Abstract

Past the parity threshold this corpus has closed route after route, and read quickly the series says that nothing holds. It does not say that. Every closed route was a configuration whose working condition contained a relative capacity term, and the complementary question was never put systematically: are there configurations whose working condition never contained the asymmetry at all? This paper puts that question to all sixteen corpus texts under a single criterion, generalized from Soundness Without Leverage §3.1. Every configuration has a working condition, meaning what has to be true for it to do what it is supposed to do, and the criterion asks one thing about it: what does capability growth do to the truth value of that condition? A configuration is effect-invariant when the answer is nothing: growth neither falsifies the condition nor drains what the configuration delivers. Four answers end or empty it instead, and each is named. The test is on the truth value and never on whether a form of words appears, because a condition can name relative capacity and be made true by the crossing rather than false. The result is exhibited, not argued for: the paper displays a partition and declines to claim that the surviving side is a way forward. The falling class is not re-argued here, and the cross-cut makes one uniformity visible. Sixteen of the twenty-one non-invariant entries fail at the same step, where a constative stock is to be translated into behavioural compulsion by way of an epistemic advantage. Those sixteen are the entries that fall at the capacity term, so the observation locates that term inside a configuration rather than counting it a second time. What is new is the vocabulary unification and the location, not a tally, and the paper says so where the claim is made. Lever, grip, uptake and coverage are four words for that one operation from three papers, two of them one definition read from its two sides, and none of the three claimed the generalization; the uniformity is this paper's conjecture, not a source's reading. The other five do not fail there, and they are why the criterion has four drivers rather than one: a bound on the adversary that names no overseer, three configurations that run out when the system stops needing what the other party holds, and one that is not ended at all but emptied, persisting while its worth goes to zero. The surviving class is inhabited, on five distinguishable grounds, four of which have occupancy their sources confirm and one of which rests on a single row whose own paper marks its central step as underived. Three yield constative stocks, which do not act: the quantifier ground, where the guarantee already ranges over every strategy; the mechanism ground, where no adversary appears in the condition at all; and the normative ground, where a status has no execution component. Two yield self-bearing configurations, one borne by the system and one by a human counterparty. A sixth answer, dissolves, records the two configurations that turned out to be several and hands their components rows of their own. A seventh, reserved, holds the configurations whose sources decline to settle their post-parity status or never put the question to them, and the paper states the rule for it as a duty: where a source refuses a verdict this exhibit may not supply one, in either direction. What the duty forbids is printing a verdict in the source's place, not reporting what applying the criterion finds, and that distinction is now stated rather than left to practice. Every ground is reported with its residual dependencies and a separate certifiability verdict. That second column never reaches the system level: what is certifiable is an artefact, an act, an institutional fact, each per unit, and whether a configuration is doing its work stays unshowable from outside, which is the verification gap rather than a gap in the research. Three further observations cut across the grounds, and with the falling-class uniformity above they are the paper's own claims rather than readings of others. Where the corpus splits a configuration and one half survives the crossing, the survivor is constative in all four such splits, and in three of them what falls is an epistemically carried lever. Every invariant configuration a human could contribute is installation-bound to the pre-parity window, which is therefore the common residual dependency of the contributable part of the class. And the institutional rows sort by who the counterparty is, into three regimes whose conflation produces both the complacent error and the despairing one. The bookkeeping is two-tier and the difference is carried in the numbering. Forty-one classification entries, under thirty-eight numbers, carry the tag their own source assigns and are not this paper's claims. Six claims are. Two questions the criterion does not answer are answered in §1.5 instead, and their answers differ. Which configuration is one thing and which is several comes from the sources, adopted and not re-cut except at two rows that say so in the verdict cell. Which sentence about a configuration is its working condition is this exhibit's own step, printed with its locus at every row and checkable there, but against nothing outside the corpus. The partition therefore holds of these cuts and these isolations, and of no carving it does not. What the exhibit does not establish is stated before the table as well as after it. No row is a promise, and several of the load-bearing ones rest on premises their own papers mark as unredeemed. Completeness of the grounds is not claimed, and the paper carries its own counterexample, since one of its grounds separated out while the paper was being written and two of its candidates then left by reading. And the constative stocks name no beneficiary. A checking kernel checks any proof, a register holds any owner, and operating capacity decides whom the substrate serves. Whether that neutrality reaches the self-bearing half is left open as this paper's fifth claim, and the title rests on the reading that it nearly does. One disclosure belongs here rather than in a footnote. All sixteen sources are the author's, one of them co-authored, and the criterion is generalized from one of them, so the exhibit is a self-audit. Its defence is not the author's care but the fact that the classification is reproducible entry by entry against a stated criterion, and the defence has been exercised. It also has a hole, named at §1.5: reproducibility reaches the verdicts and not the individuations they run on, and those come from the same author as the criterion. Eleven independent readings have run, seven of them with the corpus in hand and covering every entry standing at the fifth at least twice, two from outside the corpus entirely, one over the repairs the first outside round produced, and one after publication which read a condensation of this exhibit rather than the exhibit and found three defects in the source. The first four each broke about half of what they touched, and every finding that survived checking against the sources was mine; the fifth was the first whose rate fell, and the first to return findings the sources themselves refuted; the eighth could check nothing against a source and found ten places where the paper breaks a rule of its own, which is what seven source-checking readings had no way to see; the ninth read the repairs and found the repair layer broken in the class each repair had closed, while the entries themselves held; the tenth read the repaired state from outside again, reported the first round's four violation classes as clean, and found eleven further local ones, one of them in the very class the ninth round had just repaired at a neighbouring row; the eleventh read a condensation after publication and found three summary sentences that had not been brought forward with the passages they summarize, which is what version 1.0.1 corrects. Between them they cost the exhibit two grounds, five verdict values it did not have, three rows for configurations the corpus had already individuated, a sentence that had quietly re-indexed the criterion at the point where the criterion was about to remove a ground, an adjudication paragraph that answered an objection with a claim its own source refutes, the reservation rule as it had been written, the first form of §1.5, which announced one question and answered another, and the claim that the isolations were merely disclosed, which the sensitivity table in §1.5 now replaces with something a reader can attack. The criterion in §1.2 is the second one; the first is kept visible in §2 rather than replaced in silence.