A staged theoretical and numerical investigation of preparation-dependent response, partial boundary observation and inverse estimation in classical incompressible Navier–Stokes systems. An exact parallel-channel reduction is compared with a restricted three-pulse confined-cylinder study (DFG-like Re=20) and a distinct external-PIV reanalysis. Predeclared numerical tests R4.4 and R4.5 show bounded within-model predictive transfer. R4.4: predicted future drag difference −0.003722830610, numerical result −0.003974638900, relative discrepancy approximately 6.7639%; six-arc history-estimation RMSE OPT6=0.022554784994 and UNIFORM6=0.026181073247. Formal status: R4_4_HOLDOUT_PASS. R4.5: under simulated independent noise, OPT6/UNIFORM6=0.846611 and conventional A-opt6/OPT6=0.846165, an approximately 15.38% lower RMSE for A-optimal placement. Strong hypothetical error correlation reverses rankings. Formal status: R4_5_NUMERICAL_COMPARATOR_SUPPORTIVE. Additional GLS analyses are post-outcome exploration, not a new prospective PASS. Initial cylinder and transient FAIL records, separately frozen supplemental PASS results, and limitations are preserved. No BIG-specific dynamical term is added. BIG-specific added predictive value = NOT DEMONSTRATED. This is not independent laboratory validation of the Re=20 three-pulse history protocol. R4.4/R4.5 independent reviews primarily recompute archived outputs algebraically; they are not full reruns using an independent PDE solver. Local rank in a restricted three-parameter preparation family is not complete observability of arbitrary fluid states. The English main paper is authoritative. The Japanese companion is a reference summary, not a complete word-for-word translation. An English technical supplement, original numerical archives, source reports, source map, checksums, and reproduction guidance accompany the paper. Historical private Drive URLs inside immutable logs are provenance only; the principal evidence is downloadable from this record. Third-party PIV measurements are not redistributed; use the original dataset DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20765567. LICENSE SCOPE: CC BY 4.0 applies to Jun Lucis’s manuscripts, authored reports and authored numerical data. It does not relicense third-party software. Embedded scikit-fem 12.0.2 retains its BSD 3-Clause license and notices. No new software license is granted for original author source code where none was specified; see LICENSES.md for the component-level rights statement. Publication provides source for inspection and verification, not an assertion that every component is CC BY.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jun Lucis (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: