Admissibility frontier · Edition 3

Expanded claim page · assertion 3 of 3

the microscopic source quotient has five coordinates

Obstruction / no-goAuditor

A stated candidate class or identification has been ruled out under explicit assumptions. checks assumptions, certificates, counterexamples and stopping rules.

Exact assertion

The rank-two Jordan cone remains exact for any pair of ports that an experiment actually isolates. The missing reason is now operational rather than algebraic: compute the energy-dependent five-channel response and look for one stable broken singular direction separated from the others across a declared window. A spectral gap would justify a two-port reduced model and guide detector design; its absence would rule out that reduction while leaving the wider admissibility method intact.

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 “The admissibility frontier”, section “the microscopic source quotient has five coordinates”. This is assertion 3 of 3 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

checks assumptions, certificates, counterexamples and stopping rules.

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