diff --git a/CONTEXT.md b/CONTEXT.md
index c6b900858..259096bfd 100644
--- a/CONTEXT.md
+++ b/CONTEXT.md
@@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ The SAP / EPC Band / carbon emissions / Primary Energy Intensity recorded on the
 _Avoid_: original performance, raw EPC values, recorded baseline
 
 **Effective Performance**:
-The SAP / EPC Band / carbon emissions / Primary Energy Intensity the modelling pipeline actually scored against — equal to Lodged Performance when no Rebaselining trigger fires, replaced by **SAP10 Calculation** output (the deterministic `Sap10Calculator`, which superseded the old ML-API rebaseliner; an ML residual head over the calculator is future — ADR-0009/0013) when triggered. The half of Baseline Performance that says "what we modelled". **Modelling does not read it**: it re-scores the Effective EPC itself (it needs a continuous score and a `SapResult` to bill from, and ADR-0011 forbids an in-memory hand-off between stages), then **asserts** its re-score agrees with this persisted figure and logs an error when it does not. The two are deliberately *not* reconciled — a divergence means the stages scored different pictures, and anchoring the Plan's SAP to this integer would leave it disagreeing with its own carbon, energy and bill figures (ADR-0065). Because a Plan's `post_*` are read against this figure, an unchecked divergence surfaces to the user as a gain nobody modelled.
+The SAP / EPC Band / carbon emissions / Primary Energy Intensity the modelling pipeline actually scored against — equal to Lodged Performance when no Rebaselining trigger fires, replaced by **SAP10 Calculation** output (the deterministic `Sap10Calculator`, which superseded the old ML-API rebaseliner; an ML residual head over the calculator is future — ADR-0009/0013) when triggered. The half of Baseline Performance that says "what we modelled". **Modelling does not read it**: it re-scores the Effective EPC itself (it needs a continuous score and a `SapResult` to bill from, and ADR-0011 forbids an in-memory hand-off between stages), then **asserts** its re-score agrees with this persisted figure and logs an error when it does not. The two are deliberately *not* reconciled — a divergence means the stages scored different pictures, and anchoring the Plan's SAP to this integer would leave it disagreeing with its own carbon, energy and bill figures (ADR-0066). Because a Plan's `post_*` are read against this figure, an unchecked divergence surfaces to the user as a gain nobody modelled.
 _Avoid_: modelled performance, rebaselined performance (only correct when rebaselining ran), scored values
 
 **Calculated SAP10 Performance**:
diff --git a/docs/adr/0065-modelling-asserts-baseline-coherence-rather-than-anchoring.md b/docs/adr/0066-modelling-asserts-baseline-coherence-rather-than-anchoring.md
similarity index 100%
rename from docs/adr/0065-modelling-asserts-baseline-coherence-rather-than-anchoring.md
rename to docs/adr/0066-modelling-asserts-baseline-coherence-rather-than-anchoring.md