RESPONSES TO SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW OBJECTIONS - VERSION1.0

1. Fixed-n allocation might be read as globally optimal.
Response: Proposition2 and Table1 state fixed allocation; Section5 explicitly
disclaims global optimality for both44-sample rows. The improved row is a
comparison, not a solved allocation problem.

2. Audit could imply validation of the assumed structure.
Response: Abstract defines prespecified calibration/diagnosis. Section1 states
that every nominal target response parameter is observed elsewhere and the
equalities are supplied. Sections2 and6 separate within-family identification
from a known-form invisible defect.

3. Memory comparison could change outputs or bind only the chosen implementation.
Response: Section1 fixes each interface. Proposition3 states its optimality and
clock/readout contract; unique MAP outputs force the residual functions for all
eligible optimal controllers. Hypothetical queries do not create free memory.

4. The13.7% result could omit the enlarged family or randomness costs.
Response: Section6 specifies512 worlds, the defect location, Hamming objective,
and fresh independent fair output bit. Original deterministic ROM excludes it.
The17% misspecified learner risk and1/24 asymptotic contribution remain distinct.

5. Equal ROMs could suggest independent architectural/hardware superiority.
Response: Proposition4 is a matched simulation; Section5 explicitly excludes
shortest-code, independently learned architecture, and hardware conclusions.

6. Fixed header cost could be asserted for unbounded sample counts.
Response: Section5 restricts that formula to values fitting16-bit fields.
All displayed rows fit. Calculated alternative ROM costs are not represented
as separately generated alternative ROMs.

7. Contribution could overstate novelty or duplicate existing B-Theory work.
Response: Abstract and Sections1/7 identify an integrated finite specialization.
The R4 equivalence null is retained, classical inference/automata methods are
attributed, and the acquisition/hierarchy connections are limited. No full
Boolean-factorization theorem or publication-priority claim is imported.

Disposition: both independent final text rereads found no supported outstanding
major or minor mathematical repair. Release remains an editorial decision;
internal AI review does not confer external peer-reviewed status.