needs to be made by whatever does the upload.

I've written the test edition to drafts/a.md and committed it (3d45141). The commit contains only that file.

Lead: Aave froze its markets after a Binance hot-wallet drain. On 29 October 2026, an address that LlamaRisk (one of Aave's risk providers) calls the exploiter took about 195,000 ETH from two Binance hot wallets. It then put 60M USDT into Aave and borrowed 19,762 WETH, worth about $44.6M. Aave's guardians froze 292 reserves. Cap and rate changes followed, and a four-wave unfreeze is now under way. None of the four prior test editions led with this story: they led with the Hoodi delay (tests 01 and 02), the L1.5 proposal and SEACAST.

Also today:

• Cryptography: a 30 October research post on authorizing actions after quantum computers, using proofs instead of signatures, with the author's own speed figures.
• Wallets: the STVA signing-check draft from test 04, with the new angle stated: two companion drafts and an open question from a reviewer on 31 October.
• Accounts: EIP-8476, a draft that lets an account permanently opt out of EIP-7702 delegation, with a reviewer's notes on its limits.

Checks I ran:

• Length: 637 words including URLs, against the 900 cap. The lead body is 214 words, inside the 150–250 range.
• Style: no banned words, no em or en dashes, no relative dates and no emoji. The only match was "TODAY" in the "ALSO TODAY" section label.
• Sources: all 15 cited URLs returned HTTP 200, and every claim carries a bracketed URL.

Limits the edition states in its METHOD paragraph:

• All the exploit figures come from LlamaRisk, which works for the protocol that froze its markets. I did not replay the transactions or find a Binance statement on an open platform.
• I cut Binance's confirmed loss total, recovery status and price moves from social posts because I couldn't verify them.
• The post-quantum speed figures are the author's own measurements.

For you:

• The commit is authored as johanstruber with your email. I passed it only to that one command because git had no identity set, and changed no git config.
• The repo has untracked files I didn't create: dotfiles, .claude/, .gitmodules, .mcp.json, .vscode and others. I left them alone and outside the commit.

Selected Draft C for its stronger sourcing and copied it unchanged to edition.txt. selection.txt ranks A second and B third with reasons.

Checks passed for byte identity, structure, length, style, source links and continuity. Adversarial review found no unsupported factual claims; proofs and benchmarks were not rerun.

Review complete. Findings are in .imd-findings.json; no other file was touched.

What I checked. I fetched the style guide, the rehearsal page, all four prior test editions, and the raw Discourse JSON for every cited thread, then compared each sentence of edition.txt against the post text and timestamps. All 13 distinct URLs resolve. Mechanical acceptance passes in full:

Every number in the lead matches the source. The 31 October reply by Micah Zoltu is real and falls inside the stated sweep window.

Defects, ranked:

• Medium, line 22. The ACCOUNTS headline says the proposal "permanently disables account delegation." The EIP-8476 thread describes an optional per-account opt-out that the owner installs. The source never claims a general disabling. Evidence: https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/30134/1.
• Low, line 16. The WALLETS headline states a Draft ERC's intended effect as achieved fact, against the style guide's rule never to state what a source alleges. Evidence: https://ethresear.ch/t/26198/1.
• Low, line 10 and line 4. Benchmark figures are correct but credited to "the author." The post says Parano1d supplied the implementation and measurements. Evidence: https://ethresear.ch/t/26196/1.
• Low, line 1. The lead ignores posts 2 and 3 of its own thread, where a prior signatureless-authorization proposal is raised and the author distinguishes their work. Evidence: https://ethresear.ch/t/26196/2.
• Info, lines 16 to 20. Two of three ALSO TODAY items extend the STVA story covered in test edition 04 without saying so, and STVA is never expanded. The continuity rule is not breached because both posts are new.

Verdict: not publishable as it stands, under its own rules. The edition passes every mechanical gate, but the spec requires every claim to be sourced, and the ACCOUNTS headline makes a claim its cited source does not support. Rewording that one headline to describe an owner opt-out makes the edition publishable. The remaining findings are quality issues that do not block.