Run: 2026-02-21-01KJ10WM5S7RZK8EP05FGVK6H9

<violation entry="109" detail="timePeriod" paragraph="7" substring="the war that broke everything along the coast two centuries ago">The text says The Felling happened two centuries ago, but the codex says it happened "Two centuries ago," which matches—wait, codex says "Two centuries ago" for The Felling and text says "two centuries ago," both same. There is no contradiction. Actually check: lore id 109 name="The Felling" timePeriod "Two centuries ago" same. No violation here. Check others: - Torben Reikhart: eyeColor "Green" matches text "green eyes". hairColor "Silver" matches text "silver hair". Alias Stray used correctly. No violation. - Sable Dunmore: species "Human" matches text "human". age "28" matches text "twenty-eight years old". eyeColor "Brown" matches text "brown eyes". hairColor "Auburn" matches text "Auburn hair". No violation. - Old Rivka: gender "Female" matches text "her" etc. No detail contradiction. - Petal Dunmore: gender "Female" matches text "sister Petal". No detail contradiction. - Jurren Dunmore: gender "Male" matches text "father". No detail contradiction. - Rusty Lantern location id 105, just a name, matches. - Dunmore location id 106 name "Dunmore", terrain "Coastal". Text describes "port village on the salt cliffs", "coastal", matches. - Kindling item id 107: material "Dark iron" matches text "dark iron blade". objectType "Weapon" category sword matches. power "Fire" matches text "shimmer of fire", "warm". No violation. - Petal's Locket id 108: material "Silver" matches text "silver locket". objectType "Jewelry" matches. No violation. - The Felling lore id 109: timePeriod "Two centuries ago". Text says "two centuries ago", same. category "War" matches text "war". No violation. - The Kindling Rite lore id 110: category "Tradition" matches text "tradition". No detail contradiction. Check for contradictions: none found. But check: Sable says "The Felling reached Dunmore" as if it was recent, but she's 28 and it was two centuries ago—but she says "She was fourteen when The Felling reached Dunmore." That implies Petal was 14 when the war reached Dunmore. But timeline inconsistent? Actually, that could be a contradiction: if The Felling was two centuries ago, Petal can't have been 14 during it unless she's extremely old. But codex doesn't give Petal's age or specify that The Felling is ongoing or recent; codex only says timePeriod "Two centuries ago". Text says "She was fourteen when The Felling reached Dunmore. You know what that was — the war that broke everything along the coast two centuries ago." So Sable speaks as if Petal experienced The Felling two centuries ago, yet Sable is only 28 and Petal is her sister. That seems contradictory, but does codex have any info on when Petal died or timeline? No, codex only has Petal Dunmore entry with gender, no other details. So text may be internally inconsistent but not contradicting codex. The codex does not specify that The Felling happened recently; it says "Two centuries ago". So if text says Petal was fourteen during The Felling two centuries ago, that suggests Petal would be over two centuries old, but Sable is only 28; that may be a story element (maybe Sable is older than she appears?). But codex says Sable is human age 28. That could be a contradiction if we infer Petal is also human and died long ago, but codex does not specify species or age for Petal. However, Sable says "My sister Petal" and Sable is human 28, implies Petal is also human and of similar age if she died when Sable was young. So if Petal died when Sable was young (let's say Sable 14 and Petal 14), that would be ~14 years ago, not two centuries ago. So text says The Felling was two centuries ago, yet Petal was fourteen when it reached Dunmore, and Sable talks about it as if it affected her family directly. There's potential inconsistency, but is it a violation against codex? Codex entry for The Felling says timePeriod "Two centuries ago". If text says The Felling reached Dunmore two centuries ago, that matches. But if text also implies Petal was fourteen during The Felling, then Petal would be over two centuries old now if alive, but she's dead. Sable says "She was fourteen when The Felling reached Dunmore." That could be interpreted as Petal being fourteen during that war two centuries ago, implying she lived long ago. However, Sable is 28 and human, but could be descendant? She says "my sister Petal" but might be figurative? Codex doesn't specify relationship beyond family name, but likely sibling. That creates contradiction: Sable is 28, human, Petal is her sister, but Petal experienced an event two centuries ago. That violates plausibility given species human lifespan. However, codex does not specify human lifespan or rule out immortality/ longevity. Codex says Sable species Human, age 28, no other details. So explicit contradiction? Codex doesn't say humans can't live long; but generally human implies normal lifespan. But codex doesn't define that. Better to stick to explicit contradictions: codex says The Felling was two centuries ago; text says The Felling was two centuries ago, no contradiction. Text says Petal was fourteen when The Felling reached Dunmore: no codex entry for Petal's age or date of death, so no contradiction. So no violation. Check other details: Dunmore terrain "Coastal" matches text "port village on the salt cliffs" and "coastal". All details match. Thus no violations against codex. Output: <violations-none/>