The prior RIUD Paper VI tested whether an already-frozen merger-local state/history system and transition-rate law could be compressed into simpler frequency, timing, geometry, or source-native descriptions [3]. This manuscript performs a frozen secondary analysis of those results and separates four levels that are often conflated: descriptive organization, held-out predictive compression, source-side replacement, and progression-dependent composition of the effective transition rule. Among 98 path-bearing DEV99 events, frequency structure is strongly organized (K=2 census 90/8; FREQ_MAG 34/64; FREQ_SHAPE 63/35), yet the 91-event pre-transition out-of-fold test gives direction accuracy 0.3956 and net-rate Spearman rho=0.0416, with null p=0.683 and 0.264; frozen geometry adds no incremental support. A verified nested direct-GR representation gives DeltaLL=+0.2243 versus +5.3370 for the frozen RIUD reference, while richer GR-history/source-state branches do not reconstruct the complete memory-bearing rule. Conversely, source-native SXS PATH continuity survives center-step changes of 5, 10, and 15 ms in 10/10 cases and 20 ms in 9/10, and transient-to-QNM mismatch decreases across later source-native windows. The central secondary result is progression-dependent composition within the unchanged R40 rule: the relative absolute-contribution share of physical S versus history/run/age changes from 58.78/41.22% in PRE to 18.91/81.09% in POST, a 39.87 percentage-point shift, with six-cell max-T p=0.0076 and no phase-specific refit. A 95-event whole-waveform time-warp control is negative (p=1.0), and a 20-variable, 9,999-permutation source screen identifies CHI_A_NORMALIZED as the strongest corrected association (MaxT p=0.0321) without refitting R40. The combined result is a bounded reduction asymmetry: higher-order structural organization is more stable than the tested low-dimensional predictors or source-side replacements used to explain it, while the composition of the same effective rule reorganizes across progression. No GR violation, native-second R40 clock, universal S-QNM law, or unique microscopic derivation is claimed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
JAE HYUN MIN (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: