Conclusion and successor boundary

The programme has separated prescriptions and identified additional constructions that their comparison does not supply. Its finite and classical results are useful within their stated domains. They are not evidence that their quantum, geometric, or continuum successors have already been built.

A future connecting paper must specify the common target, domains, input maps, operators, boundary conditions, normalizations, allowed changes, and identity or limit to be proved. A future physical interpretation must additionally supply the relevant calibration, causal embedding, frame action, or matter–geometry law. A quantum paper must construct its quantum objects before calculating their gauge defects.

No such successor is opened here. The final statement is a boundary, not a universal prohibition:

Here $\ne$ denotes non-identification of the declared objects.