Fix web-search framing in form-language grammar provenance

Both the Ecuador form-language run and the Harbor House validation run
used real web search, per Salingaros - so paper.md's "stricter,
source-checked mode... as well as the original's" wording asserted a
methodological contrast that didn't exist. Reframe as a shared
condition, and add the more defensible caveat that even with search
available, current LLM tooling likely synthesized both grammars from
textual search results rather than genuine visual analysis of images.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

method/form-language-prompt-template.md

@@ -285,14 +285,17 @@ Scale notes for the project this grammar will serve: {SCALE_NOTES}.
   away, the same way a pattern-language narrative generated downstream
   should be checked against its selected pattern subset.
 - Salingaros described his original prompt as asking the LLM to "locate
-  open-source images of traditional buildings" and synthesize from them.
-  It's unclear whether that literally happened, as opposed to the model
-  drawing on general training-data familiarity with named buildings and
-  presenting it in the language of research — locating and verifying
-  images is a materially harder task than an LLM can reliably do without
-  a real, working search/browsing tool. Treat the Appendix precedents as
-  indicative, not verified, unless the model you're using actually has
-  that capability and you've confirmed it used it.
+  open-source images of traditional buildings" and synthesize from them,
+  and has confirmed the session used a real web-search-enabled LLM
+  configuration, not training-data recollection alone. Even so, treat
+  "synthesized from imagery" with some caution: current LLM tooling makes
+  it more likely the model synthesized primarily from textual search
+  results and descriptions of buildings than from genuine visual analysis
+  of downloaded images, whatever the prompt literally asked for. Treat the
+  Appendix precedents as text-grounded rather than confirmed
+  image-grounded, unless you've specifically verified that the model/tool
+  you're using performs real visual analysis of retrieved images and not
+  just text search.
 - This document is a formal/tectonic vocabulary for description and
   illustration, not a construction specification: literal historical
   materials it names (rammed earth, adobe, stone vaulting) are

method/paper/paper.md

@@ -178,7 +178,9 @@ required both.
 For this project, Salingaros produced a project-specific form-language
 grammar, the *Ecuadorian Form Language Grammar*, developed after
 discussion with a Quito-based designer and self-builder and synthesized
-by an LLM from open-source reference imagery. Rather than a set of
+by an LLM, using real web search, from open-source reference material —
+though see §3.3 for a caveat on how much of that synthesis was likely
+text-mediated rather than genuine visual analysis of imagery. Rather than a set of
 historical facades to imitate, it is written as a *generative* vocabulary:
 a stratified tectonic sequence from dark Ecuadorian andesite at the
 plinth, through thick limewashed tapial and adobe at the lower and middle
@@ -218,12 +220,18 @@ To check that this generalized, rather than merely described, we ran the
 template a second time on a project unrelated to Ecuador: *Harbor House*,
 a travellers' inn intended to relieve pressure on homeless services, sited
 in Sheffield, South Yorkshire — a different typology, region, and
-climate, produced by the paper's first author. This second run also used
-an LLM configuration with real web search available, so climate figures
-and precedent references were checked against live sources and cited
-inline rather than drawn purely from training-data recollection,
-demonstrating the template is compatible with a stricter, source-checked
-mode of use as well as the original's. The resulting document
+climate, produced by the paper's first author. This second run used an
+LLM configuration with real web search available, so climate figures and
+precedent references were checked against live sources and cited inline
+rather than drawn purely from training-data recollection — a condition
+Salingaros has confirmed the original Ecuador run shared, not a stricter
+mode unique to this validation run. Even with real search available in
+both cases, current LLM tool capability makes it more likely that both
+runs synthesized the form language primarily from textual search results
+and descriptions of buildings than from genuine visual analysis of
+downloaded images, notwithstanding the original prompt's explicit request
+to work from open-source imagery (§3.2) — a caveat that applies equally
+to both runs, not a point of difference between them. The resulting document
 (`projects/harbor-house/docs/sheffield.md`) follows the same section shape as the
 Ecuadorian grammar while producing an entirely different vocabulary — dark
 gritstone and coursed rubble rather than andesite, slate and Yorkshire