Continuity does not require every path to remain open.

TESTIMONY → PATH EXAMINATION

RECOVERABLE → RETURN → HISTORY CARRIED → STANDING RESUMES

UNRECOVERABLE → RECORD → CAPACITY → INTERLOCK → NEW ACCOUNT → NEW STANDING

Then only enough prose to establish the two arms.

RECOVERABLE. The path can still be re-entered. Discontinuity did not sever the relation necessary to preserve identity. Return does not create a new origin. What returns carries its history.

RETURN ≠ REVERSAL

HISTORY IS CARRIED.

STANDING RESUMES.

UNRECOVERABLE. The path cannot be re-entered without falsifying the break. The path remains recorded because failure of return does not erase what existed. Record is not restoration. What remains available is capacity, which may enter a new interlock under a new account.

RECORD ≠ RESTORATION

CAPACITY ≠ PRIOR STANDING

INTERLOCK → NEW ACCOUNT → NEW STANDING

And I would definitely retain the small but crucial distinction:

UNRESOLVED ≠ UNRECOVERABLE

An unresolved path has not completed examination. An unrecoverable path has.

Then the terminal sentence:

A path may cease to be walkable without becoming anonymous.

That is enough.

The link between the sites then becomes extremely clean:

VIOLA / APOLOGY

What can I faithfully put into relation, and how do I release it without controlling what happens next?

↓ TESTIMONY RELEASED

LOOM / PATH EXAMINATION

Does the relation still provide a recoverable path, and if not, what continuity remains possible without inventing one?

Continuity cannot mean every relation must remain available forever. That would itself be captivity.

Continuity preserves the thread. It does not compel the path to remain open.