# Fifteen discriminating questions for BJ whole-family transfer

Prepared for root selection after the MT/LXX/SP work. These are proposed questions and expected exact consequences, **not executed C-steps or additional independent discoveries**. Freeze each question before root execution and reassess its successor afterward. The intended emphasis is transfer of labelled paths, indexed lists, and local residuals. The sequence does not require a new boundary survey.

## Frozen evidence and reading conventions

The prior preparation files remain immutable:

- `jubilees_packet.json`: SHA256 `0391262338eb85d8b5dfc823d38774f15ca99158cbeea588a263887074f48140`.
- `jubilees_memo.md`: SHA256 `90c23ab118538310b8098170b6df1e28552edc638e0a27976038dff5bac79135`.

Source abbreviations below use the exact local files and hashes already frozen in that packet:

| Abbreviation | File | SHA256 |
|---|---|---|
| F20 | `project_sources/01-File_20.Jubilees_Fourth_Witness-2-.md` | `c8822cb5bb81a7ac72eac44774c0aba5e1470c1b1ba63b612a1364a393a440fe` |
| F53 | `project_sources/03-File_53.Jubilees_22Fold_Creation_Genealogy_Witness-4-.md` | `9f0e41022cab59a43c090c98224e55fe45e622a15e094dacad6721bea0aee8f3` |
| F43 | `project_sources/06-File_43.Genealogical_Bridge-2-.md` | `dde4eca7c1f64eaef93f1084cd6aef99776b38c7673c680e8ff8185c0fc5a987` |

Line ranges are exact source locators, not web citations. All following ancient-text attributions are claims of these supplied project sources; no independent manuscript verification has been performed. Numerical consequences not literally printed in those sources are explicitly proposed calculations. No BJ cumulative lifespan for Kainan is supplied, and no such number should be invented. Latest File52c controls Rounded, second decimal inversion remains deferred, and neither primer nor upstream Gear transport is opened.

## 1. Can one ordered labelled object recover the entire 22-work/head correspondence?

**Literal evidence:** packet table `works_heads`; F53 §2, lines190–213. Each body row is literal. In row order the head labels are:

`Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob / Israel`.

The literal day column is `1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,3,3,3,3,4,4,4,5,5,5,6,6,6,6`; the source prints `7+1+4+3+3+4=22` at line188. Keep the work labels from the JSON rows rather than replacing them with generic slots.

**Proposed test:** reconstruct all22 three-part rows `(index, day class, head/work pairing)` using the fixed source order and day-cut indices7,8,12,15,18,22. These cuts are derived from the declared day counts, not additional fitted inputs.

**Discriminator:** the count22 alone cannot recover the supplied six-day distribution or head order. A successful reconstruction therefore requires an ordered, labelled source object; it does not establish that the proposed patriarchal parallel was historically intended. F53 line184 expressly calls that parallel structural inference.

**Reassess:** proceed to the source-defined insertion site, not to a search for other22s.

## 2. Does Cainan retention act on the entire index suffix exactly as claimed?

**Literal evidence:** F53 line215 says Jacob becomes23 if Cainan is inserted; §3 lines217–242 places retained Cainan at13 and expunged Shelah at13. F53 §16, literal rows1092–1096, supplies Jacob22, Levi23, Kohath24, Amram25, Moses/Aaron26 in the expunged count.

**Proposed operation:** insert Kainan after Arpachshad12. For every surviving source head, `i_retained=i_expunged+1[i_expunged≥13]`; retain all work/day labels as a separate22-row object. Extend only to the four explicitly supplied downstream heads.

**Expected whole-family consequence:** the first12 head indices remain fixed; the Shelah–Jacob ten-head suffix and the four supplied priestly successors each shift+1. Kainan alone is the new row. Deletion restores every surviving index when performed on that declared site.

**Discriminator:** keeping Jacob at22 while including all prior named heads would require a second omission or overlap not supplied here. Do not invent it. Nor should the extra retained head be assigned an invented23rd creation work.

**Reassess:** carry the deletion site into the temporal ledger, while allowing its weight to differ from one index unit.

## 3. Can one weighted edge contraction reconstruct every row of the BJ chronology deletion table?

**Literal evidence:** packet `cainan_deletion`, F53 §3A.2, lines291–296:

| Row | Original | Expunged |
|---|---:|---:|
| Creation, line293 | 3856 | 3799 |
| Flood, line294 | 2549 | 2492 |
| Kainan, line295 | 2482 | removed |
| Shelah, line296 | 2425 | 2425 |

F53 §3A.1, lines253–269, supplies Kainan→Shelah57. Lines277–287 explicitly retain Shelah and later dates while shifting the preceding chronology−57.

**Proposed reconstruction:** original labelled path has edges `1307|67|57`; contract the Kainan→Shelah57 contribution, remove Kainan’s row, and keep Shelah fixed. Regenerate the two upstream endpoints by the retained edges `1307|67`.

**Expected consequence:** the whole surviving path becomes3799→2492→2425, preserving Creation→Flood1307 and replacing Flood→Shelah124 with67. Total1431 becomes1374. These are derived outputs of one contraction, not multiple corroborating coincidences.

**Discriminator:** a whole-path translation−57 would move Shelah and retain1431, failing the source. Deleting the name without its weight would retain3856/2549 and fail the source’s second ledger.

**Reassess:** use the successful typed operation to explain why the same genealogical count change has different chronological effects across families.

## 4. Which measurements of a deleted row transfer across BJ, regular LXX, and cumulative LXX?

**Literal evidence:** Q2–Q3 supply the BJ count change1 and begetting interval57. The existing controlled LXX source row, retained in C731’s opening section, supplies begetting130 and lifespan460. Native LXX already contains this row; this question introduces no additional insertion.

**Proposed whole-row comparison:** retain measurement labels `head count`, `begetting accumulation`, and `lifespan accumulation`. Record BJ `(1,57,unknown)` beside controlled LXX `(1,130,460)`. Apply the established path-contraction rule using the declared weight in each known measurement.

**Discriminator:** a count-only model assigns the same input1 to different known effects57 and130, so it cannot determine their chronological displacement. Likewise130 cannot be silently substituted for460. The commonality is the operation on source rows; the weights remain source data.

**Expected explanatory gain:** BJ joins the existing regular/cumulative framework without being forced into either a universal scalar conversion or an invented BJ cumulative chronology. The missing BJ lifespan remains an actual limitation of the supplied packet.

**Reassess:** test the source’s round2400 result using its exact retained endpoint roles.

## 5. Does the50-year trunk change follow from57-year deletion plus the seven-year role offset?

**Literal evidence:** F53 §7 lines800,804 gives Creation3856→Conquest1406=2450 and Fall3849→rest1399=2450. F53 §3A.3 lines312–330 gives compressedCreation3799→rest1399=2400 and3849−3799=50.

**Proposed composition:** first distinguish the paired −7 translation linking Creation/Conquest with Fall/rest; then compare compressedCreation `3856−57` to the retained Fall3849 with the same rest1399. Algebraically, `Fall−compressedCreation=(3856−7)−(3856−57)=57−7=50`.

**Discriminator:** the source’s50 is not the deleted interval itself. Calling it a direct57→50 conversion would conceal the changed start role. One targeted check, `(3849−57)−1399=2393`, suffices to show what happens if the deletion is incorrectly applied to Fall while its label is retained.

**Expected gain:** a round total is explained by source-weighted contraction and role selection, without claiming global rounding of BJ.

**Reassess:** establish once what object the source’s2400 symmetry actually acts on.

## 6. Does the entire2400 comparison close under reflection, and what exactly is reflected?

**Literal evidence:** packet `compressed_comparison`, F53 §3A.4 lines340–347 explicitly says **original** Noah/Shem/Flood nodes and supplies paired arms `(650,1750),(1150,1250),(1250,1150),(1750,650)` between3799 and1399. Packet `primary_fall_comparison`, lines828–834, adds Noah’s death `(1650,800)` within the2450 frame.

**Proposed whole-object test:** derive the four comparison coordinates3149,2649,2549,2049 from the supplied arms; verify closure under `R(x)=5198−x`, pairing the two outer and two inner roles. The generated center2599 is not an event.

**Required domain distinction:** this object uses originalFlood2549. Q3’s expunged chronology explicitly uses2492. Their equality must not be asserted. The implied Shem2649/2049 comparison labels also remain separate from F20’s explicit Shem2650/idealNoah3150 at lines535 and547–550, and Dean’s derived2050 terminal. Do not open a new Gear study to reconcile those displays.

**Discriminator:** Noah-death2199 is not closed within the four-node reflection; it supplies the separate800-year trisection. The primary2450 interval list700|500|100|350|150|650 is not palindromic merely because it can be read backward. Preserve the literary reading while stating the narrower exact symmetry.

**Reassess:** leave this mixed comparison after one complete domain-qualified result. The next gain should concern the whole post-Abraham path.

## 7. Can one jubilee/week/year encoding recover every supplied exact surface timestamp?

**Literal evidence:** use the following six supplied tuples, without fitting chronology to preferred ages:

| Role | Jubilee/week/year | Literal AM | Locator |
|---|---|---:|---|
| Jared birth | 10/3/6 | 461 | F20 line1135 |
| Terah birth | 37/6/7 | 1806 | F20 line889 |
| Abraham birth | 39/2/7 | 1876 | F20 line890 |
| Isaac birth | 41/4/6 | 1987 | F20 line923 |
| Jacob birth | 42/6/2 | 2046 | F20 line924 |
| Jacob death | 45/5/4 | 2188 | F20 line925 |

**Proposed generator:** `A(j,w,y)=49(j−1)+7(w−1)+y`. Evaluate all six literal tuples. This formula preserves literal49-year jubilees and ordinal within-week counting. The source epoch is3856BC=Year1 (F20 lines1357–1360), so the accompanying BC chart is `3857−AM`.

**Discriminator:** replacing49 by50 destroys the given tuples. Macro50 in2450=50×49 counts jubilees; it does not redefine their length.

**Reassess:** preserve the successfully regenerated surface ledger when comparing it with the source’s distinct biological reconstruction.

## 8. What does the complete biological path preserve, and how does the surface path differ?

**Literal evidence:** F20 `blueprint` rows953–956 and F53 §13A rows979–982 supply Abraham→Isaac→Jacob→Entry as BC1981,1881,1821,1691, AM1876,1976,2036,2166. Surface AM1876,1987,2046,2171 comes from F20 lines890,923,924,942.

**Proposed comparison:** reconstruct all four nodes from the common Abraham anchor and stated intervals100|60|130. Independently derive the complete surface interval list111|59|125 from the literal AM dates. Keep both tables visible.

**Discriminator/source tension:** F20 line937 attributes the changes partly to replacing Isaac–Jacob60 with70; its printed surface endpoints yield59. The numerical result is59. The70 explanation remains an unresolved source-prose tension. It is not acceptable to correct the literal dates to make the prose true.

**Expected gain:** both the retained biological spine and the irreducible surface discrepancy are represented. BJ supplies a test of a source-conditioned reconstruction, not a single already reconciled chronology.

**Reassess:** apply the earlier difference/sum grammar to this whole residual profile rather than inventing node-specific adjustments.

## 9. Does the already established reconstruction operator explain the entire residual profile?

**Literal evidence:** the two four-node vectors frozen inQ8. No further dates or adjustments are admitted.

**Proposed transfer:** in AM the node residual is `r=(0,11,10,5)`. Its adjacent difference is `Δr=(11,−1,−5)`. Reaccumulating these three changes from the fixed Abraham anchor must regenerate every surface node. In BC the node residual signs reverse because the chart has slope−1.

**Discriminator:** one translation would require constant residuals. One dilation about the common Abraham anchor would require the same ratio on elapsed100,160,290; the actual surface elapsed values111,170,295 do not permit it. This is a single whole-path rejection of overcompression, not a parameter sweep.

**Expected gain:** the imported linear rule works unchanged, but its local source coefficients11,−1,−5 still need source explanation. Do not claim those coefficients have been predicted merely because their cumulative effects have been reconstructed.

**Reassess:** attach the separately supplied Jacob-death row to see whether the residual stops changing on a retained terminal interval.

## 10. Does Jacob’s final17-year interval survive the source-state change?

**Literal evidence:** surface entry2171AM at F20 line942; surface death2188AM at line925; stated Jacob entry-age130 and lifespan147 at lines914–915; reconstructed Jacob birth2036AM at line955 and entry2166AM at line956.

**Proposed continuation:** derive reconstructed death2183AM from2036+147 and mark it generated. Compare reconstructed2166→2183 with surface2171→2188.

**Expected whole-terminal result:** both intervals are17, and the pair translates+5AM/−5BC. Surface birth2046→death2188 gives142 against the stated147; the five-year birth-age discrepancy is not removed by the preserved terminal17.

**Discriminator:** a global+5 translation from Abraham onward would fail Isaac and Jacob birth. It becomes valid only on the two supplied terminal boundaries. This distinguishes local repartition from translation of a retained subpath.

**Reassess:** append the fixed Conquest endpoint to the birth–entry path, which exposes whether the remaining total is conserved.

## 11. Does the source’s preferred280-year tail result from zero-sum repartition of one fixed575-year body?

**Literal evidence:** common Abraham1981BC from F20 lines890/953; fixedConquest1406 and call/conquest relation in lines1146–1148/1164; reconstructedEntry1691 at line956; surfaceEntry1686 at line942. F20 line941 explicitly selects280=4×70 for the surface tail.

**Proposed complete path:** append Conquest to both Q8 vectors. The reconstructed edges are `100|60|130|285`; the surface edges are `111|59|125|280`. Their differences are `11|−1|−5|−5`, summing to0. Both whole paths span575.

**Discriminator:** the source constraint280 specifies the final tail, but does not uniquely select all prior Isaac/Jacob positions. Those still come from the literal jubilee ledger. Reaching280 therefore explains the entry placement and its five-year transfer, not every earlier discrepancy or a proven redaction sequence.

**Expected gain:** this is the clearest BJ counterpart to lifespan-preserving repartition: internal boundaries move while a fixed outer span survives. It expands the grammar’s domain without changing the rule.

**Reassess:** compare a second source-admitted partition of the same290-year reconstructed subpath.

## 12. Do the biological and sacrifice/death paths coarsen one labelled290-year refinement?

**Literal evidence:** reconstructed birth/Isaac/Jacob/entry1981,1881,1821,1691 fromQ8; F20 §8.1 lines1182–1184 explicitly supplies Abraham1981, Isaac1881, sacrifice1866; Abraham death1806 is literal at line957. F20 §8.6 rows1227–1230 supplies115|60|115=290.

**Proposed union:** order the six supplied coordinates1981,1881,1866,1821,1806,1691. The finest gaps are100|15|45|15|115. Selecting the biological cuts gives100|60|130; selecting sacrifice/death gives115|60|115. Both retain the same labelled outer endpoints.

**Discriminator:** equal totals do not identify Isaac birth with sacrifice, or Jacob birth with Abraham death. The two admitted partitions become compatible by retaining the finer labelled path. This is directly analogous to C731’s emphasis on retained subdivisions, without opening decimal reversal or the quarantined1876 primer.

**Reassess:** transfer retained-component expansion to the larger BJ Creation–Conquest family.

## 13. Can the two460-year bookends and their completion reconstruct the complete2450 path?

**Literal evidence:** F20 lines1135–1140 supplies Creation3856, Jared3396, and the complete inherited early begetting list130+105+90+70+65. Lines1146–1148 supplies call1906→Exodus1446=460, E(460)=500, call1906→Conquest1406=500. Lines1154–1155 states translation1950 between corresponding bookend endpoints.

**Proposed full object:** `(3856,3396,1906,1446,1406)` with gaps460|1490|460|40. Verify the same1950 translation on both bookend endpoints, then applyE only to the last460 while holding call1906 and the earlier path fixed. The tail gains40 and reaches1406.

**Expected gain:** the source’s coarse460+1950+40=2450 and the finer460+1490+460+40=2450 are compatible coarsenings. The inherited five begetting inputs explain the first460; the call/Exodus source placement explains the second. Their equality and translation are one related family, not separate independent discoveries.

**Discriminator:** applyingE to the entire earlier path would move retained junctions and would not express the supplied construction. The proposed center2651 of the first four nodes, if recorded, remains generated and is not needed to make the argument.

**Reassess:** test the specific NT duration interface at its native head roles, without forcing an entireBJ/NT date map.

## 14. Does the NT2450 relation share a measurement grammar while retaining different source roles?

**Literal evidence:** F43 lines525–532 supplies LukeSpan76×70=5320; lines592–605 supplies Matthew birth-hinge40×70=2800 and2806BC; lines613–627 supplies the extra70 head envelope2876BC. Literal heads5326/2876 appear at lines766–767. BJ2450=50×49 is F53 line800 and F20 line1133.

**Proposed complete head construction:** retain the shared6BC bracket and source carriers. Luke head is6+76×70; Matthew head envelope is6+(40+1)×70. Their difference is35×70=2450=50×49.

**Discriminator:** substituting Matthew’s birth-hinge head2806 for its envelope2876 changes the gap to2520. This single role check is necessary to identify the source relation; no wider anchor scan is useful. Also distinguish Luke’s75 intervals from its76 names-span; do not silently substitute one for the other.

**Expected gain:** two source constructions measure the same duration through35 generations of70 and50 jubilees of49. The equality alone does not transfer the22-head BJ index, identify the events, or prove direct NT dependence onBJ. The22×490 Alpha-Omega field remains secondary non-driver context.

**Reassess:** close with a reduced reconstruction statement rather than introducing another numerical branch.

## 15. What minimal extension to the existing grammar reconstructs all admitted BJ objects, and what remains unexplained?

**Frozen evidence:** the outputs of the chosen prior questions; the complete source packets and claim classes remain attached.

**Proposed closure:** collect five typed operations already available or concretely extended here: ordered index insertion/deletion; weighted chronological edge contraction; local residual accumulation; coarsening of a retained labelled path; anchored expansion of a designated component. Add reflection only for the explicitly declared four-node comparison set and calendar encoding only for the six literal jubilee tuples.

**Reconstruction ledger:** state which operation regenerates every supplied row of each admitted family. In a separate column state the required inputs it does not explain: the22-work/head interpretation, source57 and genealogical ages, the surface jubilee choices, the particular fixed anchors, and historical intentions. Mark original source points, proposed reconstruction points, and generated comparison points separately.

**Discriminator:** the reduced account succeeds if it reconstructs the families while preserving their contradictions and measurement roles. It fails if it needs an unprinted date correction, an invented BJ lifespan, a universal calendar scalar, or a new event identity to suppress a mismatch.

**Final reassessment for root:** retain the strongest positive bridge—weighted source rows and conserved outer paths—alongside the unresolved surface-ledger explanation. Return to the Strategy’s larger family synthesis. Do not convert the preparation into an automatic fifteen-step quota if an earlier result makes a later question redundant.

## Important source tensions to carry forward together

| Tension | Precise scope | Required treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Surface Isaac–Jacob59 versus prose70 | F20 lines923–924 versus937 | Preserve literal dates and computed59; record prose interpretation as unresolved. |
| OriginalFlood2549 versus expungedFlood2492 | F53 line294 versus340–347 | Distinguish compressed chronology from mixed comparison object. |
| Implied comparisonShem2649/2049 versus sourceShem2650 | F53 paired arms versus F20 lines535/547–550 | Keep labelled display states; do not alter actual chronology or open Gear transport. |
| Primary2450 literary chiasm versus exact finite-set reflection | F53 lines828–844 versus342–347 | Do not confuse reversing any interval list with reflection closure. |
| BJ57 versus regular130 versus cumulative460 | Different declared measurements/source rows | One count operation, different weights; no BJ cumulative weight inferred. |
|49-year jubilee versus macro50 | Six encoded timestamps versus2450=50×49 | Keep unit length and count separate. |
| Source reconstruction versus transmitted surface ledger | F53 §13A, F20 §7A2 | No silent repair or historical-redaction claim beyond the source evidence. |

The old F20 abridged SP–BJ table remains background. Its ellipsis cannot support a claimed complete antediluvian reconstruction, and its344/343 choices must not overwrite the inherited corrected ReportIV3863–3856 Creation-week state. The7+1300 antediluvian structure remains SP-derived in Dean’s model.