phase4.py

from pathlib import Path
import sys
from fractions import Fraction as F
sys.path.insert(0,str(Path(__file__).resolve().parents[1]))
from runner import *

run('Place the Enochian coefficient','Does the SP inverse Flood-to-Nativity radius realize the inherited7.5×364 form?',
 lambda:{'span':2736-6,'factor':F(15,2)*364,'also_70_units':F(2736-6,70),'source_role':'year-span with an inherited Enochian coefficient'},
 '2736→6 is2730=7.5×364=39×70, linking the inverse junction to the source’s established Enochian form.',
 'Keep this2730 radius distinct from the stage displacement2700.', ['File17.md §§13.5,13A.3','File63.md §4.7'])

run('Compare2730 with the stage displacement','Why are the nearby2730 and2700 different quantities?',
 lambda:{'SP_radius':2736-6,'stage_displacement':5436-2736,'difference':(2736-6)-(5436-2736),'calendar_coefficients':[F(15,2)*364,F(15,2)*360]},
 'The Enochian-form radius exceeds the stage displacement by30; their shared7.5 coefficients reproduce the364/360 difference. Their chronological roles remain different.',
 'Turn to the source-appointed430 chain through Exodus and Jerusalem.')

run('Reconstruct the2150 path','How does the2736→586 relation divide at the source Exodus anchor1446?',
 lambda:model('exodus_destruction_path',{'nodes':[2736,1446,586],'legs':[2736-1446,1446-586],'units430':[F(2736-1446,430),F(1446-586,430)],'total':2736-586,'total430':F(2736-586,430)}),
 'The2150 interval divides as1290+860=3×430+2×430. The previously observed SP→Exodus edge joins the established Exodus→Jerusalem edge.',
 'Place this appointed586 node within the supplied70-year exile frame.', ['Comparative_Study.md §7.5','File17.md §5 Egypt bookends'])

run('Locate Jerusalem within the exile frame','What does586 contribute between606 and536?',
 lambda:{'exile_nodes':[606,586,536],'exile_legs':[606-586,586-536],'SP_radii':{str(y):2736-y for y in [606,586,536]},'total':606-536},
 'The selected exile divides20+50; SP2736 lies2130,2150 and2200 years before the three respective nodes.',
 'Use the already declared70-year unit to compare the main completed-stage junctions.')

run('Normalize the completed junctions by70','What coordinates do the named head, Shem and Covenant nodes have from536 in units70?',
 lambda:model('restoration70_grid',{'origin':536,'unit':70,'nodes':{str(y):F(y-536,70) for y in [606,1866,5366,5436,13136,14116]},'roles':{'606':'exile start','1866':'MT Minimum Covenant','5366':'LXX Year6 Cainan removed','5436':'MT cumulative Shem / SP inverseFlood','13136':'LXX regular inversehead','14116':'SP cumulative inversehead'}}),
 'The named nodes occupy1,19,69,70,180 and194 units. This compresses the Babylonian and Covenant comparisons into one coordinate table.',
 'Express the established Covenant Key directly in this same table.')

run('Embed the Covenant Key in the Babylonian grid','How does the161→175 Covenant carrier connect the two inverse heads here?',
 lambda:{'normalized_anchor':19,'normalized_input':180,'normalized_output':19+F(25,23)*(180-19),'input_radius_units':180-19,'output_radius_units':194-19,'actual_radius':[13136-1866,14116-1866],'gain':14116-13136},
 'The Covenant Key is19+(25/23)×161=194: exactly70 copies of161→175, linking LXX13136 toSP14116 with980 gain.',
 'Compare both heads against their shared5436 junction rather than against the Covenant alone.', ['File60.md §2.6','Reader_before.md Covenant bridge'])

run('Compare the two inverse heads through Shem','How do LXX and SP divide above the same completed SP Flood/MT Shem coordinate?',
 lambda:{'LXX_path':[13136,5436,536],'SP_path':[14116,5436,536],'upper_legs':[13136-5436,14116-5436],'upper_units70':[F(7700,70),F(8680,70)],'shared_lower':4900,'totals':[12600,13580],'head_gain_units':F(980,70)},
 'The paths are110+70 and124+70 units. Their14-unit difference is the Covenant Key’s980-year gain, while5436 remains a shared comparison point.',
 'Test whether that shared comparison point is also fixed by the Key itself.')

run('Test the internal junction under the Covenant Key','Does the head-to-head Key also fix or map the shared5436 junction as a whole-path map?',
 lambda:{'image_of5436':key(5436,1866),'displacement':key(5436,1866)-5436,'same_junction':key(5436,1866)==5436,'head_image':key(13136,1866)},
 'The head map reaches14116, but5436 moves by7140/23. Shared placement of the junction does not make the Key a map of both complete paths.',
 'Retain the head relation and branch translation as complementary operations.')

run('Locate the first-stage70 grid','How does the common7700 edge appear from the6 BC reference?',
 lambda:{'origin':6,'unit':70,'first_stage':{str(y):F(y-6,70) for y in [2736,10436]},'head_minus_junction_units':F(10436-2736,70),'completed_grid':{'5436':70,'13136':180},'grid_increment':F(2700-(536-6),70)},
 'The first-stage pair is39/149 units from6; the completed pair is70/180 from536. Both retain110 units, and changing origin as well as stage adds31 units to each.',
 'State that this is a selected named-node grid rather than a universal calendar for every anchor.')

run('Check the scope of the70-unit display','Do all declared event anchors lie on that same integer grid?',
 lambda:{'origin':536,'unit':70,'other_selected_nodes':{str(y):F(y-536,70) for y in [586,1406,1446,6]},'integer_nodes':[y for y in [586,1406,1446,6] if (y-536)%70==0]},
 'Exodus1446 also lies13 units from536, but586,1406 and6 do not lie on the integer grid. The table is a concise relation among selected nodes.',
 'Complete the first50 actions by consolidating the source graph and reviewing the Strategy afresh.')