questions before calculation.json

{
  "status": "Preparation only. Questions fixed before interface calculations. Thirteen candidates are worthwhile; the requested20–25 would require substantial repetition.",
  "scope": "Source52c admitted completed paths and existing32-source paired field, linked to the prepared Key calibration/allocation constraints. No second decimal inversion, new target count, or new chronological route.",
  "questions": [
    {"id":"IQ01","question":"Does the source14720→16000 whole-span Key conversion preserve integer coordinates at every admitted internal breakpoint of all four completed paths?","priority":"high","novelty":"Complete source-path integrality, not another evaluation of the known endpoint."},
    {"id":"IQ02","question":"Can one residue-prefix rule recover the finest consecutive coarsening with integral E-transformed block lengths for every admitted path?","priority":"high","novelty":"Interfaces uniform coarsening compatibility with grid-domain restrictions."},
    {"id":"IQ03","question":"Which information must remain when integer outer closure permits only a coarse numerical block?","priority":"high","novelty":"Separate a numerical coarsening from deletion of source-appointed chronological nodes."},
    {"id":"IQ04","question":"Within the completed cumulative two-branch register, does integral E closure select exactly the branch already selected by primary inverse convergence?","priority":"high","novelty":"Prove equivalence of two apparent checks on the finite source-derived domain."},
    {"id":"IQ05","question":"What additional placement premise is required before an integral14720 duration gives the stated16006BC endpoint?","priority":"supporting","novelty":"Protect the corrected tail/anchor provenance; no independent new arithmetic claim."},
    {"id":"IQ06","question":"Does the same completed14720 scalar admit coherent exact P and J calendar comparisons even when their year counts are fractional?","priority":"medium","novelty":"New source-family transfer of calibration with integrality kept separate; not new chronology admissions."},
    {"id":"IQ07","question":"Can the previously licensed1/6 and1/26 allocation rules be realized by selecting any whole components of these completed inverse paths?","priority":"high","novelty":"Concrete source-support test for transferring allocation equivalences to the inverse module."},
    {"id":"IQ08","question":"Does the absence of an integer selected component reflect failure of calibration, or a missing subdivision premise?","priority":"supporting","novelty":"Distinguish an operator identity from a source-appointed realization; combine withIQ07 if redundant."},
    {"id":"IQ09","question":"Can either member of a long-core paired-anchor branch share integral expansion with the other about any common integer Key pivot?","priority":"high","novelty":"Digit-borrow gap990/1980 supplies a pivot-independent obstruction, without target selection or frequency counts."},
    {"id":"IQ10","question":"What symbolic congruence controls the corresponding shortened-core and retained-zero branches?","priority":"medium","novelty":"Whole branch-law interface; derive formulas without enumerating target outcomes."},
    {"id":"IQ11","question":"What exact rational mesh carries the full existing paired-endpoint field under a common E comparison, and how does it relate to the already supplied nine-member pillar field?","priority":"medium","novelty":"Whole-field lattice representation without rounding, target scanning, or new admission."},
    {"id":"IQ12","question":"Do additional uniform Key measurements increase the information rank of the raw/reversed aggregate pair?","priority":"medium","novelty":"An explicit dependency certificate joining the two measurement modules."},
    {"id":"IQ13","question":"Which interface assertions are identities, equivalent finite-domain constraints, source-support tests, or additional source premises?","priority":"high","novelty":"Compact dependency ledger, not another source-value fitting exercise."}
  ]
}