Manuscript XIX-B@1 · XIX-B.tex · section · b5670709
Exact release
Exact release · lines 1465–1532
| Question | Ending here | Exact extent |
|---|---|---|
| XIX-A density versus VI scalar wave | Proved equivalent | Same metric jet and coordinate-time data; factorial conversion included |
| Witness forcing comparison | Mismatch | Nonzero residual |
| Smooth no-decay coordinate fields | Constructed | Explicit fields and finite-time smooth inverse |
| Direct first-coordinate identification | Excluded | For the printed response sign and metric-sign transport |
| Witness as a first VI solution-jet coefficient | Excluded | Explicit nonzero linearized Einstein coefficient |
| VI scalar-switch identity | Separate identity | Not a coordinate obstruction or theorem hypothesis |
| Native complete-observable identification | Not established | Scalar legs, domains, and complete maps still require comparison |
| XVI-D inherited coordinate compatibility | Still conditional | Its declared hypothesis is not replaced by this different route |
| Full-kernel, quantum, and characteristic admission | Outside release | No coefficient, product, or admission theorem constructed |
The relationship of this paper to VI and XVI-D is a separation for the declared direct comparison:
Neither manuscript becomes a premise of the other. The mathematical reason is the computed first forcing residual, not the scalar-switch defect.
A successor proposing another match must specify the new metric argument and coupling placement, normalize the operators, compare all forcings and initial data, and establish the source-domain realization. Only after those steps can smooth uniqueness identify the coordinate coefficients. Observable equality requires its own subsequent proof.
Displayed formulas in this passage
unlabeled · line 1518