diff --git a/microsoft/knowledge/data-modeling/report-barcodes-must-use-barcode-module-and-production-font-name.bad.al b/microsoft/knowledge/data-modeling/report-barcodes-must-use-barcode-module-and-production-font-name.bad.al
index 0de8b58..a60692b 100644
--- a/microsoft/knowledge/data-modeling/report-barcodes-must-use-barcode-module-and-production-font-name.bad.al
+++ b/microsoft/knowledge/data-modeling/report-barcodes-must-use-barcode-module-and-production-font-name.bad.al
@@ -12,30 +12,30 @@ report 50110 "Sample Item Barcode Label"
             column(Barcode; BarcodeText) { }
 
             trigger OnAfterGetRecord()
+            var
+                BarcodeFontProvider: Interface "Barcode Font Provider";
             begin
-                // WRONG: hand-rolled "encoding" instead of the Barcode
-                // module's provider/encoder API. This is not wrong merely
-                // because the delimiter was added by hand - Code 39's own
-                // symbology does use "*" as its start/stop character
-                // (Microsoft Learn, "Barcode Fonts with Business Central
-                // Online"). It's wrong because it's demonstrably mismatched
-                // with what encoding "No." through the real API would
-                // produce:
-                // - it skips ValidateInput, so a "No." value outside Code
-                //   39's character set, or one that needs a checksum this
-                //   code never applies, reaches the font unvalidated;
-                // - IDAutomation 1D Provider's own EncodeFont output for
-                //   Code 39 wraps the value in "(" / ")", not literal "*"
-                //   (BCApps' own encoder test: EncodeFont('1234', Code39)
-                //   = '(1234)') - the paired font maps those parentheses to
-                //   the real start/stop glyph, so a string built with
-                //   literal asterisks is simply the wrong characters for
-                //   that font, on top of carrying no real checksum.
-                BarcodeText := '*' + "No." + '*';
+                // WRONG: a one-dimensional IDAutomation provider path that
+                // calls EncodeFont without ValidateInput. "Barcode Font
+                // Provider" (1D) declares both, and IDAutomation 1D
+                // Provider's EncodeFont does not validate on its own - it
+                // hands the text straight to the font encoder. Code 39
+                // accepts only 0-9, A-Z, space and - . $ / + % *, but an
+                // Item "No." can legally contain characters outside that
+                // set (e.g. "_" or "#"). Such a value is never rejected;
+                // it silently reaches the font as an unscannable barcode.
+                BarcodeFontProvider := Enum::"Barcode Font Provider"::IDAutomation1D;
+                BarcodeText := BarcodeFontProvider.EncodeFont("No.", BarcodeSymbology);
             end;
         }
     }
 
     var
+        BarcodeSymbology: Enum "Barcode Symbology";
         BarcodeText: Text;
+
+    trigger OnInitReport()
+    begin
+        BarcodeSymbology := Enum::"Barcode Symbology"::Code39;
+    end;
 }
diff --git a/microsoft/knowledge/data-modeling/report-barcodes-must-use-barcode-module-and-production-font-name.md b/microsoft/knowledge/data-modeling/report-barcodes-must-use-barcode-module-and-production-font-name.md
index 892c2f1..1d21211 100644
--- a/microsoft/knowledge/data-modeling/report-barcodes-must-use-barcode-module-and-production-font-name.md
+++ b/microsoft/knowledge/data-modeling/report-barcodes-must-use-barcode-module-and-production-font-name.md
@@ -78,13 +78,22 @@ evaluation font instead of the purchased one. Both look complete in
 review and fail silently — the first because the data was never a real
 barcode, the second because BC online refuses to render it.
 
+The same gap exists even when the module *is* used: a 1D path that calls
+`EncodeFont` on `"Barcode Font Provider"` without `ValidateInput`.
+IDAutomation 1D Provider's `EncodeFont` does not validate on its own, so
+a value outside the symbology's character set is never rejected — it
+reaches the font as an unscannable barcode. The sample shows this
+variant, because it is visible in AL alone without layout evidence.
+
 See sample: [`report-barcodes-must-use-barcode-module-and-production-font-name.bad.al`](report-barcodes-must-use-barcode-module-and-production-font-name.bad.al).
 
 ## Source
 
 BCApps (`src/System Application/App/Barcode/src/`):
 `Barcode Provider/Font/BarcodeFontProvider.Interface.al` (1D:
-`ValidateInput` + `EncodeFont`); `Barcode Provider 2D/Font/
+`ValidateInput` + `EncodeFont`); `IDAutomation 1D Provider/
+IDAutomation1DProvider.Codeunit.al` (`EncodeFont` goes straight to the
+symbology encoder; only `ValidateInput` calls `IsValidInput`); `Barcode Provider 2D/Font/
 BarcodeFontProvider2D.Interface.al` (2D: only `EncodeFont`); both read
 fresh from source. `IDAutomation 1D Provider/Encoders/
 IDA1DCode39Encoder.Codeunit.al` (`codeunit 9204`, regex accepts literal