[
  {
    "step": 932,
    "title": "Map independent premises at the Actual–Rounded junction",
    "question": "Which inputs does the shared12026/14726 construction actually require?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "File52c §§3.3–3.4,3.14",
      "File51a §§3,16",
      "C931"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:35:11.145338+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "C931:55a6faf783579d9119c15adafb3697ab140daddaeda4547bcd674196a4951a9f",
    "results": {
      "dependency_map": {
        "path": "model/junction_dependency_map.json",
        "sha256": "d76b5b78711cddd3b3178d3451c24a0a55228b7ad8d1e294dd64776ff26bc26f",
        "bytes": 1581
      },
      "independent_input_classes": 4
    },
    "finding": "The inverse convergence and weighted conservation have overlapping source inputs but different immediate causes. Their shared12026 value is a compatibility relation to analyze;14726 is already a dependent continuation.",
    "reassessment": "Freeze a source-only junction packet and separate each endpoint role.",
    "checks": {
      "eight_nodes": true,
      "four_inputs": true,
      "no_output_primitive": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:35:11.145637+00:00",
    "sha256": "4b1a3646513b5856e4419ed5416bd0453bbf074b532040edc030c60c372ff531"
  },
  {
    "step": 933,
    "title": "Freeze the primitive junction packet",
    "question": "Can the junction be specified without any generated output date as an input?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "File52c §§3.3–3.4,3.14",
      "C492–494 source selections"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:36:11.258031+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "4b1a3646513b5856e4419ed5416bd0453bbf074b532040edc030c60c372ff531",
    "results": {
      "source_only_packet": {
        "path": "model/junction_source_packet.json",
        "sha256": "0836c9e165e828632d014a39a6993765e6abf7f528fbf81b630f8898c530b2ca",
        "bytes": 6424
      }
    },
    "finding": "The numeric inputs consist of two Creation/Flood pairs, two anchors and selected Actual endpoints with documented offsets. Generated12026 and14726 are absent from the numeric input fields. Their dependence can now be analyzed without treating the conclusions as premises.",
    "reassessment": "Determine the independent numeric coordinates of the two source paths.",
    "checks": {
      "primary_source": true,
      "four_source_heads": true,
      "declared_partition": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:36:11.260249+00:00",
    "sha256": "aa5cf64ee998264ab692aef142ab59b246793a3aa11eb41e0b252e549b28051f"
  },
  {
    "step": 934,
    "title": "Replace six dates by a reversible path-coordinate packet",
    "question": "Which numeric coordinates retain the entire paired source construction?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C933"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:36:42.007094+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "aa5cf64ee998264ab692aef142ab59b246793a3aa11eb41e0b252e549b28051f",
    "results": {
      "path_coordinates": {
        "path": "model/junction_path_coordinates.json",
        "sha256": "29fbe2ce30c47b217936b1ca1fbaf3003a76af26a370fb7a46506be8848bfee8",
        "bytes": 395
      },
      "coordinates": {
        "anchor": 1406,
        "tail": 1400,
        "regular_legs": [
          1650,
          1050
        ],
        "cumulative_legs": [
          9170,
          3430
        ]
      }
    },
    "finding": "One shared anchor, four ordered legs and one tail exactly retain all six source dates. This is a change of coordinates, so it compresses notation but does not itself explain the source values.",
    "reassessment": "Remove common translation and identify which junction claims depend only on durations.",
    "checks": {
      "recovery": true,
      "six_coordinates": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:36:42.007558+00:00",
    "sha256": "5a27302b6c1086c8622dd33a240cb7fb17f239735d682223434f6d5869827d7c"
  },
  {
    "step": 935,
    "title": "Identify the placement-free junction claims",
    "question": "Which conclusions survive if the whole source frame translates?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C934; inherited covariance"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:36:58.364680+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "5a27302b6c1086c8622dd33a240cb7fb17f239735d682223434f6d5869827d7c",
    "results": {
      "translation_free_data": {
        "regular_total": 2700,
        "cumulative_total": 12600,
        "Creation_gap": 9900,
        "tail": 1400,
        "weighted_radius": 10620,
        "dimension_after_translation": 5
      },
      "artifact": {
        "path": "model/junction_translation_quotient.json",
        "sha256": "84e102d562ee17f6a89c1a1dd8005aef1f36797e69c931943a2f8503adc025ae",
        "bytes": 395
      }
    },
    "finding": "The compatibility problem can be studied on durations before absolute placement. Removing one common translation leaves five coordinates; the12026 label still requires the source anchor1406.",
    "reassessment": "Check whether the weighted coefficient is independent or inferred from the selected Actual/Rounded shift.",
    "checks": {
      "gap": true,
      "radius": true,
      "five": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:36:58.365102+00:00",
    "sha256": "bbaeab65bd3dc206c323f350a0bf2af0023b1d17f69c267f6414e446774e2d84"
  },
  {
    "step": 936,
    "title": "Audit the origin of the weighted coefficient",
    "question": "Does conservation of a selected shift independently explain the4:1 weighting?",
    "inputs": {
      "delta_C": -2,
      "delta_R": 8
    },
    "sources": [
      "C492–494;File52c §3.14"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:37:11.341602+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "bbaeab65bd3dc206c323f350a0bf2af0023b1d17f69c267f6414e446774e2d84",
    "results": {
      "coefficient": "4/5",
      "provenance": {
        "path": "model/weighted_coefficient_provenance.json",
        "sha256": "92d82acb42bcd7f7940cfeb31d8d1845f4461ea044ed0ca21f1e7526c2854daa",
        "bytes": 414
      }
    },
    "finding": "The4/5 weight is uniquely determined by the selected−2,+8 displacement. Finding a conserved weighted coordinate from two unequal shifts is automatic; agreement with the independently declared component construction is the substantive compatibility question.",
    "reassessment": "Express that compatibility as a minimal equation on duration totals and decimal evaluation.",
    "checks": {
      "weight": true,
      "conservation": true,
      "nonparallel": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:37:11.341885+00:00",
    "sha256": "0a41f5953ca7fac88aa241cc4f160cf62f4e776edac08664641e11330a0ac9ee"
  },
  {
    "step": 937,
    "title": "Reduce the junction to two compatibility equations",
    "question": "Which equations remain after placement and coefficient bookkeeping are removed?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C934–936"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:37:25.230891+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "0a41f5953ca7fac88aa241cc4f160cf62f4e776edac08664641e11330a0ac9ee",
    "results": {
      "reduced_constraints": {
        "path": "model/junction_reduced_constraints.json",
        "sha256": "c54a809385ab05bc7b681abdec7a2251e0b0b24e6392203096838a7fd56d560d",
        "bytes": 318
      },
      "u_v_weighted": [
        10620,
        10620,
        10620
      ]
    },
    "finding": "The selected junction is captured by two statements: the component evaluations agree, and that common duration equals(4C+R)/5. Absolute12026 is then placement;14726 is continuation. The next task is whether the digit-register structure already forces either statement.",
    "reassessment": "Derive aggregate-digit evaluation for the four original component spans.",
    "checks": {
      "two_equalities": true,
      "originals_only": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:37:25.231292+00:00",
    "sha256": "534a278feede5f111f365d99b38952ee1365d76ca092c621af1fb1b88a99b293"
  },
  {
    "step": 938,
    "title": "Derive the aggregate-digit measurement",
    "question": "How much component information determines the reversed total?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C933–937;declared decimal register"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:37:55.888444+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "534a278feede5f111f365d99b38952ee1365d76ca092c621af1fb1b88a99b293",
    "results": {
      "aggregates": {
        "regular": [
          2,
          6,
          10
        ],
        "cumulative": [
          12,
          5,
          10
        ]
      },
      "artifact": {
        "path": "model/junction_aggregate_digits.json",
        "sha256": "47b2822a45807d8dc2e74dee75eba52bf5fcdf3da83a0e05348f2fde6f27285f",
        "bytes": 482
      }
    },
    "finding": "For these four-digit durations with exactly one trailingzero, the whole component evaluation depends only on three digit-column sums. Individual component digits contain additional information about the internal breakpoint, but are unnecessary for the outer transformed total.",
    "reassessment": "Classify the aggregate possibilities for the regular2700 total before selecting a breakpoint.",
    "checks": {
      "source_totals": true,
      "evaluated_totals": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:37:55.888793+00:00",
    "sha256": "878e931853c663576d5ca732421d1bd23cd87002b558f143dd3b0bb5d5f87c73"
  },
  {
    "step": 939,
    "title": "Classify the regular total without choosing its split",
    "question": "What follows from2700 and two three-digit nonzero-ended cores alone?",
    "inputs": {
      "scaled_total": 270,
      "H_range": [
        2,
        18
      ],
      "T_range": [
        0,
        18
      ],
      "U_range": [
        2,
        18
      ]
    },
    "sources": [
      "C938 fixed register"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:38:09.482620+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "878e931853c663576d5ca732421d1bd23cd87002b558f143dd3b0bb5d5f87c73",
    "results": {
      "aggregate_solutions": [
        [
          2,
          6,
          10
        ]
      ],
      "theorem": {
        "path": "model/regular_total_register_theorem.json",
        "sha256": "f9d187f9c7b11dc28a628fe305a5255b2b8cceace0f6aefb9afbc0d0c91fba36",
        "bytes": 290
      }
    },
    "finding": "The regular total2700 forces aggregate digits(2,6,10) throughout the specified two-component register class, hence transformed total10620. The source Flood breakpoint is not needed to determine this outer total, although it still determines the internal path.",
    "reassessment": "Classify the cumulative12600 total on the same declared register class.",
    "checks": {
      "unique": true,
      "outer": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:38:09.483253+00:00",
    "sha256": "67392e7b933a5687aba6374b7921d0b9102f79d50774e64c7ef93e3edcba47c3"
  },
  {
    "step": 940,
    "title": "Classify the cumulative total without choosing its split",
    "question": "Does12600 force the same transformed total as2700?",
    "inputs": {
      "scaled_total": 1260
    },
    "sources": [
      "C938 fixed register"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:38:22.647394+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "67392e7b933a5687aba6374b7921d0b9102f79d50774e64c7ef93e3edcba47c3",
    "results": {
      "branches": [
        {
          "aggregate": [
            11,
            15,
            10
          ],
          "transformed": 11610
        },
        {
          "aggregate": [
            12,
            5,
            10
          ],
          "transformed": 10620
        }
      ],
      "artifact": {
        "path": "model/cumulative_total_register_theorem.json",
        "sha256": "42af6707e19f66e32dd460e5e47a6ecd99fe9de8cba5d43f2233581bb8c126f2",
        "bytes": 381
      }
    },
    "finding": "The same register class at cumulative total12600 has two possible aggregate branches, producing10620 or11610. Thus the regular result is forced by total and register; cumulative convergence still selects one decimal-carry branch.",
    "reassessment": "Identify the exact additional condition selected by the source cumulative breakpoint.",
    "checks": {
      "two": true,
      "gap": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:38:22.647963+00:00",
    "sha256": "57467b01558040540cf1031f163da9d8879f93755b72145d919f77f1d0b91cc9"
  },
  {
    "step": 941,
    "title": "Identify the cumulative carry condition",
    "question": "Which source feature chooses the convergent branch?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C938–940"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:38:57.864024+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "57467b01558040540cf1031f163da9d8879f93755b72145d919f77f1d0b91cc9",
    "results": {
      "source_carry": [
        1,
        0
      ],
      "condition": {
        "path": "model/cumulative_branch_condition.json",
        "sha256": "3f78df424cb42b90e957a9442344a88de8b55ec16066738f53b2274a6e0d4c70",
        "bytes": 308
      }
    },
    "finding": "At fixed total12600 and this register, convergence is equivalent to no tens-to-hundreds carry in the original two-core addition. The source917+343 has tens sum5 and selects that branch. Its exact breakpoint contains more information than the outer equality requires.",
    "reassessment": "Derive the exact990 displacement from the single carry exchange.",
    "checks": {
      "branch": true,
      "carry": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:38:57.864383+00:00",
    "sha256": "0ad08745f84361dcb1ff5acb3f543ac1904d1b618e6158a60658db668ce4a7e2"
  },
  {
    "step": 942,
    "title": "One carry exchange",
    "question": "Why do the two cumulative branches differ by 990?",
    "inputs": {
      "branches": [
        [
          11,
          15,
          10
        ],
        [
          12,
          5,
          10
        ]
      ]
    },
    "sources": [
      "C940",
      "C941"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:42:35.051400+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "0ad08745f84361dcb1ff5acb3f543ac1904d1b618e6158a60658db668ce4a7e2",
    "results": {
      "column_exchange": [
        1,
        -10,
        0
      ],
      "original_change": 0,
      "reversed_change": -990
    },
    "finding": "A hundreds increment and ten tens decrement preserves the original sum but moves its reversed measurement by −990.",
    "reassessment": "Test the full linear kernel to distinguish aggregate recovery from component recovery.",
    "checks": {
      "same_original": true,
      "branch_gap": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:42:35.051584+00:00",
    "sha256": "a264518bc82fc00891a204d9acd4cf1d93ad884b84261affff42a864403eb286"
  },
  {
    "step": 943,
    "title": "Aggregate projection kernel",
    "question": "What aggregate information can original and reversed totals determine?",
    "inputs": {
      "rows": [
        [
          100,
          10,
          1
        ],
        [
          1,
          10,
          100
        ]
      ]
    },
    "sources": [
      "C938",
      "C942"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:42:45.381897+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "a264518bc82fc00891a204d9acd4cf1d93ad884b84261affff42a864403eb286",
    "results": {
      "rank": 2,
      "primitive_integer_kernel": [
        10,
        -101,
        10
      ],
      "kernel_products": [
        0,
        0
      ],
      "nonzero_minor": 990
    },
    "finding": "The two measurements have rank two over rational aggregate coordinates, with kernel (10, −101, 10).",
    "reassessment": "Apply the finite digit bounds before concluding that a free aggregate parameter remains.",
    "checks": {
      "annihilation": true,
      "rank_two": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:42:45.382664+00:00",
    "sha256": "b7d12ea7f3d307a5f32686493207ee1d0aa6e7ce3900bed358c963f710abe77d"
  },
  {
    "step": 944,
    "title": "Bounded aggregate identifiability",
    "question": "Can distinct admissible integer aggregates have both measurements equal?",
    "inputs": {
      "digit_bounds": {
        "H": [
          2,
          18
        ],
        "T": [
          0,
          18
        ],
        "U": [
          2,
          18
        ]
      },
      "kernel": [
        10,
        -101,
        10
      ]
    },
    "sources": [
      "C939",
      "C940",
      "C943"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:42:54.396310+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "b7d12ea7f3d307a5f32686493207ee1d0aa6e7ce3900bed358c963f710abe77d",
    "results": {
      "largest_allowed_tens_difference": 18,
      "smallest_nonzero_kernel_tens_difference": 101,
      "aggregate_unique_given_both_totals": true
    },
    "finding": "Within this register, the finite digit box eliminates every nonzero integer kernel move: both totals uniquely identify the aggregate columns.",
    "reassessment": "Determine which individual component details the aggregate still loses.",
    "checks": {
      "kernel_excluded": true,
      "primitive_kernel": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:42:54.396566+00:00",
    "sha256": "41e0234de2c176374e8975c00d2d72b5e93761d57c45b256f5eec6a884ae0161"
  },
  {
    "step": 945,
    "title": "Component allocation remains hidden",
    "question": "Do the recovered aggregate columns identify the source-appointed split?",
    "inputs": {
      "source": [
        1650,
        1050
      ],
      "diagnostic_only": [
        1550,
        1150
      ]
    },
    "sources": [
      "C933",
      "C944"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:43:03.953660+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "41e0234de2c176374e8975c00d2d72b5e93761d57c45b256f5eec6a884ae0161",
    "results": {
      "source": {
        "original": 2700,
        "reverse": 10620,
        "split": [
          1650,
          1050
        ]
      },
      "diagnostic_only": {
        "original": 2700,
        "reverse": 10620,
        "split": [
          1550,
          1150
        ]
      }
    },
    "finding": "Different component allocations give the same two measurements. Aggregate identifiability does not recover the Flood breakpoint or establish an alternative chronology.",
    "reassessment": "Parameterize this information loss without presenting diagnostic splits as source variants.",
    "checks": {
      "same_original": true,
      "same_reverse": true,
      "different_split": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:43:03.953836+00:00",
    "sha256": "02f9d4311fd214412dfb5f2aeabca2f88e3cf473bd0cc904d2278d52f52add0f"
  },
  {
    "step": 946,
    "title": "Regular allocation formula",
    "question": "Which two-core allocations preserve the forced regular aggregate?",
    "inputs": {
      "H": 2,
      "T": 6,
      "U": 10
    },
    "sources": [
      "C939",
      "C945"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:43:14.703926+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "02f9d4311fd214412dfb5f2aeabca2f88e3cf473bd0cc904d2278d52f52add0f",
    "results": {
      "first_core": "100 + 10t + u",
      "second_core": "100 + 10(6−t) + (10−u)",
      "bounds": "0≤t≤6; 1≤u≤9; integers",
      "status": "algebraic diagnostic, not chronology admission"
    },
    "finding": "The aggregate fixes both hundreds digits and the sums of tens and units, while allowing internal digit allocation. The source-appointed boundary supplies information absent from the two totals.",
    "reassessment": "Check whether weighted conservation alone forces the same cumulative branch.",
    "checks": {
      "entire_parameterization_valid": true,
      "source_recovered": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:43:14.704347+00:00",
    "sha256": "ec809a4c419f2a83b6888cda86cd49986fbde7085eda640d059057703688bf38"
  },
  {
    "step": 947,
    "title": "A diagnostic against tautology",
    "question": "Does keeping the original totals and 4:1 weight ensure inverse convergence?",
    "inputs": {
      "source_cumulative": [
        9170,
        3430
      ],
      "diagnostic_only": [
        9970,
        2630
      ],
      "regular_total": 2700,
      "anchor": 1406
    },
    "sources": [
      "C936",
      "C940",
      "C946"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:43:25.817601+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "ec809a4c419f2a83b6888cda86cd49986fbde7085eda640d059057703688bf38",
    "results": {
      "weighted_radius": 10620,
      "source_reverse": 10620,
      "diagnostic_reverse": 11610,
      "diagnostic_reverse_anchor": 13016,
      "status": "unadmitted arithmetic control"
    },
    "finding": "Fixed original totals retain the weighted radius but permit a different inverse branch. The convergence therefore uses an additional register-and-carry condition.",
    "reassessment": "Derive the weight from the actual aggregate gains and compare its status with the state-shift derivation.",
    "checks": {
      "totals_held": true,
      "weight_held": true,
      "inverse_differs": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:43:25.817779+00:00",
    "sha256": "6a880b1af614e0927c57da6c4151f60aca01a3e4ad683b8643f5c6ecfba64d3e"
  },
  {
    "step": 948,
    "title": "Weight as a consequence of gains",
    "question": "How does the 4:1 coefficient relate to the two aggregate reversal gains?",
    "inputs": {
      "regular_total": 2700,
      "cumulative_total": 12600,
      "common_reverse": 10620,
      "state_shifts": [
        -2,
        8
      ]
    },
    "sources": [
      "C935",
      "C936",
      "C937",
      "C947"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:43:37.221584+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "6a880b1af614e0927c57da6c4151f60aca01a3e4ad683b8643f5c6ecfba64d3e",
    "results": {
      "regular_gain": 7920,
      "cumulative_loss": 1980,
      "gain_to_loss": 4,
      "cumulative_weight_from_gains": "4/5",
      "from_state_shifts": "4/5"
    },
    "finding": "The convergent inverse radius implies the same 4:1 weight that preserves the selected Actual–Rounded shifts. Their equality is a compatibility statement; neither derivation licenses counting the weight again as a fresh independent observation.",
    "reassessment": "Write a reduced premise ledger before moving into the new whole-family test.",
    "checks": {
      "gains": true,
      "ratio": true,
      "weights_agree": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:43:37.221777+00:00",
    "sha256": "e4cb3315460d885d67899fc006da2056cfbf47fac866a71a1bebf2ea12fd9ab0"
  },
  {
    "step": 949,
    "title": "Junction premise ledger",
    "question": "What must be retained to explain the junction with fewer independent claims?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C932",
      "C939",
      "C941",
      "C944",
      "C945",
      "C948"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:43:50.898235+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "e4cb3315460d885d67899fc006da2056cfbf47fac866a71a1bebf2ea12fd9ab0",
    "results": {
      "ledger": {
        "path": "model/junction_premise_ledger.json",
        "sha256": "090dcf9d8d2bcbc94b7825775fd32901dc5c457eee61fa5d923b2fef1b68ce8a",
        "bytes": 729
      },
      "retained_categories": 5,
      "derived_claims": 5
    },
    "finding": "The explanation can be compressed into totals, register, selected carry branch, state shifts, and placement; exact source partitions remain necessary for interpretation.",
    "reassessment": "Check that this compression retains all original junction outputs without reintroducing them as premises.",
    "checks": {
      "no_causal_claim": true,
      "input_categories_corrected": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:43:50.898547+00:00",
    "sha256": "aa06dea6fa2d45fd8951011a046e156d11dbe4f6c9d7f2353bb1600c86f13956"
  },
  {
    "step": 950,
    "title": "Regenerate junction consequences",
    "question": "Does the reduced basis recover both endpoints and conservation?",
    "inputs": {
      "R": 2700,
      "C": 12600,
      "aggregate": [
        12,
        5,
        10
      ],
      "anchor": 1406,
      "actual_delta_R": 8,
      "actual_delta_C": -2
    },
    "sources": [
      "C949"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:44:05.153250+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "aa06dea6fa2d45fd8951011a046e156d11dbe4f6c9d7f2353bb1600c86f13956",
    "results": {
      "outputs": {
        "path": "model/junction_regenerated.json",
        "sha256": "47bbd6815ab11761616f16aaec0315dc44f9eb75539f9f475fba79a74f62b8a8",
        "bytes": 166
      },
      "first": 12026,
      "continued": 14726,
      "conserved_actual": 12026
    },
    "finding": "All retained junction outputs regenerate from the reduced premises. The continued14726 endpoint adds no separate degree of constraint once12026 and2700 are fixed.",
    "reassessment": "Checkpoint this completed explanatory block, then prioritize the source-derived SP cap family.",
    "checks": {
      "first": true,
      "continued": true,
      "radius_agreement": true,
      "state_conservation": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:44:05.153565+00:00",
    "sha256": "ec92ee57fb46ce032c2000babe35dcc0e05b213dca4d55bf5e7a4595543e4a8d"
  },
  {
    "step": 951,
    "title": "First reassessment checkpoint",
    "question": "Which work now best advances the family-level explanation?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C932–C950",
      "File18 §3.1.3"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:44:22.042783+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "ec92ee57fb46ce032c2000babe35dcc0e05b213dca4d55bf5e7a4595543e4a8d",
    "results": {
      "checkpoint": {
        "path": "model/checkpoint_951.json",
        "sha256": "7151a81a37e5ebfc0a444a62303d21b32394313ced7406e0b287e657f2987e08",
        "bytes": 545
      },
      "numbered_actions_so_far": 20
    },
    "finding": "The junction now has a smaller explanatory basis. The best next move is a different whole-source family that can test rule transfer and recoverability.",
    "reassessment": "Freeze the nine SP birth rows and the lifespan-cap prediction before inspecting its rowwise residuals.",
    "checks": {
      "twenty_actions": true,
      "no_target_hunt": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:44:22.043049+00:00",
    "sha256": "86934545f73573fc1412e9ca334fd0140dfa6ae47ea6d6f80005118aaf4d5046"
  },
  {
    "step": 952,
    "title": "Correct continuation provenance",
    "question": "Which original source duration actually licenses the continuation to14726?",
    "inputs": {
      "Conquest": 1406,
      "Nativity": 6,
      "primary_inverse_anchor": 12026
    },
    "sources": [
      "File52c §primary and continued inverse",
      "C933",
      "C949",
      "C950",
      "independent review by inverse_family"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:44:55.871600+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "86934545f73573fc1412e9ca334fd0140dfa6ae47ea6d6f80005118aaf4d5046",
    "results": {
      "correction": {
        "path": "model/junction_continuation_correction.json",
        "sha256": "b745187dcd146e779fc16b5cb7cf7b1d16a14832cb28db546fb566e4934af9ce",
        "bytes": 405
      },
      "continued_anchor": 14726
    },
    "finding": "Independent review caught a role substitution:14726 follows from reversing the original1400 tail, whose gain is2700. The corrected reduced basis retains the Nativity anchor and transition rule.",
    "reassessment": "Proceed to the SP cap family with this corrected premise ledger carried into every synthesis.",
    "checks": {
      "original_tail": true,
      "displacement": true,
      "continued": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:44:55.871871+00:00",
    "sha256": "5f366b8672367fb2c64d67e6234ef0b1230fdfbee17424f6de6834fd546c5eae"
  }
]