A prior research pass on “mirror magic” for this architecture ranked five mechanisms; the top four are built and shipped (WP-23 sections 10–12). The fifth — phase-conjugate mirrors, the nonlinear-optics device that reflects a distorted wavefront so its aberrations cancel on the return pass — was graded research-only. This paper tests the physical precondition directly, in this architecture's own coordinate space, before building anything on top of it. The operator under test is a point inversion about a target, x ↦ 2c - x. Two drift regimes are simulated over the 4D TERA cube — a coherent regime (a persistent per-trial bias) and an incoherent regime (zero-mean i.i.d. noise only). Measured (50,000 trials per cell): the pulse reduces mean final distance-to-target by 83.6% (unconstrained) and 80.5% (TERA-clamped) in the coherent regime (z > 500 both cases), and by 0.1% and 0.5% respectively in the incoherent regime. The precondition holds, precisely where physics says it should and not elsewhere. What this paper does not do is claim any real subsystem in this platform actually produces coherent drift — the most plausible candidate (WP-22's session visit-history pull) is named as the next thing to measure, not asserted as already true. Revision 2 adds §7 and §9–10, which materially change this paper's status. §7 runs the measurement §6 named as future work: real prose from this paper series' own markdown sources, projected through WP-22's actual lexicon TERA projector, tested for lag-1 autocorrelation via a 5,000-draw permutation test. The result was neither of this paper's two modeled regimes — a large, overwhelmingly significant (p<10-4, all seven sessions, every axis) negative autocorrelation, a mean-reverting/oscillating structure the coherent-drift model never considered. §9 then investigates why, and the answer corrects §7's framing rather than confirming it: differencing any sequence mechanically manufactures lag-1 autocorrelation of -0.5 regardless of temporal structure; three content- and order-blind controls (pure noise, real paragraphs in random order, word salad) reproduce §7's exact magnitude under its own test; and a corrected permutation null — shuffling the raw sequence rather than the already-differenced increments — finds the real document order statistically indistinguishable from a random shuffling of the same paragraphs (p=0.283 pooled). The negative number is real; the “real prose alternates register” reading of it is not supported once the null model is fixed — this paper falsifies its own follow-on finding rather than leaving it standing.
Weslyn Cory Whitehead (Sun,) studied this question.