Skip to content

MCA: dense-core owner substrate and reserve repricing (post-#1168) - #1169

Open
AllenGrahamHart wants to merge 38 commits into
przchojecki:mainfrom
AllenGrahamHart:codex/kb-dense-core-owner-substrate-post-1168
Open

MCA: dense-core owner substrate and reserve repricing (post-#1168)#1169
AllenGrahamHart wants to merge 38 commits into
przchojecki:mainfrom
AllenGrahamHart:codex/kb-dense-core-owner-substrate-post-1168

Conversation

@AllenGrahamHart

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Stack and review boundary

Stacked on exact #1168 head 6a5dcdae1591fc7f044eda6a942bfe178521a48c (itself on #1167/#1166/#1165). Review only:

6a5dcdae1591fc7f044eda6a942bfe178521a48c..b4bad860750f91955dbaead8f2b5a0fdef1f1343

What this supplies

Four guarded inputs for the owner route that #1168 leaves open (a chronology-correct owner for dense parallel pair cores). It does not construct that owner; its purpose is to make the next theorem type-correct and honestly priced before any dense pair-core group is charged to the S/A/E chronology.

  1. Separate two-anchor reserve repricing. The near-rational set and the order-32 exception set cannot be identified (2w = 134944 KoalaBear / 134896 Mersenne-31 vs the reserved 31). Any owner reusing the large rational-owner assembly must meet B_owner^(2w)(g) <= B*-(2w+31)-(n-g), the four charges closing to B* identically; exact endpoint tables for both rows (targets 274980728110346481..274980728111260112 and 15728609..16642288). Arithmetic viability only — the stricter large-owner maximum-fiber theorem is explicitly not claimed.
  2. Silent k -> k+1 transport is false. On the deployed domain, (u,v)=(1_E, X^k) at slope zero is support-wise MCA-bad for RS[F,D,k] and simultaneously explained for RS[F,D,k+1]: badness and first-owner semantics are not dimension-invariant. Shipped as a hostile regression.
  3. The exact repair. A degree-guarded shifted-lattice adapter (envelope plus code-shift cap) in exact bijection with degree-<k explanations on the identical support, plus an executable same-support pair-noncontainment test.
  4. A typed deployed pole-line witness at d1 = 67473 (both shifts), passing the guard and reconstructing its support and explanation, with Q, BC, and U_new retained as UNASSIGNED.

Acceptance contract (the bridge to #1168 §6)

Any S/A/E chronology owner for the forced delta <= 4, 200632-slope terminal must: meet the repriced target (R1); preserve the actual line/support/slope chronology; pass the degree and pair tests of item 3; accept the typed pole line of item 4; and reject the transport mutation of item 2. This is an interface, not an owner claim.

Verification

  • primary verifier: PASS (36,015 exhaustive toy records; official endpoint tables; d1=67473)
  • independent verifier: PASS (packet, reserve, transport, adapter, pole, bridge; 4/4 controls)
  • hostile mutations: 8/8 rejected
  • TeX build: 123 pages, clean
  • all public-DAG source pins confirmed reachable before pinning
  • coordinator replay at the pushed head under RAMguard: PASS

Scope and nonclaims

Zero deployed ledger movement; rank eleven is not paid; no K3, LIST, or closure claim. #1167's rank-10 payment is noted neutrally: the same theorem was reached independently on the public prize DAG (cycle 232) — convergence, not contest.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01Ve3d3scwbLSLeo6ByidPxF

AllenGrahamHart and others added 30 commits August 13, 2026 03:38
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants