Auditing a Chameleon Fifth-Force Extraction Pipeline: Lambert-W Benchmarks, Fail-Closed Diagnostics, and Synthetic Detector Stress Tests

Resource Type: Publication / PreprintCreator: Darren Dominic FabriAffiliation: Independent Researcher, Los Angeles, CAORCID: 0009-0002-0409-2515Version: main_main_v7801_corrective.pdf_corrective.pdfDate: 2026-09-15Language: EnglishPrevious Version: 10.5281/zenodo.20178243 Description: This corrective revision supersedes the May 14, 2026 version of the manuscript and applies the Horizon Closure Matrix (HCM) audit methodology to the author's earlier fifth-force analysis. The purpose of the revision is to preserve mathematically supported results, explicitly withdraw unsupported physical interpretations, identify the points at which the original inference chain failed, and state the minimum evidence required for future physical closure. The retained source-native core begins with an inverse-power chameleon model with V(φ)=Λ⁵/φ and conformal matter coupling. The positive stationary branch is expressed exactly through the principal Lambert-W function. Exact derivatives with respect to Λ and density ρ are derived, and the effective mass satisfies m_eff²>0 under the declared positive-branch assumptions. These results are independently checked numerically. The revision withdraws the earlier claims of main TA6V corrective.pdf empirical closure, flight-hardware validation of a 40% specific-heat degradation, HKB-optimized κ=11.25, an independently certified SNR floor of 2.491, universal “Pristine Vacuum” signal discrimination, fifth-force detection or exclusion, and implications for the Hubble tension. The previous TA6V degradation result was dominated by a preassigned degradation parameter rather than derived from orbital radiation exposure. The historical SNR=2.491 result is retained only as a negative-control example. With the original target Λ=2.4 meV and baseline uncertainty σ₀=0.96 meV, the zero-bias ratio is exactly 2.500. Any positive bias therefore lowers the ratio below the chosen 2.50 threshold. The former result is consequently classified as a circular decision-anchor example rather than an independent physical certification. The former “Pristine Vacuum” spectral claim is replaced by a valid H¹ high-frequency energy bound. The revised manuscript explicitly distinguishes such mathematical regularity bounds from physical signal provenance. Generic mathematical controls retained in the paper include a smooth past-supported gate, a normalized positive Riemann-Stieltjes measure, positive-semidefinite covariance propagation, and local regularized-risk identities. All detector-style figures retained in the revision are explicitly labeled synthetic or schematic and are not presented as flight data. The revised source-to-observable chain identifies the present physical stopping point:chameleon source model → local Lambert-W minimum → nested-cylinder field solution → fifth-force/stiffness → electrostatic detector response → likelihood or experimental constraint. Only the local analytic sector is closed in this manuscript. The detector-level MICROSCOPE chain remains open. Published MICROSCOPE chameleon analyses provide the appropriate geometry-sensitive route for any future source-native continuation. A fresh verification checker passes 15/15 declared tests. The corrective manuscript was compiled with REVTeX 4.2 using three pdflatex passes, with no LaTeX errors, undefined references or citations, or overfull boxes. A clean source-package rebuild produced pixel-identical rendered pages. This revision is intentionally a transparent scientific correction and methodological case study. It does not claim TA6V empirical validation, a fifth-force detection, a fifth-force exclusion, a new dark-energy result, a MICROSCOPE anomaly, or new physics.