Prescription and scope audit

data. Every use of ${\mathsf{E}}_m{P}_m=\mathrm{id}$ in the proof concerns a function with zero Cauchy data, usually one vanishing near ${\Sigma }_0$. For unspecified data the correct identity is (eq:homogeneous-subtraction).

. A chartwise retarded subtraction modifies the specified prescription. It does not become a tensorial operation on the whole cone by being written in a developing chart. In particular,

for general compact $\xi$; a fixed inverse need not commute with an arbitrary pullback. The plateau proof supplies a specific intertwining construction, not an unrestricted commutation rule.

. The proven bound is containment in ${\mathcal{D}}_f$, not equality of functional support with ${\mathcal{D}}_f$. Special inputs and cancellations can shrink the actual support. Nor can this bound generally be replaced by $\mathrm{supp}f$, as Proposition prop:memory demonstrates.

domain. The data defining $g,U,{\Sigma }_0$, and the harmonic prescription are fixed. Restricting to ${\mathcal{G}}_U$ changes the admitted identification; it does not repair the old larger identification without changing its domain.

comparison. The comparison cocycle is unique on the specified solution spaces because the Cauchy problem is unique. It is not a statement that every off-shell extension of that map is unique, or that unchanged observable formulas agree at different switches.

encoding. The encoding is defined after the finite classical evaluations are supplied. A coherent payload state is not declared to be a superposition of continuum solution jets. No source-acquisition channel is hidden in its preparation.