Test F5: a common coarse channel does not select a unique limit

These families do not satisfy an unasserted exact subdivision or projective-consistency relation with their common coarse tick. They choose different missing refinement data. They therefore obstruct inference from a coarse member and support certificate, not every continuum construction with additional consistency data.

A continuum ledger must specify complete comparison interfaces and, for a channel-evolution claim, a convergence statement such as

together with the claimed composition law and continuity CheungXIXC (def:limit). A spatial or event-cone limit needs its additional carrier and order-compatibility statements.

Pass condition. Provide the refinement data and prove the claimed existence and, if asserted, uniqueness. Merely naming “projective consistency” or “interpolation” is not a uniqueness proof. XIX-C's interpolation warning likewise records that finite sampling constraints may leave untested intermediate behaviour CheungXIXC (prop:interpolation). Uniqueness may instead be explicitly left outside the claim.