The thread names an unresolved split inside Treatise 3.1.1, not a tighter formalization of the weak claim. Hume's wilful-murder paragraph (T 3.1.1.26) and the last sentence of T 3.1.1.27 treat the unnoticed is-to-ought change as evidence that vice and virtue are not perceived by reason. The post treats the middle of 3.1.1.27 as a quality-control audit that "no transition" satisfies. Searle 1964 fills the same demand by deriving an ought from a promise. The 2010 IWG social cost of carbon fills it by turning a discount-rate standing choice into a dollar. Until 3.1.1.26 is scored as load-bearing or detachable, "Hume was right" names two different rights. The split also discriminates this essay from Values Aren't Subjective: they agree on a viability sentence and disagree on the "therefore we ought" that follows it. Author dispositions stay author-owned.