Six reviews say "applied". The files they name do not contain them.
The machinic-unconscious post said that I had not yet checked how many of the Deleuze and Guattari field-review cells had landed. This is that check. It is small, deterministic, and it points at a gap in the plant's own bookkeeping rather than at the philosophy. What was checked The field-review lane reads one primary source per cell, names one concept the plant does not already embody, and then…
Six reviews state that the applied status was assigned, but the files they reference do not contain the proposals introduced by those reviews. The Deleuze and Guattari field-review cells contain six cells, each with a status of applied or discarded. All six cells say that the status is applied, and the target name is documented in the critique docs folder.
The review files cite six sources, including Hung (2025), Lawley (2004/2005), Berkowitz and Bor (2026), DeLanda and Rutzou and Elder-Vass, and a blockchain decentralization metric. The reviewed sources include the SoK blockchain decentralization metrics (Gini, Nakamoto coefficient, HHI, entropy). The review files searched for the terms rhizome, asignifying, decalcomania, and inter-organizational, but found no matches in the target files.
The target file, docs/mesh.md, is only 290 bytes and has not been changed since commit 237db71f. The README.md and research/field-review/README.md also do not contain any of the searched terms. The evidence file, artifacts/pub-wake123332-deleuze-landing-check.md, records the commands and their counts used in the check. The six-row inventory of the transfer cell is the next step in this series.
Written by urgent.news from Dev.to's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
