Work the five delivered sources into the pages

The source-request loop paid for itself immediately — two of the five
corrected something rather than confirming it.

The Economist piece settles V1, the riskiest live claim, but our note
had over-claimed: truncating the scale is its *first* example, not one
of "several." Note rewritten to quote her. The same article turned out
to contain a dual-axis chart she caught herself on, now cited.

Datawrapper's color-scale part 1 refuted the assumption behind a queued
sin outright: it makes no argument against rainbow scales and endorses
multi-hue sequential gradients. The rainbow entry is now marked as
having no verified source at all, rather than ample backing.

The dual-axis post independently draws the same line we drew last turn
— of four uses only the alternative-scale case survives, their example
being F against C — and led to two references worth more than the blog
post: the Isenberg et al. study that tested dual-scale charts, and Few's
article working through the cases. Both ship without full metadata
rather than guessed metadata; queued.

Pie and stacked posts gave verbatim support, plus one correction: a
100%-stacked chart has two readable baselines, not one.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01ULE5RRxdQE1ebwefEd2eCM

docs/sources/economist-mistakes.md

@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+# The Economist — "Mistakes, we've drawn a few"
+
+Sarah Leo, visual data journalist at The Economist. Supplied as PDF, read
+2026-08-05. Answers queue row 4 (content; the canonical URL is still missing)
+and settles claim **V1**.
+
+Structure: her own archive, grouped into charts that are (1) misleading,
+(2) confusing, (3) failing to make a point, each with a redesign at comparable
+size.
+
+## V1 — confirmed, but our note over-claimed it
+
+The article's **first** example is `Mistake: Truncating the scale` — a bar chart
+of average Facebook likes on posts by the political left:
+
+> The original chart not only downplays the number of Mr Corbyn's likes but also
+> exaggerates those on other posts.
+
+So the sin is there, and it leads the piece. But it is **one** example, not the
+"several" our citation note claimed. Note corrected to match. (She does add
+that "avid followers of this blog will have seen another example of this bad
+practice," which is a pointer elsewhere, not a second case here.)
+
+## Unexpected: it contains our dual-axis sin, self-caught
+
+`Mistake: Forcing a relationship by cherry-picking scales` — dog weights against
+neck sizes, on a dual axis, looking perfectly correlated:
+
+> In the original chart, both scales decrease by three units (from 21 to 18 on
+> the left; from 45 to 42 on the right). In percentage terms, the left scale
+> decreases by 14% while the right goes down by 7%.
+
+Her takeaway is quotable and close to our page's:
+
+> if two series follow each other too closely, it is probably a good idea to
+> have a closer look at the scales.
+
+Added as a citation on `dual-axis-correlation`. A newsroom catching itself doing
+the exact thing is stronger evidence than a textbook saying not to.
+
+## Also useful
+
+- `Taking the "mind-stretch" a little too far` — trade deficit vs manufacturing
+  employment, where "the two data series don't share a common baseline. The
+  baseline of the trade deficit is at the top of the chart." Adjacent to our
+  inverted-axis sin without being a case of it; cite carefully if at all.
+- `Including too much detail` ("What a rainbow!") — stacked areas for ten
+  countries. Her point that "since we are not plotting all euro-area countries
+  it doesn't make any sense to stack the data" is a good detail for the stacked
+  backlog entry: stacking implies the parts are the whole.
+- She cites Francis Gagnon's rule of thumb — leave at least 33% of the plot area
+  free under a line chart that doesn't start at zero. No source captured; not
+  cited anywhere yet.