Remark: Correct conclusion

The formal implication “super-cone bidirectional transport plus strong closure contradicts E7(a)” is valid, but it is not a selective physical exclusion: the same assumptions exclude the ordinary relay used for sharp attainment. Accordingly, unrestricted device retiming closure is not used as an additional axiom of an admissible relay substrate and is not included in the continuum existence conjectures.

A useful physical boost interface would need frame-labelled devices, admissible inter-frame compositions, and a causal-order-preserving notion of frame change. The fixed-channel ordering proposition supplies none of those data. The construction above also does not prove a general evasion theorem for one-way channels under unrestricted closure of an entire device class.