Admissibility frontier · Edition 3

Expanded claim page · assertion 1 of 1

Why a multiplet brings unwanted companions

Obstruction / no-goBuilder

A stated candidate class or identification has been ruled out under explicit assumptions. constructs a model, mechanism, calculation, protocol or intervention.

Exact assertion

Buying a complete toolkit gives both the tool you wanted and the tools packed beside it. Unified gauge multiplets behave similarly: symmetry relates desired leptoquark interactions to diquark partners capable of destabilizing the proton. The problem is not merely finding a useful mediator but explaining why its dangerous companions are absent or ineffective.

What this commits us to

A specified candidate class fails under explicit assumptions. The conclusion does not automatically extend to mechanisms outside that class.

Logical anatomy

Scope

Chapter “Proton safety, Pati–Salam and triality”, section “Why a multiplet brings unwanted companions”. This is assertion 1 of 1 in that section.

Evidence posture

Check the assumptions defining the ruled-out candidate class; the no-go does not automatically extend beyond that class.

Research move

constructs a model, mechanism, calculation, protocol or intervention.

Verification route

  1. Recover the declared objects and assumptions from the controlling documents.
  2. Check the calculation, construction, obstruction or stopping rule on those same objects.
  3. Compare the source conclusion with the exact assertion above; do not strengthen its verbs or enlarge its domain.
  4. Apply the status rule and retain every named external dependency.

What would move or defeat this claim

Break one of the no-go assumptions in a controlled construction, or show that the alleged obstruction does not follow within its stated class.

Source map

Controlling documents