{
 "registration": "7C-0544",
 "filer_name": "PLAINS PIPELINE",
 "grain": "line_grain",
 "grain_reason": "CACTUS II, and the corpus says so in its own words rather than by inference. This filing books essentially all of its receipts as one handoff, 'Midland Station (Rec frm MSP)', 219.2 MMBBL over 11 months of 2025; the OTHER side of that meter is filed by Plains' district-08 registration 08-0892 as 'Midland Station (Del to Cactus II)' -- the counterparty NAMES THE LINE -- and the two agree TO THE BARREL in all 8 months both are held (19.922 / 18.550 / 21.177 / 19.530 / 20.400 / 19.880 / 20.109 / 19.490 MMBBL). Two filers, two filings, one named handoff: that is the strongest identity evidence in the archive, and it is stronger than the route match it happens to agree with (Permian receipts -> Ingleside/Taft/South Texas Gateway deliveries in D04, ~655 MBBL/D against a ~670 MBBL/D nameplate). THE REMAINDER IS PART OF THIS LINE, NOT A SECOND ONE: 'Driver-(Rec from McCamey)' adds 3.3 MMBBL against the 219.2 MMBBL above, over the same 11 months, which is Cactus II's McCamey injection, not Cactus I -- Cactus I is a ~390 MBBL/D line and nothing of that size appears here or anywhere else in the corpus. Distinct from the district filings below because Plains files 7C-0544 for ONE line; that it is also the only Plains registration in district 7C is a coincidence of geography, not the reason. Ruled 2026-08-11, the day the header reader first learned lettered districts -- before that the registration cell read as noise and all eleven filings sat under registration='', pooled by filer name with the fifteen other Plains systems, which is why config/t1_edge_coverage.yaml could truthfully report that 'CACTUS' had zero hits corpus-wide.",
 "grain_decided_on": "2026-10-20 00:00:00",
 "corridor": "cactus_ii_t1",
 "first_period": "2025-01",
 "last_period": "2026-05",
 "n_periods": 15,
 "n_lines": 81,
 "total_barrels": 608429459.0,
 "counts": {
  "districts": 6,
  "facilities_roster": 8,
  "facilities_roster_rows": 8,
  "facilities_on_lines": 10,
  "facility_spellings": 10,
  "lines_without_facility": 0,
  "counterparties_with_registration": 8,
  "counterparty_names": 7
 },
 "deliveries": {
  "gross": 304630550.0,
  "net": 304630550.0,
  "self": 0.0,
  "self_pct": 0.0
 },
 "receipts": {
  "gross": 303798909.0,
  "net": 303798909.0,
  "self": 0.0,
  "self_pct": 0.0
 },
 "contract_version": 1,
 "count_definitions": {
  "districts": "distinct non-blank `district` on this filer's lines. A district is the RRC district the line was FILED under \u2014 the HANDOFF POINT, not the asset's geography, and never a place to map from (DECISIONS.md 2.17).",
  "facilities_roster": "distinct facility_key in the `t1_facility` roster \u2014 after the Gate-B merge rulings a human made against volume.",
  "facilities_roster_rows": "ROWS in that roster. A facility used for BOTH receipt and delivery gets a row for each, so this exceeds the key count.",
  "facilities_on_lines": "distinct non-blank facility_key on the LINES, before any merge ruling. The gap against the roster IS the rulings.",
  "facility_spellings": "distinct raw `facility` text on the lines \u2014 one per OCR spelling, so this is the loosest of the four and the least meaningful alone.",
  "lines_without_facility": "lines where the filer gave a volume and a counterparty but named no facility. These are in no facility denominator anywhere.",
  "counterparties_with_registration": "distinct cp_reg_key \u2014 counterparties whose RRC registration the filer actually wrote down.",
  "counterparty_names": "distinct counterparty_norm \u2014 every counterparty including the ones with no registration. Keyed on name alone, a counterparty that files under several registrations collapses into one row, which is why both counts are here."
 },
 "concentration": {
  "receipts": {
   "registration_then_name": {
    "n": 3,
    "hhi": 8551.365751048073,
    "top5_pct": 100.0,
    "top12_pct": 100.0,
    "total_barrels": 303798909.0,
    "key_rule": "the filer's own registration where it wrote one down, the folded name where it did not. This is the key the movers board ranks on."
   },
   "name_only": {
    "n": 1,
    "hhi": 10000.0,
    "top5_pct": 100.0,
    "top12_pct": 100.0,
    "total_barrels": 303798909.0,
    "key_rule": "the folded name, ignoring registrations entirely. A counterparty that files under several registrations collapses to one here, which RAISES measured concentration."
   },
   "raw_spelling": {
    "n": 2,
    "hhi": 8797.606225388976,
    "top5_pct": 100.0,
    "top12_pct": 100.0,
    "total_barrels": 303798909.0,
    "key_rule": "the raw text as OCR read it. Every alternate spelling is its own counterparty, which LOWERS measured concentration. It is the loosest of the three and is published to bound the other two."
   }
  },
  "deliveries": {
   "registration_then_name": {
    "n": 7,
    "hhi": 7687.458224477783,
    "top5_pct": 98.93600362800119,
    "top12_pct": 99.99999999999999,
    "total_barrels": 304630550.0,
    "key_rule": "the filer's own registration where it wrote one down, the folded name where it did not. This is the key the movers board ranks on."
   },
   "name_only": {
    "n": 6,
    "hhi": 7697.326743890663,
    "top5_pct": 99.8794296895042,
    "top12_pct": 99.99999999999999,
    "total_barrels": 304630550.0,
    "key_rule": "the folded name, ignoring registrations entirely. A counterparty that files under several registrations collapses to one here, which RAISES measured concentration."
   },
   "raw_spelling": {
    "n": 8,
    "hhi": 6842.282107152549,
    "top5_pct": 97.83691983617533,
    "top12_pct": 100.0,
    "total_barrels": 304630550.0,
    "key_rule": "the raw text as OCR read it. Every alternate spelling is its own counterparty, which LOWERS measured concentration. It is the loosest of the three and is published to bound the other two."
   }
  },
  "definition": "HHI is the sum of squared percentage shares of this side's barrels over the filer's whole filed span (0-10,000). Counterparties with zero barrels are excluded. `spread_pct` is how much the widest rule exceeds the narrowest, as a percentage of the narrowest.",
  "spread_pct": {
   "receipts": 16.940384625395996,
   "deliveries": 12.496483239770216
  },
  "why_three": "Concentration is not a property of the filer alone; it is a property of the filer AND the rule used to decide who counts as one counterparty. So every rule is published and none is labelled the answer. On this filer the rules disagree by 16.9% of HHI on receipts, which is large enough that a single figure would have been a conclusion about identity dressed as a measurement of concentration. The spread is measured per filer; it is not a corpus-wide constant."
 },
 "self_transfer_note": "Both sides are returned separately. Here they happen to agree, at 0.0% on both sides \u2014 which is a fact about this filer and not a check that passed. A single self-transfer figure would invite exactly the 'the two sides check each other' reasoning DECISIONS.md 2.16 exists to stop, so there isn't one.",
 "refs": {
  "receipts": "7C-0544:2026-05:1A",
  "deliveries": "7C-0544:2026-05:1B",
  "lease_receipts": null
 }
}