Question, contribution, and scope

A reduced fringe contrast does not identify the source of decoherence. The relevant question is whether a calibrated environmental family can reproduce the same recorded outcomes as a specified additional gravity-related dynamical model.

We use the staged superconducting-microsphere proposal of Pino and collaborators Pino2018 as the experimental reference. Its long-wavelength localization model motivates a residual force-diffusion nuisance, while its preparation and sensing stages require explicit accounting of squared-position outcomes and failures. The reference is a proposal, not a completed gravitational-decoherence experiment.

The contribution has two linked parts:

1. Calibrated obstruction. A shared uncertain residual amplitude can leave an exact non-identifiable region even after an environmental calibration interval is supplied. The matching condition is imposed across all stages and settings.

2. Nuisance-cancelling control. A specified separation contrast eliminates selected constant and quadratic attenuation terms, but retains a nonquadratic gravitational response with a proved regularization-dependent margin.

These conclusions concern different models and must not be conflated. The obstruction is exact in the declared quadratic dynamical model. The positive contrast is a controlled attenuation diagnostic whose application to the full apparatus requires a residual ledger. Coefficient separation alone is not detector separation.

All analytical results are proved here. External inputs are the reference architecture, the motivation for regularized mass-density models, and the radiation constraints cited in Section sec:radiation. Neither a manuscript registry nor an unverified companion result is a mathematical premise.

En01-A En01A provides conceptual background on accessible state differences. Here the difference is between dynamically constructed outputs, not a state and its record pinching. Its copy-screening and Möbius results are not imported.