AI REVIEW SUMMARY
9 November2026, version1.0 working release candidate

Disposition: no supported major or minor objection remains within the
reviewed mathematical and interpretive text after the focused amendment
recheck. Suitable for consideration as a transparent technical addendum.
This is not external human peer review or confirmation of priority.

REVIEW METHOD AND LIMITS
Two separate AI reviewers were tasked with specialist-style mathematical
review and hostile attribution/interpretation review. Their initial file
read/search calls returned no content before interruption; those attempts
were recorded as incomplete, never as passes. The authoring agent then
supplied the actual mathematical draft content and interpretive excerpts
directly for bounded analytic review, followed by the exact amendments.
The reviewers did not independently verify the file bytes, run the new code,
inspect the PDF or complete a new live literature search. Their dispositions
are provided-text analytic assessments. No restriction was relaxed and the
stalled commands were not repeated.

The mathematical reviewer checked every printed cover/label and triangle,
the full matrix and determinant sign, signed-component formulas, degenerate
components, collapse proof, individual-bit obstructions, absolute collapses,
surface links, inclusion degree and protocol/capacity examples. The hostile
reviewer checked the contribution boundary, preservation of earlier results,
coefficient scope, endpoint/map distinction, operational assumptions and
the exact proposed companion insertions.

The authoring agent separately executed both independently developed exact
verifiers, checked their full certificates and agreement, reconstructed the
four-state execution matrices, compiled the PDF and inspected every page.
The closeout live source search was also performed by the authoring agent,
and is documented in priority_check.txt. Earlier independent code development
is distinct from independent execution of the final package.

REVISIONS AND RECHECK
The specialist requested explicit repetition of ht(P)<=2 in Proposition3
and retention of the distinction between analytic degree +/-2 and recorded
certificate pairing -2. The hostile reviewer requested an explicit identity
target/unit costs in the acquisition example and the lower bound showing
that expected depth2 is optimal for four equiprobable identities. These
clarifications were applied. Both reviewers then confirmed that no supported
major or minor objection remained in the supplied amended text.

REMAINING RELEASE LIMITS
This is a constrained realization and its recognition consequence, using
classical signed-graph and Mobius-strip mathematics. No minimum-state count,
first-discovery priority, physical validation, consciousness conclusion or
general architectural advantage is asserted. The separate exclusiveK2,2
secondary-map problem is not settled here. Final public integration is a
centrally coordinated step and has not been performed by this package.
