[
  {
    "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"
  },
  {
    "step": 953,
    "title": "Freeze SP cap inputs",
    "question": "Can the cap prediction be isolated from the SP lifespan answers?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "File18 §§2.1.3,3.1,3.1.3"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:46:11.139567+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "5f366b8672367fb2c64d67e6234ef0b1230fdfbee17424f6de6834fd546c5eae",
    "results": {
      "prediction_packet": {
        "path": "model/sp_cap_inputs.json",
        "sha256": "553487c0680d71a577b3242d192ecf33a693607e4cc9ed944e5693ad9da0b2b4",
        "bytes": 648
      }
    },
    "finding": "The forward packet contains begetting intervals, one placement, the Noah–Flood relation, baseline lives and the cap rule; SP output lives are absent.",
    "reassessment": "Generate every ancestral birth before evaluating any lifespan cap.",
    "checks": {
      "no_output_lives": true,
      "source_pin": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:46:11.140515+00:00",
    "sha256": "df6931e050af412ca214822e471ee4a66c690a3ef7d43271fffa960aa563077d"
  },
  {
    "step": 954,
    "title": "Regular chain supplies cap positions",
    "question": "Do suffix begetting sums regenerate all nine source births?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C953",
      "File18 §3.1"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:46:13.138227+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "df6931e050af412ca214822e471ee4a66c690a3ef7d43271fffa960aa563077d",
    "results": {
      "regular_field": {
        "path": "model/sp_birth_regeneration.json",
        "sha256": "e94a69b7f26a84a79ccd189fa247515916c79dfe6416366b4e5be1fdee9680f5",
        "bytes": 211
      },
      "births": [
        4199,
        4069,
        3964,
        3874,
        3804,
        3739,
        3677,
        3612,
        3545
      ]
    },
    "finding": "The regular begetting chain regenerates every cap position without lifespan inputs. Lamech uses52 completed years at the53rd counted-year station.",
    "reassessment": "Remove absolute placement to identify the capacity field’s actual inputs.",
    "checks": {
      "all_nine_births": true,
      "last_edge_completed": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:46:13.138594+00:00",
    "sha256": "cef527b9a9cc97ff2300468214f997f32568bc68956189a28be381542d0ceb51"
  },
  {
    "step": 955,
    "title": "Placement-free capacities",
    "question": "Which part of the cap depends on absolute BC placement?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C953",
      "C954",
      "File18 §3.1.3"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:46:15.120243+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "cef527b9a9cc97ff2300468214f997f32568bc68956189a28be381542d0ceb51",
    "results": {
      "capacity_field": {
        "path": "model/sp_capacity_field.json",
        "sha256": "1b8d05e2b2294701048138619a5a6b2bcb83538f833876c27414714e1d902c7f",
        "bytes": 144
      },
      "capacities": [
        1307,
        1177,
        1072,
        982,
        912,
        847,
        785,
        720,
        653
      ]
    },
    "finding": "All capacities are suffix sums plus601. Absolute BC placement cancels; the600 interval and inclusive adjustment remain premises.",
    "reassessment": "Apply the same minimum rule across all nine rows.",
    "checks": {
      "all_capacities": true,
      "placement_cancels": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:46:15.120608+00:00",
    "sha256": "981eb22ea8c59a52cde1e041250bc1741bfa6fd1490884be4be0a73ac4f608ff"
  },
  {
    "step": 956,
    "title": "Whole-family cap prediction",
    "question": "Does one rule reproduce every SP pre-Noah lifespan?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C953",
      "C955",
      "File18 §3.1.3"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:46:44.306622+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "981eb22ea8c59a52cde1e041250bc1741bfa6fd1490884be4be0a73ac4f608ff",
    "results": {
      "predicted_field": {
        "path": "model/sp_cap_prediction.json",
        "sha256": "b1da06e5bc6a867c65b69f9c5bbca6890ee82fff1aa3ae7c19e5b140d08e8b19",
        "bytes": 354
      },
      "lifespans": [
        930,
        912,
        905,
        910,
        895,
        847,
        365,
        720,
        653
      ],
      "clipped_names": [
        "Jared",
        "Methuselah",
        "Lamech"
      ]
    },
    "finding": "The source-qualified minimum reproduces all nine SP lives; only Jared, Methuselah and Lamech are shortened. This is a conditional reconstruction, not a historical direction claim.",
    "reassessment": "Inspect slack and reduction across unchanged as well as changed rows.",
    "checks": {
      "all_rows": true,
      "active_support": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:46:44.306983+00:00",
    "sha256": "206eacad208f80343be9d79855e7e3a7c9286d277af5ccb10c6cb35699427bf2"
  },
  {
    "step": 957,
    "title": "Slack and reduction field",
    "question": "What distinguishes strict clipping from remaining below the capacity?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C953",
      "C955",
      "C956"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:46:46.269766+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "206eacad208f80343be9d79855e7e3a7c9286d277af5ccb10c6cb35699427bf2",
    "results": {
      "field": {
        "path": "model/sp_cap_slack.json",
        "sha256": "57876486c0201cea008f670ad72e3d50c4cd877d40ba39b1cf38188095e06bc7",
        "bytes": 183
      },
      "slack": [
        377,
        265,
        167,
        72,
        17,
        0,
        420,
        0,
        0
      ],
      "reductions": [
        0,
        0,
        0,
        0,
        0,
        115,
        0,
        249,
        124
      ],
      "total_reduction": 488
    },
    "finding": "Six lives remain below capacity, with Mahalalel the nearest unchanged row at17. Three positive reductions account for the entire488 pre-Noah difference.",
    "reassessment": "Establish whether the minimum rule has a precise extremal meaning.",
    "checks": {
      "slack": true,
      "reductions": true,
      "nonnegative": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:46:46.270270+00:00",
    "sha256": "b36ddb49c58cb7c7971746db5f4ebb9f135409452f832d6c2949651463e1ad3b"
  },
  {
    "step": 958,
    "title": "Greatest feasible lifespan field",
    "question": "Why does the minimum represent shortening only as required?",
    "inputs": {
      "constraints": [
        "x_i≤baseline_i",
        "x_i≤capacity_i"
      ],
      "objective": "maximize sum(x_i)"
    },
    "sources": [
      "C956",
      "C957"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:46:48.269850+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "b36ddb49c58cb7c7971746db5f4ebb9f135409452f832d6c2949651463e1ad3b",
    "results": {
      "coordinate_bound": "Every feasible x_i is at most min(L_i,C_i).",
      "feasibility": "The coordinatewise minimum satisfies both upper bounds.",
      "uniqueness": "If any coordinate is smaller, the sum is smaller because no other coordinate can exceed its bound.",
      "qualification": "Conditional on the two upper bounds and fixed row meanings."
    },
    "finding": "The cap is the unique coordinatewise greatest feasible vector and uniquely minimizes total reduction. This states the model’s mechanism without inventing an optimization history.",
    "reassessment": "Recover death labels with each branch’s own counting convention.",
    "checks": {
      "upper_bound_logic": true,
      "no_increase": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:46:48.270093+00:00",
    "sha256": "8d9ff13e69ac57e12fe216c71f7c1cdb31fab566310d7957925835a63d4d7329"
  },
  {
    "step": 959,
    "title": "Count tags recover the deaths",
    "question": "Does the complete output retain Flood-start versus ordinary death meanings?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C954",
      "C956",
      "File18 §3.1.3"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:47:12.104132+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "8d9ff13e69ac57e12fe216c71f7c1cdb31fab566310d7957925835a63d4d7329",
    "results": {
      "deaths": [
        3269,
        3157,
        3059,
        2964,
        2909,
        2893,
        3312,
        2893,
        2893
      ],
      "close_based_capacity_equivalence": [
        true,
        true,
        true
      ]
    },
    "finding": "The six ordinary deaths and three Flood-start deaths regenerate correctly. The equivalent subtraction to Flood close computes capacity, not a second death location.",
    "reassessment": "Read the three cap equations backward to identify their shared boundary.",
    "checks": {
      "all_deaths": true,
      "start_not_close": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:47:12.104434+00:00",
    "sha256": "22a35e401cec11f3fd225cf3f41c4c47461425d648c637f6501509a61805ecb3"
  },
  {
    "step": 960,
    "title": "Shared boundary recovered",
    "question": "What does each capped life determine when its birth is held?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C954",
      "C956",
      "C959"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:47:14.065251+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "22a35e401cec11f3fd225cf3f41c4c47461425d648c637f6501509a61805ecb3",
    "results": {
      "recovered_Flood_starts": [
        2893,
        2893,
        2893
      ]
    },
    "finding": "Each of the three clipped rows identifies the same boundary2893. After that boundary is supplied, these are inverse consistency equations rather than three additional predictions.",
    "reassessment": "Separate one parameter identification from the remaining synchronization constraints.",
    "checks": {
      "common_boundary": true,
      "absolute_birth_required": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:47:14.065525+00:00",
    "sha256": "266bb2852d49074a4c29b70395369460bb003de7afa6936d80d57d3d88ea576b"
  },
  {
    "step": 961,
    "title": "Nonredundant synchronization",
    "question": "How many extra constraints join the three caps to one parameter?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C954",
      "C956",
      "C960"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:47:16.038529+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "266bb2852d49074a4c29b70395369460bb003de7afa6936d80d57d3d88ea576b",
    "results": {
      "k_from_each": [
        601,
        601,
        601
      ],
      "pairwise_residuals": [
        0,
        0,
        0
      ],
      "independent_synchronization_equations": 2
    },
    "finding": "One cap fixes k; two further equations synchronize the remaining caps. The third pairwise comparison is their sum.",
    "reassessment": "Determine how much weaker clipped-row support alone would be.",
    "checks": {
      "common_k": true,
      "dependent_third": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:47:16.038776+00:00",
    "sha256": "659013cef1eeb9344f8f0afff07327a70bc198cd84a5dfb2fbbbd80bcde93671"
  },
  {
    "step": 962,
    "title": "Clipped support does not fix the cap",
    "question": "What interval of k preserves exactly the source clipped identities?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C953",
      "C954",
      "C956"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:47:47.269000+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "659013cef1eeb9344f8f0afff07327a70bc198cd84a5dfb2fbbbd80bcde93671",
    "results": {
      "row_thresholds": [
        224,
        336,
        434,
        529,
        584,
        716,
        181,
        850,
        725
      ],
      "support_interval": {
        "lower_inclusive": 584,
        "upper_exclusive": 716
      }
    },
    "finding": "Knowing only which three rows are strictly clipped allows584≤k<716. Exact source lives, not support alone, select601. This interval is a sensitivity result, not a statistical search.",
    "reassessment": "Test what the aggregate lifespan sum can identify within that support interval.",
    "checks": {
      "bounds": true,
      "source_inside": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:47:47.269301+00:00",
    "sha256": "890c869fc42ed5a38d37fb4946802db7f318ccd243dd3b3f64ae9390eed44aec"
  },
  {
    "step": 963,
    "title": "Aggregate cap identification",
    "question": "Can the complete lifespan sum identify k after support is fixed?",
    "inputs": {
      "source_total": 7137,
      "active": [
        5,
        7,
        8
      ]
    },
    "sources": [
      "C953",
      "C954",
      "C962"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:47:49.292737+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "890c869fc42ed5a38d37fb4946802db7f318ccd243dd3b3f64ae9390eed44aec",
    "results": {
      "sum_equation": "total = 5334 + 3k",
      "intercept": 5334,
      "recovered_k": 601
    },
    "finding": "Within the fixed support region, the sum7137 identifies601. It is an alternative coordinate for the same data, retaining support and order assumptions.",
    "reassessment": "Recover the changed begetting inputs from the individual cap equations.",
    "checks": {
      "intercept": true,
      "k": true,
      "support_valid": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:47:49.293122+00:00",
    "sha256": "edc906fe880f6d55bfe19b73556dbd967e635409f1c642e40e45512690f8acfc"
  },
  {
    "step": 964,
    "title": "Late begetting constraint rank",
    "question": "What do the three capped lives determine about four late begetting intervals?",
    "inputs": {
      "matrix": [
        [
          1,
          1,
          1,
          1
        ],
        [
          0,
          0,
          1,
          1
        ],
        [
          0,
          0,
          0,
          1
        ]
      ],
      "rhs": [
        246,
        119,
        52
      ]
    },
    "sources": [
      "C961",
      "File18 §3.1"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:47:51.282317+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "edc906fe880f6d55bfe19b73556dbd967e635409f1c642e40e45512690f8acfc",
    "results": {
      "rank": 3,
      "kernel": [
        1,
        -1,
        0,
        0
      ],
      "recoverable": {
        "Lamech_completed": 52,
        "Methuselah": 67,
        "Jared_plus_Enoch": 127
      }
    },
    "finding": "The cap equations recover Lamech52, Methuselah67, and Jared+Enoch127; they do not separate Jared from Enoch.",
    "reassessment": "Add the independently retained Enoch65 row and test the complete late reconstruction.",
    "checks": {
      "kernel": true,
      "rank_three": true,
      "recovered": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:47:51.282519+00:00",
    "sha256": "e0fefcf74ffb218e7dac9b3ae1c816bf6c7b3a534f297da3fc5d97eba4206073"
  },
  {
    "step": 965,
    "title": "Independent Enoch row closes the system",
    "question": "Does the retained65 recover all three distinctive SP begetting inputs?",
    "inputs": {
      "Enoch": 65,
      "cap_lives": [
        847,
        720,
        653
      ],
      "k": 601
    },
    "sources": [
      "C964",
      "File18 §3.1"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:48:18.549929+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "e0fefcf74ffb218e7dac9b3ae1c816bf6c7b3a534f297da3fc5d97eba4206073",
    "results": {
      "Jared": 62,
      "Methuselah": 67,
      "Lamech_completed": 52,
      "Lamech_counted_year": 53
    },
    "finding": "Holding Enoch65 closes the one-dimensional ambiguity and recovers Jared62, Methuselah67, and Lamech52 completed years—the source53rd counted year.",
    "reassessment": "Exhibit the remaining ambiguity when that held row is removed.",
    "checks": {
      "complete_late_match": true,
      "source_row_distinct": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:48:18.550255+00:00",
    "sha256": "77fcfb516f9c965eefa5eb08e44afbdb525efbacf7005696d642f86fd9d76cbe"
  },
  {
    "step": 966,
    "title": "Kernel diagnostic preserves the caps",
    "question": "Can an internal birth change while all nine capped lives remain fixed?",
    "inputs": {
      "diagnostic_only": {
        "Jared_change": 1,
        "Enoch_change": -1
      }
    },
    "sources": [
      "C964",
      "C965"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:48:20.530053+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "77fcfb516f9c965eefa5eb08e44afbdb525efbacf7005696d642f86fd9d76cbe",
    "results": {
      "suffix_changes": [
        0,
        0,
        0,
        0,
        0,
        0,
        -1,
        0,
        0
      ],
      "all_outputs_preserved": true,
      "status": "unadmitted identifiability diagnostic"
    },
    "finding": "A +1/−1 exchange in Jared/Enoch preserves all nine cap outputs while shifting Enoch’s birth. The cap does not reconstruct every internal source position.",
    "reassessment": "Identify the earlier ages outside the late cap support.",
    "checks": {
      "one_birth_changes": true,
      "outputs_preserved": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:48:20.530552+00:00",
    "sha256": "630522da8553c7988250ad278d0b6b17a10cdc83628399d31e78e67aa6734589"
  },
  {
    "step": 967,
    "title": "Unconstrained upper genealogy",
    "question": "Do the three late cap equations constrain the first five begetting ages?",
    "inputs": {
      "active_indices": [
        5,
        7,
        8
      ]
    },
    "sources": [
      "C964",
      "C966"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:48:22.483803+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "630522da8553c7988250ad278d0b6b17a10cdc83628399d31e78e67aa6734589",
    "results": {
      "late_capacity_incidence": [
        [
          0,
          0,
          0,
          0,
          0,
          1,
          1,
          1,
          1
        ],
        [
          0,
          0,
          0,
          0,
          0,
          0,
          0,
          1,
          1
        ],
        [
          0,
          0,
          0,
          0,
          0,
          0,
          0,
          0,
          1
        ]
      ],
      "upper_five_columns_zero": [
        true,
        true,
        true,
        true,
        true
      ]
    },
    "finding": "The late cap equations contain none of the first five begetting ages. The rule explains a local coupling; it does not derive the whole genealogy.",
    "reassessment": "Determine how much of the original lifespan ledger survives clipping.",
    "checks": {
      "all_upper_unconstrained": true,
      "late_entries_retained": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:48:22.483998+00:00",
    "sha256": "495a718d90aeb43e10ef6c683ce4d49e3bed76970b2edf4ea854ea02dcba62a4"
  },
  {
    "step": 968,
    "title": "The inverse image of a capped life",
    "question": "What does a capped output reveal about its input lifespan?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C955",
      "C956"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:49:07.314488+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "495a718d90aeb43e10ef6c683ce4d49e3bed76970b2edf4ea854ea02dcba62a4",
    "results": {
      "inverse_conditions": [
        {
          "row": 0,
          "output": 930,
          "input_condition": "equals 930"
        },
        {
          "row": 1,
          "output": 912,
          "input_condition": "equals 912"
        },
        {
          "row": 2,
          "output": 905,
          "input_condition": "equals 905"
        },
        {
          "row": 3,
          "output": 910,
          "input_condition": "equals 910"
        },
        {
          "row": 4,
          "output": 895,
          "input_condition": "equals 895"
        },
        {
          "row": 5,
          "output": 847,
          "input_condition": "at least 847"
        },
        {
          "row": 6,
          "output": 365,
          "input_condition": "equals 365"
        },
        {
          "row": 7,
          "output": 720,
          "input_condition": "at least 720"
        },
        {
          "row": 8,
          "output": 653,
          "input_condition": "at least 653"
        }
      ],
      "exactly_recovered_rows": [
        0,
        1,
        2,
        3,
        4,
        6
      ]
    },
    "finding": "Six uncapped inputs are recoverable exactly; each clipped input is only bounded below. Clipping loses the original excess.",
    "reassessment": "Test whether even a supplied ancestral multiset restores the three lost row placements.",
    "checks": {
      "six_exact": true,
      "three_bounds": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:49:07.314754+00:00",
    "sha256": "bdd39456ef8857a2fc4fdb24e478bf4bbfa088762bcd8e93f8346ae41d785ca6"
  },
  {
    "step": 969,
    "title": "Ancestral multiset is insufficient",
    "question": "Does holding the three ancestral lifespans as a multiset recover their assignment?",
    "inputs": {
      "multiset": [
        962,
        969,
        777
      ],
      "capacities": [
        847,
        720,
        653
      ]
    },
    "sources": [
      "C968"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:49:09.359195+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "bdd39456ef8857a2fc4fdb24e478bf4bbfa088762bcd8e93f8346ae41d785ca6",
    "results": {
      "compatible_assignments": [
        [
          962,
          969,
          777
        ],
        [
          962,
          777,
          969
        ],
        [
          969,
          962,
          777
        ],
        [
          969,
          777,
          962
        ]
      ],
      "status": "finite non-admitted ambiguity diagnostic, not target tally"
    },
    "finding": "Even the known ancestral multiset does not restore row placement: four assignments give the same clipped outputs. Source row identities remain necessary.",
    "reassessment": "Check the main LXX baseline without changing any SP capacity.",
    "checks": {
      "nonunique": true,
      "source_included": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:49:09.359433+00:00",
    "sha256": "a8a1d046fedfde9545b17ab79217483bc1c08310a28a686f01e1cc43699bc637"
  },
  {
    "step": 970,
    "title": "Two baselines share one projection",
    "question": "Does the main LXX lifespan ledger lead to the same capped SP field?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C953",
      "C955",
      "C956",
      "File18 §4 mainLXX182/753"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:49:11.374822+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "a8a1d046fedfde9545b17ab79217483bc1c08310a28a686f01e1cc43699bc637",
    "results": {
      "main_LXX_output": [
        930,
        912,
        905,
        910,
        895,
        847,
        365,
        720,
        653
      ],
      "MT_reduction": 488,
      "main_LXX_reduction": 464,
      "erased_baseline_difference": 24
    },
    "finding": "The main LXX baseline also projects to the same SP lives. The cap erases the777/753 difference, so this mechanism cannot identify MT versus LXX historical priority.",
    "reassessment": "Express the forward and inverse descriptions as alternative coordinate choices.",
    "checks": {
      "same_output": true,
      "reductions": true,
      "main_value": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:49:11.375174+00:00",
    "sha256": "a9fed537768bf29d2baab8122449c7ab0c019035f519be095c381f766388c3db"
  },
  {
    "step": 971,
    "title": "Bidirectional cap equation packet",
    "question": "How much independent information do forward and inverse reconstructions require?",
    "inputs": {
      "variables": [
        "bJ",
        "bE",
        "bM",
        "bL",
        "lifeJ",
        "lifeM",
        "lifeL",
        "k"
      ]
    },
    "sources": [
      "C964",
      "C965",
      "C970"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:49:35.209792+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "a9fed537768bf29d2baab8122449c7ab0c019035f519be095c381f766388c3db",
    "results": {
      "equations": [
        [
          1,
          1,
          1,
          1,
          -1,
          0,
          0,
          1
        ],
        [
          0,
          0,
          1,
          1,
          0,
          -1,
          0,
          1
        ],
        [
          0,
          0,
          0,
          1,
          0,
          0,
          -1,
          1
        ]
      ],
      "rank": 3,
      "unconstrained_dimension": 5,
      "after_k_and_Enoch_held": 3
    },
    "finding": "The late-row relation has three independent equations on eight variables. Holding k and Enoch leaves equivalent three-number choices: the changed begettings or the capped lives. This is bidirectional constraint, not double evidence.",
    "reassessment": "Propagate the cap-derived reductions into the cumulative field.",
    "checks": {
      "unique_life_columns": true,
      "dimension": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:49:35.210019+00:00",
    "sha256": "18f9402a8cb0d54db1c43591f00741da5a12074576156ff93e4888f59c086fb2"
  },
  {
    "step": 972,
    "title": "Cap-derived cumulative displacement",
    "question": "What is the complete cumulative response to the three clipped rows?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C957",
      "C971",
      "File09 cumulative suffix convention"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:49:37.159077+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "18f9402a8cb0d54db1c43591f00741da5a12074576156ff93e4888f59c086fb2",
    "results": {
      "field": {
        "path": "model/sp_cap_cumulative_response.json",
        "sha256": "79ef4d50250737221b47c885812e8827d34b8e7fb8fba4f0984087b47430d238",
        "bytes": 248
      },
      "suffix_displacements": [
        -488,
        -488,
        -488,
        -488,
        -488,
        -488,
        -373,
        -373,
        -124
      ]
    },
    "finding": "The cap rule generates the complete cumulative displacement field, rather than merely accepting three lifespan differences. Its total−488 is an inherited arithmetic consequence now connected to a local mechanism.",
    "reassessment": "Join the two established post-Flood changes while keeping their source origins distinct.",
    "checks": {
      "complete_field": true,
      "adjacent_recovery": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:49:37.159748+00:00",
    "sha256": "96535e14a672d53b37a9a871b3e453e1f862b904567f84750854231e06186572"
  },
  {
    "step": 973,
    "title": "Separate cap and post-Flood contributions",
    "question": "How much of the known SP–MT total difference does the cap explain?",
    "inputs": {
      "cap": -488,
      "Eber": -60,
      "official_Terah145_vs205": -60
    },
    "sources": [
      "C972",
      "C733–C788"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:49:39.095787+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "96535e14a672d53b37a9a871b3e453e1f862b904567f84750854231e06186572",
    "results": {
      "contribution_ledger": {
        "cap": -488,
        "Eber": -60,
        "official_Terah145_vs205": -60
      },
      "total": -608,
      "status": "dependent synthesis of previously established total"
    },
    "finding": "The cap supplies−488 of the established−608 cumulative difference; Eber and official Terah supply the remaining−120. These are distinct source mechanisms.",
    "reassessment": "Derive how regular-row changes could pass through the cap into cumulative coordinates.",
    "checks": {
      "total": true,
      "official_Terah_retained": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:49:39.096003+00:00",
    "sha256": "f1007bab8336145b4b9a374bc601699d6de15080e5ce25016a6abd3cf32284a5"
  },
  {
    "step": 974,
    "title": "Local regular-to-cumulative response",
    "question": "What map transmits a begetting change through fixed active caps?",
    "inputs": {
      "active_indices": [
        5,
        7,
        8
      ],
      "condition": "fixed Noah/Flood relation, baseline lives and active support"
    },
    "sources": [
      "C954",
      "C956",
      "C972"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:50:09.862441+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "f1007bab8336145b4b9a374bc601699d6de15080e5ce25016a6abd3cf32284a5",
    "results": {
      "matrices": {
        "path": "model/sp_cap_response_matrices.json",
        "sha256": "46a93aa1039bf6f918fa8511df197bc50256963e14539212d68c1522c2d3f709",
        "bytes": 2641
      },
      "last_begetting_response_regular": [
        1,
        1,
        1,
        1,
        1,
        1,
        1,
        1,
        1
      ],
      "last_begetting_response_cumulative": [
        3,
        3,
        3,
        3,
        3,
        3,
        2,
        2,
        1
      ]
    },
    "finding": "Within one active region, the maps are U, A·U, and U·A·U. A regular-row change can alter three capped lives and hence several cumulative coordinates; this is a sensitivity model, not an admitted variant.",
    "reassessment": "Test the local formula against a controlled one-unit perturbation.",
    "checks": {
      "upper_rows_accumulate_three": true,
      "last_row_one": true,
      "masked_unchanged_rows": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:50:09.863113+00:00",
    "sha256": "75189292abe14af86c0d373f69e84299bf326a8bf60139818d74e809a03d0482"
  },
  {
    "step": 975,
    "title": "Check the piecewise-linear response",
    "question": "Does one controlled perturbation agree with the derived response matrix?",
    "inputs": {
      "diagnostic_only": "increase completed Lamech edge by1; retain active-region assumptions"
    },
    "sources": [
      "C974"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:50:11.806475+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "75189292abe14af86c0d373f69e84299bf326a8bf60139818d74e809a03d0482",
    "results": {
      "lifespan_changes": [
        0,
        0,
        0,
        0,
        0,
        1,
        0,
        1,
        1
      ],
      "cumulative_changes": [
        3,
        3,
        3,
        3,
        3,
        3,
        2,
        2,
        1
      ],
      "status": "unadmitted derivative diagnostic"
    },
    "finding": "The exact one-unit calculation matches the response matrix while retaining the same active support. The formula’s domain qualification is essential at cap thresholds.",
    "reassessment": "Check the admitted whole-frame change without moving any relative ages.",
    "checks": {
      "life_response": true,
      "cumulative_response": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:50:11.806796+00:00",
    "sha256": "e06af236922234cb62e23d811ddfe9cdfc0db3a399e1a2d7e643bc9b8c9d24e6"
  },
  {
    "step": 976,
    "title": "Admitted frame covariance",
    "question": "Does the +215 comparison frame preserve every cap?",
    "inputs": {
      "whole_frame_shift": 215
    },
    "sources": [
      "C954",
      "C955",
      "File18 §3.1 native/full430 comparison"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:50:13.742183+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "e06af236922234cb62e23d811ddfe9cdfc0db3a399e1a2d7e643bc9b8c9d24e6",
    "results": {
      "shifted_Flood_start": 3108,
      "shifted_births": [
        4414,
        4284,
        4179,
        4089,
        4019,
        3954,
        3892,
        3827,
        3760
      ],
      "unchanged_capacities": [
        1307,
        1177,
        1072,
        982,
        912,
        847,
        785,
        720,
        653
      ]
    },
    "finding": "The admitted+215 whole-frame comparison changes placement and preserves all capacities, lives and reductions. It does not change a lifespan or move only the Flood.",
    "reassessment": "Verify the source’s three local counting paths without extending the companion rail upstream.",
    "checks": {
      "all_caps_preserved": true,
      "equalized_boundary": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:50:13.742450+00:00",
    "sha256": "d33542078519e55f46cb841f48cdb48c3996ea7f3890bb614f63bb8901ee6fe4"
  },
  {
    "step": 977,
    "title": "Local counting paths preserve capacity",
    "question": "Do the three admitted Noah/Shem paths share the ancestral Flood distance?",
    "inputs": {
      "paths": [
        [
          52,
          500,
          100
        ],
        [
          53,
          499,
          100
        ],
        [
          53,
          500,
          99
        ]
      ],
      "Lamech_birth": 3545
    },
    "sources": [
      "File18 §3.1.2",
      "C976"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:50:38.163313+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "d33542078519e55f46cb841f48cdb48c3996ea7f3890bb614f63bb8901ee6fe4",
    "results": {
      "completed_path_lengths": [
        652,
        652,
        652
      ],
      "Flood_starts": [
        2893,
        2893,
        2893
      ],
      "Lamech_inclusive_capacity": [
        653,
        653,
        653
      ]
    },
    "finding": "All three source-qualified local paths preserve the652 completed distance and653 inclusive capacity. Noah/Shem station choices do not move the ancestral births.",
    "reassessment": "Apply nearest-five rounding to resolved count values.",
    "checks": {
      "same_path": true,
      "same_boundary": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:50:38.163526+00:00",
    "sha256": "f1c631462682752fffd70a94527bd6e7349ccd9ccbf15962e514ea370807f734"
  },
  {
    "step": 978,
    "title": "Rounding the cap counts",
    "question": "Does nearest-five rounding commute with the source minimum?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C953",
      "C955",
      "C956",
      "File51a nearest-five policy"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:50:40.100297+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "f1c631462682752fffd70a94527bd6e7349ccd9ccbf15962e514ea370807f734",
    "results": {
      "field": {
        "path": "model/sp_cap_rounded_counts.json",
        "sha256": "ec28f7907b254a793adc02ef6124384b9be3e2f6bf7b3ce347bd2708b35ae779",
        "bytes": 332
      },
      "rounded_lives": [
        930,
        910,
        905,
        910,
        895,
        845,
        365,
        720,
        655
      ],
      "proof": "A monotone map on a total order preserves binary minima."
    },
    "finding": "Count rounding commutes with the cap across all nine rows because the rounding map is monotone. This does not yet define Rounded date labels.",
    "reassessment": "Check whether this source field keeps the same strict active support.",
    "checks": {
      "commutes_all_rows": true,
      "expected_counts": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:50:40.100762+00:00",
    "sha256": "fc8fb73429f76d6d11bad550902e0a5f1f589f89f4f4e0e7a1fabc19ea6591ff"
  },
  {
    "step": 979,
    "title": "Support after rounding",
    "question": "Does this particular rounded field keep exactly the three clipped rows?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C978"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:50:42.089004+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "fc8fb73429f76d6d11bad550902e0a5f1f589f89f4f4e0e7a1fabc19ea6591ff",
    "results": {
      "rounded_active_indices": [
        5,
        7,
        8
      ],
      "ties": []
    },
    "finding": "This source field retains the same three strictly clipped rows and introduces no threshold ties. That is a property of these values, not a universal preservation theorem.",
    "reassessment": "Compare rounding counts with rounding date labels first.",
    "checks": {
      "same_support": true,
      "no_ties": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:50:42.089288+00:00",
    "sha256": "8a3cadfcedd13b2785e844acd7cf8da22f9d4bbb5e75e415d4f78ce2d0cc164c"
  },
  {
    "step": 980,
    "title": "Counts before rounded date labels",
    "question": "What fails if the capacity is formed from independently rounded dates?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C954",
      "C955",
      "C978"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:51:27.783973+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "8a3cadfcedd13b2785e844acd7cf8da22f9d4bbb5e75e415d4f78ce2d0cc164c",
    "results": {
      "count_first": [
        845,
        720,
        655
      ],
      "date_labels_first": [
        846,
        716,
        651
      ],
      "status": "diagnostic operation comparison; not a canonical Rounded date table"
    },
    "finding": "Rounding counts gives845/720/655; rounding the two date labels first gives846/716/651. Resolving the interval and counting convention before rounding is essential.",
    "reassessment": "Trace the known SP residual through the cap’s changed rows.",
    "checks": {
      "count_values": true,
      "date_values": true,
      "different_operations": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:51:27.784265+00:00",
    "sha256": "510acbd71e927cf68a3ad29db304ad37070d33a3e4fe6488e329e455f919521c"
  },
  {
    "step": 981,
    "title": "Cap support explains the rounding residual",
    "question": "Where does the inherited SP rounding difference of+3 arise?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C953",
      "C956",
      "C978",
      "C749–C770"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:51:29.726627+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "510acbd71e927cf68a3ad29db304ad37070d33a3e4fe6488e329e455f919521c",
    "results": {
      "residual_difference_by_row": [
        0,
        0,
        0,
        0,
        0,
        0,
        0,
        -1,
        4
      ],
      "total_residual_difference": 3,
      "cumulative_total_comparison": [
        -608,
        -605
      ]
    },
    "finding": "The changed rows contribute0,−1,+4, yielding the established+3 residual difference. The cap now explains its support;−608→−605 remains a dependent total.",
    "reassessment": "Classify the cap’s information loss alongside invertible frame changes.",
    "checks": {
      "support_values": true,
      "total": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:51:29.726926+00:00",
    "sha256": "2ce3085533901c1458691deaff57ccfae76c512330e8cbac015bd998e5387885"
  },
  {
    "step": 982,
    "title": "Cap as an irreversible operation",
    "question": "Which structural properties distinguish the cap from a frame translation?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C968",
      "C970",
      "C978"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:51:31.680453+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "2ce3085533901c1458691deaff57ccfae76c512330e8cbac015bd998e5387885",
    "results": {
      "properties": [
        "monotone",
        "idempotent",
        "many-to-one"
      ],
      "inverse_available": false,
      "domain": "resolved count vector with fixed capacity vector"
    },
    "finding": "The cap is a monotone idempotent projection with demonstrated information loss. The family’s operation grammar therefore includes irreversible maps as well as reversible translations.",
    "reassessment": "Regenerate the complete source family from the output-free packet and close the block.",
    "checks": {
      "idempotent": true,
      "many_to_one": true,
      "monotone_increase": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:51:31.680750+00:00",
    "sha256": "c92a1b9d04dd5c54b733e15c157528bc3412a102733741e9dedb918291cbffdf"
  },
  {
    "step": 983,
    "title": "Complete forward regeneration and cap ledger",
    "question": "Does the input-only packet regenerate births, lives and correctly tagged deaths together?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C953–C982",
      "File18 §3.1 and §3.1.3"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:51:54.341938+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "c92a1b9d04dd5c54b733e15c157528bc3412a102733741e9dedb918291cbffdf",
    "results": {
      "complete_ledger": {
        "path": "model/sp_cap_complete_ledger.json",
        "sha256": "cfa238448c97135ad4916ba5b72089d6c693bb0a162e9b35d59c2ee3213e7491",
        "bytes": 1805
      },
      "rows_regenerated": 9
    },
    "finding": "The complete source family regenerates from its declared premises. Review clarifies placement in the derivative formula and corrects the local-path section locator. The SP cap is now ready for the integrated explanation.",
    "reassessment": "Move to the Key/calendar constraint basis, keeping source authorization distinct from algebraic equivalence.",
    "checks": {
      "births": true,
      "lives": true,
      "deaths": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:51:54.342465+00:00",
    "sha256": "2fc856a450b75f29333f286110f02139620ebf6d27b541f891da9c921a3bed66"
  },
  {
    "step": 984,
    "title": "Freeze Key constraints and exact algebra",
    "question": "Which source relations enter the new Key dependency analysis?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "File12",
      "File63",
      "File46",
      "File60",
      "SupplementA",
      "prep/key_constraints/sourcepacket.json"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:52:33.289519+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "2fc856a450b75f29333f286110f02139620ebf6d27b541f891da9c921a3bed66",
    "results": {
      "inputs": {
        "path": "model/key_constraint_inputs.json",
        "sha256": "1064b340647501b6dfb4ae391459166926ebeaedf9a0f70f2275033b99e3f6f3",
        "bytes": 554
      },
      "exact_algebra_helper": {
        "path": "evidence/algebra.py",
        "sha256": "5ee97feebb041bfd8bf679e44e541c1fd3ca5cf49abc5aa81d8d4fc8ccbff40c",
        "bytes": 3166
      }
    },
    "finding": "Calendar measures, source partitions, prior completion identities and fixed pivots are explicit. Reverse-solving identities already proved with Keys will be treated as equivalent description, not new evidence for those Keys.",
    "reassessment": "Solve the first calibration/allocation pair exactly.",
    "checks": {
      "output_ratios_not_stored": true,
      "helper_exact": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:52:33.290026+00:00",
    "sha256": "dc92b1a4d39cb1aea2af0a68016c974f54ba1c928e6014ef9b266758f2b6dc22"
  },
  {
    "step": 985,
    "title": "First calibration and allocation pair",
    "question": "What factors satisfy the336/360 calibration and last-sixth completion identity?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C984",
      "File63 §1.3"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:52:35.242556+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "dc92b1a4d39cb1aea2af0a68016c974f54ba1c928e6014ef9b266758f2b6dc22",
    "results": {
      "solution": [
        "25/23",
        "70/69"
      ],
      "determinant": -1656
    },
    "finding": "These two retained relations uniquely recover E=25/23 and P=70/69. This is a backward constraint basis for already established relations.",
    "reassessment": "Check whether the second calendar/partition pair demands the same E.",
    "checks": {
      "unique": true,
      "ratios": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:52:35.246593+00:00",
    "sha256": "ca1fb687d526fe397b7dd51e4fbe9b6b7b9fea5bb7c7800f1675d698437aa5df"
  },
  {
    "step": 986,
    "title": "Second calibration compatibility",
    "question": "Does the336/364 and last-twenty-sixth pair recover the same E?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C984",
      "File63 §§7.3–7.4"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:52:37.184442+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "ca1fb687d526fe397b7dd51e4fbe9b6b7b9fea5bb7c7800f1675d698437aa5df",
    "results": {
      "solution": [
        "25/23",
        "300/299"
      ],
      "determinant": -8372
    },
    "finding": "The second retained pair recovers the same E and J=300/299. The agreement concerns compatibility of calendar and allocation constraints, not a fresh derivation from the partitions alone.",
    "reassessment": "Find the exact dependency among the four equations.",
    "checks": {
      "unique": true,
      "same_E": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:52:37.185008+00:00",
    "sha256": "d8a292ad4d07891854d6e0caf09a4a88bb0b7ac50a057f1e5c4f8da98f7e2bf7"
  },
  {
    "step": 987,
    "title": "Four relations contain three constraints",
    "question": "What is the exact dependence certificate for calibration and allocation?",
    "inputs": {
      "matrix": [
        [
          336,
          -360,
          0
        ],
        [
          336,
          0,
          -364
        ],
        [
          1,
          -6,
          0
        ],
        [
          1,
          0,
          -26
        ]
      ],
      "rhs": [
        0,
        0,
        -5,
        -25
      ]
    },
    "sources": [
      "C985",
      "C986"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:53:02.193428+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "d8a292ad4d07891854d6e0caf09a4a88bb0b7ac50a057f1e5c4f8da98f7e2bf7",
    "results": {
      "basis": {
        "path": "model/key_calibration_basis.json",
        "sha256": "0cd31da8f6cd69b1b9a7f33ef4fc1994b80e977c2715a19b08cf9043e76d1155",
        "bytes": 365
      },
      "rank": 3,
      "augmented_rank": 3,
      "dependency_products": [
        0,
        0,
        0,
        0
      ]
    },
    "finding": "The four equations have rank three, with7A−6B−420C+84D=0 including constants. One relation is dependent.",
    "reassessment": "Identify the freedom left by calendar calibration alone.",
    "checks": {
      "rank_three": true,
      "certificate": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:53:02.194512+00:00",
    "sha256": "4943fd50616d70bca539f25bdd91ca12d2ce73d480b2b4b55006098679591407"
  },
  {
    "step": 988,
    "title": "Calibration leaves one scale",
    "question": "What does common calendar volume determine without an allocation relation?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C987",
      "File12"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:53:04.142565+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "4943fd50616d70bca539f25bdd91ca12d2ce73d480b2b4b55006098679591407",
    "results": {
      "rank": 2,
      "free_family": "K·(1/336,1/360,1/364)",
      "selected_common_volume": "8400/23"
    },
    "finding": "Calendar calibration determines relative factors but leaves a common scale K. A completion relation fixes that scale; the other allocation becomes a compatibility check.",
    "reassessment": "Derive the second allocation from the first pair and its calendar measure.",
    "checks": {
      "one_free_dimension": true,
      "calibrated_vector": true,
      "common_volume": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:53:04.143241+00:00",
    "sha256": "f4ca7f39bf66adfc0b7748a7054e83250c88fba07ce0dc8469a3b0dc7708ffbd"
  },
  {
    "step": 989,
    "title": "Predicted allocation fraction",
    "question": "Which E allocation corresponds to the calibrated364-day factor?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C985",
      "C988"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:53:06.108565+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "f4ca7f39bf66adfc0b7748a7054e83250c88fba07ce0dc8469a3b0dc7708ffbd",
    "results": {
      "E_from_first_pair": "25/23",
      "J_from_calibration": "300/299",
      "implied_selected_fraction": "1/26"
    },
    "finding": "The first pair plus364 implies the1/26 allocation. The source’s25:1 partition supplies the corresponding cut; this is an explored-source consistency relation.",
    "reassessment": "Use a predeclared alternate fraction to show compatibility is not automatic.",
    "checks": {
      "fraction": true,
      "source_partition": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:53:06.108918+00:00",
    "sha256": "7e7b49c53b5d12c663cebd76338097a9e9a1cc49685e7d7baefe870a48b2e202"
  },
  {
    "step": 990,
    "title": "Partition compatibility control",
    "question": "Would an arbitrary nearby allocation produce the same calibrated factor?",
    "inputs": {
      "diagnostic_fraction": "1/25",
      "calendar": 364
    },
    "sources": [
      "C989",
      "prep/key_constraints/questions.json KQ07"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:53:28.034583+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "7e7b49c53b5d12c663cebd76338097a9e9a1cc49685e7d7baefe870a48b2e202",
    "results": {
      "diagnostic_E": "312/287",
      "difference_from_source_E": "1/6601",
      "status": "unadmitted algebraic control"
    },
    "finding": "Replacing1/26 by1/25 changes the factor by1/6601. Calendar-and-partition compatibility is substantive, although reverse-solving prior identities is not independent evidence.",
    "reassessment": "Determine how the three allocation fractions compose.",
    "checks": {
      "changed": true,
      "difference": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:53:28.034828+00:00",
    "sha256": "98b644dd1fb767351a5065deecb84ef274ade100cfcc31a31a683940966624d5"
  },
  {
    "step": 991,
    "title": "Allocation triangle",
    "question": "Do the three relative Key gains form one nested-selection law?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C985–C990"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:53:30.018809+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "98b644dd1fb767351a5065deecb84ef274ade100cfcc31a31a683940966624d5",
    "results": {
      "E_to_P": "1/6",
      "P_to_J": "3/13",
      "E_to_J": "1/26",
      "nested_factor": "300/299"
    },
    "finding": "The fractions1/6,3/13 and1/26 satisfy the nested-selection product law. The derived3/13 alone supplies no source-appointed chronological cut.",
    "reassessment": "Separate this selection composition from sequential application of Keys.",
    "checks": {
      "product": true,
      "fractions": true,
      "nested": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:53:30.019141+00:00",
    "sha256": "d3859ee65e2e01ec3ebe9099894e72e315b8591e00258c5b33308e3f9606d8d7"
  },
  {
    "step": 992,
    "title": "Selection differs from chronological composition",
    "question": "What changes when two factors act sequentially on the whole duration?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C991"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:53:32.019008+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "d3859ee65e2e01ec3ebe9099894e72e315b8591e00258c5b33308e3f9606d8d7",
    "results": {
      "nested_selection_factor": "300/299",
      "whole_duration_P_then_J": "7000/6877",
      "general_law": "A_g(A_f(k))=A_(gf)(k)"
    },
    "finding": "Nested selection gives J; applying P and J successively gives their product7000/6877. These are different operations despite sharing the same factor names.",
    "reassessment": "Prove when a component conversion can pass through coarsening without losing its meaning.",
    "checks": {
      "different": true,
      "values": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:53:32.019394+00:00",
    "sha256": "6def0f2fcdc3147880fbc2ffdaefd4ce195494a40f04fb9722e46c471cc37f5d"
  },
  {
    "step": 993,
    "title": "Universal coarsening criterion",
    "question": "When can a componentwise conversion be replaced by one factor per merged block?",
    "inputs": {
      "coarsening": "sum fine components into declared blocks",
      "conversion": "diagonal factors k_i"
    },
    "sources": [
      "C991",
      "C992",
      "File63 retained partitions"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:54:01.790588+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "6def0f2fcdc3147880fbc2ffdaefd4ce195494a40f04fb9722e46c471cc37f5d",
    "results": {
      "necessity": "Test each unit vector e_i: the fine factor k_i must equal its containing coarse-block factor.",
      "sufficiency": "If factors are constant within each block, factoring that common value out of the block sum proves equality.",
      "criterion": "C·diag(k_i)=diag(k_B)·C iff k_i=k_B within every block"
    },
    "finding": "Coarsening commutes with conversion for every vector exactly when the factors are constant inside each merged block. Equality on one supplied total is weaker.",
    "reassessment": "Exhibit the information hidden by one equal-total partial/whole comparison.",
    "checks": {
      "uniform_example": true,
      "mixed_not_universal": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:54:01.791014+00:00",
    "sha256": "e154b01f56e7b52fcf5a1193c7078496c77ac689a15b3616b00dbaced8f3cb8f"
  },
  {
    "step": 994,
    "title": "An equal total can hide internal change",
    "question": "What is the vector defect when partial and uniform transformations share one total?",
    "inputs": {
      "S": 483,
      "selected_fraction": "1/6",
      "selected_factor": "25/23"
    },
    "sources": [
      "C993",
      "File63 §1.3",
      "C609 inherited example"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:54:03.786038+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "e154b01f56e7b52fcf5a1193c7078496c77ac689a15b3616b00dbaced8f3cb8f",
    "results": {
      "source_parts": [
        "805/2",
        "161/2"
      ],
      "partial": [
        "805/2",
        "175/2"
      ],
      "uniform": [
        "1225/3",
        "245/3"
      ],
      "defect": [
        "-35/6",
        "35/6"
      ],
      "general_selected_first_defect": "(k−1)f(1−f)S·(1,−1)"
    },
    "finding": "The inherited490 equality loses an internal displacement of35/6 in opposite directions. The general zero-sum defect explains why equal totals do not identify the same path.",
    "reassessment": "Find a complete nonredundant measurement basis for retained-part families.",
    "checks": {
      "same_total": true,
      "nonzero_shape": true,
      "criterion_fails": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:54:03.786371+00:00",
    "sha256": "15cc695fa2dd8c10163b7a33c74a3ac607d7e682b0642e224d4d4e586b7d65d0"
  },
  {
    "step": 995,
    "title": "Retained-part measurement rank",
    "question": "How many independent totals describe a converted part and retained part?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "SupplementA690/30 table",
      "File52c retained-lower family",
      "C993"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:54:05.744623+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "15cc695fa2dd8c10163b7a33c74a3ac607d7e682b0642e224d4d4e586b7d65d0",
    "results": {
      "basis": {
        "path": "model/retained_part_measurement.json",
        "sha256": "4bd02f25d95fef51c02d965da796d0c3e1211b02609383f231c7fb1093e8e1d2",
        "bytes": 231
      },
      "rank": 2,
      "two_measurement_determinant": "-1/69"
    },
    "finding": "The native, P and E totals form a rank-two measurement system. Its dependent relation is5T0−6TP+TE=0.",
    "reassessment": "Apply that basis to the complete supplied flank and macro fields.",
    "checks": {
      "rank_two": true,
      "left_kernel": true,
      "invertible_pair": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:54:05.745544+00:00",
    "sha256": "04bd58dba9703075d630020c71a6c1b0c2428e508ed4cf5626587d31fcaa57af"
  },
  {
    "step": 996,
    "title": "Complete retained-part field reconstruction",
    "question": "Do the two measurements recover every supplied component pair?",
    "inputs": {
      "fields": [
        [
          690,
          700,
          750
        ],
        [
          720,
          730,
          780
        ],
        [
          750,
          760,
          810
        ],
        [
          12600,
          12740,
          13440
        ]
      ]
    },
    "sources": [
      "C995",
      "SupplementA",
      "File52c"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:54:32.570988+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "04bd58dba9703075d630020c71a6c1b0c2428e508ed4cf5626587d31fcaa57af",
    "results": {
      "complete_field": {
        "path": "model/retained_part_complete_field.json",
        "sha256": "191c8be002ec5b6904324b1a6bd626f3018146fcd29bb8808ee47ae74366c592",
        "bytes": 523
      },
      "recovered": [
        [
          690,
          0
        ],
        [
          690,
          30
        ],
        [
          690,
          60
        ],
        [
          9660,
          2940
        ]
      ]
    },
    "finding": "The same two-measurement inverse recovers690 with zero, one or two30 flanks, and the9660|2940 macro split. The third total is a dependent consistency check.",
    "reassessment": "Determine what this numerical recovery leaves to the sources.",
    "checks": {
      "all_residuals_zero": true,
      "all_parts": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:54:32.573634+00:00",
    "sha256": "97a316d99fd4c0b7ebb4246f2255532ccf5b5de85b48527b72c9bed63e92ac15"
  },
  {
    "step": 997,
    "title": "Recovered magnitudes versus retained roles",
    "question": "Does recovering two numerical components identify their chronological realization?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C994",
      "C996"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:54:34.573243+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "97a316d99fd4c0b7ebb4246f2255532ccf5b5de85b48527b72c9bed63e92ac15",
    "results": {
      "numerically_recovered": [
        "converted magnitude u",
        "retained magnitude v"
      ],
      "not_recovered": [
        "order along the path",
        "which named interval is converted",
        "absolute anchor",
        "permission to use the route"
      ]
    },
    "finding": "A measurement inverse recovers magnitudes, not source identities, order or placement. The compact algebra must carry those tags alongside its numbers.",
    "reassessment": "Derive the fixed-pivot integer-domain theorem for two staged Keys.",
    "checks": {
      "two_magnitudes": true,
      "required_tags": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:54:34.573532+00:00",
    "sha256": "7d7abe1f3b751463c3d9a696801ca28e47c9910ac78b4851c97d2c524040e197"
  },
  {
    "step": 998,
    "title": "Fixed-pivot stagewise congruence",
    "question": "What condition makes both stages of a two-Key affine route integral?",
    "inputs": {
      "first": "a+(p1/q1)(x−a)",
      "second": "b+(p2/q2)(y−b)",
      "assumptions": "reduced fractions; integer x,a,b"
    },
    "sources": [
      "C997",
      "C872–C889"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:54:36.535025+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "7d7abe1f3b751463c3d9a696801ca28e47c9910ac78b4851c97d2c524040e197",
    "results": {
      "first_stage": "x=a+q1·t; y=a+p1·t",
      "second_stage": "p1·t≡b−a (mod q2)",
      "solvability": "gcd(p1,q2) divides b−a",
      "period": "q1·q2/gcd(p1,q2)"
    },
    "finding": "The source pivots enter an exact congruence: an integral route exists iff gcd(p1,q2) divides their difference. When it exists, the domain is one residue class.",
    "reassessment": "Evaluate the complete fixed nine-pair diagnostic with its two source-appointed pivots.",
    "checks": {
      "first_stage_reduction": true,
      "potential_obstruction": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:54:36.535318+00:00",
    "sha256": "7b7c8675f32232625f98746a6f0eed5ab3d45116706fab42eec457dbbf305aaa"
  },
  {
    "step": 999,
    "title": "Complete fixed-pivot Key-pair field",
    "question": "Which of the nine fixed E/P/J pairs have an integral staged domain?",
    "inputs": {
      "pivots": [
        14006,
        4836
      ],
      "status": "diagnostic compositions; not nine newly authorized routes"
    },
    "sources": [
      "C998",
      "File46"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:55:09.466517+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "7b7c8675f32232625f98746a6f0eed5ab3d45116706fab42eec457dbbf305aaa",
    "results": {
      "complete_field": {
        "path": "model/fixed_pivot_key_domains.json",
        "sha256": "9eb556b1e69ffbff221d7a8fc0350f27653c0ae076bb1a77a0e643bc01f3d327",
        "bytes": 940
      },
      "empty_pairs": [
        "J→P"
      ]
    },
    "finding": "Eight fixed-pivot pairs have one residue-class domain. J→P alone has no all-stage integer input under these pivots. Representatives are congruence labels, not event dates.",
    "reassessment": "Verify every nonempty class and explain the single obstruction.",
    "checks": {
      "nine_pairs": true,
      "only_obstruction": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:55:09.466952+00:00",
    "sha256": "6f992b301ba80a26752f26973613cbaabb9366ede87f00785bff8c41edea7352"
  },
  {
    "step": 1000,
    "title": "Verify fixed-pivot domains",
    "question": "Do the declared residue classes preserve integrality at both stages?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C999"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:55:11.412548+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "6f992b301ba80a26752f26973613cbaabb9366ede87f00785bff8c41edea7352",
    "results": {
      "nonempty_class_checks": 24,
      "pivot_difference_mod3": 1,
      "J_to_P_reason": "gcd(300,69)=3 does not divide−9170"
    },
    "finding": "All nonempty class formulas pass exact staged substitution. J→P fails because the two fixed pivots differ modulo3; no endpoint choice repairs that within the declared integer domain.",
    "reassessment": "Extend the congruence result from one point to an entire labelled field.",
    "checks": {
      "all_substitutions": true,
      "obstruction": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:55:11.413103+00:00",
    "sha256": "b0ce4d9805172c518f2bdc73dfa1d9406777f1135d5baa0f8fc5008d4eb164e4"
  },
  {
    "step": 1001,
    "title": "Whole-field placement and difference conditions",
    "question": "What makes every point of a source field belong to one admissible domain?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C998",
      "C1000"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:55:13.386588+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "b0ce4d9805172c518f2bdc73dfa1d9406777f1135d5baa0f8fc5008d4eb164e4",
    "results": {
      "criterion": {
        "criterion": "All x_i lie in r+mZ iff x_0≡r mod m and every x_i−x_0 is divisible by m.",
        "difference_condition": "Controls field shape up to translation.",
        "placement_condition": "One retained point fixes the residue class."
      },
      "inherited_witnesses_reclassified": {
        "C480": {
          "points": [
            2148,
            3206
          ],
          "residue": 32,
          "period": 529,
          "width_ok": true,
          "placement_ok": true
        },
        "fixed12026": {
          "points": [
            4114,
            3056
          ],
          "residue": 388,
          "period": 529,
          "width_ok": true,
          "placement_ok": false
        }
      }
    },
    "finding": "A whole-field test separates the difference lattice from one placement residue. The inherited529-width examples share the width condition but differ in placement.",
    "reassessment": "Check how this domain transforms under a whole-frame translation.",
    "checks": {
      "both_widths": true,
      "placement_distinction": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:55:13.386862+00:00",
    "sha256": "3c01eb998f1b0f440c676831c9ab5eab4e50200b7c7ea2de588c0cdc3d642b5b"
  },
  {
    "step": 1002,
    "title": "Domain covariance under translation",
    "question": "Does translating both pivots and the whole field preserve the domain?",
    "inputs": {
      "translation": 215
    },
    "sources": [
      "C998",
      "C1001"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:55:48.267438+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "3c01eb998f1b0f440c676831c9ab5eab4e50200b7c7ea2de588c0cdc3d642b5b",
    "results": {
      "translated_residue": 283,
      "unchanged_period": 529,
      "first_output_shift": 215,
      "second_output_shift": 215,
      "general_rule": "Translate points and both pivots together; residue shifts by t."
    },
    "finding": "Whole-frame translation preserves the domain obstruction and period while shifting the residue. This is the same structural covariance seen in the SP cap capacities.",
    "reassessment": "Represent a nonintegral source field exactly instead of changing its values.",
    "checks": {
      "stage_shifts": true,
      "same_pivot_difference": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:55:48.267775+00:00",
    "sha256": "d7a873e98ab35ec6e9ae9f4c8fdbcf8e79677c5bad44640e49c90d50a5525ebc"
  },
  {
    "step": 1003,
    "title": "Exact rational field normal form",
    "question": "How can the full File46 head field be retained when some images are nonintegral?",
    "inputs": {
      "anchor": 14006,
      "source_mesh": 10,
      "indices": [
        92,
        89,
        46,
        43,
        0
      ]
    },
    "sources": [
      "File46",
      "C931 technical",
      "C1002"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:55:50.252067+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "d7a873e98ab35ec6e9ae9f4c8fdbcf8e79677c5bad44640e49c90d50a5525ebc",
    "results": {
      "field": {
        "path": "model/key_full_field_normal_form.json",
        "sha256": "db914a9e5f1a7898a4098a26c534f9d4a527c015aba62d6ba733fb65a3623a57",
        "bytes": 359
      },
      "image_mesh": "250/23",
      "integral_indices": [
        92,
        46,
        0
      ]
    },
    "finding": "The entire labelled index pattern survives on the exact mesh250/23. Only indices divisible23 give integer images; keeping fractions preserves the comparison without repairing dates.",
    "reassessment": "Test the complete componentwise calendar assignment field.",
    "checks": {
      "mesh": true,
      "integral_subset": true,
      "source_heads": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:55:50.252551+00:00",
    "sha256": "8d91f201b4244c918a1659327bba48abfd8280eb7fe2cd5703eefed13b352c8d"
  },
  {
    "step": 1004,
    "title": "Complete mixed-calendar assignment field",
    "question": "Does matched calendar measurement preserve volume for every fixed Key assignment?",
    "inputs": {
      "source_parts": [
        299,
        161
      ],
      "status": "conditional scalar realization; assignments not automatically chronological routes"
    },
    "sources": [
      "File60",
      "File12",
      "C988"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:55:52.215661+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "8d91f201b4244c918a1659327bba48abfd8280eb7fe2cd5703eefed13b352c8d",
    "results": {
      "field": {
        "path": "model/mixed_calendar_complete_field.json",
        "sha256": "1993eb0c0c6c76278b093d3a22fc54de18eb67c6e7e42c6f39a57be05fdcbdd2",
        "bytes": 2280
      },
      "common_volume": 168000
    },
    "finding": "All nine predetermined assignments preserve168000 when each output carries its matching calendar measure. This is one componentwise identity, not nine independent confirmations.",
    "reassessment": "Use the source mixedJ/E example to expose what unit labels contribute.",
    "checks": {
      "complete_nine": true,
      "all_volumes": true,
      "common": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:55:52.216255+00:00",
    "sha256": "d8b9017853cdf670cd6459be80ba654e16c504f329b75c7021fd3d70066fd1eb"
  },
  {
    "step": 1005,
    "title": "Unit labels carry information",
    "question": "Can identical numerical components conceal a different calendar volume?",
    "inputs": {
      "outputs": [
        300,
        175
      ],
      "matched_units": [
        364,
        336
      ],
      "swapped_units": [
        336,
        364
      ]
    },
    "sources": [
      "C1004",
      "File60 inherited mixedJ/E"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:56:21.199325+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "d8b9017853cdf670cd6459be80ba654e16c504f329b75c7021fd3d70066fd1eb",
    "results": {
      "naked_sum": 475,
      "matched_volume": 168000,
      "swapped_volume": 164500,
      "difference": -3500
    },
    "finding": "The sum475 survives swapping unit labels, but the measured volume changes by3500. Under this conditional realization, the scalar sum alone is incomplete information.",
    "reassessment": "Remeasure the preserved volume in one declared calendar at a time.",
    "checks": {
      "same_numbers": true,
      "volume_loss": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:56:21.199551+00:00",
    "sha256": "4c5d2ee5bd1083017f8f6a04a64ea5c0b12baf95e5728376bcbd8ef588bdb1bc"
  },
  {
    "step": 1006,
    "title": "Common-unit remeasurement",
    "question": "What single-calendar counts represent the matched mixed volume?",
    "inputs": {
      "volume": 168000,
      "source_total": 460
    },
    "sources": [
      "C1004",
      "C1005"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:56:23.150350+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "4c5d2ee5bd1083017f8f6a04a64ea5c0b12baf95e5728376bcbd8ef588bdb1bc",
    "results": {
      "counts_in336_360_364": [
        500,
        "1400/3",
        "6000/13"
      ],
      "uniform_Key_images": [
        500,
        "1400/3",
        "6000/13"
      ],
      "qualification": "does not reinterpret the source chronological475 as literal mixed-calendar elapsed time"
    },
    "finding": "Remeasuring the matched volume gives the same scalar counts as uniformE/P/J conversion of460. This explains the calibration identity while preserving the separate chronological interpretation of the source mixed path.",
    "reassessment": "Consolidate the Key results into the smallest supported operation inventory.",
    "checks": {
      "remeasurement_agrees": true,
      "values": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:56:23.150623+00:00",
    "sha256": "74191c6cf262d183089c6aeb9b52ed2bea30b2f295fae719534e369ecce2a931"
  },
  {
    "step": 1007,
    "title": "Key constraint and authorization ledger",
    "question": "Which new conclusions reduce complexity without enlarging the chronology?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C984–C1006"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:56:25.115014+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "74191c6cf262d183089c6aeb9b52ed2bea30b2f295fae719534e369ecce2a931",
    "results": {
      "ledger": {
        "path": "model/key_constraint_ledger.json",
        "sha256": "3bd48f32224cc11b72fa175389b1c6625c0a1c26ad6effa31c77c949548410f0",
        "bytes": 854
      }
    },
    "finding": "The Key families fit one compact constraint language, but calendar units, source cuts and pivots remain indispensable. The next useful transfer is to complete count registers and literary grouping.",
    "reassessment": "Freeze the Esau/Tishri/NT/Toledot source packet before testing reconstruction and information loss.",
    "checks": {
      "scope_preserved": true,
      "new_vs_inherited_separate": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:56:25.115419+00:00",
    "sha256": "766ebbdd56a80ed43b5b971386f834d5fce3d948b1b63b244a932bb39ae6b31d"
  },
  {
    "step": 1008,
    "title": "Freeze structural transfer inputs",
    "question": "Which complete source registers will test recoverability across families?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "File58 §§3.1,13",
      "File43 §3.4",
      "File54 §6",
      "File70 AppendixB.1"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:57:20.112367+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "766ebbdd56a80ed43b5b971386f834d5fce3d948b1b63b244a932bb39ae6b31d",
    "results": {
      "packet": {
        "path": "model/structural_transfer_inputs.json",
        "sha256": "0022bc33a7566c8d23204ae5ce88412fefd98a27c13835ff975222d2c60becbe",
        "bytes": 1062
      }
    },
    "finding": "Complete ordered registers, ritual templates and section multiplicities are fixed before inversion. Their numeric source content remains part of the premises.",
    "reassessment": "Combine the Esau clean and female registers with the grand total.",
    "checks": {
      "nine_counts": true,
      "source_total": true,
      "occurrence_count": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:57:20.112712+00:00",
    "sha256": "e3fce103e299b57910302499387dfdc68bc4f944c7910194659aea480b9cf076"
  },
  {
    "step": 1009,
    "title": "Joint Esau reconstruction",
    "question": "Do combined source registers recover all nine original counts?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C1008",
      "File58 §13"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:57:22.081645+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "e3fce103e299b57910302499387dfdc68bc4f944c7910194659aea480b9cf076",
    "results": {
      "measurement_field": {
        "path": "model/esau_joint_measurements.json",
        "sha256": "77a91c74e28f7c20eb73c4696dd716bf02c5dd479498c60cd93f15f7cde55c1c",
        "bytes": 1374
      },
      "rank": 9,
      "recovered": [
        200,
        20,
        200,
        20,
        40,
        10,
        30,
        20,
        10
      ]
    },
    "finding": "The two ordered registers plus grand total recover every supplied count. This extends the separate-register analysis to the whole list.",
    "reassessment": "Remove the grand total to identify its exact information contribution.",
    "checks": {
      "full_rank": true,
      "complete_reconstruction": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:57:22.087796+00:00",
    "sha256": "a5d9dfdf1f3a063c81f43ffd9f4207ddc565c537d972d58c5d2947cb93d82763"
  },
  {
    "step": 1010,
    "title": "Grand total closes one missing category",
    "question": "Which count remains invisible without the total550?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C1009"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:57:24.130353+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "a5d9dfdf1f3a063c81f43ffd9f4207ddc565c537d972d58c5d2947cb93d82763",
    "results": {
      "rank_without_total": 8,
      "kernel": [
        [
          0,
          0,
          0,
          0,
          0,
          0,
          0,
          0,
          1
        ]
      ],
      "missing_category": "male donkeys"
    },
    "finding": "Without the total, only male donkeys remain unmeasured. The total contributes one independent condition, rather than changing the other eight reconstructed counts.",
    "reassessment": "Choose a square measurement basis and inspect whether it hides fractional reconstruction.",
    "checks": {
      "rank_eight": true,
      "one_category_kernel": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:57:24.133673+00:00",
    "sha256": "6dbb02b452bccd026adb63f1dbac70e71d17f4dfbc4a2bf848d342b05141da93"
  },
  {
    "step": 1011,
    "title": "Integral Esau measurement basis",
    "question": "Is the nine-measurement inverse an integer change of coordinates?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C1009",
      "C1010"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:57:55.869076+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "6dbb02b452bccd026adb63f1dbac70e71d17f4dfbc4a2bf848d342b05141da93",
    "results": {
      "basis": {
        "path": "model/esau_unimodular_basis.json",
        "sha256": "83d11fc1240a420d893079b9221cd8a96975e05026795c616070d13a21c51b38",
        "bytes": 1936
      },
      "determinant": 1,
      "reconstructed": [
        200,
        20,
        200,
        20,
        40,
        10,
        30,
        20,
        10
      ]
    },
    "finding": "The compact Esau basis has determinant1 and an integer inverse. It changes coordinates without fractional adjustment; it does not reduce nine independent numbers to fewer than nine.",
    "reassessment": "Compare with the complete clean-plus-unclean walk basis.",
    "checks": {
      "unimodular": true,
      "integral_inverse": true,
      "recover_counts": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:57:55.872197+00:00",
    "sha256": "bf52cb33ab85fe9d47f939003f22ab70bab079518eeeb2e0541e1219a569ae51"
  },
  {
    "step": 1012,
    "title": "Alternative complete walk basis",
    "question": "Do the clean and unclean ordered walks together recover the same list?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C1008",
      "File58 §§13.3–13.4"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:57:57.876332+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "bf52cb33ab85fe9d47f939003f22ab70bab079518eeeb2e0541e1219a569ae51",
    "results": {
      "measurements": [
        20,
        40,
        50,
        250,
        450,
        490,
        20,
        50,
        60
      ],
      "determinant": -1,
      "recovered": [
        200,
        20,
        200,
        20,
        40,
        10,
        30,
        20,
        10
      ]
    },
    "finding": "The two complete walks form another integer basis. The same accumulation-and-difference operation used for genealogical paths reconstructs this counted list.",
    "reassessment": "Separate universal register dependencies from source-specific equalities.",
    "checks": {
      "unimodular": true,
      "prefixes": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:57:57.881574+00:00",
    "sha256": "7465c438c9beef8f72a018ea0ef5741b7ea5d31d8053999b2787768448e96202"
  },
  {
    "step": 1013,
    "title": "Identities versus equal source values",
    "question": "Which agreements among all Esau registers follow from incidence alone?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C1008",
      "C1011",
      "C1012"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:57:59.874257+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "7465c438c9beef8f72a018ea0ef5741b7ea5d31d8053999b2787768448e96202",
    "results": {
      "dependencies": {
        "path": "model/esau_register_dependencies.json",
        "sha256": "1658eb029c42bda071a938add447c46dbea9c78fb4c8a3b2d8648cf153093697",
        "bytes": 2191
      },
      "universal_dependency_dimension": 5,
      "source_equalities": [
        true,
        true
      ]
    },
    "finding": "Fourteen register measurements contain five universal linear dependencies. The additional20 and50 matches join different animals and rely on the supplied counts; incidence alone does not force them.",
    "reassessment": "Test how source ritual templates alter the earlier Tishri margin ambiguity.",
    "checks": {
      "rank_nine": true,
      "five_dependencies": true,
      "different_incidence": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:57:59.880124+00:00",
    "sha256": "ee28be516ee8be5fe0def01a8c01e2fe45f0531f8d12af0cc995903e4790be1e"
  },
  {
    "step": 1014,
    "title": "Tishri reconstruction with retained templates",
    "question": "Do source predicates remove the ambiguity left by species totals?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C1008",
      "File58 §3.1",
      "C836"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:58:32.143665+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "ee28be516ee8be5fe0def01a8c01e2fe45f0531f8d12af0cc995903e4790be1e",
    "results": {
      "constraint_packet": {
        "path": "model/tishri_template_constraints.json",
        "sha256": "16430ac88f87ad56effce7e7c70f99e43b409e6186654e16a69eae515a2fe051",
        "bytes": 730
      },
      "species_only_rank": 4,
      "full_rank": 7,
      "amplitudes": [
        44,
        6,
        1,
        1,
        1,
        1,
        1
      ]
    },
    "finding": "With source row templates, two equal-festival conditions and daily44 retained, the full seven-category ledger is uniquely recovered. The templates themselves contain source numbers.",
    "reassessment": "Remove those predicates one at a time to identify what they supply.",
    "checks": {
      "base_rank": true,
      "full_rank": true,
      "source_amplitudes": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:58:32.146026+00:00",
    "sha256": "768d6b98df0362883e29b27749454a66289950e7116b1c55be043ce3e4b38886"
  },
  {
    "step": 1015,
    "title": "Which Tishri predicates do the work?",
    "question": "What freedoms return if daily44 or equal-festival conditions are removed?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C1014"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:58:34.100125+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "768d6b98df0362883e29b27749454a66289950e7116b1c55be043ce3e4b38886",
    "results": {
      "without_daily_rank": 6,
      "without_daily_kernel": [
        [
          -1,
          1,
          0,
          0,
          0,
          0,
          0
        ]
      ],
      "without_equal_festivals_rank": 5,
      "without_equal_festivals_kernel": [
        [
          0,
          0,
          0,
          -1,
          1,
          0,
          0
        ],
        [
          0,
          0,
          0,
          -1,
          0,
          0,
          1
        ]
      ]
    },
    "finding": "Daily44 removes the Daily/Sabbath exchange; the two festival equalities remove two allocation freedoms. This complements the earlier margin-only ambiguity result.",
    "reassessment": "Recover the Sukkot daily sequence while exposing its decrement premise.",
    "checks": {
      "daily_freedom": true,
      "festival_freedoms": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:58:34.106716+00:00",
    "sha256": "34c0097cebf5eae55d8d27d6c0aef1d73060cc0fbf3efd742f6ed05562796ab4"
  },
  {
    "step": 1016,
    "title": "Source sequence constraint",
    "question": "What does the seven-day total determine once the decrement is retained?",
    "inputs": {
      "total": 189,
      "days": 7,
      "decrement": 1,
      "uniform_nonbull": 17
    },
    "sources": [
      "File58 Sukkot ledger",
      "C1015"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:58:36.074667+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "34c0097cebf5eae55d8d27d6c0aef1d73060cc0fbf3efd742f6ed05562796ab4",
    "results": {
      "day_totals": [
        30,
        29,
        28,
        27,
        26,
        25,
        24
      ],
      "bulls_given_nonbull17": [
        13,
        12,
        11,
        10,
        9,
        8,
        7
      ],
      "diagnostic_positive_bull_alternatives": [
        [
          13,
          12,
          11,
          10,
          9,
          8,
          7
        ],
        [
          16,
          14,
          12,
          10,
          8,
          6,
          4
        ],
        [
          19,
          16,
          13,
          10,
          7,
          4,
          1
        ]
      ],
      "status": "decrement1 and nonbull17 retained as source assumptions"
    },
    "finding": "The source decrement1 and total189 determine30…24; the retained nonbull17 then gives13…7. Total70 alone permits other positive arithmetic bull sequences, so the source decrement carries information.",
    "reassessment": "Test scale and placement recovery on the already published festival walk.",
    "checks": {
      "source_totals": true,
      "bull_total": true,
      "alternatives_not_unique": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:58:36.074939+00:00",
    "sha256": "184b8df15c6962c0e081e6f669aba29716a3fb06fa999a8c7d05ffeedc47594d"
  },
  {
    "step": 1017,
    "title": "Festival scale and anchor identification",
    "question": "Which source constraints determine the fitted walk’s scale and placement?",
    "inputs": {
      "counts": [
        30,
        29,
        28,
        27,
        26,
        25,
        24,
        10
      ],
      "fixed_landings": {
        "step2": 1446,
        "step7": 536
      }
    },
    "sources": [
      "File58 festival walk",
      "C1016"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:59:09.350087+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "184b8df15c6962c0e081e6f669aba29716a3fb06fa999a8c7d05ffeedc47594d",
    "results": {
      "scale": 7,
      "anchor": 1859,
      "all_landings": [
        1859,
        1649,
        1446,
        1250,
        1061,
        879,
        704,
        536,
        466
      ],
      "status": "conditional reconstruction of an already fitted source family"
    },
    "finding": "The two fixed role positions recover scale7 and anchor1859, after which all supplied boundaries follow. This replaces two parameters with two equivalent constraints, not two new predictions.",
    "reassessment": "Hold those role positions and test a controlled order change.",
    "checks": {
      "scale_anchor": true,
      "complete_landings": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:59:09.350416+00:00",
    "sha256": "11a2ae40126b7a3dbfedb8bd5c08380f5b88c9e669347a138c8c72aceca30c41"
  },
  {
    "step": 1018,
    "title": "Order is not recoverable from a total",
    "question": "Can changing order preserve all boundaries after refitting the same two positions?",
    "inputs": {
      "diagnostic_reversed_counts": [
        10,
        24,
        25,
        26,
        27,
        28,
        29,
        30
      ]
    },
    "sources": [
      "C1017"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:59:11.285749+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "11a2ae40126b7a3dbfedb8bd5c08380f5b88c9e669347a138c8c72aceca30c41",
    "results": {
      "diagnostic_scale": "182/27",
      "diagnostic_anchor": "45230/27",
      "diagnostic_final": "3004/9",
      "held_source_head": 1859,
      "held_source_final": 466,
      "scope": "same-role diagnostic only; the source reverse walk retains its own roles"
    },
    "finding": "Refitting two unchanged role positions cannot restore the other boundaries after reordering. The source reverse walk is a separately indexed object, not a defective version of the forward path.",
    "reassessment": "Audit the independence of the two marked NT Key returns.",
    "checks": {
      "fitted_scale": true,
      "head_rejects": true,
      "tail_rejects": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:59:11.286451+00:00",
    "sha256": "ddd32fc0f100c10a197023638af74a67769b63897af9ef35e07bd6ba688e0064"
  },
  {
    "step": 1019,
    "title": "NT Key-knot constraint rank",
    "question": "Do the one-slot P and six-slot E returns impose independent metric equations?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "File43 §3.4",
      "File54 §6",
      "C866–C867"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:59:13.232738+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "ddd32fc0f100c10a197023638af74a67769b63897af9ef35e07bd6ba688e0064",
    "results": {
      "constraint_packet": {
        "path": "model/nt_knot_constraints.json",
        "sha256": "001fa79df002ae5a1ff854edc0d95670ab13621b424713e9d46190626da9e136",
        "bytes": 216
      },
      "rank": 1,
      "row_multiple": 6
    },
    "finding": "The second marked NT return is exactly six times the first equation. The pair has rank one and does not independently determine the70-year metric.",
    "reassessment": "Identify the metric freedom and the additional source constraint that closes it.",
    "checks": {
      "rank_one": true,
      "dependent_rows": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:59:13.233977+00:00",
    "sha256": "a9606576f6f256c87181d6a7dcdf67f5826caa29d6a13d4db1f6096725397767"
  },
  {
    "step": 1020,
    "title": "NT free metric family",
    "question": "What remains undetermined by the paired Key knot?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C1019"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:59:41.952924+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "a9606576f6f256c87181d6a7dcdf67f5826caa29d6a13d4db1f6096725397767",
    "results": {
      "kernel": [
        [
          69,
          1
        ]
      ],
      "metric_family": "w=69u",
      "free_metric_dimensions": 1,
      "scale_selected_by_knot_alone": false
    },
    "finding": "The knot fixes a ratio w:u=69:1 while leaving one metric scale free. Two arrows illustrate one constraint.",
    "reassessment": "Add the supplied BJ trunk length and slot count.",
    "checks": {
      "kernel": true,
      "one_free_scale": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:59:41.953569+00:00",
    "sha256": "eeb41520f8987d40809517a458ab46027973a4c46cb2c4bb0262101d4677f5c4"
  },
  {
    "step": 1021,
    "title": "Conditional NT metric recovery",
    "question": "Which retained source relation determines the70-year unit?",
    "inputs": {
      "BJ_trunk": 2450,
      "slots": 35
    },
    "sources": [
      "File54 §6",
      "C1020"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:59:43.913743+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "eeb41520f8987d40809517a458ab46027973a4c46cb2c4bb0262101d4677f5c4",
    "results": {
      "rank": 2,
      "Enoch_radius_and_slot": [
        4830,
        70
      ],
      "retained_condition": "BJ2450 occupies35 supplied slots"
    },
    "finding": "The additional35-slot/2450 relation determines u=70 and w=4830. It supplies the metric information absent from the Key knot alone.",
    "reassessment": "Separate metric identification from absolute placement.",
    "checks": {
      "rank_two": true,
      "source_metric": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:59:43.914468+00:00",
    "sha256": "278fce80e393c1b3169eebe25bbef73e489770de04265cb10c2a300a359000ce"
  },
  {
    "step": 1022,
    "title": "NT placement as an alternative basis",
    "question": "Can the two supplied co-registrations recover both hinge and unit?",
    "inputs": {
      "slot_indices": [
        55,
        20
      ],
      "BC_coordinates": [
        3856,
        1406
      ]
    },
    "sources": [
      "File54",
      "C1021"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T03:59:45.930199+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "278fce80e393c1b3169eebe25bbef73e489770de04265cb10c2a300a359000ce",
    "results": {
      "determinant": -35,
      "hinge_and_unit": [
        6,
        70
      ],
      "ceiling": "already constructed source co-registrations; consistency basis, not independent origin proof"
    },
    "finding": "The co-registrations recover the6BC hinge and70-year unit. Since those positions belong to the existing schematic display, this is an equivalent parameterization, not a new historical derivation or Nativity revision.",
    "reassessment": "Test how Toledot grouping changes the measured object itself.",
    "checks": {
      "unique": true,
      "source_basis": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T03:59:45.930720+00:00",
    "sha256": "08017b2dd142a903a40588a4081319a7185683eee3d112e0464f515b94fed6a7"
  },
  {
    "step": 1023,
    "title": "Toledot occurrence and section packet",
    "question": "What is the exact source contraction from eleven occurrences to ten major sections?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "File70 AppendixB.1",
      "C1008"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T04:00:11.248849+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "08017b2dd142a903a40588a4081319a7185683eee3d112e0464f515b94fed6a7",
    "results": {
      "source_quotient": {
        "path": "model/toledot_quotient.json",
        "sha256": "a6887ca0cf82c69fbc4f6b5da654f9475069a82148de7a8f3485b8cf4d43f4fa",
        "bytes": 536
      },
      "blocks": [
        [
          1
        ],
        [
          2
        ],
        [
          3
        ],
        [
          4
        ],
        [
          5
        ],
        [
          6
        ],
        [
          7
        ],
        [
          8
        ],
        [
          9,
          10
        ],
        [
          11
        ]
      ]
    },
    "finding": "The source distinguishes eleven formula occurrences from ten major sections by grouping the two Esau occurrences. Both counts describe legitimate but different objects.",
    "reassessment": "Compare Terah’s position under the two counting measures.",
    "checks": {
      "eleven_occurrences": true,
      "ten_sections": true,
      "merged_Esau": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T04:00:11.249289+00:00",
    "sha256": "570feede800177aa18554be049cd898ff48275b5249bb81d366339a3c87d34dc"
  },
  {
    "step": 1024,
    "title": "Midpoint depends on the measure",
    "question": "Does Terah occupy the same center after section contraction?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C1023"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T04:00:13.195749+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "570feede800177aa18554be049cd898ff48275b5249bb81d366339a3c87d34dc",
    "results": {
      "Terah_occurrence": 6,
      "Terah_section": 6,
      "occurrence_arms": [
        5,
        5
      ],
      "section_arms": [
        5,
        4
      ]
    },
    "finding": "Terah has five occurrences on each side, but five earlier and four later major sections. The difference arises from changing the counting measure, not from an erroneous source count.",
    "reassessment": "Determine whether occurrence reflection descends to the section quotient.",
    "checks": {
      "occurrence_center": true,
      "section_asymmetry": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T04:00:13.196575+00:00",
    "sha256": "962bc4be7a80018df2a1ed3ddf3c29ec93471b6178446dbab6f661266893fc32"
  },
  {
    "step": 1025,
    "title": "Reflection obstruction under contraction",
    "question": "Can occurrence reflection define a consistent map on the ten sections?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C1023",
      "C1024"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T04:00:15.130412+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "962bc4be7a80018df2a1ed3ddf3c29ec93471b6178446dbab6f661266893fc32",
    "results": {
      "obstructions": [
        {
          "block": [
            9,
            10
          ],
          "reflected_occurrences": [
            3,
            2
          ],
          "sections": [
            2,
            3
          ]
        }
      ],
      "reflection_descends": false
    },
    "finding": "The merged Esau class reflects into distinct Noah and Adam sections. Therefore occurrence reflection cannot define a single section-level image for that class.",
    "reassessment": "Retain multiplicity to preserve the occurrence measure without changing the source sections.",
    "checks": {
      "unique_obstruction": true,
      "Esau_obstruction": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T04:00:15.130701+00:00",
    "sha256": "fc3f012bee8f88b696e7f642676f6d63634157cf859ba6962e8859c286a815d1"
  },
  {
    "step": 1026,
    "title": "Multiplicity preserves a lost measure",
    "question": "What source information restores the5|1|5 occurrence count?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C1023–C1025"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T04:00:38.503095+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "fc3f012bee8f88b696e7f642676f6d63634157cf859ba6962e8859c286a815d1",
    "results": {
      "section_weights": [
        1,
        1,
        1,
        1,
        1,
        1,
        1,
        1,
        2,
        1
      ],
      "weighted_arms": [
        5,
        5
      ],
      "total_occurrences": 11,
      "limit": "measure restored; single-valued section reflection still absent"
    },
    "finding": "Retaining section multiplicities preserves the occurrence count and its center. It does not make the obstructed reflection single-valued on unexpanded sections.",
    "reassessment": "Identify the extra grouping a formal reflection-stable quotient would require.",
    "checks": {
      "weights": true,
      "equal_weighted_arms": true,
      "count": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T04:00:38.503408+00:00",
    "sha256": "39370453627c5c40cc769d7e4cc5a4ec3c3dd65dd8d0d1b6fbdfe06b388acd6b"
  },
  {
    "step": 1027,
    "title": "Formal closure reveals the missing source permission",
    "question": "What extra merge would make the section grouping stable under reflection?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C1025",
      "C1026"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T04:00:40.445959+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "39370453627c5c40cc769d7e4cc5a4ec3c3dd65dd8d0d1b6fbdfe06b388acd6b",
    "results": {
      "formal_blocks": [
        [
          1
        ],
        [
          2,
          3
        ],
        [
          4
        ],
        [
          5
        ],
        [
          6
        ],
        [
          7
        ],
        [
          8
        ],
        [
          9,
          10
        ],
        [
          11
        ]
      ],
      "extra_merge": [
        "Adam",
        "Noah"
      ],
      "status": "obstruction witness only; source does not authorize the extra merge"
    },
    "finding": "A formal stable closure would merge Adam and Noah as well as the two Esau occurrences. That shows the cost of forcing quotient symmetry; the source sections are retained unchanged.",
    "reassessment": "State a general descent criterion and test it against a legitimate chronological coarsening.",
    "checks": {
      "stable": true,
      "nine_classes": true,
      "extra_merge_required": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T04:00:40.446289+00:00",
    "sha256": "e2a2ad9cad5a693712877b7bb7f3534e84b45c559514b1b85a233d86b111fad9"
  },
  {
    "step": 1028,
    "title": "General reflection descent criterion",
    "question": "When does a source grouping carry an existing involution?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C1025",
      "C1027"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T04:00:42.389009+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "e2a2ad9cad5a693712877b7bb7f3534e84b45c559514b1b85a233d86b111fad9",
    "results": {
      "point_quotient": "q(x)=q(y) implies q(Rx)=q(Ry).",
      "boundary_subset": "Selected boundaries must be invariant under R.",
      "interval_coarsening": "R must permute complete coarse blocks.",
      "proof": "The proposed map q(x)↦q(Rx) is well-defined exactly when representatives of one class have a common image class."
    },
    "finding": "Reflection can pass to a grouped object only when the grouping respects its action. Point identification, interval coarsening and boundary selection require their own checks.",
    "reassessment": "Test the source NT490 coarsening as a contrasting complete field.",
    "checks": {
      "Toledot_counterexample": true,
      "representative_condition_explicit": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T04:00:42.389353+00:00",
    "sha256": "5653889cd9b0ba5b0bdabd7dffa729ca3c51cbf82040188864e6115170a16e11"
  },
  {
    "step": 1029,
    "title": "NT equal-block coarsening preserves reflection",
    "question": "Does the complete77-edge NT field carry reflection through seven-edge blocks?",
    "inputs": {
      "edges": 77,
      "block_size": 7
    },
    "sources": [
      "File43",
      "File54",
      "C1028"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T04:01:19.343924+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "5653889cd9b0ba5b0bdabd7dffa729ca3c51cbf82040188864e6115170a16e11",
    "results": {
      "block_map": [
        10,
        9,
        8,
        7,
        6,
        5,
        4,
        3,
        2,
        1,
        0
      ],
      "selected_boundaries": [
        0,
        7,
        14,
        21,
        28,
        35,
        42,
        49,
        56,
        63,
        70,
        77
      ],
      "reflected_boundaries": [
        77,
        70,
        63,
        56,
        49,
        42,
        35,
        28,
        21,
        14,
        7,
        0
      ]
    },
    "finding": "Reflection permutes all eleven equal seven-edge blocks, so the NT490 coarsening passes the criterion. This explains why one contraction preserves the reflection that the Toledot section quotient loses.",
    "reassessment": "Compare the three kinds of retained information now exposed.",
    "checks": {
      "all_blocks": true,
      "boundary_invariance": true,
      "eleven_blocks": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T04:01:19.344406+00:00",
    "sha256": "fceec64736d298c84820860ac60bcf8a9becb90c69fa152136e26fc41d36ce65"
  },
  {
    "step": 1030,
    "title": "Cross-family information comparison",
    "question": "What separates recoverable measurements, constrained reconstructions and lossy grouping?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C983",
      "C995",
      "C1011",
      "C1014",
      "C1019",
      "C1026",
      "C1029"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T04:01:21.300364+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "fceec64736d298c84820860ac60bcf8a9becb90c69fa152136e26fc41d36ce65",
    "results": {
      "comparison": {
        "path": "model/cross_family_information_table.json",
        "sha256": "acf520efab07299b319279c350b2092503e77e097c1ddc74afd3f103e973446b",
        "bytes": 1014
      }
    },
    "finding": "Families can share arithmetic operations without sharing the same information content. The useful comparison names the object, retained source conditions, and what can be recovered.",
    "reassessment": "Checkpoint the first hundred actions and carry source-review corrections forward.",
    "checks": {
      "five_family_types": true,
      "loss_not_uniform": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T04:01:21.300844+00:00",
    "sha256": "7752038cf23d4d7fc0276450a8db6921fe827bc98dd39eb732c9e20462645f75"
  },
  {
    "step": 1031,
    "title": "Halfway synthesis and source correction",
    "question": "What has the first hundred actions established, and what next best advances the Strategy?",
    "inputs": {},
    "sources": [
      "C932–C1030",
      "independent SP cap and Key reviews",
      "SupplementA §10.3"
    ],
    "opened_utc": "2026-09-28T04:01:23.256217+00:00",
    "predecessor_sha256": "7752038cf23d4d7fc0276450a8db6921fe827bc98dd39eb732c9e20462645f75",
    "results": {
      "checkpoint": {
        "path": "model/checkpoint_1031.json",
        "sha256": "d01097937a2e9c048509a82646aaf16802218f0299d7d412b23243b5dec692aa",
        "bytes": 853
      },
      "completed": 100
    },
    "finding": "The first hundred actions produce a clearer family-level explanation and explicit dependency limits. Source attribution for the9660|2940 retained-lower family is corrected to SupplementA §10.3.",
    "reassessment": "Begin the Covenant/clutch constraint block from its source-local ages and offsets.",
    "checks": {
      "halfway": true,
      "source_correction_recorded": true
    },
    "closed_utc": "2026-09-28T04:01:23.256570+00:00",
    "sha256": "57e419f93ebb5dc55f022e4835cb6c89772fcc347cdb300835ebbcfa7d83f938"
  }
]