diff --git a/inbox/queue/2026-04-28-gottlieb-2019-bunker-fallacy-space-colonization-existential-risk.md b/inbox/queue/2026-04-28-gottlieb-2019-bunker-fallacy-space-colonization-existential-risk.md
index 4af22d6b0..f1a325e0e 100644
--- a/inbox/queue/2026-04-28-gottlieb-2019-bunker-fallacy-space-colonization-existential-risk.md
+++ b/inbox/queue/2026-04-28-gottlieb-2019-bunker-fallacy-space-colonization-existential-risk.md
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ EA Forum post "Security Among The Stars: A Detailed Appraisal of Space Settlemen
 
 **Why the bunker argument doesn't falsify Belief 1 (my analysis):** The bunker counterargument is most persuasive for SMALLER-SCALE risks (nuclear war, engineered pandemics, extreme climate) where Earth's biosphere remains functional after the catastrophic event. For LOCATION-CORRELATED extinction-scale events — >5km asteroid impact, Yellowstone-scale supervolcanic eruption, nearby gamma-ray burst — bunkers fail because: (1) they cannot outlast a global biosphere collapse lasting decades+, and (2) they are Earth-located, so they share Earth's fate for any event that changes Earth's survival envelope. Mars genuinely escapes this category because it doesn't depend on Earth's surface being habitable.
 
-**KB connections:** Directly challenges [[Belief 1: Humanity must become multiplanetary to survive long-term]]. The challenge is real but bounded — it reveals that Belief 1 needs explicit scope qualification to location-correlated extinction-level risks, not all existential risks. The belief currently says "no amount of terrestrial resilience eliminates" these risks — which is correct for location-correlated events but may overstate for anthropogenic risks.
+**KB connections:** Directly challenges Belief 1: Humanity must become multiplanetary to survive long-term. The challenge is real but bounded — it reveals that Belief 1 needs explicit scope qualification to location-correlated extinction-level risks, not all existential risks. The belief currently says "no amount of terrestrial resilience eliminates" these risks — which is correct for location-correlated events but may overstate for anthropogenic risks.
 
 **Extraction hints:** Two distinct claim candidates:
 1. "Earth-based distributed bunkers are cost-competitive with multiplanetary expansion for existential risks where Earth's biosphere remains functional after the catastrophic event, but fail for location-correlated extinction-level events" — scope qualification claim
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ EA Forum post "Security Among The Stars: A Detailed Appraisal of Space Settlemen
 
 ## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
 
-PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[Belief 1: Humanity must become multiplanetary to survive long-term]]
+PRIMARY CONNECTION: Belief 1: Humanity must become multiplanetary to survive long-term
 
 WHY ARCHIVED: This is the first primary academic source found that directly challenges Belief 1. The bunker argument is real, published, and cited. Extracting this will require a careful claim that distinguishes location-correlated risks (where bunkers fail) from other existential risks (where bunkers may be cost-effective alternatives). This is a divergence candidate for the foundational multiplanetary premise.