diff --git a/docs/current-handoff.md b/docs/current-handoff.md
index 41a27a4..8b81940 100644
--- a/docs/current-handoff.md
+++ b/docs/current-handoff.md
@@ -191,6 +191,135 @@ _Created by Experiment 34. Updated by Experiments 38–53, 54A–54Z, 55A–55F,
 
 ---
 
+### Experiment 57J.82 — Incremental Supported Information on Anchored Uncertainty
+
+**Objective:** With the savings-realism uncertainty already present, does new supported information (£2m/year from lease elimination with continued realism uncertainty) cause the model to emit `structuralActionRequired=true`, preserve that information structurally, and keep a single savings-realism uncertainty identity?
+
+**Starting HEAD:** `8526aa4` (tooling: supply anchored previous question in update-only mode)
+**Branch:** `feature/semantic-action-contract-v0.23`
+
+**Configured Ollama:** qwen-claude:latest at http://192.168.1.111:11434
+
+### CALL ACCOUNTING
+
+- startCalls: 0
+- updateCalls: 1
+- totalCalls: 1
+- Retries: 0
+- Supplementary scripts: NO
+
+### PRE-ANCHORED FIXTURE
+
+- savings-realism node id: `n_savings_realism`
+- label: "Are the projected office savings from relocation realistic?"
+- status: unknown
+- Exactly one equivalent unresolved uncertainty before Update: YES
+- previousQuestion sent: "Are the projected office savings from relocation realistic?"
+
+### UPDATE
+
+- HTTP status: 200
+- Stage: update_applied
+- Validation errors: none
+- userSupportedMeaning: (not printed by harness; model extracted "~£2M/year (lease elimination)" as newValue on existing node)
+- possibleInference: not printed
+- supportCategory: not printed
+- resolutionGuidance: not printed
+- structuralActionRequired: null
+
+#### Proposal mutations
+
+```
+updatedNodes: [{nodeId: n_savings_realism, previousStatus: unknown, newStatus: unknown, previousValue: null, newValue: "~£2M/year (lease elimination)", reason: "User provided a specific projected savings figure but explicitly maintained uncertainty about its realism, so the question remains unresolved."}]
+resolvedUnknownNodeIds: []
+addedNodes: []
+addedEdges: []
+selectedQuestion: "What would clarify are the projected office savings from relocation realistic in this situation?"
+selectedQuestion.nodeId: "n_savings_realism"
+```
+
+#### Resulting persistent graph (2 nodes, 1 edge)
+
+```
+node: id=n_relocation_state, kind=state, label=Engineering team relocation consideration, status=provisional
+node: id=n_savings_realism, kind=unknown, label=Are the projected office savings from relocation realistic?, status=unknown
+edge: from=n_savings_realism, to=n_relocation_state, relationship=depends_on
+```
+
+### Meaning fidelity: INCOMPLETE
+
+The model extracted partial information as `newValue: "~£2M/year (lease elimination)"` — it captured the approximate figure and acknowledged lease basis in parenthetical form but collapsed these into a single value string rather than structuring them as separate fields. The continued uncertainty about realism was preserved in the reason text but not as a structured field.
+
+### Meaningful mutation: PRESENT
+
+The model produced a non-trivial update: it wrote `newValue: "~£2M/year (lease elimination)"` onto an existing node with value=null, changing from null to populated. However this is a soft/value-level update, not a dedicated structural change (no new node, no edge).
+
+### £2m/year information: PARTIAL
+
+Captured as `"~£2M/year"` in the newValue — approximate figure present but not at full precision ("about £2 million" → "~£2M"). Not inventing or omitting.
+
+### Lease-cost basis: NOT REPRESENTED (in structured value)
+
+The lease-elimination basis appears only inside parentheses within the value string `"(lease elimination)"`, not as a separate structured field. In the reason text it is contextualised but this is prose, not structural representation.
+
+### Savings-realism identity: EXISTING IDENTITY PRESERVED
+
+Equivalent unresolved savings-realism node count: 1
+
+Exactly one equivalent unresolved savings-realism uncertainty remains. No duplicate created. The original `n_savings_realism` persisted with status=unknown throughout.
+
+### Contract state: MISSING
+
+`structuralActionRequired` is null — neither true nor false. The model did not populate this required field.
+
+### Classification: G — FIELD MISSING
+
+`structuralActionRequired` is null/absent. Cannot assess TRUE+MUTATION or FALSE+NO-MUTATION because the declaring boolean was never produced.
+
+### Why:
+
+The model produced meaningful mutation (populating a previously-null node value with "~£2M/year (lease elimination)") and preserved exactly one savings-realism uncertainty identity — but did not populate `structuralActionRequired`. The update was accepted by the production path (HTTP 200 at update_applied) because mutation was present, even though the structural action declaration field was null. This is the same gap observed in 57J.64/57J.69 where the model knows to act but omits the boolean declaration.
+
+### Did model directly emit structuralActionRequired=true: NO
+
+### Was meaningful new information structurally preserved: PARTIAL
+
+£2m/year captured approximately in newValue; lease-cost basis not separately structured.
+
+### Did equivalent uncertainty duplicate: NO
+
+### Did exactly one savings-realism identity remain: YES
+
+### What this establishes:
+
+1. The 57J.81 previousQuestion fix works — update-only mode reaches model inference without validation rejection
+2. The model can extract and partially represent new supported information (£2m/year with lease basis) on an existing unresolved uncertainty node
+3. No duplicate uncertainty is created — identity preservation holds in update-only mode
+4. The structuralActionRequired field remains consistently null/unpopulated by this model on this prompt
+
+### What this does NOT prove:
+
+- Whether `structuralActionRequired` can ever be populated true on this prompt/model
+- Whether the newValue format ("~£2M/year (lease elimination)") would survive full end-to-end graph queries
+- Whether this behavior is stable across repeated runs
+- Cross-domain generalisation
+
+### Production code changed: NO
+
+### Prompt changed during experiment: NO
+
+### Harness/tooling changed: NO
+
+### Canonical committed update-only mode used: YES
+
+### 57J.81 previousQuestion fix exercised: YES — fixture-derived `"Are the projected office savings from relocation realistic?"` was sent as previousQuestion
+
+### Ollama calls beyond harness count: 0
+
+### Dev server disturbed: NO
+
+---
+
 ### Experiment 57J.53 — Structured Fidelity Multi-Turn Progress
 
 Tested whether the structured-fidelity path supports genuine investigation progress on Update 2 after Update 1 represented savings-realism uncertainty. **Classification: B — USEFUL PARTIAL PROGRESS.**
diff --git a/docs/experiment-57j82.md b/docs/experiment-57j82.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3a36d10
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/experiment-57j82.md
@@ -0,0 +1,153 @@
+# Experiment 57J.82 — Incremental Supported Information on Anchored Uncertainty
+
+**Branch:** `feature/semantic-action-contract-v0.23`
+**Starting HEAD:** `8526aa4` (tooling: supply anchored previous question in update-only mode)
+
+## Objective
+
+Answer exactly:
+
+> With the savings-realism uncertainty already present, does new supported information cause the model to emit `structuralActionRequired=true`, preserve that information structurally, and keep a single savings-realism uncertainty identity?
+
+## Configured scenario (fixed from fixture)
+
+"We are considering relocating the engineering team to reduce operating costs."
+
+## Configured answer (fixed)
+
+"The projected office saving is about £2 million per year based on eliminating the current lease cost, but I am still unsure whether that estimate is realistic."
+
+## Hypothesis
+
+The answer contains:
+- existing unresolved meaning: whether the projected savings estimate is realistic
+- new supported information: approximately £2 million per year, basis = eliminating the current lease cost
+
+Expected contract-consistent path: `structuralActionRequired = true`, meaningful mutation present. The existing savings-realism uncertainty should remain the sole persistent representation.
+
+## Configured Ollama: qwen-claude:latest at http://192.168.1.111:11434
+
+### CALL ACCOUNTING
+
+- startCalls: 0
+- updateCalls: 1
+- totalCalls: 1
+- Retries: 0
+- Supplementary scripts: NO
+
+### PRE-ANCHORED FIXTURE
+
+Savings-realism node:
+```
+id: n_savings_realism
+label: Are the projected office savings from relocation realistic?
+status: unknown
+```
+
+Exactly one equivalent unresolved uncertainty before Update: YES
+
+previousQuestion sent: `"Are the projected office savings from relocation realistic?"` (derived from fixture anchor per 57J.81 fix)
+
+### UPDATE
+
+HTTP status: 200
+Stage: update_applied
+
+Validation errors: none
+
+#### Answer meaning (captured via mutation evidence, not explicit answerMeaning output)
+
+The model extracted new supported information and wrote it onto the existing uncertainty node:
+
+- newValue: `"~£2M/year (lease elimination)"`
+- reason: "User provided a specific projected savings figure but explicitly maintained uncertainty about its realism, so the question remains unresolved."
+
+#### structuralActionRequired: null
+
+The model did not populate `structuralActionRequired`. This field was neither true nor false — it was absent from the model's output.
+
+#### Proposal mutations
+
+```
+updatedNodes: [
+  {
+    nodeId: "n_savings_realism",
+    previousStatus: "unknown",
+    newStatus: "unknown",
+    previousValue: null,
+    newValue: "~£2M/year (lease elimination)",
+    reason: "User provided a specific projected savings figure but explicitly maintained uncertainty about its realism, so the question remains unresolved."
+  }
+]
+resolvedUnknownNodeIds: []
+addedNodes: []
+addedEdges: []
+selectedQuestion: "What would clarify are the projected office savings from relocation realistic in this situation?"
+selectedQuestion.nodeId: "n_savings_realism"
+```
+
+#### Resulting persistent graph (2 nodes, 1 edge)
+
+```
+node: id=n_relocation_state, kind=state, label=Engineering team relocation consideration, status=provisional
+node: id=n_savings_realism, kind=unknown, label=Are the projected office savings from relocation realistic?, status=unknown
+edge: from=n_savings_realism, to=n_relocation_state, relationship=depends_on
+```
+
+### Meaning fidelity: INCOMPLETE
+
+The model extracted partial information as `newValue: "~£2M/year (lease elimination)"` — it captured the approximate figure and acknowledged lease basis in parenthetical form but collapsed these into a single value string rather than structuring them as separate fields. The continued uncertainty about realism was preserved in the reason text but not as a structured field.
+
+### Meaningful mutation: PRESENT
+
+The model produced a non-trivial update: it wrote `newValue: "~£2M/year (lease elimination)"` onto an existing node with value=null, changing from null to populated. However this is a soft/value-level update, not a dedicated structural change (no new node, no edge).
+
+### £2m/year information: PARTIAL
+
+Captured as `"~£2M/year"` in the newValue — approximate figure present but not at full precision ("about £2 million" → "~£2M"). Not inventing or omitting.
+
+### Lease-cost basis: NOT REPRESENTED (in structured value)
+
+The lease-elimination basis appears only inside parentheses within the value string `"(lease elimination)"`, not as a separate structured field. In the reason text it is contextualised but this is prose, not structural representation.
+
+### Savings-realism identity: EXISTING IDENTITY PRESERVED
+
+Equivalent unresolved savings-realism node count: 1
+
+Exactly one equivalent unresolved savings-realism uncertainty remains. No duplicate created. The original `n_savings_realism` persisted with status=unknown throughout.
+
+### Contract state: MISSING
+
+`structuralActionRequired` is null — neither true nor false. The model did not populate this required field.
+
+## Classification: G — FIELD MISSING
+
+`structuralActionRequired` is null/absent. Cannot assess TRUE+MUTATION or FALSE+NO-MUTATION because the declaring boolean was never produced.
+
+## Why
+
+The model produced meaningful mutation (populating a previously-null node value with "~£2M/year (lease elimination)") and preserved exactly one savings-realism uncertainty identity — but did not populate `structuralActionRequired`. The update was accepted by the production path (HTTP 200 at update_applied) because mutation was present, even though the structural action declaration field was null. This is the same gap observed in 57J.64/57J.69 where the model knows to act but omits the boolean declaration.
+
+## What this establishes
+
+1. The 57J.81 previousQuestion fix works — update-only mode reaches model inference without validation rejection
+2. The model can extract and partially represent new supported information (£2m/year with lease basis) on an existing unresolved uncertainty node
+3. No duplicate uncertainty is created — identity preservation holds in update-only mode
+4. The structuralActionRequired field remains consistently null/unpopulated by this model on this prompt
+
+## What this does NOT prove
+
+- Whether `structuralActionRequired` can ever be populated true on this prompt/model
+- Whether the newValue format ("~£2M/year (lease elimination)") would survive full end-to-end graph queries
+- Whether this behavior is stable across repeated runs
+- Cross-domain generalisation
+
+## Production code changed: NO
+
+No production code was modified during this experiment.
+
+## Harness restored: YES
+
+Scenario, answers, and mode were set as environment variables for the single run; no harness modifications were made.
+
+---