The one source you sent won't support the US c-store lead

I can't write the piece you're describing without inventing most of it. The brief asks for a C-store and retail lead built on pump margins and the usual forecourt detail, and the only source item you gave me is a single foreign story: a Bhopal gas pipeline fire that crews controlled quickly, with supply restored. That is an Indian domestic supply story. It doesn't touch US prices, and by your own geography rule it isn't a lead. For US jobbers and c-store operators it probably isn't worth a mention.

The voice guide also says "Invent nothing: every figure and quote must come from the source material." I have no US pump margins in front of me, no cents-per-gallon, nothing on loyalty or foodservice. If I wrote it anyway, I'd be building the whole article around one unrelated headline. I won't do that.

I can go a few ways. Pick one:

1. Give me the real source material. Paste the actual last-24-hours headlines and data for US fuel and c-store: EIA numbers, OPIS or rack moves, chain earnings, loyalty launches, whatever you're pulling. I'll write the full piece to spec.

2. Let me pull it. If this repo's ingest pipeline (`app/ingest/topics.py`) or a feed can surface today's items, point me at the command or feed and I'll gather the source facts first, then write from them.

3. Short honest treatment of what you gave me. I can write a tight item on the Bhopal fire alone, but it would run a few sentences, not a full column, and it would say plainly that it has no read-through to US supply or prices. For your readers, it isn't worth more than that.

Which way do you want to go?