diff --git a/fleetd/src/main/java/dev/ltms/fleet/mcp/ConnectionIdentity.java b/fleetd/src/main/java/dev/ltms/fleet/mcp/ConnectionIdentity.java
index 8f9e453..3813e12 100644
--- a/fleetd/src/main/java/dev/ltms/fleet/mcp/ConnectionIdentity.java
+++ b/fleetd/src/main/java/dev/ltms/fleet/mcp/ConnectionIdentity.java
@@ -90,13 +90,27 @@ public final class ConnectionIdentity {
      * {@code 127.0.0.1:8765} with a source address of {@code 127.0.0.2} — measured on the Linux
      * fleet host, where binding that source succeeds.
      *
-     * <p><strong>Being strict here does not make the daemon safer; it makes it unsafe.</strong>
-     * That reads backwards, so it is worth stating plainly. This predicate does not decide whether
-     * a caller is trusted — it decides whether the caller's identity is <em>resolved at all</em>.
-     * Returning false means {@link #resolve} answers "no terminal", and downstream a caller with no
-     * terminal is treated as the primary under loopback-trust. So every address excluded here is an
-     * address on which a worker silently becomes the lead. Widening a check normally weakens it;
-     * widening this one is what closes the hole.
+     * <p><strong>What excluding an address costs, stated as it is today.</strong> This paragraph
+     * used to say that narrowing this range turned a worker into the lead, and that widening the
+     * check was what closed the hole. That was true only while there were <em>two</em> definitions
+     * that disagreed: {@code ConnectionIdentity} skipped the identity lookup for {@code 127.0.0.2}
+     * while {@code CallerResolver} read the same address as loopback and granted the primary role.
+     * #305 removed the second copy, and with one shared definition the old sentence no longer holds.
+     *
+     * <p>Measured on 2026-09-04 by narrowing this method back to exactly {@code 127.0.0.1} and
+     * running {@code CallerResolverTest} and {@code ConnectionIdentityTest}: a caller from
+     * {@code 127.0.0.2} then resolves to {@code ANONYMOUS}, not {@code PRIMARY} — for a worker
+     * ({@code aWorkerOnAnyLoopbackSourceAddressIsStillAWorkerNotThePrimary}) and for a non-worker
+     * ({@code aNonWorkerOnAnyLoopbackSourceAddressIsStillThePrimary}) alike. Excluding an address
+     * now <em>refuses</em> its caller; it does not promote one.
+     *
+     * <p>So keep the whole range, but for the plain reason: a genuine worker or primary that
+     * connects from {@code 127.0.0.2} must be identifiable at all, and narrowing this predicate
+     * locks it out. That is an outage, and an outage is the direction to fail in — which is exactly
+     * why the range must not be narrowed casually and also why doing so is no longer a security
+     * hole. This predicate still does not decide whether a caller is trusted; it decides whether the
+     * caller's identity is <em>resolved at all</em>. What makes an unresolved caller safe is
+     * {@link Caller#resolved()} (#317), not this method.
      */
     public static boolean isLoopback(String addr) {
         if (addr == null) {