diff --git a/scripts/audit/anomalies.py b/scripts/audit/anomalies.py
index 7d8f1b11a..3f05993e1 100644
--- a/scripts/audit/anomalies.py
+++ b/scripts/audit/anomalies.py
@@ -163,10 +163,22 @@ def _plan_score_below_baseline(a: PropertyAudit) -> Optional[str]:
     return f"post SAP {a.post_sap:.1f} below effective baseline {a.effective_sap:.1f} (Δ{a.post_sap - a.effective_sap:.1f})"
 
 
-@check("already-meets-goal-with-works", Severity.MEDIUM)
+@check("already-meets-goal-with-works", Severity.HIGH)
 def _already_meets_goal_with_works(a: PropertyAudit) -> Optional[str]:
     """The property already meets/exceeds the scenario's goal band, yet the plan
-    spends money on measures — nothing should be recommended."""
+    spends money on measures — nothing should be recommended.
+
+    Provenance: #1652 / #1654. Ranked HIGH because it bills real money and is the
+    signature of the Optimiser judging the goal against something other than the
+    published band. It ran at MEDIUM and was waved through as stale-plan noise
+    while 630 homes in portfolio 796 published at band C were each sold ~1 SAP
+    point of works toward a band they had already reached (£282k), and 172 more
+    in 824. The cause there was a continuous baseline compared against the
+    *integer* band floor, so a dwelling publishing at the floor read as a
+    fraction short; the goal is now judged on the continuous floor
+    (`Epc.sap_lower_bound_continuous`). Any fresh firing means a baseline the
+    Optimiser used has diverged from the published one again — re-debug it,
+    do not re-bucket it."""
     goal, base = _band_rank(a.scenario_goal_band), _band_rank(a.effective_band)
     if goal is None or base is None or base > goal:
         return None