diff --git a/benchmarks/gc_ratchet/probes/10_store_receiver_across_alloc.ts b/benchmarks/gc_ratchet/probes/10_store_receiver_across_alloc.ts
index ba1e98be34..8a3cafad4a 100644
--- a/benchmarks/gc_ratchet/probes/10_store_receiver_across_alloc.ts
+++ b/benchmarks/gc_ratchet/probes/10_store_receiver_across_alloc.ts
@@ -33,7 +33,41 @@
 declare function gc(): void;
 
 const SLOTS = 1024;
-const ITERATIONS = 200000;
+
+// ITERATIONS EXISTS TO GIVE THIS PROBE MARGIN, NOT TO MAKE IT LONGER.
+//
+// This probe went **inert on main for part of 2026-08-18..09-06** and nobody
+// noticed: `minor_cycles` fell from 1 to 0, so no evacuating minor ran, so the
+// three conditions below could not bite and the probe measured nothing. It
+// still "passed" everything except a gc-ratchet gate that was already red for
+// unrelated reasons (#9829, #9832), which is why it went weeks undetected.
+//
+// The cause was margin, not a bug: at 200,000 iterations the probe allocated
+// just enough to cross the nursery threshold exactly once. #8313 shrank a
+// two-field object from 56 to 40 bytes — a change everyone wants — and that
+// alone dropped the total under the threshold. **A probe that fires exactly one
+// collection is one optimisation away from firing none**, and any future
+// allocation win re-creates this silently.
+//
+// Measured on `main` @ d36a1af0c, 40-byte objects, three repeats each:
+//
+//     ITERATIONS    minor_cycles   wall_ms
+//        200,000          0           26     <- inert, shipped for weeks
+//        600,000          2           47
+//      1,200,000          4           81
+//      2,400,000          9          147
+//
+// 2,400,000 is chosen so the probe still runs several evacuating minors after a
+// further 8x reduction in allocated bytes per object. The cost is ~120 ms on a
+// metric the gate does not band (`wall_ms`), which is the cheapest insurance in
+// the suite.
+//
+// INVARIANT, and please check it if you touch this file: this probe must report
+// `minor_cycles >= 2`. `gc_ratchet.py` refuses to PIN a baseline whose
+// `minor_cycles < 1`, so a fully inert probe cannot be blessed — but it will
+// happily pin `minor_cycles == 1`, which is the marginal state that produced
+// this outage. One is not margin.
+const ITERATIONS = 2400000;
 
 // (1) module-level, so the receiver is loaded from a global handle rather than
 // a shadow slot.
diff --git a/changelog.d/9833-probe10-margin.md b/changelog.d/9833-probe10-margin.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..faebd01afb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/changelog.d/9833-probe10-margin.md
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+**The `10_store_receiver_across_alloc` GC-ratchet probe was running no
+collection at all, and has been given margin** (#9833, fixes #9832).
+
+The probe exists to catch a store receiver held in a register across an
+evacuating minor — the stale-root class of #6970 / #9523 — and its own header
+lists three conditions that must all hold for it to bite, the third being an
+allocating right-hand side. On `main` it reported `minor_cycles = 0`: no minor
+ran, so no evacuation happened, so there was no window and the probe measured
+nothing. `freed_bytes = 0` alongside `copied_objects = 0` rules out "a minor ran
+and found nothing live".
+
+The cause was margin rather than a bug. At 200,000 iterations the probe crossed
+the nursery threshold exactly once, and #8313 — shrinking a two-field object
+from 56 to 40 bytes — put it under. A probe that fires exactly one collection is
+one optimisation away from firing none. It is now 2,400,000 iterations, which
+measured 9 minors and keeps several after a further eightfold reduction in bytes
+per object, for about 120 ms on `wall_ms`, which the gate does not band.
+
+Verified by sabotage rather than by the counter moving: removing the allocating
+RHS returns `minor_cycles=0 copied_objects=0 freed_bytes=0`, the exact signature
+the probe had while broken.
+
+`heap_used_bytes` returns from 464,072 to 244,648 against a pinned baseline of
+220,384 — the +110.57 % that cell showed on `main` was the post-`gc()` residue
+of a run in which nothing was ever collected, not retention.
+
+Five further probes (`01`, `02`, `03`, `09`, `11`) currently sit at
+`minor_cycles == 1` and are one allocation win away from the same silent state;
+that is recorded in #9832 and not addressed here.