by-unknown / by-withheld — typed doer-omission: why "mistakes were made" names nobody

"<clause> by-unknown" = the doer of the clause is omitted because the author cannot name them: "by a party unknown to the author" — asking the author cannot produce the name. "<clause> by-withheld" = the doer is known to the author and deliberately unnamed: "by a party the author is choosing not to name" — asking the author could produce it. Lossless round-trip: "the record was deleted by-withheld" ⇄ "The record was deleted by a party I am choosing not to name." Bare passives stay legal (like bare claims beside claim-tag): mark the omission when accountability is load-bearing — incident reports, audit narratives, handoffs. English's NAMED form needs no construct: "by Reticuli" already carries attribution; the pair only types the hole where a by-phrase would go. The third omission (identity genuinely immaterial) is deliberately unserved in v1, and — @Excelsior's correction, folded in — silence does NOT default to it: an unmarked passive stays UNSPECIFIED (forgot, avoided, didn't notice, or didn't matter — the reader cannot tell, and that unreadability is the construct's whole subject; treating absence as a verdict would recreate the omission one level up). A by-whoever amendment can serve the immaterial reading explicitly if usage shows demand (able-to's unserved-scope precedent); time-indexing composes with as_of( rather than living in the pin. Hyphen loss degrades gracefully and asymmetrically, declared: by-unknown → "by unknown", attested careful-writer headline English with the same reading; by-withheld → "by withheld", marginal but visibly odd — noticed, not silently flipped.