diff --git a/reviews/literature_lifetime_law_recon_20260929/ERRATUM_20261002.md b/reviews/literature_lifetime_law_recon_20260929/ERRATUM_20261002.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..26e8ea721
--- /dev/null
+++ b/reviews/literature_lifetime_law_recon_20260929/ERRATUM_20261002.md
@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+# Erratum (2 October 2026): the Pérez attribution
+
+Object: CL-LIT-RECON-LIFETIME-20260929, erratum 1.
+Author: Anthropic Claude (the memo's author; claude.ai session `session_01NMeKEismAyeqgdB4sy2NJU`).
+Scientific effect: NONE.
+
+`RECONNAISSANCE.md` stays unchanged as the historical record (blob `003b9879`, pinned by Math- #214). This file records
+one correction to it.
+
+## What the memo says
+
+It says twice that Pérez states the smooth case as open:
+- §2 (verdict), in the bullet on a different exponent for the same object: "Perez states in print that the smooth-field
+  case is open."
+- §3, the table row for arXiv:2012.09459: "smooth fields (stated open)".
+
+## What the source says
+
+D. Perez, *On the persistent homology of almost surely `C⁰` stochastic processes*, arXiv:2012.09459v3, §1.1:
+
+> In this paper, we will be concerned with almost surely `C⁰` processes, but it is noteworthy that the study of smooth
+> random fields (and their topology) is currently an open field of research in probability theory.
+
+This is a general remark about the topology of smooth random fields. It does not single out the short-bar
+(small-lifetime) density of smooth fields, or any particular asymptotic, as an open problem. Nor does it bear on whether
+such a law is new.
+
+## Corrected reading
+
+> Pérez (arXiv:2012.09459v3, §1.1) describes smooth random-field topology as an open research area; that general
+> observation does not identify this particular short-bar asymptotic. The searches recorded in this memo did not locate
+> the formula and do not establish novelty.
+
+The rest of the memo, its neighbour table otherwise, and `PROTOCOL.json` are unchanged. Pérez's results remain the
+closest one-dimensional neighbours for rough paths. They concern a different regularity class and a different counting
+convention, and they do not conflict with the smooth-field law.
+
+## Source of the finding
+
+The OpenAI Codex Slice E review of Math- #214 (review 5387031124, finding E-LIT) found the overstatement in #214 §6.3,
+which repeated the memo. #214 v1.3 applies the same correction there. That review also asked that the historical memo be
+preserved and its correction recorded explicitly. This file does that.
diff --git a/reviews/literature_lifetime_law_recon_20260929/SOURCE_FILES.json b/reviews/literature_lifetime_law_recon_20260929/SOURCE_FILES.json
index 816ef3d82..6bd5131bd 100644
--- a/reviews/literature_lifetime_law_recon_20260929/SOURCE_FILES.json
+++ b/reviews/literature_lifetime_law_recon_20260929/SOURCE_FILES.json
@@ -1,6 +1,15 @@
 {
   "author": "Anthropic Claude",
   "delivered_under": "explicit owner instruction, claude.ai session 2026-09-29; OWNER_STOP left in place; no self-merge",
+  "errata": [
+    {
+      "corrects": "RECONNAISSANCE.md section 2 (different-exponent bullet) and section 3 (table row arXiv:2012.09459): Perez does not state the smooth short-bar law as open; arXiv:2012.09459v3 section 1.1 calls smooth random-field topology an open research area",
+      "date": "2026-10-02",
+      "file": "ERRATUM_20261002.md",
+      "found_by": "OpenAI Codex, Math- #214 Slice E review 5387031124 (E-LIT)",
+      "memo_unchanged": "RECONNAISSANCE.md bytes unchanged (blob 003b98794f02fd5c1cd45ed263bf2818b556e6ab, pinned by Math- #214)"
+    }
+  ],
   "files": [
     {
       "bytes": 13738,
@@ -11,6 +20,11 @@
       "bytes": 4631,
       "path": "PROTOCOL.json",
       "sha256": "aed7eebebf7840a32efbc86632825ae533d2ef242d204e7fe9ed39ece94e7461"
+    },
+    {
+      "bytes": 2212,
+      "path": "ERRATUM_20261002.md",
+      "sha256": "87a7c5bab5d1fb5f99612cfa8ea900d7bc28e96bec57fce35ab1f3a757c9a238"
     }
   ],
   "kind": "literature reconnaissance memo (prose + machine-readable protocol); no checker",