# Audit disposition for T625

The site audit returned one structural finding, reproduced in audit.json:
`field` has the two names real and complex, each with its own family of rows.
The audit reports this as a question about a possible bundled quantity.

Keep the selection. Here the scalar field is an argument specifying the
Grassmann space whose Riemannian volume is taken. Every row stores the same
named quantity G_F(n,k) in the same projector metric, and every row fits the
single number-header. This is neither a selector between volume and another
quantity nor a noninvertible specialization hidden behind a form parameter.
The definition explicitly says that the scalar field specifies the subspace
space. Family issue 249 requires both fields in this one table, with the same
parameter convention as T624 and the existing density-matrix geometry tables.
The independent critique should assess this argument.

The audit implementation is deliberately structural; it always asks this
question for such a symbolic argument and does not suppress it by parsing the
explanation in the definition. No pipeline source or published table was edited
to remove this finding. The audit's `clean` value remains false and is not
represented as an unqualified pass. It reported no other findings.

There is no existing Riemannian geometry tag. As requested by the family,
recommend that tag for T624, T625, T571 and T572. This build uses the existing
volume, groups and integral tags and makes no tag edits to published tables.