Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Computational audit reveals exact alignment between quantum measurement commits and gravitational billing across 50,401 histories, indicating a shared interface at the committed record.
Physics has repeatedly learned that two descriptions can disagree in imagery while referring to one structure. This preprint applies that question to quantum measurement and weak-field gravitational sourcing in a finite record-based framework. The proposal is that the measurement face—increments, records and Born weights—and the gravity face—increments, records and gravitational billing—meet at the same committed record. Two exact finite audits are reported. On a frozen class of 50,401 histories, commit and billing ledgers agree in number and timing with no mismatch, conditional on the declared one-commit/one-bill event model; an absolute pair-unit-to-bill map nevertheless remains unselected. For one source in a two-location superposition, two exact, inequivalent pre-commit completions survive the current tests: one keeps source and mediator quantum-correlated until commitment, while the other sources gravity only from records. They agree exactly on the complete audited committed face, including its no-signalling action. The result is neither a unification theorem nor a null result. It locates a possible gravity–measurement seam at the record interface and reduces the remaining ambiguity to an absolute pair-unit scale and a physical rule for gravitational sourcing before a record commits. A two-source entanglement experiment is the natural discriminator, but the candidate-to-outcome map remains to be constructed. Revision 0.2: the working-draft status is removed after the independently countersigned INT60 pair-bank at repository commit c47aaf7a. This deposit includes the manuscript, the self-standing INT59 and INT60 audit artifacts, and exact INT60 replay code and data.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
David Elliman (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: