Theorem: XV-A audit release

Relative to the supplied evidence record:

1. the convolution, ramp scalar/classical-metric, quantum-graviton, relative classical, and joint-extension entries have distinguishable model and domain signatures;

2. no supplied identification theorem transports all the necessary structures between those signatures;

3. the direct XIV-H–XIV-I–XIV-J excerpts distinguish defined internal kernels, a constructed internal amplitude, and a partial off-characteristic supported-sector reference from the unresolved full joint characteristic map;

4. reconstruction descent is necessary for any linear presentation-level construction to define a map on reconstructed kernels;

5. the conditional normal-jet interface constructs no coefficient extensions by itself;

6. the supplied releases do not establish the admission (eq:admission), and hence do not open XV-B under the exit contract.

Accordingly, the supplied record does not yet define a unified successor series with transferable results across these tracks. This conclusion is about the supplied definitions and proofs. It neither excludes a future unification theorem nor proves a universal obstruction to the unresolved analytic construction.

Proof. For (i), compare the recorded field content, regulator, gauge-fixing data, assembled observable, and domains in Table tab:ledger and Section sec:lanes. The convolution and ramp prescriptions have different regulated coordinate problems; the ramp quantum content keeps the metric classical; the graviton releases use distinct tree assemblies and gauge fixing; the relative branch restricts ghosts; and the analytic branch retains a separate full-shell quantum target and joint composition problem.

For (ii), the supplied evidence contains no bridge satisfying the operation and domain requirements of Proposition prop:transfer. This is a finite-record statement: it does not claim that no unprovided theorem exists.

For (iii), the cited H2, I2, I3, reference, J2, and release statements explicitly distinguish those objects and their domains. The tensor-product definition in Proposition prop:tensor also shows why existence of an internal kernel is a logically earlier operation than its joint cross-line composition.

Assertion (iv) is Proposition prop:descent. Assertion (v) is Theorem thm:conditional: its hypotheses ask for coefficient extensions and do not produce them. Assertion (vi) is Theorem thm:noadmission.

A unified transferable successor would require compatible signature identifications and the missing domain-sensitive operations. Neither is supplied by the audited record. The last sentence follows because an absent bridge or an unresolved construction is not an exclusion theorem.