Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This internal note fixes the numerical observable for the absolute normalisation of the angular generation split of Q14, 6, and reports the Weil–BFS computations of it (Section subsec:capacity-audit). A short Baker–Campbell–Hausdorff reduction in sl₂ identifies the per-step J_Π-odd J₃ component of the metaplectic cascade generator with the oriented product $ts$ of the two shear parameters, produced by the sl₂ commutator $[E,F]=H$ (Q14, Proposition 6.5), and not with a free shear parameter. In the SL(2)-on-V model of Q14 the computation uses only the sl₂ relations and no Heisenberg bracket; in the oscillator (Weil) realisation the sl₂ generators are quadratic in the Heisenberg generators, and no map between the two brackets is supplied here. The observable proposed for the Weil–BFS cascade is the accumulated oriented central-phase increment Ac of the Heisenberg lift, normalised by the projected capacity I(n). That Ac carries the J₃ signal is an input of this note, not a consequence of the reduction: the increment $ts$ and the Heisenberg cocycle have the same form, which is an analogy and not an identification. Under this input, at the intrinsic saturation rank n₃ᵒᵇˢ the normalised increment equals εWeil(n₃ᵒᵇˢ), to be compared with the dictionary value ε = 1/10 without fitting. In the O12 construction the two sectors are the two terms of the fingerprint exponent: the frequency Bc carries the radial capacity σc, the central phase Ac is, under that input, the carrier of the angular split. A direct evaluation on symmetric BFS shells returns Θraw=0 identically: the symmetric capacity data fix the radial sector but cannot select an oriented angular branch, so the orientation prescription is an irreducible input prior to NA.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jérôme Beau (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: