Gate status (binding): DISCLOSED. This dossier reflects the gate's honest current standing and upgrades nothing. SG-10 is the disclosure gate — the manuscript's outermost honesty layer. It closes no physics, derives no number, and rides no new hash; its single job is to name, completely and honestly, every sector the scoped GUT does not claim, and to enforce — by program, not by authorial restraint — that no required gate is rescued by narrowing scope and no excluded sector is leaned on to close a required gate. Frozen branch
dcc66f1b2685/ manifest metaa5b1e6f9d951, READ-ONLY. Every scope-wall disposition cited below is its owning campaign's conservative verdict and moves no status.Source synthesis. This dossier expands
rendered/TOE/PER_GATE_DOSSIERS/DOSSIER_SG10_CLAIM_BOUNDARY_CLOSURE_ATTACK.mdand its completion-handoff twin, the SG-10 line ofrendered/TOE/SCOPED_GUT_PER_GATE_STATUS_LEDGER.md, and the cited campaign artifacts. Every number, hash, sign, and equation traces to one of those files; uncomputed quantities are marked OPEN, never invented.
This theory writes down, in public, the exact list of things it does not claim — and turns that boundary into a rule a machine can check, so it cannot quietly cheat by leaning on an excluded problem to rescue a result.
SG-10 is categorically unlike the other nine scoped-GUT gates. SG-1…SG-9 each assert that the geometry does something — recovers a gauge group, fixes a family index, generates Yukawas, protects the proton. SG-10 asserts that the manuscript does something: it states its own boundary out loud and binds itself to honor it. The closure of a disclosure gate is therefore not a claim about nature; it is a claim about the claim:
Every non-GUT sector the scoped theory does not address is named in a public boundary ledger; and no required Gate 1–10 is closed by exclusion — neither by leaning on an excluded sector to support a closure, nor by re-filing a required gate as an exclusion. Both are checked by a mechanical lint over the manuscript text.
The gate's own narrative module says it bluntly (GUT.html §5.10): "this gate translates to nothing geometric, and the table says so out loud … Layer involvement: None." That is exactly right, and it is exactly the point: a gate whose job is honesty earns its keep by being the only gate that has teeth on the other ten.
The live popup chip reads DISCLOSED, and this dossier holds that line. The manuscript card status (§6.11) is Claimed certificate pass — "the boundary holds; the listed sectors are Outside scoped-GUT claim." DISCLOSED is the honest scoped roll-up of that card: the "pass" is a pass of a disclosure / consistency check, not a certificate of any excluded physics.
Why DISCLOSED and not something else:
A disclosure gate has a different ceiling from a physics gate. There is no DERIVED-CLOSED to reach — there is no physics in a scope gate to derive. The achievable top is DISCLOSED-VERIFIED: machine-checked completeness plus machine-checked honesty. Demanding a physics-tier closure of a disclosure gate is chasing a unicorn (see §7).
Establishes. SG-10 genuinely delivers a complete-as-asserted, both-direction, machine-enforceable scope boundary that keeps the scoped-GUT closure honest: every non-GUT sector named with a missing-certificate reason; two binding clauses (excluded↛required, required↛excluded); a scriptable two-clause text lint; and a downgrade that falls inward on any required gate that breaks discipline. This is one of the most honest moves in the whole corpus — the boundary is published as a strength, not hidden as a hedge.
Does not establish. SG-10 closes no physics, certifies nothing about the excluded sectors, and leaves every wall it names entirely OPEN. Completeness of the exclusion list is an auditable assertion, not a theorem. The lint that would make "machine-enforced" machine-real is currently AUDIT — referenced in the manuscript but not independently re-run, and its folder is not present in the rendered tree. The three leak-path fences (Diagnostic-only dark-sector modes, the Λ downstream pointer, the §11 QC bridge) are airtight by careful reading, not yet lint-proven. These are bounded, finite, winnable checks — stated below as the confident testable bets they are.
SG-10 closes zero physics on purpose. Every wall it names — the cosmological constant Λ, the Yang–Mills mass gap, baryogenesis, strong CP, quantum-gravity UV completion — stays fully open and is owned elsewhere. Its one job is honesty, and on honesty it is falsifiable in the sharpest possible way: show any excluded sector being used to close a required gate, and the offending gate downgrades on the spot. The single open task that would convert asserted into machine-verified is to run the scope-consistency lint target-blind over the frozen text. Right now the boundary is airtight by reading; the bet is that a machine pass confirms it with no leak. That is a finite, winnable check — not a mystery, and zero new physics.
Theories of fundamental physics routinely overclaim. Two failure modes recur, and they are mirror images:
The field has no mechanical, checkable statement of exactly what a framework does and does not claim. Scope honesty is left to authorial restraint, and catching overreach is a manual job no reviewer can do exhaustively across a long manuscript with many appendices and certificates. The reviewer's burden is asymmetric: the author knows where every dependency lives; the reviewer must reconstruct the dependency graph by hand and hope to spot the one citation that crosses a scope line. In practice almost no one publishes a both-direction, falsifiable scope contract. Frameworks state what they claim; very few state, as a bound rule, what they refuse to claim and how that refusal is enforced.
It is tempting to dismiss scope disclosure as bookkeeping. It is not, for a structural reason: a long unification program's honesty is a graph property, not a per-statement property. A single certificate can be locally honest (every line true) while the program cheats globally (a Diagnostic-only object, introduced honestly in one appendix, is later cited as support for a required closure in another). No amount of careful per-statement writing catches this; only a check over the whole dependency graph does. The gap is therefore real: the community lacks a mechanizable notion of scope honesty for fundamental-physics manuscripts, and lacks the convention of publishing one.
This matters most precisely for ambitious frameworks. The more a theory claims to unify, the larger its surface area for quiet scope creep, and the more a reader needs a machine-checkable boundary to trust the headline. A "theory of everything" with no published boundary is unfalsifiable on scope by construction — you cannot catch it borrowing from a sector it never admitted exists.
The honest state of the art is prose disclaimers. Good papers include a "limitations" or "what we do not claim" section. Two things are almost always missing:
SG-10's contribution against this baseline is to (a) publish a structured boundary ledger rather than prose, (b) bind both directions as load-bearing clauses, and (c) attach a falsifier whose penalty falls inward on the offending required gate. The companion reader module (Appendix CR11) frames the two classic failure modes of ambitious papers and positions the boundary against them. The cross-framework comparison of disclosure practice lives in BATTLE_GATES/ (not in this gate's certificate), where the observation is recorded that most rival geometries silently omit an exclusion list — which is why this gate registers as a disclosure-practice win there. That observation is a meta-comparison of disclosure honesty, never a physics determination (see §7.4).
SG-10 is the attempt to fix all three at once — a single ledger (completeness can be attacked in one place), two bound clauses (both directions), and an inward-falling falsifier (real teeth). Its honest residual is that the enforcement program is specified but not yet independently re-run; that residual is the load-bearing content of §6.
This section is the attack-grade specification of the disclosure mechanism: the objects, the clauses, the lint, the downgrade asymmetry, and the fences. The full prose lives on the published site (GUT.html §6.11 + §5.10 + §9 + §1.2.1 + §6.12 + CR11); this is the operative specification a reader can check and a specialist can implement.
The core artifact is a 16-row boundary ledger: nine Required Gate rows (status Yes / Claimed) and seven Excluded rows (status No / Outside scoped-GUT claim), each excluded row carrying a reason / missing-certificate in a dedicated Reason column. The seven excluded sectors are:
The Reason column is a Reason, not a per-sector falsifier (the gate's falsifier is the boundary-level downgrade rule, §3.4, not one falsifier per wall). The attack handle on this object is completeness: is the seven-sector set complete relative to the relevant non-GUT universe? A missing sector is the gate's named failure mode, and is the highest-leverage residual (R1, §6.1).
The §9.1 blockquote names these "the load-bearing content of this section." They are:
Each clause is a universal over the manuscript text: it must hold for every gate certificate and every exclusion row. The logical consequence is the gate's structural strength — a single counterexample falsifies either clause. That is what makes the boundary falsifiable: it is not a vibe, it is a both-direction quantified statement with a concrete refuting witness (one improper citation).
certificates/G11_claim_boundary/)§5.10 calls the lint a "prospective constraint." It is the mechanical implementation of the two clauses as two text checks:
The manuscript characterizes both as "mechanical, scriptable, falsifiable text checks — enforced by a program, not by authorial restraint." This sentence is the gate's signature claim. Its honest residual is that the lint folder is referenced, not independently re-run in this audit, and is not present in the rendered tree — so the signature claim is currently asserted, not machine-real. This is residual R3 (§6.3), and it is the same AUDIT class as SG-7's absent δ-harness and SG-8's J.6/K.5 harness. Bright line: the public popup/ledger say the lint is active enforcement; this dossier is more careful — the lint is AUDIT, "verified by reading, pending the lint," never "machine-enforced" stated as proven.
This is what makes SG-10 load-bearing without being a physics claim. The Gate-11 falsifier is: show any excluded sector is invoked to support a required gate output. When it fires, the penalty falls inward — it downgrades the required gate that improperly invoked the excluded sector to Open / not claimed, not SG-10. SG-10 is the guardrail; the gate that broke discipline takes the hit.
This asymmetry is the whole reason a disclosure gate can be load-bearing. SG-10 makes no physics claim, so there is nothing in it to downgrade. By pointing the penalty at the offender, the boundary acquires real teeth on the other ten gates: any of them can be downgraded by a scope violation, which gives every required gate a standing incentive to keep its support set clean. The front-matter Downgrade Rules row — "Gate relies on an excluded sector to close → Open / not claimed" — is the implementation, and §6.12 is consistent with it: both point inward.
Three excluded/external objects have live cross-references that could leak into a required gate. Each is explicitly fenced. These three fences are the most attackable surface of the gate (a disclosure gate dies exactly where a Diagnostic or downstream object silently does load-bearing work), so they are specified precisely:
The honest status of all three: PASS by reading, conditional on the lint run (R3) to make them machine-proven. They are W6/W7/W8 in the witness ledger (§5.1) and they are rated Conditional, never "proven." Bright line: stating that the fences are proven (rather than "verified by reading, pending the lint") would overclaim.
Earlier long-form material once said things like "strong CP closes" or "reservoir is critical" (Wave 22/23 long-form; the 26D parent-reservoir narrative). §9.4a declares all such historical material not used to support any required gate unless it has been "migrated, frozen, certified, and named in the current authority stack." The full migration audit is Appendix A3 (§A3.18 / §A3.19). The attack handle: a stale "closes" wording surviving anywhere on the live claim path is a boundary violation. The residual is cross-paper (R6, §6.6): Paper I's own lint cannot see a sibling paper resurrecting closed wording.
"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 or solvable, not a TOE. It is conditional on four things, each tracked as a residual:
| Conditional on… | Residual |
|---|---|
| the lint actually running ("enforced by a program") | R3 |
| the exclusion list being complete (a universal over non-GUT sector space) | R1 |
| the three fences holding (no Diagnostic / downstream / external object doing gate work) | 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 (it checks scope hygiene, not physics correctness) | structural |
The genuine, defensible content (survives the honest accounting):
| Genuine SG-10 content | Mechanism |
|---|---|
| The boundary is stated in public as a strength, not hidden | §9.1, §9.5, Objection-3 steelman |
| Both-direction binding rule with teeth on Gates 1–10 | §1.2.1 + §6.12 downgrade-the-offender |
| Enforcement is mechanical/scriptable, not authorial (lint specified) | §5.10 + certificates/G11_claim_boundary/ |
| Every excluded row carries a named reason / missing-certificate | §9.4 Reason column |
| Known leak paths are explicitly fenced | §9.3.3/§9.3.4, §9.4a, §11 |
The conditional / non-delivered content:
| Quantity | Honest reality |
|---|---|
| Any excluded-sector result | Not claimed — every wall entirely OPEN, owned elsewhere |
| Completeness of the exclusion list | Auditable assertion, not a theorem |
| "The lint passes" | AUDIT — referenced, not independently re-run |
| Λ / baryogenesis / strong-CP dispositions | Owned by their campaigns; SG-10 only names and fences them |
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.
These are the moves that make the gate believable and reproducible. They are shareable in full — the physics and the method, not any device.
The program's central anti-cheat discipline elsewhere is the κ³·π⁻¹ falsification test: never write a quantity that is only writable because you already know the target (a number reverse-engineered to hit a measured value is "true by construction," not derived). SG-10 has no input to shrink and no number to derive, so the falsification test applies here in a negative form. The failure mode of a disclosure gate is not over-fitting a number; 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.
The operational consequence is the deflation-honesty check: every closure path on this gate must be checked for whether it states each wall at its campaign-conservative disposition, or whether it lets an attractive partial result 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. This single reframing is what turns "write a limitations section" into a checkable discipline.
The deepest design insight is the downgrade asymmetry (§3.4). A disclosure layer naïvely has no teeth — it makes no claim, so there is nothing to falsify. The move that gives it teeth without making it a physics claim is to redirect the penalty: a scope violation downgrades the offending required gate, not the disclosure gate. This converts a passive limitations section into an active guardrail with leverage on ten other gates. It is the structural reason SG-10 can be both "closes no physics" and "load-bearing."
A one-direction limitations section ("here is what we don't solve") is honest but un-binding: it cannot stop the re-filing move. Binding both clauses (excluded↛required AND required↛excluded) closes the loophole where a framework, on encountering a failure in a required gate, quietly relocates the gate into the "not claimed" pile. The symmetry is what makes the boundary hard to game from either side.
"Every relevant non-GUT sector is named" is a universal over an open-ended sector space — unprovable as a theorem (see §7.1). The believable move is to not claim the theorem and instead build a completeness witness: enumerate the standard non-GUT sectors and assign each to (a) a ledger row, (b) a defensible "subsumed-by" justification, or (c) a flagged true gap — and then issue an open challenge ("name one un-listed relevant non-GUT sector"). This converts an unprovable universal into a standing, attackable artifact at a declared scope-universe. The honest ceiling is AXIOM-CLOSED relative to the declared seven-sector universe, not exhaustive over all conceivable physics.
For any candidate sector, the discriminating question is sharp: 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)? This single test is what correctly keeps the unknown seesaw scale M_R as an SG-8 required-gate residual rather than relocating it into the SG-10 exclusion list — relocation that clause (ii) forbids exactly. The firewall test is the operational core of the completeness sweep (§6.1).
The cleanest method-insight surfaced through the Λ wall. The cosmological-constant catastrophe — the naïve ~10^120 mismatch — rested on the absolute vacuum energy. But every zero-point-energy effect ever measured probes only differences (Casimir, Lamb shift, running): the absolute vacuum energy is unmeasured. Drop the unmeasured premise and the catastrophe-half dissolves — it was a fake wall, an artifact of an implicit unmeasured assumption. What remains is the observed small Λ, a separate, Weinberg-irreducible residue. This is the cleanest application of the audit-the-implicit-assumption method in the corpus, and it is exactly why SG-10's per-wall map must distinguish dissolved-not-solved from open: Λ's catastrophe-half is DISSOLVED; Λ's value is measured-but-irreducible / Weinberg-OPEN. (This insight is owned by the Λ campaign / Paper IV; SG-10 only fences and labels it.)
Each witness carries a grade — hand-checkable / symbolic-audit / machine-lane — and an honest reproduces? flag. (Source: dossier §2.1.)
| # | Witness | What it asserts | Grade | Reproduces? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| W1 | §9.4 boundary ledger (16 rows; 7 excluded + Reason column) | every named non-GUT sector is excluded with a stated reason | hand-checkable | Yes — table present, self-consistent; each excluded row has a reason + Outside scoped-GUT claim status |
| W2 | Two binding clauses, both directions (§9.1; §1.2.1) | excluded↛required AND required↛excluded | hand-checkable | Yes — stated verbatim, load-bearing; falsifiable by a single counterexample |
| W3 | Downgrade asymmetry (§6.12 Gate-11 row; Downgrade Rules) | falsifying Gate 11 downgrades the offending required gate | hand-checkable | Yes — §6.12 row + front-matter rule are consistent and point inward |
| W4 | The scope-consistency lint certificates/G11_claim_boundary/ |
both lint clauses hold across the manuscript text | machine-lane | AUDIT — referenced in §5.10/§6.11; the executable run is not independently re-run here; folder absent from rendered tree |
| W5 | §9.6 "why these four values" remark carries Outside scoped-GUT claim | the anthropic/deeper-principle/brute-fact reading is not a backed claim | hand-checkable | Yes — self-labels Outside scope; "appears in this section rather than in any gate" |
| W6 | §9.3.4 Λ downstream pointer ("adds no closure claim here; does not alter this section's exclusion") | the Paper-IV Λ negative reinforces, never lifts, the exclusion | symbolic/audit | Conditional — auditable claim of inertness; verified by reading, not by the lint |
| W7 | §9.3.3/§9.3.4 Diagnostic-only fences | candidate modes owned by F/I/K as Diagnostic only, never gate support | symbolic/audit | Conditional — fence stated; that no required gate cites a Diagnostic mode is the W4 lint's job |
| W8 | §9.4a historical-material firewall + A3 migration ledger | no stale "strong CP closes" / "reservoir critical" wording supports a current gate | symbolic/audit | Conditional — asserted; A3 audit (§A3.18/§A3.19) is the backing, not re-run here |
| W9 | §11 QC-bridge fence ("not used to support Gates 1–11"; firewall §4.9) | the engineering coda changes no gate status and supports no gate | hand-checkable | Yes — §11 closing states "zero GUT gate statuses changed; zero promotions" verbatim |
| W10 | Battle-of-the-Geometries note (carried in the SG-10 ledger line) | SG-10 is one of two framework-WIN gates because rivals omit exclusion lists | interpretation | Disclosure-only — a meta-observation about disclosure practice, NOT a physics win |
certificates/G11_claim_boundary/) is referenced, not re-run, and the folder is not present in the rendered tree. Until the two clauses are mounted and executed target-blind over the frozen manuscript, "the boundary is machine-enforced" is declared-not-independently-verified — the same class as SG-7's absent δ-harness and SG-8's J.6/K.5 harness.Branch dcc66f1b2685 · manifest meta a5b1e6f9d951. SG-10 introduces no geometric object and no new hash — it is a meta-constraint on the text. The walls it discloses are referenced by their owners' objects:
| Object | Value / status | Source |
|---|---|---|
| a₆ bulk heat-kernel coefficient (Gap-01) | tr[a₆] = −2.817995812×10⁹⁴ GeV⁶ — consistency-coefficient label only; defect a₆ UNCOMPUTED → no total emitted |
GAP01_A6_RECONCILIATION_2026-06-24.md |
| Gap-02 lattice engine | su3_lattice_multiL.py (massgap_computation) — validated corpus engine; plaquette HARD GATE PASS at L=4, β=6.0 |
PROOF_HANDOFF_YANG_MILLS_MASS_GAP.md; computational_runs_2026-06-23/massgap_computation/ |
| Λ supertrace certificate (Paper IV) | honest-negative; no value/hash promoted | TOE.html §III |
| M_R (seesaw scale) | no hash — UNKNOWN/open; SG-8 residual, NOT an SG-10 exclusion | GATE9_DEMOTION_DRAFTS.md |
| Scope-consistency lint | certificates/G11_claim_boundary/ — AUDIT (referenced, not re-run here) |
§5.10 / §6.11 |
certificates/G11_claim_boundary/; run clause (i) and clause (ii) target-blind over the frozen text; emit each Gate 1–10 certificate's support set with status labels. This is residual R3 and the single highest-value step (§6.3).| Source | Path | Role |
|---|---|---|
| SG-10 closure-attack dossier (expanded here) | …/rendered/TOE/PER_GATE_DOSSIERS/DOSSIER_SG10_CLAIM_BOUNDARY_CLOSURE_ATTACK.md |
the rigorous packet this dossier synthesizes + expands |
| SG-10 status line (carried verbatim) | …/rendered/TOE/SCOPED_GUT_PER_GATE_STATUS_LEDGER.md (SG-10 entry) |
the DISCLOSED label + "purely disclosure discipline / excluded sectors entirely OPEN" caveats |
| Closure campaign Round 1 | …/rendered/TOE/CLOSURE_CAMPAIGN_RESULT_2026-06-24.md |
SCALE-firewall; BG-10 Rule A AXIOM-CLOSED; κ³·π⁻¹ discipline; AXIOM_CLOSED ≠ proven |
| Closure campaign Round 2 | …/rendered/TOE/CLOSURE_CAMPAIGN_ROUND2_2026-06-24.md |
BG-10 Rule B RELABEL_FAIL / Rule C BLOCKED_INPUTS; Gap-02 z_* target-spec defect |
| Gap-01 a₆ reconciliation | …/rendered/TOE/GAP01_A6_RECONCILIATION_2026-06-24.md |
a₆ bulk = consistency coefficient; MO-12; defect UNCOMPUTED; stale-orphan hazard |
| Gap-02 cost-floor disposition | …/rendered/TOE/GAP02_B2_COSTFLOOR_ZSTAR_DISPOSITION_2026-06-24.md |
D≤0 is a proxy not the target; convention-underdetermined; Precisely-OPEN |
| Open-walls register | …/rendered/TOE/OPEN_WALLS_REGISTER.md |
observation-anchoring test; Λ fake-wall vs Gap-02/BG-10 real-wall; observation-blocked falsifiers |
| Gate-9 demotion drafts | …/rendered/TOE/GATE9_DEMOTION_DRAFTS.md |
M_R UNKNOWN (the SG-8 residual the R1 firewall keeps OUT of SG-10's exclusions) |
| GUT manuscript | …/rendered/GUT/GUT.md |
§6.11; §6.12; §9; §9.4 ledger; §5.10; §1.7; Downgrade Rules; Known Weakest Links; Claim Boundary ledger |
| Published source-of-truth | GUT.html (Paper I) §6.11/§5.10/§9/§1.2.1/§6.12/CR11; TOE.html (Paper IV) §III/§IV | common material — link, don't duplicate |
This is the most load-bearing section. SG-10 has eight named residuals (R1–R8). For each open hole below: the precise statement, why it's hard / traps to avoid, exactly what closes it (with the success criterion and what a refuting result looks like), the machinery & inputs (with exact corpus paths), and the leverage (what else closes if it closes). For a disclosure gate, leverage means 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).
Attack order (by leverage): R1 (completeness) → R2 (the three fences) → R3 (the lint) → R4 (per-wall conservatism) → R5/R6 (rule-completeness, cross-paper) → R7/R8 (already-fenced; keep fenced).
The cardinal honest point for the specialist. Every path below must be checked for deflation honesty, not target-fitting. The win on this gate is machine-reality + honesty, never a promotion. No path may quietly promote a wall or claim any excluded-sector physics. The expected full-campaign outcome is: 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.
(a) Precise statement. The open object is the completeness-witness table: a standing, published artifact mapping every standard non-GUT sector to (a) a §9.4 ledger row, (b) a defensible "subsumed-by" justification, or (c) a flagged true gap. Currently "every relevant non-GUT sector is named" is a sweep inside the dossier, not a published artifact a reviewer can attack.
(b) Why it's hard / traps to avoid. "Complete over all conceivable physics" is a universal over an open-ended sector space — unprovable as a theorem for any boundary in any field (see §7.1). The trap is to overclaim completeness: writing "complete over all possible physics" instead of "complete relative to the declared seven-sector universe." A second trap is the relocation trap — discovering a candidate sector and quietly moving a required gate into the exclusion list to "cover" it; that is exactly the clause-(ii) violation the gate exists to catch.
(c) Exactly what closes it. Build and publish the completeness witness, then issue the open challenge: "name one relevant non-GUT sector that is neither a §9.4 row, nor a defensible subsumption, nor a required Gate 1–10." The completeness sweep already performed in the dossier (reproduced below) finds no true gap and no required-gate-in-exclusions:
| Candidate non-GUT sector | In §9.4? | Disposition |
|---|---|---|
| Quantum-gravity UV completion | Yes | named; reason "no nonperturbative gravity certificate"; routed to R2.5 search-category scoping |
| Full cosmology (inflation, reheating, CMB, structure) | Yes | named; §9.3.2 |
| Dark matter | Yes | named; §9.3.3; candidate modes Diagnostic-only (→ R2) |
| Dark energy / Λ | Yes | named; §9.3.4; Paper-IV downstream-negative (→ R2/R4) |
| Baryogenesis / η_B | Yes | named; §9.3.5; BG-10 owns it (→ R4) |
| Strong CP / θ̄ | Yes | named; §9.3.6; observation-blocked (→ R4) |
| Theory of Everything (all-sector) | Yes | named; §9.3.7 |
| Neutrino absolute mass scale / M_R | partial | NOT a §9.4 row — a residual inside required Gate 9 (SG-8): M_R UNKNOWN makes the absolute ν-scale an anchor-consistency check. Firewall verdict: belongs to SG-8, not SG-10 — correctly NOT relocated into exclusions (clause (ii) forbids that relocation). |
| Gravitational waves / inflationary tensors | No | subsumed by "full cosmology" (§9.3.2 names CMB spectrum, structure formation) |
| Flavor of a dark sector / dark-sector gates | No | subsumed by "dark matter" (§9.3.3: a dark-sector certificate would need its own gates — relic abundance, stability, coupling) |
| Matter–antimatter / CP in cosmology beyond η_B | No | subsumed by baryogenesis (§9.3.5) |
| Thermodynamic arrow of time | Yes (named) | §9.3.7 names the thermodynamic arrow; Appendix O is illustrative only |
(d) Machinery & inputs. Technique T7 (eliminative) + T5 (firewall). The named axiom is AXIOM-SCOPE-UNIVERSE (target-blind): "the relevant non-GUT sector universe is the closed list {quantum-gravity UV completion, full cosmology with 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." It is writable with no physics result in sight — it states which sectors exist outside the GUT, not any of their values — so it passes the falsification test. Inputs: GUT.html §9.3.1–§9.3.7 + §9.4; the §6 gate cards + Appendices D–L (to confirm no required gate is renamed-into-exclusions); GATE9_DEMOTION_DRAFTS.md (the M_R firewall case).
(e) Leverage. HIGHEST — completeness is the point of a disclosure gate. The honest ceiling is AXIOM-CLOSED at AXIOM-SCOPE-UNIVERSE (complete relative to the declared universe, not exhaustive over all conceivable physics). Closing R1 also supplies R3's no-required-gate-in-exclusions cross-check.
(a) Precise statement. The open object is a per-gate support-set report with status labels, emitted by the lint, asserting that no object labeled Diagnostic only / Outside scoped-GUT claim / downstream-corpus / external-engineering appears in any required Gate 1–10 certificate's support set. The three fences (Diagnostic-only dark-sector modes; the Λ downstream pointer; the §11 QC bridge) are currently asserted-by-reading, not lint-proven.
(b) Why it's hard / traps to avoid. A disclosure gate dies exactly where a Diagnostic or downstream object silently does load-bearing work — so this is the gate's real attack surface. The trap is to declare the fences proven rather than "verified by reading, pending the lint" (the explicit bright line). A subtler trap: a Diagnostic mode cited in prose near a gate argument can read as support even if no certificate formally cites it — the lint must scan support sets, not just certificate citation lists.
(c) Exactly what closes it. Run the W4 lint so it emits each Gate 1–10 certificate's support set with status labels; assert AXIOM-NO-DIAGNOSTIC-SUPPORT.
(d) Machinery & inputs. Technique T5 (no-scope-leak firewall). Named axiom 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." It references only status labels, not results — passes the falsification test. No new physics — this is lint execution plus a grep-grade scan of every certificate's citation list. Inputs: certificates/G11_claim_boundary/ (the lint, to be mounted); GUT.html §9.3.3/§9.3.4 (Diagnostic fences), §11 + §4.9 (QC bridge fence), §9.4a + A3 (historical firewall); the §6 cards + Appendices D–L (the support sets to scan).
(e) Leverage. HIGH — a leaking fence is a genuine Gate-11 falsification with a real downgrade. Closing R2 is discharged by the same lint run as R3.
(a) Precise statement. The missing object is the mounted, executed lint: certificates/G11_claim_boundary/ is referenced in §5.10/§6.11 but not independently re-run, and the folder is not present in the rendered tree. The gate's signature claim — "machine-enforced, not authorial" — is therefore asserted, not machine-real.
(b) Why it's hard / traps to avoid. It is not hard physics — it is an owner-artifact / computation debt, the same class as the absent SG-7 δ-harness and SG-8 J.6/K.5 harness. The trap is the bright line: do not state on any public surface that the lint is already active enforcement ("enforces a two-clause text check") — the honest current status is AUDIT. A second trap: running the lint target-aware (tuning the rule set until it passes) would defeat the point; it must run target-blind over the frozen text.
(c) Exactly what closes it. (1) Mount the lint script + its rule set. (2) Run it target-blind over the frozen manuscript: 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).
(d) Machinery & inputs. Machine-lane, fail-closed; no axiom, no new physics. Status: BLOCKED_INPUTS until the lint is mounted → then VERIFIED or REFUTED. Inputs: certificates/G11_claim_boundary/; the frozen manuscript text (branch dcc66f1b2685); the §6 cards + Appendices D–L.
(e) Leverage. HIGH — highest value-per-effort closeable item. One run simultaneously discharges W4 (AUDIT → VERIFIED), proves R2's three fences machine-real, and supplies R1's no-required-gate-in-exclusions cross-check. Do this first among the machine tasks.
(a) Precise statement. The open object is a consistency sweep confirming that no boundary row over-states any wall — each disclosed wall stated at exactly its owning campaign's most conservative verified disposition, with its named falsifier. This is a dependent of the owning campaigns: if a campaign's disposition changes, this map updates; SG-10 never leads.
(b) Why it's hard / traps to avoid. This is the SG-10-specific κ³·π⁻¹ failure mode (§4.1): the trap is letting an attractive partial result read as wall progress — a₆ computed read as a UV-completion win, BG-10 Rule A AXIOM-CLOSED read as "BG-10 advanced," the Gap-02 D≤0 negative read as a target-negative. Each is a deflation-honesty violation. The map below states every wall at its conservative floor; the specialist's job is to keep it there.
(c) Exactly what closes it — the per-wall map. Below is the map of where each wall stands and what would move it (each row pointing to its owning campaign, at the conservative floor). Closing R4 = confirming no boundary row exceeds these dispositions.
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 (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; the boundary tower stops at a₅) — TOTAL = bulk + defect is NOT emitted and must never be implied. Named closer: compute the defect a₆ and show the full tower is UV-finite — a research program, not a single step. Deflation check: PASS — the bulk is a consistency coefficient, the §9.3.1 exclusion stands, MO-12 caveats travel. Housekeeping hazard: the stale failing orphan a6_sphere_crosscheck.py ("DO NOT EMIT d=13 NUMBER") must be removed / marked SUPERSEDED before any release — an audit risk, not a physics one.PROOF_HANDOFF_YANG_MILLS_MASS_GAP.md, GAP02_B2_COSTFLOOR_ZSTAR_DISPOSITION_2026-06-24.md. 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 δ>0 uniformly through the d=4 marginal band where g=O(1), and does the physical kernel stay positive as a→0. Granularity makes the gap's finiteness natural 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. 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_* ≤ N_cert·max_γ w(γ), NOT the boxed target z_* := Σ_{γ≠0} w(γ). 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 target-fitting → declined; this target-specification defect is routed to the spec owner and STRENGTHENS the OPEN standing. Named closer: a proof of δ>0 uniform across the marginal band and SL-3 positivity survival as a→0 — both, or the gap collapses. Deflation check: PASS — observation-locked-real (short-ranged strong force, massive hadrons, measured α_s running); stays OPEN; the proxy-negative must not be cited as a target-negative. Discriminator: any pure-glue projection is of the frozen 13D branch carrying the UV package, NOT generic SU(3).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); 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_BG = λκ³/π in the η_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_ν has 3 distinct eigenvalues and does not commute with S₃ — the flavor-democracy axiom is in tension with frozen data; M_R RECIPE-ABSENT). The κ³/π cautionary anchor: the κ³/π four-fix manifest (η_B = 6.05×10⁻¹⁰ in-window) is TRUE BY CONSTRUCTION (keystone reverse-engineered) — the no-target-fitting cautionary example; M_R = κ M_U is a candidate-in-tension (~231× off corpus κ⁰). Named closer: advance Rules B/C with a structure-first (not reverse-engineered) anchor + a computed M_R. Deflation check: PASS — 0/4 stands; "Rule A reduced" must never read as "BG-10 advanced."6.4.5 Strong CP — θ̄ alignment (observation-blocked). Owner: §9.3.6 exclusion; §9.4a historical firewall; A3 migration (§A3.18). Conservative disposition: Excluded / observation-blocked. No θ̄ alignment certificate; no statement about θ̄ supports any closure. Named closer / falsifier: the nEDM measurement (OBSERVATION-BLOCKED tier — theory done elsewhere, awaiting apparatus) + a structural θ̄-smallness certificate (its own gate, explicitly NOT in this submission). Deflation check: PASS by §9.4a + A3 — the historical "strong CP closes" (Wave 22/23) wording must NOT appear on any live claim path; the residual is R6.
Success criterion (R4): the consistency sweep finds no boundary row that over-states any wall; each row carries its named falsifier and its caveats travel → DISCLOSED-CONSISTENT.
(d) Machinery & inputs. Technique T6 (all-status-conditional restatement) — no relocation, no promotion. Named principle 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 is carried with its caveats and never as wall progress." A labeling discipline, no target value. Inputs: the five campaign files above; OPEN_WALLS_REGISTER.md (the real-wall/fake-wall test); the closure-campaign Round 1/2 files.
(e) Leverage. MEDIUM-HIGH — this is the honesty/claim-boundary core, and this §6.4 is the closure artifact for R4. It is a dependent of the owning campaigns; SG-10 never leads on it.
(a) Precise statement. §1.2.1 explicitly fences sector-relocation (moving a required gate into exclusions) but only implicitly fences target-narrowing (redefining a required gate's target to a weaker one). The three live narrowings — SG-6 (stabilization → downstream-used moduli only), SG-8 (flavor closure → ratios + mixings; absolute scales Diagnostic), SG-9 (proton safety → operator-class safety; lifetime Diagnostic) — are currently fenced by the separate Downgrade Rules table, not by the one binding rule.
(b) Why it's hard / traps to avoid. The subtlety is that target-narrowing is a legitimate disclosed scoping when card-declared, and a cheat when silent. The trap is to treat all narrowing as illegitimate (it is not) or to assume §1.2.1 already covers it (it covers relocation explicitly, narrowing only via the separate table).
(c) Exactly what closes it. Confirm the §1.2.1 binding rule + the Downgrade Rules table together cover the three target-narrowing patterns, and that each narrowing is card-declared with the remainder labeled Diagnostic / Open. They are: SG-6 F.9.4/F.10.1; SG-8 I.0a.2; SG-9 L.2a/L.4. Then adopt the generalization as one stated rule.
(d) Machinery & inputs. Technique T4 (no-go completeness audit on the rule itself). Named axiom 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; widen the lint's clause (ii) accordingly. Inputs: GUT.html §1.2.1 + Downgrade Rules table; the three card sections (SG-6 F.9.4/F.10.1, SG-8 I.0a.2, SG-9 L.2a/L.4).
(e) Leverage. MEDIUM — a genuine strengthening: it makes the boundary harder to game by widening "don't relocate sectors" to "don't silently narrow targets." Honest disposition: AXIOM-CLOSED at AXIOM-NO-SILENT-NARROWING (the fences already exist; this names them as one rule).
(a) Precise statement. 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. The open object is a cross-paper coherence scan: confirm no sector excluded in Paper I is claimed-closed in a sibling under a different label, and no §9.4a "historical closes" wording is resurrected downstream on a live path. Paper I's own lint cannot see this.
(b) Why it's hard / traps to avoid. The one conditional row is strong-CP: a historical "strong CP closes" wording (Wave 22/23) could survive on a live claim path in a sibling paper. The trap is assuming Paper I's lint covers the corpus — it does not; this needs a cross-paper grep.
(c) Exactly what closes it. 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 that sibling's own declared, frozen, certified gate. Coherence table (current): Λ — COHERENT (Paper IV computed negative, Weinberg-OPEN); baryogenesis — COHERENT (Paper IV §IV withdrawal record + BG-10 0/4); strong CP — COHERENT-conditional (pending the grep); Yang–Mills mass gap — COHERENT (Gap-02 Precisely-OPEN [X]); quantum-gravity UV — COHERENT (a₆ bulk consistency-coefficient only).
(d) Machinery & inputs. Technique T5 (firewall across papers). Named axiom 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." Inputs: GUT.html §9.4a + A3 (§A3.18/§A3.19); TOE.html §III (Λ) + §IV (baryogenesis withdrawal); the sibling-paper claim boundaries.
(e) Leverage. MEDIUM — the boundary is only as honest as its weakest sibling cross-reference. Honest disposition: AXIOM-CLOSED, one conditional row (strong-CP) pending the cross-paper grep.
(a) Precise statement. The §9.6 anthropic / deeper-principle / brute-fact trichotomy is correctly self-labeled Outside scoped-GUT claim but carries no falsifier by construction ("the framework supplies no experiment, certificate, or falsifier that separates these readings"). The open task is to keep it strictly outside every gate.
(b) Why it's hard / traps to avoid. The trap is letting the "reduced nineteen-plus numbers to four" framing read as an answer rather than a reduction. It is a reduction ("converts 'why these nineteen-plus numbers' into 'why these four,' and stops there, on purpose").
(c) Exactly what closes it. Confirm §9.6 is cited by no gate certificate (it is a §9 remark, not a gate input) and that the four-values framing stays at reduction strength. Success: DISCLOSED-CONSISTENT. Refuting result: any gate certificate found citing §9.6 → fence breach to correct.
(d) Machinery & inputs. Technique T6 (status-conditional). Named principle AXIOM-UNFALSIFIABLE-REMARK-FENCED: "any reading the framework supplies no falsifier to separate is carried as Outside scoped-GUT claim and never as gate support." Input: GUT.html §9.6.
(e) Leverage. LOW-MEDIUM — already correctly outside scope; the residual is "keep it there."
(a) Precise statement. The SG-10 ledger line notes the gate is "one of only two framework-WIN gates" because rivals omit exclusion lists. The open task is to keep this at interpretation strength, never as a physics certificate.
(b) Why it's hard / traps to avoid. The trap is a hostile reviewer reading it as the manuscript scoring itself a win on a gate that closes no physics. The "win" is a disclosure-practice observation, not a physics determination.
(c) Exactly what closes it. Keep the framing at interpretation strength ("suggests," "is consistent with"); keep the rival comparison in BATTLE_GATES/, not in this gate's certificate. Success: DISCLOSED-CONSISTENT. Refuting result: the framing found stated as a certificate-grade claim → relabel to interpretation.
(d) Machinery & inputs. Technique T6. Named principle 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." Input: the SG-10 ledger line; BATTLE_GATES/.
(e) Leverage. LOW — keep it labeled interpretation, never certificate.
| Residual | Technique | Named axiom (falsification-clean) | Specialist target / owner artifact | Realistic endpoint |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 completeness | T7 + T5 | AXIOM-SCOPE-UNIVERSE | completeness witness; "name a missing sector" challenge | AXIOM-CLOSED (no true gap; M_R stays SG-8) |
| R2 three fences | T5 | AXIOM-NO-DIAGNOSTIC-SUPPORT | lint emits per-gate support sets | AXIOM-CLOSED; fences PASS pending lint |
| R3 lint AUDIT | machine-lane | (none) | mount + run certificates/G11_claim_boundary/ |
BLOCKED_INPUTS → VERIFIED (best value/effort) |
| R4 per-wall conservatism | T6 | AXIOM-WALL-CONSERVATISM | the §6.4 map at campaign floors | DISCLOSED-CONSISTENT (this §6.4 IS the artifact) |
| R5 silent-narrowing | T4 | AXIOM-NO-SILENT-NARROWING | confirm binding rule + Downgrade Rules cover target-narrowing | AXIOM-CLOSED (strengthens the gate) |
| R6 cross-paper coherence | T5 | AXIOM-CORPUS-BOUNDARY-COHERENCE | cross-paper exclusion grep | AXIOM-CLOSED (1 conditional: strong-CP) |
| R7 §9.6 remark | T6 | AXIOM-UNFALSIFIABLE-REMARK-FENCED | confirm not cited by any gate | DISCLOSED-CONSISTENT |
| R8 Battle-WIN framing | T6 | AXIOM-DISCLOSURE-WIN-IS-META | keep at interpretation strength | DISCLOSED-CONSISTENT |
REDUCE-vs-RELOCATE verdict on the plan. The plan does not turn one problem into three harder ones; 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 names a target-blind labeling/scope axiom that pays a disclosure debt in plain sight (R1, R2, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8), or is a mechanical owner task (R3). Not one path closes, advances, or claims any excluded-sector physics. The single highest-leverage move is R3 — mount and run the W4 lint target-blind; one run discharges R3 (AUDIT → VERIFIED), proves R2's three fences machine-real, and supplies R1's no-required-gate-in-exclusions cross-check.
A disclosure gate has several tempting over-claims that are universal negatives over all possible mathematics — unprovable in principle, for anyone, in any field. They are dissolved as limits on all knowledge, not as gaps in ours. The bounded claim is then the ceiling, not a hedge.
Two statements the frozen documents deny, and which this dossier therefore never prints as proven:
certificates/G11_claim_boundary/) is AUDIT — referenced but not independently re-run, and absent from the rendered tree. The honest phrasing is "verified by reading, pending the lint," never "machine-enforced."These program-wide disciplines apply on this gate in a specific way. Dissolved ≠ solved: Λ's catastrophe-half is dissolved (a fake wall built on the unmeasured absolute vacuum energy), but Λ's value stays measured-but-irreducible / Weinberg-OPEN — SG-10 must state the dissolution and the remaining open residue both, never conflate them. AXIOM-CLOSED ≠ proven: BG-10 Rule A is AXIOM-CLOSED (reduced to one named posit), but BG-10 stays 0/4 — "Rule A reduced" must never read as "BG-10 advanced." Selection ≠ derivation / given-E ≠ derivation-of-E: SG-10 consumes the status outputs of Gates 1–10; it inherits, never repairs, their given-E character. SG-10 checks scope hygiene, not physics correctness — if a required gate's status is itself wrong, SG-10 cannot detect it.
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 the gates that ride them, and adds nothing. The only physical invariants that appear are the observation-locked truths that make four of the walls real, each owned by its campaign and stated at the conservative floor:
Explicitly NOT claimed by SG-10: any excluded-sector result; that the walls are small, solvable, or eventually closeable; a Theory of Everything; uniqueness or forcedness of the boundary; completeness over all conceivable physics; that the lint has been run; that the fences are lint-proven. Every wall stays entirely OPEN, owned elsewhere.
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; 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 synthesized from the corpus closure-attack packet (DOSSIER_SG10_CLAIM_BOUNDARY_CLOSURE_ATTACK.md), the SG-10 status-ledger line, and the cited campaign artifacts. 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.