Dated notes

7 September 2026. Three matters of record since the lock. None alters the body above.

1. AP44 (The Snap), locked 11 August 2026, supplies the one factor this paper's architecture provisioned and never booked — the arena's single constitution — and realises the gravitational constant as G = α_em²¹ × (1 + 1/π) / (1 + α_em) × ℏc/m_e² = 6.6719 × 10⁻¹¹ N·m²/kg², a residual of −0.036% against the recommended value, inside the roughly 500 ppm spread between independent laboratory determinations. §7's structural value, 6.7206 × 10⁻¹¹ at +0.69%, stands beside it as the record of the omission, never in its place. The channel count, the compounding law and the puncture factor are untouched; KS-R.7 as registered here did not fire, its bar being one per cent.

2. §7's reading of the inter-laboratory scatter in measured G as the leakage signature (AP06) — offered in §0.7 as a structural explanation, testable in principle and not yet confirmed — is fenced by AP44's Appendix C as two switches, both of which stand LIVE — EMPIRICAL. The Master Kill Switch Registry's words, quoted: KS-CCC.4a, “Gap-scale exclusion. No physical characterisation of the published apparatuses supports a common leakage term of order 6,900 ppm (the Appendix C meta-analysis; Tier 1 executed twice independently, outcome N in both)”; KS-CCC.4b, “Scatter structure. Residual boundary-dependence exists in the inter-laboratory scatter at AP06's honest size, order 10² ppm (Tier 2's blind boundary coding; Tier 1 found the structure at best marginal, p ≈ 0.06–0.2)”. The marginal finding is Tier 1's; Tier 2's blind boundary coding is the test, and it has not been run. Gap-scale corrections are excluded. AP06's reading of the scatter weakens; the realised value's central claim is unaffected either way, as KS-CCC.4b provides.

3. The republish of this paper removes one decorative character from the Artist's Note (U+2728), a matter of dress, recorded here and in the republish note.

11 September 2026. Six further matters of record, from the four papers locked this day (AP50–AP53). None alters the body above.

4. §4's sentence “This is not a physical assumption. It is a mathematical fact about independent events” is withdrawn. The conjunction at the neck (product over sum) and the completed exchange (α, not a single vertex) go in. The worth α is named as the identification (AP50 §5).

5. §5, Proposition 4: Steps 2 to 4 are superseded. The neck is not a puncture through the actualised side; it is a ring, by ruling. The conclusion stands on AP50 §2, with its debt paid.

6. §0.7, §5 (the note under Proposition 4), KS-R.9 and the conditionality footer: “the 0.69% agreement supports it” is withdrawn at each locus. The sub-debt is paid on the identity of the neck with the grain and the grain’s radius as the unit. The elimination table of AP50 §2 is entered beside it as record, its order disclosed.

7. §5, Proposition 1, Reading 5: c² = α/β is corrected to c² = β/α.

8. §6: “the one measured input is α_em itself” is narrowed to one measured dimensionless input.

9. KS-R.8b, KS-R.8c and KS-R.8d are sharpened, as the Master Kill Switch Registry v5.31 prints them.