Proposed claim, source and status table
The results distinguish retained source premises, verified calculations, conditional mechanisms and interpretive comparisons. A conditional mechanism explains the complete selected family from its named inputs; it does not establish how those inputs originated.
| Family | What is established | Status | Principal source |
|---|---|---|---|
| SP ages and cap | Source age relations and located capacity losses explain the full nine-row cap and its115/249/124 reductions. | Conditional mechanism | File18 §§2.1.3,3.1–3.1.3; File51a §8.3 |
| Regular/Cumulative rows | Different preserved row components generate complete fields; native Cainan is measured as130 or460. | Exact source reconstruction | File18 §§1.6,2–4,4A |
| Rounded residuals | Located residuals explain exact source changes and recover the full paths when retained. | Operation relation and source application | File51a §§3.1,3.4,16; File18 §3.1 |
| SP rectangle | The row/cap mechanisms feed the established2760/11960 equal-gain construction after the declared openings. | Provenance of an existing comparison | Strategy §4.3; File18 §§3,6C |
| Moses path | Five named blocks explain the connected430/490 spans and the composite130 | 800 comparison. | Complete calculation; typology separate |
| Regular kernel | The1250/650 row field and405 variant field meet through the stated two-condition calibration. | Source construction plus observed calibration | Strategy §4.1; File18 §§1–4; File07 §2.11.1a |
| NT interface | A complete22-name birth comparison exposes what shared births preserve and differing lives leave unseen. | Integration of supplied fields | File43 §3.4; File18 §§2–4; File54 §§1–2 |
| Inverse interface | Three original words reconstructed from the genealogy enter the inherited single-reversal paths. | Verified interface; completion inherited | LatestFile52c §§2.1,3.3–3.4 |
Keep the source choices alongside the relevant claim: SP count bindings and baseline lives; named row supports and native Cainan; the quantity rounded; the rectangle’s frame and openings; Moses’ selected event path; the kernel’s two calibration conditions; NT names and metric; and File52c’s original cuts and anchors.
The main interpretive example is Arphaxad as a “second Adam.” The calculation establishes a130|800 composite path equal to Adam’s two biography components. The typological identification remains the source’s reading. Likewise, the midpoint950 may be compared with Noah’s lifespan without becoming an independent derivation of the1250/650 pair.
The new source mechanism or interface is stated separately from inherited results. Re-expressing a known endpoint, constructing an operation register or reproducing a dependent total does not create an additional witness. The JSON companion supplies precise retained premises, chronological scope, step references and source hashes for editorial integration.