# C486 — SP local reconstruction

## Question

Does the same source-row accounting explain SP endpoint movement and its boundary exception?

## Inputs

```json
{
  "begetting_deltas": [
    -100,
    -120,
    -129
  ],
  "primary_completed_year": -1,
  "lifespan_deltas": [
    -115,
    -249,
    -124,
    -60,
    -60
  ],
  "downstream_regular_shift": 650
}
```

## Sources

```json
[
  "File18 §§2.1.3,3.1,3.2; lines1474–1488,1532–1534"
]
```

## Opened utc

2026-09-27T22:38:56.215706+00:00

## Results

```json
{
  "Adam_Noah_MT": 1056,
  "Adam_Noah_SP_primary": 706,
  "delta_regular_internal": -350,
  "delta_regular_Creation": 300,
  "delta_cumulative": -608,
  "SP_Lamech": "53rd year ->52 completed units;653 lifespan is inclusive"
}
```

## Finding

SP uses the same two projections with different local data. Its −350 pre-Noah change plus +650 downstream placement gives +300 regular Creation, while five lifespan changes total−608 cumulatively. The inclusive Lamech convention must remain explicit.

## Reassessment

Express this mechanism as a small linear source-row rule, with boundary terms kept separate.

## Checks

```json
{
  "regular": true,
  "cumulative": true
}
```

## Closed utc

2026-09-27T22:38:56.215891+00:00

## Record provenance

Exact record hash: `96196b18b7ce0e7439090355632d626dfe6d82abae5ef9f28f24ecb2eb925993`

Source journal: `Research_Cycles/C0482_C0531/journal.json`