Next research question after C1131

Can a source-supported local rule explain the SP inputs that the Flood cap does not recover?

The cap now accounts for the complete nine-row output. With the inclusive capacity contribution 601 held, its three clipped rows recover Lamech 52, Methuselah 67 and Jared plus Enoch 127. Retaining Enoch 65 recovers Jared 62. Earlier begetting values and the original lifespan excess above the cap remain supplied. This is the most concrete remaining explanatory gap.

A bounded next study should:

1. Freeze the same ordered Adam-to-Lamech field, count tags and source editions.
2. Separate the five earlier begetting values, the Jared–Enoch split and the discarded lifespan excesses as different unknowns.
3. Extract candidate local relations from the supplied sources before evaluating their consequences. Record every additional input a relation requires.
4. Compare each candidate's complete reconstructed field with that source field, including failures and unconstrained coordinates.
5. Retain a proposed relation only for what it explains. A reversible re-description does not reduce the number of supplied quantities.

The first future action, C1132, should inventory explicit source relations for those remaining inputs and state which unknown each relation could constrain. It should not begin by choosing another endpoint to hit. If the sources supply no additional constraint, that negative conclusion is a valid stopping point for this branch.

This is a future research brief, not an executed extension of the completed 200-action cycle. Historical direction of transmission remains a separate evidential question; previously explored families are not untouched holdouts. The current scope continues to defer second decimal inversion and remote source-chain expansion.