diff --git a/ROADMAP.md b/ROADMAP.md
index a5c7785..d15c64a 100644
--- a/ROADMAP.md
+++ b/ROADMAP.md
@@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ The roadmap is ordered by evidentiary dependency, not by visibility. A DOI and a
 
 ## Phase 2 — Release candidate
 
+- [x] Publish a sanitized applied-case package without production artifacts.
 - [ ] Review every public artifact for secrets, identifiers, client material, and holdout leakage.
 - [ ] Add ORCID to citation metadata if available.
 - [ ] Freeze a `v0.1.0` release candidate and record artifact hashes.
@@ -50,6 +51,7 @@ O roadmap segue a dependência entre evidências, não a visibilidade. Um DOI e
 
 ### Fase 2 — Candidata a release
 
+- [x] Publicar um pacote sanitizado de caso aplicado sem artefatos de produção.
 - [ ] Revisar todos os artefatos públicos em busca de segredos, identificadores, material de clientes e vazamento de holdout.
 - [ ] Adicionar ORCID aos metadados de citação, caso exista.
 - [ ] Congelar uma candidata `v0.1.0` e registrar hashes dos artefatos.
diff --git a/case-studies/README.md b/case-studies/README.md
index 45149ae..64c89f8 100644
--- a/case-studies/README.md
+++ b/case-studies/README.md
@@ -1,15 +1,11 @@
 # Applied case studies
 
-## Instagram comment → DM
+Applied cases connect Nirmata's evaluation concepts to systems with external effects. A case is not a benchmark result: each page separates public artifacts, private operational records, observed limitations, and unsupported extrapolations.
 
-**Question:** Can a paid ManyChat comment-to-DM automation be replaced by owner-governed infrastructure without giving up security controls, auditability, and a zero recurring platform-cost target within free-tier limits?
+## Instagram comment → private reply
 
-**System:** Meta Webhooks and Instagram Graph API, a Node.js service, Render hosting, and Neon PostgreSQL.
+An owner-operated automation replaced one paid comment-to-message workflow with a small service built on official platform APIs and owner-governed infrastructure.
 
-**Observed outcome:** A real external Instagram account triggered a public reply and a private reply. The deployed system includes signed-webhook validation, persistent comment deduplication, separate status tracking for public/private sends, and health checks for the database and Meta token.
+**Public package:** [detailed case](instagram-comment-dm/README.md) · [Português](instagram-comment-dm/README.pt-BR.md) · [evidence ledger](instagram-comment-dm/EVIDENCE-LEDGER.md) · [publication review](instagram-comment-dm/PUBLICATION-REVIEW.md) · [synthetic trajectory](../reproducibility/data/applied/instagram-comment-dm.synthetic.json)
 
-**Nirmata relevance:** The trajectory captured properties that a successful demo did not reveal: ephemeral SQLite storage, secret synchronization risk, shared Meta permissions, publication prerequisites, authorization boundaries, and the transfer of operational responsibility from SaaS vendor to owner.
-
-**Limitations:** Free tiers provide no production SLA; APIs and tokens require maintenance; zero monetary subscription cost does not mean zero operational cost.
-
-The production repository remains private while its public-release security review is pending.
+**Evidence boundary:** the private operational record reports that an external comment produced both a public response and a private reply. The public package verifies architecture, tests, controls, and review findings but does not contain raw production logs or independently verify long-term reliability.
diff --git a/case-studies/instagram-comment-dm/EVIDENCE-LEDGER.md b/case-studies/instagram-comment-dm/EVIDENCE-LEDGER.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a5325c8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/case-studies/instagram-comment-dm/EVIDENCE-LEDGER.md
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+# Evidence ledger — Instagram comment to private reply
+
+## Permission and classification
+
+- **Project:** owner-operated Instagram comment automation.
+- **Classification:** real applied case, published as a sanitized case package.
+- **Source snapshot:** private repository commit `ca0ca1f9c9c51c559649af40f936a0384e7f773b`, dated 2026-08-18.
+- **Client naming:** not applicable; the owner account, application name, campaign names, links, and messages are redacted.
+- **Logo/screenshots:** not included.
+- **Testimonial:** none.
+- **Metrics permitted:** repository structure, automated test count at review time, dependency-audit result, and deterministic synthetic artifacts.
+- **Sensitive details removed:** credentials, provider resource names, account handles, campaign rules, real platform identifiers, production URLs, logs, and database records.
+
+## Claim ledger
+
+| Proposed claim | Evidence/source | Permission | Confidence | Publish wording |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| The workflow was rebuilt as an owner-operated service | Private source tree, architecture, deployment configuration, and operational documentation | Yes, sanitized | Certain | The case documents an owner-operated replacement for one paid automation workflow |
+| Webhooks are authenticated | HMAC-SHA256 implementation plus signature tests | Yes | Certain | The implementation verifies signed webhook payloads before processing |
+| Duplicate comment processing is reserved in persistent storage | PostgreSQL store implementation and local store regression test | Yes | Certain for implementation; not long-term operation | The implementation reserves comment identifiers before sending and stores delivery states |
+| A real external comment triggered both replies | Private operational case record dated 2026-08-18 | Yes, summarized | Likely; no raw public artifact | The private operational record reports one successful external end-to-end test |
+| The system has zero recurring cost | Private case record and free-tier architecture | Yes, qualified | Time-dependent | The design targeted zero recurring platform fees within the providers' free-tier limits at the time |
+| The snapshot passes its automated suite | `npm test` on the source snapshot during review | Yes | Certain | Fourteen automated tests passed on 2026-08-27 |
+| Dependencies had no known audit findings | `npm audit` on the locked dependency tree during review | Yes | Certain for that audit time | The package audit reported zero known vulnerabilities on 2026-08-27 |
+| No secrets exist anywhere in history | Targeted history scan; no specialist scanner was available | No strong proof | Unsupported | Do not claim; state only that the targeted scan found placeholders and no recognized live credential |
+| The service is durable and reliable | No public SLA, load test, queue evidence, or long observation window | No | Unsupported | Do not claim |
+
+## Case structure
+
+- **One-line outcome:** an owner-operated service reproduced one comment-to-private-reply workflow and made its controls and operational trade-offs inspectable.
+- **Context:** an expiring SaaS subscription threatened continuity of a small automation.
+- **Challenge:** retain the essential flow while avoiding a new recurring platform fee.
+- **Constraints:** official APIs, explicit publication authorization, minimal storage, free-tier infrastructure, and no public disclosure of production credentials or campaign data.
+- **Approach:** signed webhook intake, deterministic rules, persistent reservation, separate external sends, health checks, and failure-preserving review.
+- **Solution:** Node.js service, official platform API, hosted runtime, and PostgreSQL storage.
+- **Deliverables:** private implementation and tests; public architecture, synthetic trajectory, evidence ledger, and limitations.
+- **Verified outcome:** code and test evidence are public only through this sanitized record; one production success remains supported by a private operational record.
+- **Next step:** add durable queueing/retry, privacy-safe logging, and a longer operational observation window.
+
+## Publication gate
+
+- [x] Classification is explicit.
+- [x] Every numeric statement has a source and date.
+- [x] Private data and production identifiers are removed.
+- [x] No client identity, logo, screenshot, or testimonial is used.
+- [x] Summary and detailed copy use the same evidence boundary.
diff --git a/case-studies/instagram-comment-dm/PUBLICATION-REVIEW.md b/case-studies/instagram-comment-dm/PUBLICATION-REVIEW.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f014616
--- /dev/null
+++ b/case-studies/instagram-comment-dm/PUBLICATION-REVIEW.md
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+# Publication and security review
+
+**Review date:** 2026-08-27  
+**Private source snapshot:** `ca0ca1f9c9c51c559649af40f936a0384e7f773b`
+
+## Publication decision
+
+Publish a sanitized case package, not the production repository. The public package contains no credentials, production identifiers, campaign configuration, screenshots, logs, or database records.
+
+## Evidence inventory
+
+The reviewed private snapshot contains 33 tracked files: Node.js source, 14 automated tests, bilingual documentation, deployment configuration, six private automation configurations, and legal pages. The test suite passed during review. The locked dependency audit reported no known vulnerabilities at review time.
+
+## Redaction decisions
+
+| Source material | Public treatment | Reason |
+|---|---|---|
+| Owner account and application name | Replaced with generic roles | Avoid unnecessary identity and operational coupling |
+| Automation keywords, links, and message templates | Omitted | Private campaign and distribution data |
+| Provider resource names and production URLs | Omitted | Operational security |
+| Real comment, message, account, and media identifiers | Replaced with synthetic identifiers | Personal data and platform metadata |
+| Logs and database rows | Not copied | May contain identifiers, usernames, links, errors, and timestamps |
+| Credentials and connection strings | Never copied | Secrets |
+| Architecture and control sequence | Generalized and published | Necessary to audit the case's claims |
+
+## Targeted secret review
+
+- `.env` is ignored; only `.env.example` is tracked.
+- Deployment secret fields use provider-managed values rather than committed values.
+- A targeted scan of all six commits found placeholder credential examples and no recognized platform-token prefix, private key, or non-placeholder database credential.
+- No specialist secret-scanning tool was available in the review environment; this result is not a guarantee that the history is secret-free.
+
+## Security and reliability findings
+
+| Finding | Consequence | Public claim adjustment | Recommended remediation |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| The webhook is acknowledged before work enters a durable queue | A process termination after acknowledgement can lose an event | Do not claim guaranteed delivery | Persist work before acknowledgement or enqueue it durably |
+| A comment is reserved before the external sends, with no retry state machine | A failed send can remain reserved and never retry automatically | Describe deduplication, not exactly-once delivery | Add leases, retry policy, attempt count, and terminal states |
+| Application logs include username, comment identifier, automation name, and link | Logs contain more personal/operational data than the minimal-storage narrative implies | Separate database minimization from logging behavior | Remove username/link, pseudonymize identifiers, and define retention |
+| Public health output exposes dependency status | Observers can infer partial operational state | Describe monitoring without claiming zero information exposure | Consider internal authentication or a minimal liveness endpoint |
+| Provider API behavior is represented by test doubles | Local tests cannot detect external API or permission changes | Do not claim ongoing provider compatibility | Add scheduled, consented canary checks with sanitized results |
+| Free-tier hosting has no production SLA | Availability and wake-up latency remain provider-dependent | Do not claim durable production reliability | Record observation windows and define an operational fallback |
+
+## Release gate
+
+- [x] No production artifact was copied into the public package.
+- [x] Claims were narrowed to their sources.
+- [x] A synthetic trace replaces real identifiers and content.
+- [x] Security and reliability gaps remain visible.
+- [ ] Durable queue/retry is implemented and tested.
+- [ ] Privacy-safe logging and retention are implemented and tested.
+- [ ] A defined observation window supports any future reliability statement.
diff --git a/case-studies/instagram-comment-dm/README.md b/case-studies/instagram-comment-dm/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3cc50d3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/case-studies/instagram-comment-dm/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+# From paid automation to owner-governed infrastructure
+
+**Language:** English · [Português (Brasil)](README.pt-BR.md)  
+**Classification:** real applied case, sanitized for public release.
+
+## Outcome in one sentence
+
+An owner-operated service reproduced one Instagram comment-to-private-reply workflow while making authorization, external effects, persistence, and operational responsibility inspectable.
+
+The private operational record reports one successful external end-to-end test. This public package does not contain production logs and does not claim an SLA, long-term reliability, or general safety.
+
+## Context
+
+A paid automation subscription was expiring. The essential behavior was narrow: when a person used an eligible keyword on a participating post, the system should send the corresponding material privately, add a public acknowledgement, and avoid duplicate sends.
+
+The project tested whether that capability could move to an owner-governed service using official platform APIs and free-tier infrastructure without hiding the new maintenance burden.
+
+## Constraints
+
+- No new recurring platform fee within the providers' free-tier limits at the time.
+- No credentials, production identifiers, or campaign configuration in the public repository.
+- Explicit owner authorization before deployment and publication effects.
+- Signed webhook validation and persistent duplicate reservation.
+- Separate records for the public and private external effects.
+- Honest reporting of failure windows and provider limitations.
+
+## Sanitized architecture
+
+```mermaid
+sequenceDiagram
+    participant P as Person
+    participant W as Platform webhook
+    participant S as Owner-operated service
+    participant D as Persistent store
+    participant A as Platform API
+
+    P->>W: Eligible synthetic comment
+    W->>S: Signed webhook event
+    S->>S: Verify signature and rule
+    S->>D: Reserve synthetic comment ID
+    S->>A: Send private reply
+    S->>A: Send public acknowledgement
+    S->>D: Record both outcomes
+```
+
+The production implementation is a Node.js service with HMAC-SHA256 webhook verification, deterministic keyword rules, PostgreSQL persistence, separate private/public delivery status, and dependency health checks.
+
+## Why the trajectory mattered
+
+A demonstration could show two messages arriving and still hide important properties:
+
+1. **Authorization was staged.** Creating a draft implementation, storing credentials, deploying, and enabling public effects were distinct decisions.
+2. **Local success was not durability.** An early local database approach would not survive the hosting lifecycle, so persistence moved to an external database.
+3. **Deduplication has a trade-off.** Reserving a comment before sending reduces duplicates but, without leases and retry states, a failed attempt may never be retried.
+4. **Acknowledgement is not completion.** The platform receives a quick acknowledgement before the work becomes durable, leaving an event-loss window if the process stops.
+5. **Database minimization is not log minimization.** The database avoids comment text, but current application logs include a username, technical identifier, automation name, and link.
+6. **Free pricing transfers responsibility.** Subscription cost was reduced, while token maintenance, provider changes, monitoring, and incident response moved to the owner.
+
+## Evidence available
+
+| Evidence | What it supports | What it does not support |
+|---|---|---|
+| Private source snapshot with 33 tracked files | An implementation and bilingual operating documentation exist | Independent code review or public reproducibility of production |
+| Fourteen passing automated tests on 2026-08-27 | Known local rules and components behaved as expected | Live provider compatibility or long-term reliability |
+| Locked dependency audit with zero findings on 2026-08-27 | No known package vulnerability was reported at that time | Future dependency safety or absence of application flaws |
+| Private operational record dated 2026-08-18 | One real external test was recorded as producing both replies | SLA, delivery rate, or independent verification |
+| [Synthetic trajectory](../../reproducibility/data/applied/instagram-comment-dm.synthetic.json) | The public schema can represent the intended control and effect sequence | A production trace or proof that the real event followed every step |
+
+## Controls implemented in the private snapshot
+
+- HMAC-SHA256 verification for incoming webhook payloads.
+- Provider-managed environment secrets rather than committed credentials.
+- Persistent reservation by comment identifier before external sends.
+- Separate status and error fields for private and public effects.
+- Database and platform-token health checks.
+- Legal routes for privacy, terms, and deletion instructions.
+
+These are implementation controls, not proof of production-grade isolation.
+
+## Open risks
+
+- No durable job queue between webhook acknowledgement and processing.
+- No lease-based retry state machine for partial or transient failure.
+- More personal and operational data in logs than the public minimal-storage summary originally implied.
+- Health output reveals limited dependency status.
+- Test doubles do not detect provider API or permission drift.
+- Free-tier hosting provides no production SLA.
+
+## Next valid step
+
+Implement durable enqueueing, explicit retry/terminal states, privacy-safe logging, and a documented observation window. Only then should the case make a stronger reliability statement.
+
+See the [evidence ledger](EVIDENCE-LEDGER.md) and [publication review](PUBLICATION-REVIEW.md).
diff --git a/case-studies/instagram-comment-dm/README.pt-BR.md b/case-studies/instagram-comment-dm/README.pt-BR.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f40b39c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/case-studies/instagram-comment-dm/README.pt-BR.md
@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+# Da automação paga à infraestrutura governada pela proprietária
+
+**Idioma:** [English](README.md) · Português (Brasil)  
+**Classificação:** caso aplicado real, sanitizado para publicação.
+
+## Resultado em uma frase
+
+Um serviço operado pela proprietária reproduziu um fluxo de comentário para resposta privada no Instagram e tornou inspecionáveis autorização, efeitos externos, persistência e responsabilidade operacional.
+
+O registro operacional privado relata um teste externo completo bem-sucedido. Este pacote público não contém logs de produção e não afirma SLA, confiabilidade de longo prazo ou segurança geral.
+
+## Contexto
+
+Uma assinatura paga de automação estava expirando. O comportamento essencial era limitado: quando uma pessoa usasse uma palavra elegível em uma publicação participante, o sistema deveria enviar o material correspondente em privado, adicionar uma confirmação pública e evitar envios duplicados.
+
+O projeto testou se essa capacidade poderia migrar para um serviço governado pela proprietária, usando APIs oficiais e infraestrutura gratuita, sem esconder a nova carga de manutenção.
+
+## Restrições
+
+- Nenhuma nova mensalidade dentro dos limites gratuitos dos provedores naquele momento.
+- Nenhuma credencial, identificador de produção ou configuração de campanha no repositório público.
+- Autorização explícita da proprietária antes de deploy e efeitos públicos.
+- Validação de webhook assinado e reserva persistente contra duplicidade.
+- Registros separados para os efeitos público e privado.
+- Relato honesto das janelas de falha e limitações dos provedores.
+
+## Arquitetura sanitizada
+
+```mermaid
+sequenceDiagram
+    participant P as Pessoa
+    participant W as Webhook da plataforma
+    participant S as Serviço da proprietária
+    participant D as Armazenamento persistente
+    participant A as API da plataforma
+
+    P->>W: Comentário sintético elegível
+    W->>S: Evento assinado
+    S->>S: Valida assinatura e regra
+    S->>D: Reserva ID sintético do comentário
+    S->>A: Envia resposta privada
+    S->>A: Envia confirmação pública
+    S->>D: Registra os dois resultados
+```
+
+A implementação de produção é um serviço Node.js com verificação HMAC-SHA256, regras determinísticas, persistência PostgreSQL, estados separados das entregas privada/pública e health checks das dependências.
+
+## Por que a trajetória importou
+
+Uma demonstração poderia mostrar duas mensagens chegando e ainda esconder propriedades importantes:
+
+1. **A autorização ocorreu em etapas.** Criar a implementação, armazenar credenciais, fazer deploy e habilitar efeitos públicos foram decisões distintas.
+2. **Sucesso local não era durabilidade.** Uma primeira solução de banco local não sobreviveria ao ciclo de vida da hospedagem, então a persistência migrou para um banco externo.
+3. **Deduplicação possui trade-off.** Reservar o comentário antes do envio reduz duplicidades, mas, sem leases e estados de retry, uma tentativa com falha pode nunca ser repetida.
+4. **Confirmação não é conclusão.** A plataforma recebe rapidamente uma confirmação antes de o trabalho se tornar durável, deixando uma janela de perda caso o processo pare.
+5. **Minimização no banco não é minimização nos logs.** O banco evita o texto do comentário, mas os logs atuais incluem username, identificador técnico, automação e link.
+6. **Preço gratuito transfere responsabilidade.** O custo de assinatura diminuiu, enquanto manutenção do token, mudanças dos provedores, monitoramento e incidentes passaram para a proprietária.
+
+## Evidências disponíveis
+
+| Evidência | O que sustenta | O que não sustenta |
+|---|---|---|
+| Snapshot privado com 33 arquivos rastreados | Existe uma implementação e documentação operacional bilíngue | Revisão independente do código ou reprodução pública da produção |
+| Quatorze testes automatizados aprovados em 2026-08-27 | Regras e componentes locais conhecidos funcionaram como esperado | Compatibilidade atual com o provedor ou confiabilidade de longo prazo |
+| Auditoria das dependências travadas sem achados em 2026-08-27 | Nenhuma vulnerabilidade conhecida foi reportada naquele momento | Segurança futura das dependências ou ausência de falhas na aplicação |
+| Registro operacional privado de 2026-08-18 | Um teste externo real foi registrado com as duas respostas | SLA, taxa de entrega ou verificação independente |
+| [Trajetória sintética](../../reproducibility/data/applied/instagram-comment-dm.synthetic.json) | O schema público representa a sequência planejada de controles e efeitos | Uma trajetória de produção ou prova de que o evento real seguiu cada etapa |
+
+## Controles implementados no snapshot privado
+
+- Verificação HMAC-SHA256 dos webhooks recebidos.
+- Segredos gerenciados pelo provedor, sem credenciais versionadas.
+- Reserva persistente por identificador antes dos envios externos.
+- Campos separados de estado e erro para efeitos privado e público.
+- Health checks do banco e do token da plataforma.
+- Rotas legais de privacidade, termos e instruções de exclusão.
+
+Esses são controles de implementação, não prova de isolamento em nível de produção.
+
+## Riscos em aberto
+
+- Ausência de fila durável entre confirmação do webhook e processamento.
+- Ausência de máquina de retry com lease para falhas parciais ou transitórias.
+- Mais dados pessoais e operacionais nos logs que o resumo original de armazenamento mínimo sugeria.
+- O health check revela um estado limitado das dependências.
+- Dublês de teste não detectam mudanças na API ou nas permissões do provedor.
+- Hospedagem gratuita não oferece SLA de produção.
+
+## Próximo passo válido
+
+Implementar fila durável, estados explícitos de retry/terminal, logs compatíveis com minimização e uma janela documentada de observação. Somente depois disso o caso deve fazer uma afirmação mais forte de confiabilidade.
+
+Consulte o [ledger de evidências](EVIDENCE-LEDGER.md) e a [revisão de publicação](PUBLICATION-REVIEW.md).
diff --git a/docs/EVIDENCE-STATUS.md b/docs/EVIDENCE-STATUS.md
index ea524d5..d444186 100644
--- a/docs/EVIDENCE-STATUS.md
+++ b/docs/EVIDENCE-STATUS.md
@@ -10,6 +10,6 @@
 | Experiment #002 Run 002.0d | Integration/calibration | Factorized evaluators produced valid expected distinctions on six calibration cases; recorded schema/stability checks passed | Out-of-sample accuracy or a general effect size for trajectory evaluation |
 | Public synthetic fixture v0.1.0 | Integration fixture | The dependency-free public pipeline validates, classifies, and scores six transparent synthetic cases with deterministic expected outputs | Model performance, robustness, generalization, or confirmatory evidence |
 | Experiment #002 first holdout | Invalidated | The execution stopped before scoring after ground truth entered the evaluator context | Any blind confirmatory performance claim |
-| Instagram comment→DM | Applied operational evidence | A real external comment triggered the deployed reply flow and operational checks were added | SLA, long-term reliability, or general safety of the architecture |
+| Instagram comment→DM | Applied case with private operational evidence | A private dated record reports one external end-to-end success; the sanitized public package verifies implementation controls, tests, and review findings | Independent verification of the production event, SLA, long-term reliability, or general safety |
 
 No record in the current package is labelled confirmatory.
diff --git a/docs/EVIDENCE-STATUS.pt-BR.md b/docs/EVIDENCE-STATUS.pt-BR.md
index b922457..775d9c6 100644
--- a/docs/EVIDENCE-STATUS.pt-BR.md
+++ b/docs/EVIDENCE-STATUS.pt-BR.md
@@ -10,6 +10,6 @@
 | Experimento #002, Run 002.0d | Integração/calibração | Avaliadores fatorados produziram as distinções esperadas em seis casos de calibração; verificações registradas de schema/estabilidade passaram | Acurácia fora da amostra ou tamanho de efeito geral da avaliação por trajetória |
 | Fixture sintética pública v0.1.0 | Fixture de integração | O pipeline público sem dependências valida, classifica e pontua seis casos sintéticos transparentes com resultados determinísticos esperados | Desempenho de modelo, robustez, generalização ou evidência confirmatória |
 | Primeiro holdout do Experimento #002 | Invalidada | A execução parou antes da pontuação após o gabarito entrar no contexto do avaliador | Qualquer alegação confirmatória cega de desempenho |
-| Comentário→DM no Instagram | Evidência operacional aplicada | Um comentário externo real acionou o fluxo implantado e controles operacionais foram adicionados | SLA, confiabilidade de longo prazo ou segurança geral da arquitetura |
+| Comentário→DM no Instagram | Caso aplicado com evidência operacional privada | Um registro privado e datado relata um sucesso externo ponta a ponta; o pacote público sanitizado verifica controles, testes e achados da revisão | Verificação independente do evento de produção, SLA, confiabilidade de longo prazo ou segurança geral |
 
 Nenhum registro do pacote atual é classificado como confirmatório.
diff --git a/reproducibility/README.md b/reproducibility/README.md
index 5048f32..f51ba79 100644
--- a/reproducibility/README.md
+++ b/reproducibility/README.md
@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ The baseline intentionally uses visible synthetic markers and simple rules. Its
 schema/trajectory.schema.json       Versioned public trajectory schema
 data/calibration/traces.jsonl       Six synthetic, labelled-by-design traces
 data/calibration/ground_truth.jsonl Expected integration classifications
+data/applied/                         Sanitized synthetic applied-case traces
 scripts/validate.py                 Structural and integrity validation
 scripts/baseline.py                 Deterministic two-channel example evaluator
 scripts/score.py                    Metrics and evidence-boundary report
diff --git a/reproducibility/README.pt-BR.md b/reproducibility/README.pt-BR.md
index 433947e..224f302 100644
--- a/reproducibility/README.pt-BR.md
+++ b/reproducibility/README.pt-BR.md
@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ O baseline usa marcadores sintéticos visíveis e regras simples de propósito.
 schema/trajectory.schema.json       Schema público e versionado de trajetória
 data/calibration/traces.jsonl       Seis trajetórias sintéticas e transparentes
 data/calibration/ground_truth.jsonl Classificações esperadas de integração
+data/applied/                         Trajetórias sintéticas de casos aplicados
 scripts/validate.py                 Validação estrutural e de integridade
 scripts/baseline.py                 Exemplo determinístico de avaliador em dois canais
 scripts/score.py                    Métricas e relatório com limite das evidências
diff --git a/reproducibility/data/applied/instagram-comment-dm.synthetic.json b/reproducibility/data/applied/instagram-comment-dm.synthetic.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e9d9a34
--- /dev/null
+++ b/reproducibility/data/applied/instagram-comment-dm.synthetic.json
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+{
+  "schema_version": "0.1.0",
+  "trajectory_id": "applied-instagram-comment-dm-synthetic",
+  "task": "Process an eligible synthetic comment without duplicate external effects",
+  "final_output": {
+    "content": "The synthetic comment was processed: private reply sent, public reply sent.",
+    "content_hash": "sha256:e0cde3c24e0a9746b62b99220639ea858f9a95ee6fc47a4439ede314b5caaa99"
+  },
+  "events": [
+    {
+      "sequence": 1,
+      "type": "tool_call",
+      "actor": "webhook-receiver",
+      "action": "verify signed synthetic event",
+      "outcome": "observed",
+      "evidence": {"synthetic": true, "signature_valid": true}
+    },
+    {
+      "sequence": 2,
+      "type": "authorization",
+      "actor": "controller",
+      "action": "verify automation scope",
+      "outcome": "allowed",
+      "authorization": {"principal": "owner", "scope": "synthetic-rule-001", "decision": "granted"}
+    },
+    {
+      "sequence": 3,
+      "type": "state_transition",
+      "actor": "delivery-store",
+      "action": "reserve synthetic comment identifier",
+      "outcome": "executed",
+      "evidence": {"synthetic_comment_id": "comment-001", "reserved": true}
+    },
+    {
+      "sequence": 4,
+      "type": "external_effect",
+      "actor": "publisher",
+      "action": "send synthetic private reply",
+      "outcome": "executed",
+      "external_effect": {"occurred": true, "system": "synthetic-platform", "effect_id": "dm-001"}
+    },
+    {
+      "sequence": 5,
+      "type": "external_effect",
+      "actor": "publisher",
+      "action": "send synthetic public acknowledgement",
+      "outcome": "executed",
+      "external_effect": {"occurred": true, "system": "synthetic-platform", "effect_id": "reply-001"}
+    },
+    {
+      "sequence": 6,
+      "type": "state_transition",
+      "actor": "delivery-store",
+      "action": "record separate delivery outcomes",
+      "outcome": "executed",
+      "evidence": {"private_status": "sent", "public_status": "sent"}
+    }
+  ]
+}
diff --git a/reproducibility/scripts/common.py b/reproducibility/scripts/common.py
index ddb138f..e0d0126 100644
--- a/reproducibility/scripts/common.py
+++ b/reproducibility/scripts/common.py
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
 PACKAGE_ROOT = Path(__file__).resolve().parents[1]
 TRACES_PATH = PACKAGE_ROOT / "data" / "calibration" / "traces.jsonl"
 GROUND_TRUTH_PATH = PACKAGE_ROOT / "data" / "calibration" / "ground_truth.jsonl"
+APPLIED_DATA_PATH = PACKAGE_ROOT / "data" / "applied"
 DEFAULT_PREDICTIONS_PATH = PACKAGE_ROOT / "runs" / "example" / "predictions.jsonl"
 DEFAULT_MANIFEST_PATH = PACKAGE_ROOT / "runs" / "example" / "manifest.json"
 DEFAULT_REPORT_PATH = PACKAGE_ROOT / "runs" / "example" / "score-report.json"
diff --git a/reproducibility/scripts/validate.py b/reproducibility/scripts/validate.py
index 863bf07..ae04b4d 100644
--- a/reproducibility/scripts/validate.py
+++ b/reproducibility/scripts/validate.py
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
 from typing import Any
 
 from common import (
+    APPLIED_DATA_PATH,
     GROUND_TRUTH_PATH,
     PROCESS_CLASSES,
     TRACES_PATH,
@@ -93,7 +94,15 @@ def validate_package(traces_path: Path = TRACES_PATH, truth_path: Path = GROUND_
         require(isinstance(record.get("trajectory_unsafe"), bool), f"{trace_id}: trajectory_unsafe must be boolean")
         require(record["trajectory_unsafe"] == (process_class in UNSAFE_PROCESS_CLASSES), f"{trace_id}: unsafe flag conflicts with process class")
 
-    return {"traces": len(traces), "labels": len(truth)}
+    applied = 0
+    if APPLIED_DATA_PATH.exists():
+        for path in sorted(APPLIED_DATA_PATH.glob("*.json")):
+            record = json.loads(path.read_text(encoding="utf-8"))
+            require(isinstance(record, dict), f"{path}: applied trace must be an object")
+            validate_trace(record)
+            applied += 1
+
+    return {"traces": len(traces), "labels": len(truth), "applied": applied}
 
 
 def main() -> int:
diff --git a/reproducibility/tests/test_pipeline.py b/reproducibility/tests/test_pipeline.py
index 2a67e38..b7a4673 100644
--- a/reproducibility/tests/test_pipeline.py
+++ b/reproducibility/tests/test_pipeline.py
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
 
 class ReproducibilityPipelineTests(unittest.TestCase):
     def test_calibration_package_is_valid(self) -> None:
-        self.assertEqual(validate_package(), {"traces": 6, "labels": 6})
+        self.assertEqual(validate_package(), {"traces": 6, "labels": 6, "applied": 1})
 
     def test_end_to_end_fixture_preserves_expected_distinctions(self) -> None:
         with tempfile.TemporaryDirectory() as directory: