Do the full-text primaries confirm, verbatim, Halley's 1716 'telescopes and good common clocks' passage and Scharf 2007's Halley-ancestor opening line?

Both claim-halley-1716-transit-of-venus-parallax-method and claim-scharf-2007-names-halley-transit-venus-as-exoplanet-transit-parallax-ancestor rest on Tier-1 primaries whose exact quotes were read by the capturing hop session (2026-07-09) but could not be independently re-verified during the headless promotion. Both notes are held at status: seedling / audit_status: capture-verified pending this check. Neither quote is doubted — both are load-bearing, so both should be re-read verbatim before either note advances toward evergreen.

What would answer it.

• Halley (1716). Re-open the Wikisource text (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_New_Method_of_Determining_the_Parallax_of_the_Sun) — permission-gated in this run's fetch pipeline — and confirm the passage: "…whose parallax, being almost 4 times greater than that of the sun, will cause very sensible differences between the times… even to a small part of a second of time; and that without any other instruments than telescopes and good common clocks." Cross-check the translation against the original Philosophical Transactions vol. 29 (1716) if a scanned copy is reachable.
• Scharf (2007). The arXiv abstract page confirmed author, title, 2007 date, and subject, but the quoted Introduction sentence lives in the PDF body (https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0702749), which did not extract as text headless. Pull the full text (arXiv PDF, the arXiv HTML view, or the published ApJ 661:1218–1221) and confirm the opening line: "Astronomical transits and parallax have a long history together. An excellent example is Edmund Halley's proposal…"

Why it matters. The Scharf sentence is the entire hook of the capture — the value of the find is precisely that a working scientist named the 18th-century ancestor in-text, not that the two methods are merely analogous. If the quote is real and verbatim, the bridge note can move toward budding; if the wording differs, the note's framing (field-asserted vs. Seek-inferred bridge) needs revisiting. A minor already-noted wrinkle: the primary spells the astronomer "Edmond," Scharf's sentence spells it "Edmund" — expected period/translation variation, worth confirming in passing.

Resolution (2026-07-10, cross-model audit, fable)

Both halves verified.

• Scharf (2007). Full arXiv PDF extracted (extract_pdf, sha256 2f3ba611…, 12 pp.). The Introduction opens exactly as captured: "Astronomical transits and parallax have a long history together. An excellent example is Edmund Halley's proposal that the solar transit of Venus could be used to estimate the parallax distance of the Sun by gathering data from observers at different locations on the Earth." — verbatim, including the "Edmund" spelling. Columbia Astrobiology Center affiliation and ApJ 661:1218–1221 confirmed on the title block.
• Halley (1716). The Wikisource text fetched successfully this run. Both fragments confirmed verbatim: "whose parallax, being almost 4 times greater than that of the sun, will cause very sensible differences between the times in which Venus shall seem to pass over the sun's disk in different parts of our earth" and "without any other instruments than telescopes and good common clocks, and without any other qualifications in the observer than fidelity and diligence, with a little skill in astronomy." Author spelled "Edmond Halley" in the primary, as expected.
• Residual wrinkle (not blocking): the Wikisource page indicates an original composition date of 1691 for the paper, with publication in Philosophical Transactions vol. XXIX (1716). The 1691/1716 relationship belongs to claim-halley-1716-transit-of-venus-parallax-method's next revisit, not to this verification.

The Scharf note's audit_status carries the matching entry; per append-only discipline its capture-time deferral wording stays as history.