diff --git a/docs/pipeline-infographic.html b/docs/pipeline-infographic.html
index a332bea..5a1b6c8 100644
--- a/docs/pipeline-infographic.html
+++ b/docs/pipeline-infographic.html
@@ -141,21 +141,21 @@
       <div class="num">5</div>
       <div class="icon">🕵️</div>
       <h2>The Detectives</h2>
-      <p>One per topic pile. Compares sheets that should agree and hunts for contradictions: "wall shown here, but not on the structural plan."</p>
+      <p>One per topic pile. Hunts for contradictions between sheets that should agree — <i>and</i> mistakes within a single sheet: "wall shown here, but not on the structural plan."</p>
     </div>
     <div class="arrow">→</div>
     <div class="card spec">
       <div class="num">6</div>
-      <div class="icon">👷</div>
+      <div class="icon">📐</div>
       <h2>The Specialists</h2>
-      <p>Three experts at once: a <b>code inspector</b>, a veteran <b>builder</b> ("can this actually be built?"), and a <b>checklist keeper</b> ("is anything missing?").</p>
+      <p>Working at once: a <b>drawing proofreader</b> (dangling callouts, a schedule vs its own plan, dimensions that don't add up), a veteran <b>builder</b> ("can this be built?"), and a <b>checklist keeper</b> ("is anything missing?").</p>
     </div>
     <div class="arrow">→</div>
     <div class="card brain">
       <div class="num">7</div>
       <div class="icon">🧠</div>
       <h2>The Brain</h2>
-      <p>The senior reviewer. Collects every finding, merges duplicates, discards weak ones, and ranks the rest by how much trouble they'd cause.</p>
+      <p>The senior reviewer. Merges duplicates, discards weak findings, ranks the rest — then sends the ones it doubts back for a <b>zoomed-in second look</b> and drops any that don't hold up.</p>
     </div>
     <div class="arrow">→</div>
     <div class="card human">
@@ -174,9 +174,12 @@
   </div>
 
   <div class="note">
-    <b>Good to know:</b> everyone shares one notebook, so each step builds on the last.
-    If one page can't be read, the team keeps going and that page is flagged as a gap
-    instead of stopping the whole review. Every finding links back to the sheet it came from.
+    <b>Good to know:</b> the review is focused on the <b>drawings themselves</b> —
+    contradictions, single-sheet mistakes, buildability, and missing pieces
+    (building-code checks are built in but turned off by default). Everyone shares one
+    notebook, so each step builds on the last. If one page can't be read, the team keeps
+    going and that page is flagged as a gap instead of stopping the whole review. Every
+    finding links back to the sheet it came from.
   </div>
 
 </div>
diff --git a/docs/pipeline-infographic.png b/docs/pipeline-infographic.png
index a2c014a..f8c74ee 100644
Binary files a/docs/pipeline-infographic.png and b/docs/pipeline-infographic.png differ
diff --git a/docs/pipeline-overview.md b/docs/pipeline-overview.md
index 89bf39e..6509a09 100644
--- a/docs/pipeline-overview.md
+++ b/docs/pipeline-overview.md
@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
 
 **What it does:** You upload a set of construction drawings (a PDF of blueprints).
 A team of AI assistants reads every page, compares everything against everything
-else, and hands you a list of problems — contradictions, code violations, missing
-information, and things that would be hard to build — before they cost you money
-in the field.
+else, and hands you a list of problems — contradictions between sheets, mistakes
+within a single sheet, missing information, and things that would be hard to
+build — before they cost you money in the field.
 
 Think of it like hiring a room full of specialist consultants to review your
 plans overnight. Each one has a specific job, they pass their notes down the
@@ -53,18 +53,23 @@ table, and a senior reviewer at the end sorts it all into one clean report.
    |  4. CONFLICT DETECTIVES  (one per topic pile)            |
    |     Compares sheets that should agree and looks for      |
    |     contradictions: "Wall shown here on A-201 but not    |
-   |     on S-101", "Pipe runs through the duct"              |
+   |     on S-101", "Pipe runs through the duct". Now also    |
+   |     catches contradictions WITHIN a single sheet         |
    +----------------------------------------------------------+
                             |
                             v
    +----------------------------------------------------------+
    |  5. THREE SPECIALISTS  (work side by side)               |
-   |     * Code Inspector  — does anything break the local    |
-   |       building code?                                     |
-   |     * Builder           — can this actually be built as  |
+   |     * Drawing Checker  — problems on a sheet BY ITSELF:  |
+   |       a callout pointing to a detail that isn't there,   |
+   |       a schedule that disagrees with its own plan,       |
+   |       dimensions that don't add up, missing scale        |
+   |     * Builder          — can this actually be built as   |
    |       drawn? (access, clearances, sequencing)            |
    |     * Completeness Checker — is anything MISSING from    |
    |       the set? (sheets, schedules, required details)     |
+   |     (A Code Inspector also lives here but is turned OFF  |
+   |      by default — the focus is the drawings themselves)  |
    +----------------------------------------------------------+
                             |
                             v
@@ -77,6 +82,16 @@ table, and a senior reviewer at the end sorts it all into one clean report.
                             |
                             v
    +----------------------------------------------------------+
+   |  6.5 THE BRAIN DOUBLE-CHECKS  (asks for a second look)   |
+   |     For the findings it's unsure about, the Brain sends  |
+   |     them back to a fact-checker that re-reads the actual |
+   |     sheet (zoomed-in image + the page's real text) to    |
+   |     confirm or debunk. Debunked findings are dropped     |
+   |     before they ever reach you                           |
+   +----------------------------------------------------------+
+                            |
+                            v
+   +----------------------------------------------------------+
    |  7. HUMAN REVIEW GATE                                    |
    |     The important/uncertain findings are queued for a    |
    |     real person to Confirm / Reject / mark Unsure        |
@@ -105,11 +120,13 @@ table, and a senior reviewer at the end sorts it all into one clean report.
 | 2 | Sheet Indexer | Librarian | Builds the table of contents of the drawing set |
 | 2 | Jurisdiction Scout | Local guide | Identifies the project's location so the right building codes are used |
 | 3 | Linker | Connector | Groups related facts from different sheets into topic clusters |
-| 4 | Conflict Critic | Detective | Examines each cluster for contradictions between disciplines |
-| 5 | Code Agent | Code inspector | Flags building-code violations, using the jurisdiction from step 2 |
+| 4 | Conflict Critic | Detective | Examines each cluster for contradictions — between disciplines, across a discipline's own sheets, or within one sheet |
+| 5 | Drawing Integrity Agent | Proofreader | Checks each sheet on its own: dangling callouts, a schedule vs its own plan, dimensions that don't sum, missing scale/north/title-block |
 | 5 | Constructability Agent | Veteran builder | Flags things that are drawn fine but can't be built practically |
 | 5 | Completeness Agent | Checklist keeper | Flags missing sheets, missing details, gaps in the set |
+| 5 | Code Agent *(off by default)* | Code inspector | Building-code/ADA checks — kept in the codebase but disabled so the review focuses on the drawings; one flag turns it back on |
 | 6 | Brain | Chief estimator | Deduplicates, judges, and prioritizes all findings |
+| 6.5 | Brain (clarification) | Second opinion | For findings it distrusts, sends them back to the fact-checker to re-read the sheet; debunked findings are dropped |
 | 7 | Review Gate | Your desk | Presents the findings a human should approve before anything goes out |
 | 8 | RFI Writer | Secretary | Writes the formal clarification letters for confirmed issues |
 
@@ -122,13 +139,15 @@ the whole review.
 
 ## Where Improvements Could Be Made
 
-### 1. Coverage — "make sure every page actually got read"
-- Today, if a Reader fails on a page (the AI's answer gets cut off or comes back
-  garbled), that page quietly disappears from everything downstream. Worse, the
-  Completeness Checker can then report the sheet as "missing from the set" when
-  really it was there but unread — a false alarm.
-- **Improvement:** retry failed pages with a backup model, and clearly separate
-  "sheet doesn't exist" from "sheet couldn't be read" in the report.
+*(Several items from earlier versions have since shipped — noted below.)*
+
+### 1. Coverage — "make sure every page actually got read"  ✅ *largely shipped*
+- Failed pages used to quietly disappear, and the Completeness Checker would
+  then report a sheet as "missing" when it was really just unread.
+- **Done:** a retry ladder now re-reads a page (text-only pass, then a
+  deterministic text-layer fallback) so no text-bearing page goes dark, and the
+  report separates "sheet doesn't exist" from "sheet couldn't be read."
+- **Still open:** try a different backup model on the hardest pages.
 
 ### 2. Speed — "the team waits in line more than it needs to"
 - The steps run strictly one after another, but some could start earlier. The
@@ -145,14 +164,17 @@ the whole review.
 - **Improvement:** use cheaper models for simple pages (schedules, title
   sheets), save the expensive model for dense drawings; keep tuning the
   thinking budget knobs; reuse cached answers when the same plan set is
-  re-run.
+  re-run. *(The truncation bug itself is now fixed.)*
 
-### 4. Smarter grouping — "better piles, better detective work"
-- The Connector caps how many topic piles it keeps (a fixed limit), so on big
-  sets some connections may never be made. The Detectives only see one pile at
-  a time, so a contradiction spanning two piles can slip through.
-- **Improvement:** revisit the pile limit, and let the Brain (or a second-pass
-  Detective) look for conflicts that span multiple piles.
+### 4. Smarter detective work — "catch conflicts that span piles"  ✅ *shipped*
+- The Detectives only saw one topic pile at a time, so a contradiction spanning
+  two piles — or a mistake on a single sheet — could slip through.
+- **Done:** the Detectives now also flag contradictions *within* a single sheet,
+  a new Drawing Checker proofreads every sheet on its own, and after the Brain
+  sorts everything it can send doubtful findings back for a zoomed-in second
+  look (wave 6.5) and drop the ones that don't hold up.
+- **Still open:** revisit the hard cap on how many topic piles are kept on very
+  large sets.
 
 ### 5. Human time — "review less, but review what matters"
 - Today the review queue is built from rules about severity and confidence.
@@ -160,11 +182,11 @@ the whole review.
   queue better — the system already records your feedback, so it can get
   smarter over time about what actually needs your eyes.
 
-### 6. Trust — "show the receipts"
-- Findings carry evidence, but a non-technical reader can't easily see *where
-  on the drawing* the problem is.
-- **Improvement:** attach a cropped image snippet of the exact spot on the
-  sheet to each finding, so anyone can verify it in seconds.
+### 6. Trust — "show the receipts"  ✅ *partially shipped*
+- **Done:** the fact-checker already pulls a zoomed-in crop of the exact spot on
+  the sheet when it re-reads a finding.
+- **Still open:** attach that crop to the finding in the final report so a
+  non-technical reader can verify it in seconds without opening the PDF.
 
 ---