SG-10 — Claim Boundary + Scope Walls (GUT Gate 11): Per-Gate Closure-Attack Dossier

What this is. The closure-attack packet for SG-10 (Claim boundary / the scope walls) on the frozen 13D K₆ branch ONLY. SG-10 is the disclosure gate — the manuscript's outermost honesty layer. It closes no physics and translates to nothing geometric; its job is to name, completely and honestly, every sector the scoped GUT does not claim, and to enforce — by a mechanical lint, not authorial restraint — that no required Gate 1–10 is rescued by narrowing scope and no excluded sector is leaned on to close a required gate. This dossier recaps that mechanism concisely (it lives on the published site), verifies the DISCLOSED status is real, then mounts the attack that is appropriate to a disclosure gate: is the boundary complete (every excluded sector named with a falsifier), is it honest (no required gate closed by exclusion), and — the core — where does each scope wall actually stand, and what would move it? It is not a rival comparison (that is BATTLE_GATES/), not the one-line status ledger, not a reprint of the manuscript.

Binding discipline (carry verbatim). No status was ever upgraded. Frozen branch dcc66f1b2685 / a5b1e6f9d951 READ-ONLY. Honest throughout: SG-10 is DISCLOSED, not a derivation; it carries no certificate of correctness for the excluded sectors and adds no output; its strength is purely disclosure discipline. The excluded sectors are left entirely OPEN. Every scope-wall disposition cited below is the campaign's conservative verdict and moves no status: Gap-01 stays Precisely-OPEN (a₆ bulk is a labeled consistency coefficient, MO-12 necessary-not-sufficient), Gap-02 stays Precisely-OPEN [X], Λ stays Weinberg-OPEN (cancellation route theorem-refuted), BG-10 stays 0/4 (Rule A AXIOM-CLOSED ≠ proven), strong-CP stays observation-blocked. Closure paths must be non-target-fitted (the κ³·π⁻¹ falsification test). AXIOM_CLOSED ≠ proven; dissolved ≠ solved; given-E ≠ derivation of E; selection ≠ derivation. A disclosure gate cannot be "promoted" by closing a wall — closing a wall is the other gate's event; SG-10's only movement is from asserted-complete to machine-verified-complete.

0. Header & Verdict

0.1 Abstract — established / open / what would close it

Established (the disclosure mechanism, machine-checkable). SG-10 names every non-GUT sector the scoped GUT does not claim — quantum-gravity UV completion, full cosmology, dark matter, dark energy, baryogenesis, strong CP, Theory-of-Everything — each carried in the Section-9 boundary ledger with status Outside scoped-GUT claim and a per-sector reason (§9.3.1–§9.3.7, §9.4). It enforces two binding clauses, both directions (§9.1, §1.2.1): (i) no excluded sector may be cited to close a required Gate 1–10; (ii) no required scoped-GUT gate may be re-filed into the exclusion list. The enforcement is a mechanical, scriptable two-clause text lint (certificates/G11_claim_boundary/), with a falsifier that downgrades the offending required gate, not SG-10 (§6.12 Gate-11 row; Downgrade Rules). This is the gate's genuine, defensible content: the scope boundary is enforced by program, not by authorial restraint, and it is structurally falsifiable.

Open (the honest deductions). (1) SG-10 closes no physics and certifies nothing about the excluded sectors — every wall it names is entirely OPEN and owned elsewhere. (2) The completeness of the exclusion list is an auditable assertion, not a theorem — "every relevant non-GUT sector is named" is a universal claim over an open-ended sector space. (3) The lint is referenced but not independently re-run in this audit — its machine-reality is the same AUDIT class flagged for SG-7's δ-harness and SG-8's J.6/K.5 harness. (4) Two boundary rows carry cross-corpus tension that must not leak into a required gate: the Λ exclusion has a downstream computed-negative in Paper IV, and the dark-matter / dark-energy rows point at Diagnostic-only modes inside Appendices F/I/K — both are correctly fenced, but the fence is the load-bearing object and must be verified. (5) The walls themselves are at very different maturities — from observation-locked-real (Gap-02, BG-10) to Weinberg-irreducible (Λ) to data-blocked (strong-CP) — and the boundary's honesty depends on the per-wall disposition being stated at the correct conservatism.

What would close it (the ladder). SG-10 cannot reach DERIVED-CLOSED — there is no physics to derive; a disclosure gate's ceiling is machine-verified completeness + honesty. The realistic endpoint is DISCLOSED-VERIFIED: (a) the two-clause lint mounted and re-run target-blind, confirming both directions hold across the frozen manuscript text; (b) a completeness witness — a checklist mapping every standard non-GUT sector to a ledger row or an explicit "subsumed-by" justification; (c) each scope wall's disposition re-stated at its campaign-verified conservatism with its named falsifier. None of (a)–(c) moves a wall's status; all three convert an asserted boundary into a machine-checked one. The walls move only in their own dossiers/campaigns — and this dossier is the map of where each stands and what would move it.

0.2 Website source-of-truth (link, don't duplicate)

The full boundary ledger, the binding-rule statement, the per-sector exclusion prose, and the gate card are the published manuscript, Paper I:

• GUT.html §6.11 (Gate-11 card) — https://physics.magflowmeters.com/articles/GUT.html
• §5.10 narrative module ("the one entry exempt from geometric translation"); §9 What Is Not Claimed (§9.1 why boundaries matter; §9.2 what is claimed; §9.3.1–§9.3.7 per-sector exclusions; §9.4 Boundary Ledger; §9.4a historical long-form note; §9.5 why exclusions strengthen; §9.6 the "why these four values" remark, itself Outside scoped-GUT claim); §1.2.1 / §1.7 the binding rule + scope-boundary statement; §6.12 Gate-by-Gate Falsification Map (Gate-11 row); front-matter Downgrade Rules + Known Weakest Links + Claim Boundary / Scope Ledger + Review Status Vocabulary + Claim Strength Ladder; Appendix CR module CR11 reader companion (explanatory only).
• Paper IV, TOE.html — https://physics.magflowmeters.com/articles/TOE.html — the Λ downstream computed-negative (the reinforcement of the §9.3.4 exclusion, never a lift) and the baryogenesis withdrawal record (the sibling-manuscript honesty event behind the §9.3.5 exclusion).

This dossier recaps only what is needed to attack the boundary; the site controls all common material.

1. How OUR geometry "closes" SG-10 — the disclosure claim (concise)

Full text: GUT.html §6.11 + §5.10 + §9 + §1.2.1 + §6.12 + CR11. This section is the attack-grade recap, not the manuscript.

1.1 What "closure" means for a disclosure gate

SG-10 is categorically different from SG-1…SG-9. Those gates assert that the geometry does something (recovers a group, fixes an index, generates Yukawas). SG-10 asserts that the manuscript does something: it states its own boundary and enforces it. So "closed" here is not a claim about nature — it is a claim about the claim:

Every non-GUT sector the scoped GUT does not address is named in the Section-9 ledger; and no required Gate 1–10 is closed by exclusion (neither by leaning on an excluded sector, nor by re-filing a required gate as an exclusion). Both are checked by a mechanical lint over the manuscript text.

The manuscript card status is Claimed certificate pass; the honest scoped label is DISCLOSED, because the "pass" is a pass of a disclosure/consistency check, not a certificate of any excluded physics. The gate's own §5.10 line states it bluntly: "this gate translates to nothing geometric, and the table says so out loud … Layer involvement: None."

1.2 The mechanism end-to-end, at attack-grade detail

The disclosure gate is a two-clause text lint plus a binding rule, with a downgrade that fires on the offending gate. Named so a reader can attack each part:

1. The boundary ledger (§9.4) — a 16-row table. Nine Required Gate rows (Yes/Claimed) and seven Excluded rows (No / Outside scoped-GUT claim), each excluded row carrying a reason (e.g. "No relic / detection / stability certificate" for dark matter; "No $\bar\theta$ alignment certificate" for strong CP). The excluded set: quantum-gravity UV completion, full cosmology, dark matter, dark energy, baryogenesis, strong CP, Theory-of-Everything. (Attack handle: is the set complete? A missing sector is the gate's named failure mode.)
2. The two binding clauses, both directions (§9.1 blockquote; §1.2.1): - Excluded sectors may not be used to support required Gates 1–10. - Required scoped-GUT gates may not be moved into exclusions. These are "the load-bearing content of this section" (§9.1). (Attack handle: each is a universal over the manuscript text — a single counterexample falsifies.)
3. The scope-consistency lint (certificates/G11_claim_boundary/) — §5.10's "prospective constraint": (i) every excluded sector appears explicitly in §9.4; (ii) no required-gate certificate (Gates 1–10, §6 cards + Appendices D–L) cites an excluded sector for closure or carries the status Excluded from scope. Both "mechanical, scriptable, falsifiable text checks — enforced by a program, not by authorial restraint." (Attack handle: the lint is referenced; has it been run? — this is the AUDIT residual R7 below.)
4. The downgrade asymmetry (§6.12 Gate-11 row; Downgrade Rules). Falsifying Gate 11 — "show any excluded sector is invoked to support a required gate output" — downgrades the required gate that improperly invoked the excluded sector, Open / not claimed. SG-10 itself is the guardrail; the penalty falls inward, on the gate that broke discipline. (Attack handle: this is what makes SG-10 load-bearing without being a physics claim — it has teeth on the other ten gates.)
5. The fences against the two known leak paths. Two excluded rows have live cross-references that could leak into a required gate and are explicitly fenced: - Dark matter / dark energy ↔ candidate modes. §9.3.3/§9.3.4 route any chamber or backbone-moduli mode that could play a dark-sector role to Diagnostic only, owned by the appendix that owns the mode (I/K for chamber, F for moduli), and recorded in §9.4 — never used to support a closure. - Λ ↔ Paper IV. §9.3.4 carries a downstream-corpus pointer that the cosmological-constant question has been carried to a computed one-loop certificate in Paper IV that is an honest negative (no structural cancellation; chamber-cancellation route theorem-refuted), and states explicitly: "This is a current cross-reference only; it adds no closure claim here and does not alter this section's exclusion." - Section 11 (QC bridge) ↔ Gate support. The QC engineering coda is fenced by the Gate-11 scope lint as external/engineering, not GUT certificate support (§11 closing; data-use firewall §4.9). (Attack handle: these three fences are the most attackable surface — a disclosure gate fails exactly where a Diagnostic or downstream object silently does load-bearing work.)
6. The historical-material firewall (§9.4a). Earlier long-form material that did once say "strong CP closes" or "reservoir is critical" (Wave 22/23; 26D parent reservoir) is declared not used to support any required gate unless "migrated, frozen, certified, and named in the current authority stack"; the full migration audit is Appendix A3 (§A3.18/§A3.19). (Attack handle: a stale "closes" wording surviving anywhere on the live claim path is a boundary violation.)

1.3 What "closed" means here, and its conditionality

"Closed" for SG-10 is disclosure-consistency under a mechanical lint — strictly not a certificate of any excluded physics, not a claim that the walls are small/solvable, not a TOE. It is conditional on:

• the lint actually running — "enforced by a program" is the claim; the program being mounted and re-run target-blind is the verification (R7).
• the exclusion list being complete — a universal over non-GUT sector space, asserted not proven (R1).
• the fences holding — Diagnostic-only modes, the Λ downstream pointer, and the §11 bridge must never do load-bearing work on a required gate (R2).
• given-Gates-1–10 — SG-10 consumes the status outputs of the other gates; if a required gate's status is itself wrong, SG-10 cannot detect it (SG-10 checks scope hygiene, not physics correctness).

The genuine, defensible content (survives the honest accounting):

The conditional / non-genuine content (what SG-10 does NOT deliver):

So the precise statement of closure: SG-10 genuinely delivers a complete-as-asserted, both-direction, machine-enforceable scope boundary that keeps the scoped-GUT closure honest — and it delivers nothing about the excluded physics. Its only available upgrade is from asserted to machine-verified disclosure-consistency.

2. Verify the status — is DISCLOSED real?

The verification a skeptic would run. Each witness gets a grade — hand-checkable / symbolic / machine-lane — and an honest reproduces? flag.

2.1 The witness ledger

2.2 What reproduces, plainly

• The boundary ledger reproduces by hand. The §9.4 table is present, the seven excluded rows each carry a reason, and the Required Gate rows match the §6 gate cards. This is the strongest, most defensible leg.
• The both-direction binding rule reproduces by hand. §9.1's blockquote and §1.2.1 state the two clauses verbatim; §6.12 and the Downgrade Rules implement the inward-falling penalty. A reader can confirm the logic in minutes.
• The self-labeling of the soft spots reproduces. §9.6 (the "why four values" remark) and §11 (the QC bridge) both self-declare Outside-scope / non-supporting — exactly the move a disclosure gate should make.

2.3 What does NOT yet reproduce (honest gaps in the status)

• W4 lint is AUDIT. "Enforced by a program, not authorial restraint" is the gate's signature claim, but the program (certificates/G11_claim_boundary/) is referenced, not independently re-run in this audit. Until the two clauses are mounted and executed target-blind over the frozen manuscript text, "the boundary is machine-enforced" is declared-not-independently-verified here — the same class as SG-7's absent δ-harness and SG-8's J.6/K.5 harness.
• Completeness does not "reproduce" — it is a universal. "Every relevant non-GUT sector is named" cannot be reproduced by inspection of a finite table; it is a claim about everything the table omits. The honest status is asserted-complete, with a named completeness-witness as the closure path (R1 below).
• The fences are asserted, not lint-proven. W6/W7/W8 are conditional: the Λ pointer's inertness, the Diagnostic-only modes' non-citation, and the historical firewall are stated in prose. The W4 lint is exactly the instrument that would prove them; absent the run, they are airtight-by-reading but not airtight-by-program.

2.4 Why DISCLOSED (not higher, not lower)

• Not DERIVED / PARTIAL (a physics tier): SG-10 derives nothing and certifies nothing about the excluded sectors. It cannot be a DERIVED-GIVEN-E or PARTIAL gate because it produces no output and no geometry. Calling it PARTIAL would falsely imply it partly closes some physics.
• Not OPEN: the disclosure mechanism is real, present, and falsifiable — the boundary ledger exists, the binding rule has teeth, the lint is specified. The gate is not "not claimed"; it is a claimed and standing disclosure discipline.
• DISCLOSED is exactly right: it names a complete-as-asserted, both-direction, machine-enforceable non-claim, with the excluded sectors left entirely OPEN and the lint at AUDIT. This matches the SCOPED_GUT ledger SG-10 line verbatim ("a DISCLOSED non-claim, not a derivation … its strength is purely disclosure discipline … leaving the excluded sectors themselves entirely OPEN").

3. The attack surface — what to attack (ranked by leverage)

For a disclosure gate the "attack" is not "find the missing physics" — it is find the dishonesty or the incompleteness in the boundary, and map where each disclosed wall actually stands. Every residual is a named object with its precise obstruction. Leverage = how much closing it strengthens the honesty/ machine-reality of the boundary (NOT how much physics it closes — closing physics is the other gates' event).

3.1 The residual register

3.2 Leverage ranking (attack order)

1. R1 (completeness) — the single highest-value target; a disclosure gate is its completeness.
2. R2 (the three fences) — a leaking fence is a genuine Gate-11 falsification with a real downgrade.
3. R3 (lint AUDIT) — cheapest to close (owner artifact); makes "machine-enforced" machine-real.
4. R4 (per-wall conservatism) — the map of where each wall stands; this dossier's core §4 content.
5. R5 / R6 (rule-completeness · cross-paper coherence) — subtler scope-narrowing + corpus-level honesty.
6. R7 / R8 (the §9.6 remark · Battle-WIN framing) — already correctly fenced; keep them fenced.

The cardinal honest point. SG-10 has no input to shrink and no number to derive — so the κ³·π⁻¹ falsification test applies here in a negative form: the failure mode of a disclosure gate is the opposite of tuning to the known answer — it is quiet scope creep (a wall labeled more-closed-than-it-is, a Diagnostic mode doing load-bearing work, a sibling paper claiming what Paper I excludes). Every closure path below must therefore be checked for deflation honesty: does it state each wall at its campaign-conservative disposition, or does it let an attractive partial result (a₆ computed; Rule A AXIOM-CLOSED; the Gap-02 D≤0 negative) read as more than it is? Stating a wall as more closed than its owner's campaign verified it is the SG-10-specific κ³·π⁻¹ violation.

4. THE ATTACK PLAN — closure paths (the core)

For each residual: the technique (closure playbook T1 axiom-floor / T4 no-go / T5 firewall / T6 all-operator-conditional / T7 eliminative / T10 selector), the named axiom or owner artifact, the specialist/owner target, the work to attempt, and the success ladder (DISCLOSED-VERIFIED is the ceiling here — there is no DERIVED-CLOSED for a disclosure gate). Folded in: the closure-campaign dispositions (CLOSURE_CAMPAIGN_RESULT_2026-06-24.md + Round 2) and the OPEN_WALLS_REGISTER re-tiering.

4.1 R1 — Completeness of the exclusion list (the highest-value target)

Why first. A disclosure gate's entire force is its completeness. If a relevant non-GUT sector is missing from §9.4, the boundary is incomplete and SG-10's "I name everything I don't claim" claim fails — and worse, a required gate could be silently hiding in the unnamed gap.

Technique: T7 (eliminative) + T5 (firewall). Build a completeness witness: enumerate the standard non-GUT sectors and, for each, assign it to (a) a §9.4 ledger row, (b) an explicit "subsumed-by" justification, or (c) a true gap to be added. The firewall test for each candidate sector: is it a required scoped-GUT gate (then it belongs in Gates 1–10, not in exclusions), or a genuinely non-GUT sector (then it belongs in §9.4)?

The completeness sweep, sector by sector:

Named axiom it could reduce to (κ³·π⁻¹-clean). Completeness reduces to a declared scope-universe axiom:

AXIOM-SCOPE-UNIVERSE (target-blind form): "The relevant non-GUT sector universe is the closed list {quantum-gravity UV completion, full cosmology (with its sub-sectors), dark matter, dark energy, baryogenesis, strong CP, ToE-completion}; every other physics sector is either a required Gate 1–10 or a sub-sector subsumed by one of these seven."

This is writable with no physics result in sight — it is a statement about which sectors exist outside the GUT, not about any of their values. It PASSES the falsification test. But it is a declared universe, not a proven one — so the honest endpoint is AXIOM-CLOSED at the declared scope-universe, with the completeness witness as its evidence, not a theorem that the list is exhaustive over all conceivable physics.

Specialist/owner target. Hand a reviewer the completeness witness table above and ask: name one relevant non-GUT sector that is neither a §9.4 row, nor a defensible subsumption, nor a required Gate 1–10. If none exists, the boundary is complete-relative-to-the-declared-universe. If one exists, it is added (a true gap closed) or it is shown to be a required gate hiding in exclusions (a binding-rule violation — the worse finding).

Math/work to attempt. Cross-check every §6 gate card and every Appendix D–L certificate against the §9.4 exclusion reasons: confirm no required gate's mechanism quietly depends on an excluded sector (that is the R2 fence test), and confirm no excluded sector is actually a renamed required gate (e.g. is "stabilization of the downstream-used moduli" a sneaky scope-narrowing of "stabilization"? — see R5).

Success ladder. - DISCLOSED-VERIFIED: completeness witness built, every standard sector assigned, no true gap → boundary complete-relative-to-declared-universe. Realistic and high-value. - AXIOM-CLOSED: AXIOM-SCOPE-UNIVERSE named; completeness conceded as relative to the declared seven-sector universe, not proven exhaustive. The honest ceiling. - sharper-OPEN: a candidate sector resists clean assignment → named as a true gap to add. - REFUTED: a required gate is found hiding in the exclusion list → §1.2.1 binding-rule violation → the offending gate downgrades to Open / not claimed (this is the catastrophic outcome the gate is built to catch).

Honest disposition: AXIOM-CLOSED at AXIOM-SCOPE-UNIVERSE; the completeness witness above finds NO true gap and NO required-gate-in-exclusions ($M_R$ correctly stays an SG-8 residual, not an SG-10 exclusion). The boundary is complete relative to the declared non-GUT universe — and saying that precisely (not "complete over all possible physics") is the closure.

4.2 R2 — The three fences (the most attackable surface)

Why second. A leaking fence is a genuine Gate-11 falsification: if a Diagnostic-only mode, the Λ downstream pointer, or the §11 QC bridge does load-bearing work on a required gate, the §6.12 Gate-11 row fires and the offending required gate downgrades. This is where a disclosure gate actually dies.

Technique: T5 (no tuning to the known answer / no-scope-leak firewall). For each fence, test whether any required-gate certificate cites the fenced object for closure.

The firewall, fence by fence:

Named axiom (κ³·π⁻¹-clean). The fences reduce to one firewall posit:

AXIOM-NO-DIAGNOSTIC-SUPPORT (target-blind): "No object carrying status Diagnostic only, Outside scoped-GUT claim, downstream-corpus, or external-engineering may appear in the support set of any required Gate 1–10 certificate."

Writable with no physics value — it references only status labels, not results. PASSES the falsification test. It is the precise statement the W4 lint clause (ii) implements; naming it makes the fence a rule, not a habit.

Owner artifact / specialist target. Mount the W4 lint and have it emit, for every Gate 1–10 certificate, its support set (cited objects + their status labels); assert AXIOM-NO-DIAGNOSTIC-SUPPORT holds. Any violation is a concrete Gate-11 falsification with a named offending gate.

Math/work to attempt. None new — this is lint execution over the frozen manuscript + a grep-grade scan of every certificate's citation list for Diagnostic/Outside/downstream/external-labeled objects. Fail-closed: a single hit downgrades the offending gate.

Success ladder. - DISCLOSED-VERIFIED: lint run, no fence leak → all three fences machine-proven; AXIOM-NO-DIAGNOSTIC-SUPPORT upheld. Best realistic outcome; cheap. - AXIOM-CLOSED: AXIOM-NO-DIAGNOSTIC-SUPPORT named, fences asserted-consistent pending the run. - sharper-OPEN: a fence is found plausibly leaking (e.g. a Diagnostic mode cited in prose near a gate argument) → flagged for the lint to adjudicate. - REFUTED: a required gate certificate cites a fenced object for closure → Gate-11 falsified → offending gate Open / not claimed.

Honest disposition: AXIOM-CLOSED at AXIOM-NO-DIAGNOSTIC-SUPPORT; all three fences PASS by reading, pending the W4 lint run (R3) to make them machine-proven. The fences are the gate's real attack surface and they hold — conditional on the lint.

4.3 R3 — The scope-consistency lint is AUDIT (cheapest physics-free win)

The obstruction. "Enforced by a program, not authorial restraint" (§5.10) is SG-10's signature claim, but certificates/G11_claim_boundary/ is referenced, not independently re-run in this audit — the same class as SG-7's absent δ-harness and SG-8's J.6/K.5 harness.

Technique: owner artifact (machine-lane), not an axiom. A fail-closed reproducibility task.

Owner artifact needed. (1) Mount the lint script + its rule set. (2) Run it target-blind over the frozen manuscript text: clause (i) every excluded sector appears in §9.4; clause (ii) no Gate 1–10 certificate cites an excluded sector for closure or carries Excluded from scope. (3) Confirm both clauses PASS. (4) Emit the per-gate support-set report (this is also the R2 artifact).

Math/work to attempt. None new — execution + verification. Mechanical and fail-closed: any clause failure downgrades the offending required gate (clause ii) or flags an incomplete ledger (clause i).

Success ladder. BLOCKED_INPUTS until the lint is mounted → then either VERIFIED (both clauses pass; "machine-enforced boundary" becomes machine-real) or REFUTED (a clause fails → a gate downgrades or the ledger is patched). Highest value-per-effort closeable item — converts the gate's central asserted claim into a machine-checked one with zero new physics.

Honest disposition: AUDIT → VERIFIED is the target; do this first among the machine tasks. It simultaneously discharges W4, R2's "pending the run," and R1's "no required-gate-in-exclusions" cross-check.

4.4 R4 — Each scope wall at its campaign-verified conservatism (this dossier IS the map)

The obstruction. The boundary's honesty depends on each disclosed wall being stated at exactly its campaign-verified standing — never more closed. This is the SG-10-specific κ³·π⁻¹ failure mode (§3.2). Below is the map of where each wall stands and what would move it — the reason this dossier exists. Each row is a pointer to the owning campaign/dossier, stated at the conservative floor.

Technique: T6 (all-status-conditional restatement) — no relocation, no promotion. For each wall: the owner, the conservative disposition, the named falsifier/closer, and the deflation-honesty check.

4.4.1 Gap-01 — Quantum-gravity UV completion / the a₆ heat-kernel coefficient

• Owner: Gap-01 campaign (GAP01_A6_RECONCILIATION_2026-06-24.md).
• Conservative disposition: Precisely-OPEN at field grade. The bulk tr[a₆]=−2.817995812×10⁹⁴ GeV⁶ is independently reproduced and may be STATED as a labeled consistency coefficient (max label GAP01-A6 computed (consistency coefficient)), MO-12 binding: a₆ is ONE coefficient in the unbounded a₈/a₁₀/… Seeley–DeWitt tower — a CONSISTENCY CHECK, NOT a UV completion and NOT a mass-gap proof. The Z₂ orbifold-defect a₆ is UNCOMPUTED (order-6 mixed Neumann⊕Dirichlet boundary coefficient, absent from the literature; boundary tower stops at a₅) — TOTAL = bulk + defect is NOT emitted and must never be implied.
• Named closer/falsifier: computing the defect a₆ + showing the full a₆-and-beyond tower is UV-finite — a research program, not a single step.
• Deflation-honesty check for SG-10: the §9.3.1 exclusion says "not a complete nonperturbative theory of Planck-scale gravity"; SG-10 must NOT let the computed bulk a₆ read as a UV-completion partial win. PASS: the bulk is a consistency coefficient; the exclusion stands; MO-12 caveats must travel. Hazard flagged: the stale failing orphan a6_sphere_crosscheck.py ("DO NOT EMIT d=13 NUMBER") must be removed/marked SUPERSEDED before any release — an audit/housekeeping risk, not a physics one.

4.4.2 Gap-02 — Yang–Mills mass gap (observation-locked real wall)

• Owner: Gap-02 campaign (PROOF_HANDOFF_YANG_MILLS_MASS_GAP.md, GAP02_B2_COSTFLOOR_ZSTAR_DISPOSITION).
• Conservative disposition: Precisely-OPEN [X], co-gated by SL-3 (continuum kernel positivity). The Clay problem reduces to one exponent — does the large-field RG step contract at $\delta>0$ uniformly through the $d=4$ marginal band where $g=O(1)$ — and does the physical kernel stay positive as $a\to0$. Granularity makes the gap's finiteness natural (a finite lattice is gapped) but crosses neither gate. The B1/B2 cost-floor work is EMPIRICAL/PARTIAL (one finite L=4, β=6.0 anchor; plaquette HARD GATE PASS), never a Clay solution; continuum/Clay out of scope.
• The D≤0 negative is a PROXY, not the target (the key honesty point). The recorded "robust ~66σ negative" via D = s_block − log(E_conn·A_fluc·N_cert) tests the KP worst-case upper bound $z_*\le N_{\rm cert}\max_\gamma w(\gamma)$, NOT the boxed target $z_*:=\sum_{\gamma\neq0}w(\gamma)$ itself. The boxed target is convention-underdetermined: per-site/single-activity readings PASS ($z_*=0.109/0.353<0.998$), the per-distinct-letter reading FAILS and is binning-divergent. Picking the PASS convention would be naked tuning to the known answer → declined. This is a target-specification defect routed to the spec owner; it STRENGTHENS the OPEN standing.
• Named closer/falsifier: a proof of $\delta>0$ uniform across the marginal band and SL-3 positivity survival as $a\to0$ — both, or the gap collapses.
• Deflation-honesty check for SG-10: Gap-02 must read Precisely-OPEN [X], never "floored/PASS." PASS: the wall is observation-locked-real (short-ranged strong force, massive hadrons, measured $\alpha_s$ running) and stays OPEN; the proxy-negative must not be cited as a target-negative. Discriminator anchor: any pure-glue projection is of the FROZEN 13D branch carrying the UV package, NOT generic SU(3).

4.4.3 Λ — Dark energy / cosmological constant (Weinberg-irreducible)

• Owner: Paper IV / TOE.html §III; Irreducible Ledger.
• Conservative disposition: Weinberg-OPEN / irreducible. Paper IV carries a computed one-loop certificate that is an honest negative: the exact-weight graded supertrace shows no structural cancellation at any coefficient order (v12), and the chamber-cancellation route is theorem-refuted (v14; the Λ operator is grading-even / label-blind). The downstream conclusion: "Λ remains Weinberg-open, with a computed elimination map."
• The Λ-PROOF TEST (the real-vs-fake-wall discriminator). Λ's value problem rested on the absolute vacuum energy, which is unmeasured (every ZPE effect ever measured probes only differences) — so the catastrophe-half was a fake wall that dissolved when the unmeasured premise was dropped; the observed small Λ is a separate, Weinberg-irreducible residue. This is the cleanest application of the audit-the- implicit-assumption method in the whole corpus.
• Named closer/falsifier: none internal — Λ's value is in the Irreducible Ledger; a closer would require a new principle outside the framework.
• Deflation-honesty check for SG-10: the §9.3.4 exclusion + downstream pointer must read as exclusion-reinforced-by-a-negative, never progress toward solving Λ. PASS: the cancellation route is theorem-refuted; the pointer adds no closure claim; Λ stays excluded and Weinberg-open.

4.4.4 BG-10 — Baryogenesis / $\eta_B$ (observation-locked real wall)

• Owner: BG-10 campaign (HANDOFF_SPECIALIST_2_BG10.md, BG10_*_DISPOSITION files).
• Conservative disposition: 0/4 at certificate grade. Round 1: Rule A is AXIOM-CLOSED — the continuum CP phase shrinks to one mod-8 spin-c/Pin± bit (BG10-Axiom-SpinC-QP), and the geometry's DEFAULT χ=−3 (=5 mod 8) gives arg=−135° = the WRONG sign, so the axiom DEPARTS from the target (a structure-first datum, not a fit) — a genuine reduction of Rule A, NOT a closure of BG-10. Round 2: Rule B OPEN (candidate norm=1⇔λ=1 is RELABEL_FAIL — keystone λ=1 is identically the value putting $I_{\rm BG}=\lambda\kappa^3/\pi$ in the $\eta_B$ window → writable only by knowing the target → killed); Rule C BLOCKED_INPUTS (the S₃-permutation commutant on ℂ³ is exactly 2-dim, so an S₃-equivariant operator has ≤2 distinct eigenvalues, but frozen $O_\nu$ has 3 distinct eigenvalues and does not commute with S₃ — the flavor-democracy axiom is in tension with frozen data; $M_R$ RECIPE-ABSENT, $D_N=\mathrm{diag}(1,0,0)$ is the by-construction manifest entry).
• The κ³/π cautionary anchor (carried verbatim). The κ³/π four-fix manifest ($\eta_B=6.05\times10^{-10}$ in-window) is TRUE BY CONSTRUCTION (keystone reverse-engineered) — the no tuning to the known answer cautionary example; $M_R=\kappa M_U$ is a candidate-in-tension (~231× off corpus κ⁰).
• Named closer/falsifier: advancing any of Rules B/C with a structure-first (not reverse-engineered) anchor
• a computed $M_R$.
• Deflation-honesty check for SG-10: BG-10 must read 0/4, with Rule A as AXIOM-CLOSED ≠ proven (a named posit, no gap closed). PASS: 0/4 stands; "Rule A reduced" must never read as "BG-10 advanced."

4.4.5 Strong CP — $\bar\theta$ alignment (observation-blocked)

• Owner: §9.3.6 exclusion; §9.4a historical firewall; A3 migration (§A3.18).
• Conservative disposition: Excluded / observation-blocked. No $\bar\theta$ alignment certificate; no statement about $\bar\theta$ supports any closure claim. The falsifier is the nEDM measurement (OBSERVATION-BLOCKED tier — theory done elsewhere, awaiting apparatus; the corpus lists "θ̄ (nEDM)" as an observation-blocked falsifier).
• Named closer/falsifier: an nEDM measurement + a structural $\bar\theta$-smallness certificate (its own gate) — explicitly NOT in this submission.
• Deflation-honesty check for SG-10: the historical "strong CP closes" (Wave 22/23) wording must NOT appear on any live claim path (§9.4a). PASS by §9.4a + A3; the residual is R6 — confirm no sibling paper resurrects it.

R4 named principle (κ³·π⁻¹-clean): AXIOM-WALL-CONSERVATISM — "every disclosed scope wall is stated at its owning campaign's most conservative verified disposition, with its named falsifier; an attractive partial result on a wall (a computed coefficient, a reduced rule, a proxy-negative) is carried with its caveats and never as wall progress." Carries no target value; it is a labeling discipline.

Success ladder for R4. DISCLOSED-CONSISTENT — the map above states every wall at its conservative floor with its falsifier; the residual is a consistency sweep that no boundary row over-states. (Note: this is the dependent of the owning campaigns — if a campaign's disposition changes, this map updates; SG-10 never leads.)

Honest disposition: DISCLOSED-CONSISTENT; this §4.4 IS the closure artifact for R4 — the per-wall map at campaign-verified conservatism, with each wall's named closer/falsifier and each deflation-honesty check PASS.

4.5 R5 — Does the binding rule cover all scope-narrowing (not just sector-relocation)?

The obstruction. §1.2.1 forbids closing a required gate by moving it into the exclusion list. But a subtler scope-narrowing exists: redefining a required gate's target to a weaker one — e.g. "stabilization" narrowed to "stabilization of the downstream-used moduli" (SG-6); "proton safety" narrowed to "operator-class safety, lifetime Diagnostic only" (SG-9); "flavor closure" narrowed to "ratios + mixings; absolute scales Diagnostic" (SG-8). Each is a legitimate disclosed scoping — but is it fenced by the same binding rule, or only by the per-gate Downgrade Rules?

Technique: T4 (no-go completeness audit on the rule itself). Test whether the Downgrade Rules already cover target-narrowing: the row "Claim exceeds proven operator class → Gate narrows to the proven operator class; remainder becomes Diagnostic only or Open / not claimed" is exactly the operator-class-narrowing fence (the SG-9 pattern), and "Formula depends on a target observable not declared as calibration → Post-hoc / not claimed" fences the SG-8-style calibration-narrowing. So target-narrowing is fenced — but by the Downgrade Rules table, not by the §1.2.1 binding rule.

Named axiom (κ³·π⁻¹-clean): AXIOM-NO-SILENT-NARROWING — "a required gate may not be closed by narrowing its target (sector, operator class, or observable set) unless the narrowing is declared in the gate card and the remainder is labeled Diagnostic only or Open / not claimed." This generalizes §1.2.1 from sector-relocation to all scope-narrowing. Writable with no physics value. PASSES the falsification test.

Specialist/owner target. Confirm the §1.2.1 binding rule + the Downgrade Rules table together cover the three target-narrowing patterns (SG-6 downstream-moduli, SG-8 ratios-only, SG-9 operator-class) — and that each narrowing is declared in the gate card (it is: SG-6 F.9.4/F.10.1; SG-8 I.0a.2; SG-9 L.2a/L.4). If so, the rule-system is complete against silent narrowing.

Success ladder. - AXIOM-CLOSED: AXIOM-NO-SILENT-NARROWING named; the rule-system shown complete (binding rule + Downgrade Rules jointly fence all three narrowing types). Realistic — the fences already exist; this names them as one rule. - sharper-OPEN: a narrowing pattern found un-fenced → add a Downgrade Rule row. - REFUTED: a required gate found narrowed without card declaration → that gate's narrowing is silent → downgrade.

Honest disposition: AXIOM-CLOSED at AXIOM-NO-SILENT-NARROWING; the three target-narrowings (SG-6/8/9) are each card-declared and remainder-labeled, so the rule-system already fences silent narrowing — naming it as one generalized rule is the closure. (This is a genuine strengthening of SG-10: it widens the binding rule from "don't relocate sectors" to "don't silently narrow targets.")

4.6 R6 — Cross-paper boundary coherence (GUT vs TOE/Quantum)

The obstruction. SG-10 lives in Paper I, but Λ (Paper IV), the Born rule (Paper III), and the mass gap (Paper IV) carry their own boundaries. A sector excluded in Paper I but claimed in a sibling under a different label — or a §9.4a "historical closes" wording resurrected downstream — would be a corpus-level boundary incoherence that Paper I's lint cannot see.

Technique: T5 (firewall) across papers. For each Paper-I exclusion, check the sibling papers do not silently claim it:

Named axiom (κ³·π⁻¹-clean): AXIOM-CORPUS-BOUNDARY-COHERENCE — "a sector excluded by any paper's claim boundary is not claimed-closed by any sibling paper except via that sibling's own declared, frozen, certified gate." No physics value. PASSES the falsification test.

Owner artifact. A cross-paper grep for each excluded sector's name + a status-label scan: confirm no sibling carries Claimed certificate pass / "closes" / "solved" for a Paper-I-excluded sector outside its own gate.

Success ladder. AXIOM-CLOSED at AXIOM-CORPUS-BOUNDARY-COHERENCE (the table above is COHERENT, one row conditional on the strong-CP cross-paper grep); sharper-OPEN if a sibling resurrects a closed wording; REFUTED if a sibling claims a Paper-I-excluded sector. Honest disposition: AXIOM-CLOSED, one conditional row (strong-CP) pending the cross-paper grep.

4.7 R7 — The §9.6 "why these four values" remark (honest but unfalsifiable)

The obstruction. The anthropic / deeper-principle / brute-fact trichotomy carries no falsifier by construction. A disclosure gate that names an un-falsifiable remark must keep it strictly outside every gate.

Technique: T6 (status-conditional) — it is already correctly fenced. §9.6 self-labels Outside scoped-GUT claim and states "appears in this section rather than in any gate: it is an observation about what the result means, not a claim the certificates back," and "The framework supplies no experiment, certificate, or falsifier that separates these readings."

Named principle (κ³·π⁻¹-clean): AXIOM-UNFALSIFIABLE-REMARK-FENCED — "any reading that the framework supplies no falsifier to separate is carried as Outside scoped-GUT claim and never as gate support." No value.

Action. Confirm §9.6 is not cited by any gate certificate (it is not — it is a §9 remark) and that the "reduced two-dozen to four" framing is stated as a reduction, not an answer ("the construction converts 'why these nineteen-plus numbers' into 'why these four,' and stops there, on purpose").

Success ladder. DISCLOSED-CONSISTENT — already in place; the residual is "keep it outside every gate." Honest disposition: DISCLOSED-CONSISTENT.

4.8 R8 — Battle-WIN framing must not inflate

The obstruction. The SG-10 ledger line notes the gate is "one of only two framework-WIN gates" because rivals silently omit exclusion lists. A hostile reviewer could read this as the manuscript scoring itself a win on a gate that closes no physics.

Technique: T6 (status-conditional) — label it interpretation, not certificate. The "win" is a disclosure-practice observation (the framework names its boundary; most rivals do not), NOT a physics determination. The Claim Strength Ladder reserves "win" language for nothing — the honest label is interpretation ("suggests," "is consistent with"). The Battle-of-the-Geometries verdict lives in BATTLE_GATES/, not here, and is a meta-comparison of disclosure honesty.

Named principle (κ³·π⁻¹-clean): AXIOM-DISCLOSURE-WIN-IS-META — "the claim 'the framework wins the claim-boundary gate' is a comparison of disclosure practice, not a physics certificate, and is carried at interpretation strength." No value.

Success ladder. DISCLOSED-CONSISTENT — keep the framing at interpretation strength; never let it read as a certificate. Honest disposition: DISCLOSED-CONSISTENT.

4.9 Attack-plan roll-up

REDUCE-vs-RELOCATE verdict on the plan. The plan does not turn one problem into three harder ones — and for a disclosure gate the relevant check is the inverse: does any path quietly promote a wall or claim excluded physics? No. Every path either (a) names a target-blind labeling/scope axiom that pays a disclosure debt in plain sight (R1, R2, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8), or (b) is a mechanical owner task (R3 lint run). Not one path closes, advances, or claims any excluded-sector physics — the κ³·π⁻¹-as-deflation discipline (§3.2) is satisfied: every wall is stated at its campaign-conservative floor (Gap-01 consistency-coefficient /MO-12; Gap-02 Precisely-OPEN [X] with the D≤0-proxy caveat; Λ Weinberg-OPEN/theorem-refuted; BG-10 0/4 with Rule A AXIOM-CLOSED≠proven; strong-CP observation-blocked). The honest expected outcome of a full campaign: 1 VERIFIED (R3 lint), 4 AXIOM-CLOSED (R1, R2, R5, R6), 3 DISCLOSED-CONSISTENT (R4, R7, R8) — moving SG-10 from DISCLOSED-with-asserted-lint to DISCLOSED-with-machine-verified-lint + a named disclosure-axiom floor + a per-wall conservatism map. No wall moves; no physics is claimed; this is a machine-reality + honesty gain, NOT a promotion. The two genuine strengthenings (R5 generalizing the binding rule to all scope-narrowing; R1's completeness witness) make the boundary harder to game, which is precisely what a disclosure gate should optimize.

A. Anchoring & Hardening Map

This section runs SG-10's residuals through our internal honesty methodology — the same hardening method that produced the live Gaps & Walls Register: for each residual, first classify it gap (a route exists) vs wall (the route itself is the problem); then hunt the implicit assumption the residual silently rests on; then ask what measured invariant the residual must ultimately terminate on — does it reduce to an existing anchor (ℏ / M_Pl / a measured spectrum energy / the α_i(M_Z) couplings / y_t / |V_us|), does it need a new named invariant, does it hinge on a scheme-anchor (one geometry-unfixed convention), is it a pure computation-debt, or does it have no witness → OPEN; then assign the most conservative defensible disposition and name the single concrete step that would harden it. SG-10 is special: it is the disclosure gate — it closes no physics, derives no number, and rides no new hash. So most residuals here terminate not on a physical invariant but on a scope/labeling invariant (the disclosed status of the object being fenced); the only physical invariants that appear are the observation- locked truths that make four of the walls real (a short-ranged strong force + massive hadrons for Gap-02; the measured η_B≈6.1×10⁻¹⁰ for BG-10; the measured (2.3 meV)⁴ residue for Λ; the nEDM bound for strong-CP). The SG-10-specific failure mode is the inverse of tuning to the known answer: not over-fitting a number, but quiet scope creep — a wall stated as more-closed-than-its-owner-verified. Disposition vocabulary is used exactly as the Register defines it: DERIVED (tied to an already-measured fact, no new assumption) / DERIVED-GIVEN-E (rigid once the observed spectrum E is supplied) / AXIOM-CLOSED (reduced to one named, value-free, unproven posit; the gap stays open) / DISSOLVED (a false/unmeasured premise dropped; a smaller real obligation remains) / SCHEME-ANCHORED (a number reachable only after one named geometry-unfixed convention) / OPEN (genuinely unsolved or the only escape assumes the answer) / BLOCKED (a route exists but a required file/input is missing and fabricating it is refused) / measured-but-irreducible (known from experiment, no derivation anywhere).

A.1 Per-residual anchoring & hardening

A.2 Gate-level rollup

• Overall disposition. SG-10 is DISCLOSED, hardening to DISCLOSED-with-machine-verified-lint over a named disclosure-axiom floor (the realistic ceiling — there is no DERIVED-CLOSED for a disclosure gate). The expected full-campaign outcome across the eight residuals: 1 → VERIFIED (R3 lint), 4 AXIOM-CLOSED (R1, R2, R5, R6), 3 DISCLOSED-CONSISTENT (R4, R7, R8). Five new value-free disclosure axioms are named (scope-universe, no-diagnostic-support, no-silent-narrowing, corpus-coherence, unfalsifiable-remark-fenced; plus wall-conservatism and disclosure-win-is-meta as labeling disciplines). No wall moves; no excluded physics is claimed; No status was ever upgraded — this is a machine-reality + honesty gain, not a promotion. Ceiling: serious candidate, NOT validated.
• Which anchors it depends on. SG-10 itself rides no anchor and no new hash — it is a meta-constraint on the text. Its dependence on the four headline anchors {M_Pl, α_i(M_Z), y_t, |V_us|} is indirect: it consumes the status outputs of Gates 1–10 (which ride those anchors) but adds nothing to them. The physical invariants that actually appear are the observation-locked truths fenced inside R4 — the short-ranged strong force + massive hadrons + measured α_s running (Gap-02), η_B≈6.1×10⁻¹⁰ (BG-10), the (2.3 meV)⁴ residue (Λ, measured-but-irreducible), and the nEDM bound (strong-CP) — and these are owned by their campaigns, not by SG-10; SG-10 only states each wall at that anchor's conservative floor. The dominant terminating invariants for this gate are therefore scope/labeling invariants, consistent with a disclosure gate that closes no physics.
• Single highest-leverage hardening move. Mount and run the W4 scope-consistency lint (certificates/G11_claim_boundary/) target-blind over the frozen manuscript text (R3). It is a pure computation-debt with zero new physics, and one run simultaneously discharges R3 (AUDIT → VERIFIED), proves R2's three fences machine-real, and supplies R1's no-required-gate-in-exclusions cross-check — converting the gate's signature claim "machine-enforced, not authorial" from asserted to machine-checked in a single fail-closed pass.

🎯 Target anchor(s) for this gate

SG-10 is the disclosure gate: it terminates not on one physical invariant but on the honest completeness of the scope boundary — so its "target anchors" are per scope-wall, each stated at its owner's conservative floor and moving no status. Λ: the measured (2.3 meV)⁴ vacuum-energy residue — measured-but-irreducible / Weinberg-OPEN (cancellation route theorem-refuted; the catastrophe-half is DISSOLVED-not-solved). Gap-02 (Yang-Mills mass gap): the observed short-ranged strong force + massive hadrons + measured α_s running, as the pure-glue projection of the frozen 13D branch — the continuum gap has NO witness → Precisely-OPEN [X] (the D≤0 result is a proxy, not the boxed target). Strong-CP: the nEDM bound — OPEN / observation-blocked (an observation-bet, no derivation). BG-10 (baryon asymmetry): the measured η_B ≈ 6.1×10⁻¹⁰ anchor — 0/4 (Rule A is AXIOM-CLOSED ≠ proven; M_R has no witness → OPEN/UNKNOWN, no hash). The gate's own SG-10-level anchors are scope/labeling invariants (AXIOM-SCOPE-UNIVERSE, AXIOM-NO-DIAGNOSTIC-SUPPORT, AXIOM-NO-SILENT-NARROWING, AXIOM-CORPUS-BOUNDARY-COHERENCE), reached at most AXIOM-CLOSED; the lint is the lone COMPUTATION-DEBT → VERIFIED-on-run. SG-10 itself rides no anchor and no new hash; it terminates on the honest completeness of that boundary, not a single measured invariant. No status was ever upgraded — no wall moves.

5. References & source map

5.1 Website source-of-truth (common material — link, don't duplicate)

• Paper I, GUT.html — https://physics.magflowmeters.com/articles/GUT.html
• §6.11 Gate-11 card (binding status verbatim); §6.12 falsification map (Gate-11 row + downgrade); §6.13 certificate-status summary (the excluded-sector paragraph).
• §5.10 narrative module ("translates to nothing geometric"); §1.2.1 / §1.7 the binding rule + scope-boundary statement; §9 What Is Not Claimed (§9.1 why; §9.2 what IS claimed; §9.3.1–§9.3.7 per-sector; §9.4 Boundary Ledger; §9.4a historical firewall; §9.5 why exclusions strengthen; §9.6 the "why four values" remark).
• Front matter: Claim Boundary / Scope Ledger; Review Status Vocabulary; Downgrade Rules (the "relies on excluded sector → Open / not claimed" row + the operator-class / post-hoc narrowing rows); Known Weakest Links (the "Claim language" row); Claim Strength Ladder (the Exclusion row); Assumption Ledger (the "Exclusion of non-GUT sectors" row).
• Appendix CR module CR11 (reader companion — the two failure modes of ambitious papers; explanatory only); Appendix A3 §A3.18 / §A3.19 (strong-CP + reservoir/26D migration audit); §11 (QC bridge fence) + §4.9 (data-use firewall); Appendix R2.5 (search-category scoping for quantum gravity).
• Paper IV, TOE.html — https://physics.magflowmeters.com/articles/TOE.html — Λ downstream computed- negative (§III; reinforces §9.3.4, never lifts) + baryogenesis withdrawal (§IV; the honesty event behind §9.3.5).

This dossier recaps only what is needed to attack the boundary; the site controls all common material.

5.2 Corpus locations (authoritative inputs to this dossier)

5.3 Frozen-object / disposition index (load-bearing; READ-ONLY)

Branch dcc66f1b2685 · manifest meta a5b1e6f9d951. SG-10 introduces no geometric object and no new hash (meta-constraint on the text). Walls referenced by owners' objects: a₆ bulk tr[a₆]=−2.817995812×10⁹⁴ GeV⁶ (consistency-coefficient label only; defect a₆ UNCOMPUTED — no total emitted) · Gap-02 engine su3_lattice.py (sha256-identical to validated corpus engine; plaquette gate PASS) · Λ supertrace certificate (Paper IV; honest-negative; no value/hash promoted) · $M_R$ no hash — UNKNOWN/open (SG-8 residual, NOT an SG-10 exclusion). Scope-consistency lint certificates/G11_claim_boundary/ (AUDIT — referenced, not re-run here).

Closing honest statement

SG-10 is DISCLOSED. Its genuine, defensible content is real and exactly bounded: a complete-as-asserted, both-direction, machine-enforceable scope boundary — every non-GUT sector named with its missing-certificate reason, two binding clauses (excluded↛required, required↛excluded), a scriptable two-clause lint, and a downgrade that falls inward on any required gate that breaks discipline. It is one of the manuscript's most honest moves: the boundary is stated as a strength, in public. Its honest open surface is equally clear: SG-10 closes no physics, certifies nothing about the excluded sectors, and leaves every wall entirely OPEN; completeness is an auditable assertion; the lint is AUDIT (referenced, not re-run); and the boundary's honesty is only as good as each wall being stated at its campaign-conservative floor. The attack plan reduces these to named, target-blind disclosure-discipline axioms (scope-universe, no-diagnostic-support, wall-conservatism, no-silent-narrowing, corpus-coherence) and one mechanical lint run — with the κ³·π⁻¹-as-deflation discipline guarding every wall so an attractive partial result (a₆ computed; Rule A AXIOM-CLOSED; the Gap-02 D≤0 proxy-negative) is never read as wall progress. The realistic ceiling is a machine-verified, conservatism-mapped boundary over a named disclosure-axiom floor — and a strengthened binding rule (R5: no silent target-narrowing, not just no sector-relocation) — not a promotion, and emphatically not a closure of any wall. No status was ever upgraded; frozen branch dcc66f1b2685 / a5b1e6f9d951 READ-ONLY; given-E ≠ derivation of E; AXIOM_CLOSED ≠ proven; dissolved ≠ solved; Gap-01/Gap-02 Precisely-OPEN, Λ Weinberg-OPEN, BG-10 0/4, strong-CP observation-blocked — nothing applied, nothing deployed.

Dossier built 2026-06-24. Our geometry (13D K₆ branch) only. SG-10 is the disclosure gate: this packet maps where every scope wall stands and what would move it, referencing the published website source-of-truth for common material, not duplicating it.