A classification of the explanatory-status of declared mathematical explanation-claim records, not a verdict on which proofs truly explain. The corpus fixes what a record is of (Paper 13), when a causal claim is entitled (Paper 16), what explains in the shared world-history — contrastive why-questions posed against tokens of the shared world-model, with no external narrator fixing which contrast is relevant (Paper 18), when a claim is true (Paper 20), when a postulate may be adopted (Paper 63), what a term refers to (Paper 75), the necessity-status of a commitment (Paper 76), the objecthood-status of a token (Paper 77), and the applicability-status of an application record (Paper 78) — but nowhere types the history-internal, system-relative explanatory-status of a declared mathematical explanation-claim record. The sharpest display of the gap is a phenomenon every working mathematician recognizes and no corpus paper types: two derivations of one theorem, both proof-certified (Paper 76's axis), of which only one is treated as explanatory. While no such layer exists, a Global Explainer — an external authority who fixes, from outside a history, which proofs really explain and what mathematical explanation really is — works by default; it is distinct from Paper 18's Global Narrator, which would fix world-side contrastive relevance. No corpus paper reserves this seat by name: this is a new-seat opening on displayed need, completing the reference (75), necessity (76), existence (77), applicability (78), explanation (79) quintet over the classical seats of the philosophy of mathematics. Four type facts stand in print and bind the paper: "Typed is not adopted; classified is not answered." / "An explanatory-status is a type, not a world-side verdict on what truly explains." / "A criterion-satisfaction status is a checked certificate, not a decided explanatoriness." / "Explanation-standing is relative to a declared system and a declared criterion, never simpliciter." An explanation-claim record is not an explanation. It is a recorded pairing of a declared derivation-presentation with a declared why-question at a declared contrast class — never a presupposed explanatory fact. The construction is an explanatory-status grounding object X(x) — an explanation-claim record's declared systems, its explanatory-criteria store with checker rules and a six-condition criterion-admissibility rule (anti-fiat and discrimination-witnessed, verdict-free, checker-guarded, pre-declared before any certificate is evaluated, and practice-provenanced), its contrast-coverage store, its claim-provenance record, its use record, and a claim-individuation grain — with a normal form and a barred-fields box. On it, a three-axis ExplanationProfile(x; S) = (X, C, P) is typed by a certificate-based decidable test over finite declared obligation sets: the X-axis (criterion-satisfaction status) is a single summary cell derived from a displayed per-criterion status table CritStatus — the table, total on the declared criteria store, is the primitive record and the formal carrier of criterion-plurality; every table entry is criterion-indexed and the satisfied summary cell names its criterion, and "satisfied" in the cell names abbreviates "a declared certificate checks against the declared admissible criterion c," never "the derivation really explains." The C-axis (contrast-coverage) is cascaded over the declared contrast class, separating typed-contrast-covered-in-S from typed-partially-contrast-covered-in-S and from typed-contrast-undetermined, a routed status naming a declared gap. The P-axis (claim-provenance) is set-valued over the recorded entry modes (derived / imported / reconstructed), with a named typed-no-provenance-record cell when the record is declared-empty. An over-declared store — a checked violation-witness against a checked certificate on a covered clause — halts the test at a top-level diagnostic outcome, diagnostic-criterion-conflict-in-S, which is not a profile value but a failed profile-construction route. The contribution beyond "Paper 76's proof-certificate status restated" (the K0 guard, two-pronged) is exhibited, not asserted: the paper displays two fully declared derivation-presentations of one declared theorem, both carrying declared proof-certificates, with different X — the failed presentation fails a named clause of a declared admissible criterion by a checked violation-witness, it does not merely lack a certificate — witnessing that explanatory-status is not a function of proof-certificate status; plus witnesses that (C, P) is not a function of X; and the axes are status-like rather than metadata: a declared consumption/transfer condition discipline, grounded non-circularly in the recorded use-classes, reads all three axes as gates on downstream consumption and transfer. The multi-axis profile locates the essentialist proposal (Steiner 1978), the unificationist criterion (Kitcher 1981), the practice-pluralist counterpressure (Hafner and Mancosu 2005), the non-causal displays (Lange 2016), and the practice-turn (Mancosu 2008) as located displays and profile points, so the output is an explanatory-status profile, not rubric bookkeeping. The ceiling is declared and patrolled: typing is not adopting; classifying is not answering. The substantive what-truly-explains question is declined either way — neither explanatory essentialism nor deflation; understanding, truth, causation, applicability, reference, necessity, objecthood, and adoption stay at their owners' seats; strict recovery of Paper 13's per-record semantics is exact (Lemma R-ex). The landing is ExplanationProfile-layer = scoped, with a null via K0 an honest branch and an Explainer-dependence theorem (K3) declared and patrolled. Nothing is adopted; no truth, satisfaction, or world-side explanatoriness verdict is claimed; no why-question is answered.
Tomoyuki Uchida (Fri,) studied this question.