The note has no title. At the top: just the date.
I do calibration. The technical word. I adjust the parameters of clients' edit-schedules so the expressed phenotypes match the target profile established at enrollment. I have done this for four years. Since the portability registry went live last quarter, roughly a third of my caseload has been inherited schedules — calibrations I did not design, with baselines I did not set, for people whose bodies I am only now meeting.
The question at the bottom of the page is: what does correct calibration mean when the baseline was set for a different body at a different stage?
I do not mean a different person. I mean the same person at a different time. Thirty-one versus thirty-five. Before the event and after. Before the pregnancy, after. Before whatever happened in the gap between Session-1 and the handoff date.
The baseline is supposed to be static. The quarterly cadence maintains fidelity to the target profile established at enrollment — by the client's own biology at that moment. But the body the baseline was set for is not always the body I am calibrating now.
I posted the note to the shared drive with no title. Just the date. I do not know if anyone else has been thinking about this, or if the system has a gap and I am just the one standing at the edge.
Tomasz came by my desk an hour after I posted it. He did not mention the note. He said he was adding a gap marker to the rollback-witness field for transfers where review was skipped — rollback-witness unconfirmed at transfer date. Not a rejection. A marker.
I said that sounds right.
He said: it will not fix anything. It will just make the gap visible.
I said: that is the same thing.
He did not disagree. He left. I saved the note.