Go Catherine.

Leave the two-Robert machine alone for a minute. Start with the McKinney land body.

Source-visible name forms remain source-local. The 1831 return and the later patent each say Catharine McKinney. This experiment does not merge them merely because the name and Article XIX structure align.

Working question

How far does Catharine McKinney’s Article XIX record body carry before we need a bridge?

PUT A CATHERINE PIECE IN

Nothing tested yet

The Article XIV hallway is not the starting point here.

Choose any box below. There is no required order.

One occurrence may align with another without becoming the same historical person. The machine keeps that brake on.

Pieces on the table

Put the plain piece in first. Turn it over only when you want the source state and exact brake.

Three doors still open.

The present body is already substantial, but three missing bridges would change what the machine can safely say.

Reserve File CFind Catharine in the Article XIX index/register, then recover the individual reserve case if it survives.

Brown sale certificationRecover the 25 July 1838 Brown report / schedule 101 body and compare its fuller sale state with the later patent recital.

Identity bridgeFind an independent carrier that connects the 1831 cultivation-return occurrence to the later Section 11 patent occurrence. Shared name + three-quarter structure is compatibility, not identity.