diff --git a/doc/chain-self-management-sketch.org b/doc/chain-self-management-sketch.org
index ae950c7..dd11a35 100644
--- a/doc/chain-self-management-sketch.org
+++ b/doc/chain-self-management-sketch.org
@@ -36,8 +36,13 @@ the simulator.
 %% under the License.
 #+END_SRC
 
-  
-* 3. Diagram of the self-management algorithm
+
+* 3. Document restructuring  
+
+Much of the text previously appearing in this document has moved to the
+[[high-level-chain-manager.pdf][Machi chain manager high level design]] document.
+
+* 4. Diagram of the self-management algorithm
 ** Introduction
 Refer to the diagram
 [[https://github.com/basho/machi/blob/master/doc/chain-self-management-sketch.Diagram1.pdf][chain-self-management-sketch.Diagram1.pdf]],
@@ -252,7 +257,7 @@ use of quorum majority for UPI members is out of scope of this
 document.  Also out of scope is the use of "witness servers" to
 augment the quorum majority UPI scheme.)
 
-* 4. The Network Partition Simulator
+* 5. The Network Partition Simulator
 ** Overview
 The function machi_chain_manager1_test:convergence_demo_test()
 executes the following in a simulated network environment within a
diff --git a/doc/src.high-level/high-level-chain-mgr.tex b/doc/src.high-level/high-level-chain-mgr.tex
index 32b8982..fc39855 100644
--- a/doc/src.high-level/high-level-chain-mgr.tex
+++ b/doc/src.high-level/high-level-chain-mgr.tex
@@ -264,8 +264,8 @@ This traditional definition differs from what is described here as
 
 "Humming consensus" describes
 consensus that is derived only from data that is visible/known at the current
-time.  This implies that a network partition may be in effect and that
-not all chain members are reachable.  The algorithm will calculate
+time.
+The algorithm will calculate
 an approximate consensus despite not having input from all/majority
 of chain members.  Humming consensus may proceed to make a
 decision based on data from only a single participant, i.e., only the local
@@ -281,7 +281,7 @@ Each participating chain node has its own projection store.
 The store's key is a positive integer;
 the integer represents the epoch number of the projection.  The
 store's value is either the special `unwritten' value\footnote{We use
-  $\emptyset$ to denote the unwritten value.} or else an
+  $\bot$ to denote the unwritten value.} or else an
 application-specific binary blob that is immutable thereafter.
 
 The projection store is vital for the correct implementation of humming
@@ -422,6 +422,98 @@ Humming consensus requires that any projection be identified by both
 the epoch number and the projection checksum, as described in
 Section~\ref{sub:the-projection}.
 
+\section{Managing multiple projection stores}
+
+An independent replica management technique very similar to the style
+used by both Riak Core \cite{riak-core} and Dynamo is used to manage
+replicas of Machi's projection data structures.
+The major difference is that humming consensus
+{\em does not necessarily require}
+successful return status from a minimum number of participants (e.g.,
+a quorum).
+
+\subsection{Read repair: repair only unwritten values}
+
+The idea of ``read repair'' is also shared with Riak Core and Dynamo
+systems.  However, Machi has situations where read repair cannot truly
+``fix'' a key because two different values have been written by two
+different replicas.
+Machi's projection store is write-once, and there is no ``undo'' or
+``delete'' or ``overwrite'' in the projection store API.\footnote{It doesn't
+matter what caused the two different values.  In case of multiple
+values, all participants in humming consensus merely agree that there
+were multiple opinions at that epoch which must be resolved by the
+creation and writing of newer projections with later epoch numbers.}
+Machi's projection store read repair can only repair values that are
+unwritten, i.e., storing $\bot$.
+
+The value used to repair $\bot$ values is the ``best'' projection that
+is currently available for the current epoch $E$.  If there is a single,
+unanimous value $V_{u}$ for the projection at epoch $E$, then $V_{u}$
+is use to repair all projections stores at $E$ that contain $\bot$
+values.  If the value of $K$ is not unanimous, then the ``highest
+ranked value'' $V_{best}$ is used for the repair; see
+Section~\ref{sub:projection-ranking} for a summary of projection
+ranking.
+
+Read repair may complete successfully regardless of availability of any of the
+participants.  This applies to both phases, reading and writing.
+
+\subsection{Projection storage: writing}
+\label{sub:proj-store-writing}
+
+All projection data structures are stored in the write-once Projection
+Store that is run by each server.  (See also \cite{machi-design}.)
+
+Writing the projection follows the two-step sequence below.
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+\item Write $P_{new}$ to the local projection store.  (As a side
+  effect,
+  this will trigger
+  ``wedge'' status in the local server, which will then cascade to other
+  projection-related behavior within that server.)
+\item Write $P_{new}$ to the remote projection store of {\tt all\_members}.
+  Some members may be unavailable, but that is OK.
+\end{enumerate}
+
+In cases of {\tt error\_written} status,
+the process may be aborted and read repair
+triggered.  The most common reason for {\tt error\_written} status
+is that another actor in the system has
+already calculated another (perhaps different) projection using the
+same projection epoch number and that
+read repair is necessary.  Note that {\tt error\_written} may also
+indicate that another server has performed read repair on the exact
+projection $P_{new}$ that the local server is trying to write!
+
+The writing phase may complete successfully regardless of availability
+of any of the participants.
+
+\subsection{Reading from the projection store}
+\label{sub:proj-store-reading}
+
+Reading data from the projection store is similar in principle to
+reading from a Chain Replication-managed server system.  However, the
+projection store does not use the strict replica ordering that
+Chain Replication does.  For any projection store key $K_n$, the
+participating servers may have different values for $K_n$.  As a
+write-once store, it is impossible to mutate a replica of $K_n$.  If
+replicas of $K_n$ differ, then other parts of the system (projection
+calculation and storage) are responsible for reconciling the
+differences by writing a later key,
+$K_{n+x}$ when $x>0$, with a new projection.
+
+The reading phase may complete successfully regardless of availability
+of any of the participants.
+The minimum number of replicas is only one: the local projection store
+should always be available, even if no other remote replica projection
+stores are available.
+If all available servers return a single, unanimous value $V_u, V_u
+\ne \bot$, then $V_u$ is the final result.  Any non-unanimous value is
+considered disagreement and is resolved by writes to the projection
+store by the humming consensus algorithm.
+
 \section{Phases of projection change}
 \label{sec:phases-of-projection-change}
 
@@ -457,7 +549,7 @@ methods for determining status.  Instead, hard Boolean up/down status
 decisions are required by the projection calculation phase
 (Section~\ref{subsub:projection-calculation}).
 
-\subsection{Projection data structure calculation}
+\subsection{Calculating new projection data structures}
 \label{subsub:projection-calculation}
 
 Each Machi server will have an independent agent/process that is
@@ -474,134 +566,38 @@ Projection calculation will be a pure computation, based on input of:
 (Section~\ref{sub:network-monitoring}).
 \end{enumerate}
 
-All decisions about {\em when} to calculate a projection must be made
+Decisions about {\em when} to calculate a projection are made
 using additional runtime information.  Administrative change requests
 probably should happen immediately.  Change based on network status
 changes may require retry logic and delay/sleep time intervals.
 
-\subsection{Projection storage: writing}
+\subsection{Writing a new projection}
 \label{sub:proj-storage-writing}
 
-Individual replicas of the projections written to participating
-projection stores are not managed by Chain Replication --- if they
+The replicas of Machi projection data that are used by humming consensus
+are not managed by Chain Replication --- if they
 were, we would have a circular dependency!  See
 Section~\ref{sub:proj-store-writing} for the technique for writing
 projections to all participating servers' projection stores.
 
-\subsection{Adoption of new projections}
+\subsection{Adoption a new projection}
 
-The projection store's ``best value'' for the largest written epoch
-number at the time of the read is projection used by the server.
-If the read attempt for projection $P_p$
-also yields other non-best values, then the
-projection calculation subsystem is notified.  This notification
-may/may not trigger a calculation of a new projection $P_{p+1}$ which
-may eventually be stored and so
-resolve $P_p$'s replicas' ambiguity.
+A projection $P_{new}$ is used by a server only if:
 
-\section{Humming consensus's management of multiple projection store}
+\begin{itemize}
+\item The server can determine that the projection has been replicated
+  unanimously across all currently available servers.
+\item The change in state from the local server's current projection to new
+  projection, $P_{current} \rightarrow P_{new}$ will not cause data loss,
+  e.g., the Update Propagation Invariant and all other safety checks
+  required by chain repair in Section~\ref{sec:repair-entire-files}
+  are correct.
+\end{itemize}
 
-Individual replicas of the projections written to participating
-projection stores are not managed by Chain Replication.
-
-An independent replica management technique very similar to the style
-used by both Riak Core \cite{riak-core} and Dynamo is used.
-The major difference is
-that successful return status from (minimum) a quorum of participants
-{\em is not required}.
-
-\subsection{Read repair: repair only when unwritten}
-
-The idea of ``read repair'' is also shared with Riak Core and Dynamo
-systems.  However, there is a case read repair cannot truly ``fix'' a
-key because two different values have been written by two different
-replicas.
-
-Machi's projection store is write-once, and there is no ``undo'' or
-``delete'' or ``overwrite'' in the projection store API.  It doesn't
-matter what caused the two different values.  In case of multiple
-values, all participants in humming consensus merely agree that there
-were multiple opinions at that epoch which must be resolved by the
-creation and writing of newer projections with later epoch numbers.
-
-Machi's projection store read repair can only repair values that are
-unwritten, i.e., storing $\emptyset$.
-
-\subsection{Projection storage: writing}
-\label{sub:proj-store-writing}
-
-All projection data structures are stored in the write-once Projection
-Store that is run by each server.  (See also \cite{machi-design}.)
-
-Writing the projection follows the two-step sequence below.
-
-\begin{enumerate}
-\item Write $P_{new}$ to the local projection store.  (As a side
-  effect,
-  this will trigger
-  ``wedge'' status in the local server, which will then cascade to other
-  projection-related behavior within that server.)
-\item Write $P_{new}$ to the remote projection store of {\tt all\_members}.
-  Some members may be unavailable, but that is OK.
-\end{enumerate}
-
-In cases of {\tt error\_written} status,
-the process may be aborted and read repair
-triggered.  The most common reason for {\tt error\_written} status
-is that another actor in the system has
-already calculated another (perhaps different) projection using the
-same projection epoch number and that
-read repair is necessary.  Note that {\tt error\_written} may also
-indicate that another actor has performed read repair on the exact
-projection value that the local actor is trying to write!
-
-\section{Reading from the projection store}
-\label{sec:proj-store-reading}
-
-Reading data from the projection store is similar in principle to
-reading from a Chain Replication-managed server system.  However, the
-projection store does not use the strict replica ordering that
-Chain Replication does.  For any projection store key $K_n$, the
-participating servers may have different values for $K_n$.  As a
-write-once store, it is impossible to mutate a replica of $K_n$.  If
-replicas of $K_n$ differ, then other parts of the system (projection
-calculation and storage) are responsible for reconciling the
-differences by writing a later key,
-$K_{n+x}$ when $x>0$, with a new projection.
-
-Projection store reads are ``best effort''.  The projection used is chosen from
-all replica servers that are available at the time of the read.  The
-minimum number of replicas is only one: the local projection store
-should always be available, even if no other remote replica projection
-stores are available.
-
-For any key $K$, different projection stores $S_a$ and $S_b$ may store
-nothing (i.e., {\tt error\_unwritten} when queried) or store different
-values, $P_a \ne P_b$, despite having the same projection epoch
-number.  The following ranking rules are used to
-determine the ``best value'' of a projection, where highest rank of
-{\em any single projection} is considered the ``best value'':
-
-\begin{enumerate}
-\item An unwritten value is ranked at a value of $-1$.
-\item A value whose {\tt author\_server} is at the $I^{th}$ position
-  in the {\tt all\_members} list has a rank of $I$.
-\item A value whose {\tt dbg\_annotations} and/or other fields have
-  additional information may increase/decrease its rank, e.g.,
-  increase the rank by $10.25$.
-\end{enumerate}
-
-Rank rules \#2 and \#3 are intended to avoid worst-case ``thrashing''
-of different projection proposals.
-
-The concept of ``read repair'' of an unwritten key is the same as
-Chain Replication's.  If a read attempt for a key $K$ at some server
-$S$ results in {\tt error\_unwritten}, then all of the other stores in
-the {\tt \#projection.all\_members} list are consulted.  If there is a
-unanimous value $V_{u}$ elsewhere, then $V_{u}$ is use to repair all
-unwritten replicas.  If the value of $K$ is not unanimous, then the
-``best value'' $V_{best}$ is used for the repair.  If all respond with
-{\tt error\_unwritten}, repair is not required.
+Both of these steps are performed as part of humming consensus's
+normal operation.  It may be non-intuitive that the minimum number of
+available servers is only one, but ``one'' is the correct minimum
+number for humming consensus.
 
 \section{Humming Consensus}
 \label{sec:humming-consensus}
@@ -613,14 +609,12 @@ Sources for background information include:
 background on the use of humming during meetings of the IETF.
 
 \item ``On `Humming Consensus', an allegory'' \cite{humming-consensus-allegory},
-for an allegory in the style (?) of Leslie Lamport's original Paxos
+for an allegory in homage to the style of Leslie Lamport's original Paxos
 paper.
 \end{itemize}
 
 
-\subsection{Summary of humming consensus}
-
-"Humming consensus" describes
+Humming consensus describes
 consensus that is derived only from data that is visible/known at the current
 time.  This implies that a network partition may be in effect and that
 not all chain members are reachable.  The algorithm will calculate
@@ -658,6 +652,47 @@ with epochs numbered by $E+\delta$ (where $\delta > 0$).
 The distribution of the $E+\delta$ projections will bring all visible
 participants into the new epoch $E+delta$ and then into consensus.
 
+The remainder of this section follows the same patter as
+Section~\ref{sec:phases-of-projection-change}: network monitoring,
+calculating new projections, writing projections, then perhaps
+adopting the newest projection (which may or may not be the projection
+that we just wrote).
+
+\subsection{Network monitoring}
+
+\subsection{Calculating new projection data structures}
+
+\subsection{Projection storage: writing}
+
+\subsection{Adopting a of new projection, perhaps}
+
+TODO finish
+
+A new projection is adopted by a Machi server if two requirements are
+met:
+
+\subsubsection{All available copies of the projection are unanimous/identical}
+
+If we query all available servers for their latest projection, assume
+that $E$ is the largest epoch number found.  If we read public
+projections from all available servers, and if all are equal to some
+projection $P_E$, then projection $P_E$ is the best candidate for
+adoption by the local server.
+
+If we see a projection $P^2_E$ that has the same epoch $E$ but a
+different checksum value, then we must consider $P^2_E \ne P_E$.
+
+Any TODO FINISH
+
+The projection store's ``best value'' for the largest written epoch
+number at the time of the read is projection used by the server.
+If the read attempt for projection $P_p$
+also yields other non-best values, then the
+projection calculation subsystem is notified.  This notification
+may/may not trigger a calculation of a new projection $P_{p+1}$ which
+may eventually be stored and so
+resolve $P_p$'s replicas' ambiguity.
+
 \section{Just in case Humming Consensus doesn't work for us}
 
 There are some unanswered questions about Machi's proposed chain
@@ -1303,6 +1338,33 @@ then no other chain member can have a prior/older value because their
 respective mutations histories cannot be shorter than the tail
 member's history.
 
+\section{TODO: orphaned text}
+
+\subsection{1}
+
+For any key $K$, different projection stores $S_a$ and $S_b$ may store
+nothing (i.e., {\tt error\_unwritten} when queried) or store different
+values, $P_a \ne P_b$, despite having the same projection epoch
+number.  The following ranking rules are used to
+determine the ``best value'' of a projection, where highest rank of
+{\em any single projection} is considered the ``best value'':
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+\item An unwritten value is ranked at a value of $-1$.
+\item A value whose {\tt author\_server} is at the $I^{th}$ position
+  in the {\tt all\_members} list has a rank of $I$.
+\item A value whose {\tt dbg\_annotations} and/or other fields have
+  additional information may increase/decrease its rank, e.g.,
+  increase the rank by $10.25$.
+\end{enumerate}
+
+Rank rules \#2 and \#3 are intended to avoid worst-case ``thrashing''
+of different projection proposals.
+
+\subsection{ranking}
+\label{sub:projection-ranking}
+
+
 \bibliographystyle{abbrvnat}
 \begin{thebibliography}{}
 \softraggedright