# Distributed-temporal inclusion assessment
Version 0.2, 9 November 2026

## Decision

Include one compact explanatory appendix, Shared Clocks and Historical Targets, linked after MIND §5.3 and from Acquirable Predictive Models §§7–8. No standalone paper or new general method claim is warranted. R4 §4 and Diagnosing While Repairing §§1.4–1.5 need cross-references only. This assessment changes none of those manuscripts and does not merge material into calibration.

## Claim-by-claim disposition

| Claim | Exact original location | Already incorporated / related current location | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Static odd parity vs time-compatible reports | Distributed iteration 1 §§2–4; iteration 3 §1 | MIND §5.1, Proposition 3, pp.6–7 assumes a common slice; §5.3 p.7 requests matched bandwidth/latency. | Existing static theorem unchanged. Appendix A adds acquisition-time qualification and 000→100 example. |
| Spacetime even-cycle condition with known binary increments | Iteration 1 §4; summary iteration 3 §1 | MIND parity is the three-edge static instance; Harary signed-graph balance is established antecedent. | Cross-reference/source record only; no separate theorem treatment needed. Do not claim a new consistency principle or nerve criterion. |
| One offset per module; bounded body changes; metric criterion | Iteration 2 §§2–5, Proposition U1 | R4 §3 models a persistent polarity and update order, not uncertain acquisition timestamps. No corresponding shared-clock construction found in the inspected comparison copies. | Appendix A.1: exact domain intersection and elementary full-state distance lemma. |
| Offset-lifetime elimination bound | Iteration 2 §§6–9, Proposition U2 | No matching bound found in comparison copies. Classical temporal constraints and DPOP/variable elimination are antecedents. | Appendix A.2: useful concrete technical subsection, not generic scalability or established priority. State all exponential parameters, empty-domain handling, and actual proof/table costs. |
| Target identification vs full-history reconstruction | Iteration 3 §§2,3,5,6 | Acquirable §3, Theorem 2/Corollary 3 and §6 separate a reported target from exact transcript leaves; §7 Proposition 10 is support AND–OR planning; §8 attributes ECD. | Principles already incorporated. Cross-reference; appendix B provides distinct worked access/cost instance. |
| Adaptive 14 bits/16 rounds vs fixed 21/24 | Iteration 3 §§3–7; checks.json, independent_results.json | Diagnosing §3 Theorem 3.2, pp.10–11 already has adaptive destructive-repair-order separation. It is a different contract, not the same finite-cost example. | Retain as exact nonmutating archive-query example under fixed frames, input ownership, serial bus and sunk archive/reference inputs. |
| Clocks/current body cannot identify erased historical flag | Iteration 3 §8 | Diagnosing §1.4 Proposition 1.2, p.5 is the general complete-state/retained-record erasure bound. Acquirable §7 Example 11 distinguishes current certainty and origins. | General lesson already incorporated. Appendix B.2 gives explicit pair and distinguishes inaccessible surviving archives from global erasure. |
| Matched centralized/distributed optimum | Iteration 3 §9; iterations 1–2 network comparisons | MIND §5.3 requires matched bandwidth/latency. R4 §§1,4 gives equal mappings; external communication is idealized free there. | Cross-reference existing principle; appendix B.3 adds charged communication with equal optimum. No architectural superiority. |

“Not found” means absent from the specific captured versions, not an exhaustive worldwide priority claim. Current copies inspected: MIND research edition 2026-10-05; Acquirable revised 2026-10-07; Reflective R4 source 2026-10-14/site copy 2026-10-16; Diagnosing companion v0.2.5, 2026-11-08. The pending continuous acquisition-timing addendum v1.1 has a separate scalar threshold/disturbance/fixed-input contract and is not edited or subsumed.

## Exact proposed integration text

### After MIND §5.3

Proposition 3 concerns reports about one common time slice. Reports acquired at different times must instead be tested against one trajectory satisfying the declared dynamics. For example, AB at time 0 and BC at time 0 reporting parity zero, with CA at time 1 reporting parity one, fit 000→100 when A changes; moving the last report to time zero restores the static odd-parity contradiction. With uncertain clocks, all records from one module must share its single offset. A compatible trajectory establishes an admissible explanation, not that a particular history occurred or that clock error caused the apparent discrepancy. The explanatory appendix Shared Clocks and Historical Targets gives exact finite examples and a charged historical-acquisition task.

### After Acquirable §7's reset/origin discussion, with a pointer from §8

A known current predictive class does not generally identify a historical target. If genuine archives survive, their acquisition can reveal information absent from the current body. Shared Clocks and Historical Targets gives an eight-history example: under its serialized fixed-frame interface, a clock-context query followed by the relevant archive query has exact worst-case cost 14 wire bits and 16 rounds, while every fixed identifying selection costs at least 21 bits and 24 rounds. This instantiates established target-specific test selection under an additional communication contract; it does not extend the RF classification or provide a new general planning theorem.

### Optional R4 §4 cross-reference

The charged archive-access example in Shared Clocks and Historical Targets complements this manuscript's communication-free external-observer control. With equal ports, input ownership and communication rights, central and distributed controllers still attain the same optimum; the example's saving is adaptive versus fixed query selection.

### Optional Diagnosing §1.4 cross-reference

For a clock-and-archive illustration of Proposition 1.2's boundary, see Shared Clocks and Historical Targets, §B.2. Surviving remote archives belong to complete physical state: inaccessible archive ports create an access limitation, whereas actual erasure requires that no retained variable or archive preserve the distinction. The appendix's nondestructive query-cost comparison is distinct from Theorem 3.2's destructive repair-order separation.

## Scope and stopping decision

The specialized clock model and accounting example justify an explanatory appendix, with standard methods attributed. No differentiated general theorem requiring a standalone manuscript was identified. No Being/Becoming ontology, subjective-consciousness test, distributed-architecture superiority, or unrestricted scalability result follows. Do not interpret the title as the philosophical B-theory of time. No new experiments are required for this inclusion decision.