Examines inertia-preserving configurations in a scalar-conformal framework, indicating distinct outcomes.
The minimal scalar-conformal realisation couples a B = 1 Skyrme soliton [4, 5, 6] to a scalar substrate through a single conformal factor, with the aim of producing inertia- preserving coupled congurations. The parent inertial audit raised the residual-drift prob- lem, and Paper V [3] identied the directly solved F-c stationary branch as the relevant reference, with δmax ≃0.11. We resolve the status of that drift with a pre-registered mech- anistic audit. Four single-axis deformations of the two structures the class admitsits conformal coupling and its substrate potentialtogether with their combined corner, are classied against thresholds xed in advance, under gates that distinguish genuine inertial reorganisation from removal of the conformal dressing that denes the model. No deforma- tion achieves honest closure: the only conguration to cross the closure threshold does so by suppressing the dressing amplitude, and every amplitude-honest conguration, including the combined corner, remains on the plateau at δFc max ≳ 0.10. We show that drift reduc- tion and amplitude retention occupy disjoint regions of the admissible deformation space, because every lever the class oers acts on where the coupling engages rather than on the conformal weighting mismatch the inertia feelsa mismatch xed by the coupling form the minimal class holds invariant. The result is structured non-closure, not formal exhaustion: the residual Outcome-B drift is the resolved theoretical content of the minimal class, not an unsolved problem, and it authorises no extension beyond the minimal class.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jan-Frederik Flügge (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: