Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Complete derivative bounds can be too large for a continuation estimate even when the contractions actuallyused in that estimate occupy restricted tensor slots. We prove that every eligible third derivative in the constrainedresponse budget of a fixed Lorentzian simplicial source has two independently varied normal arguments. Anadmitted normal–normal–full bound therefore replaces the unrestricted third-derivative coefficient in those terms.The proof retains the full complex normal covector, both inverse denominators, the actual-graph Schur cost, andthe separate unrestricted second and fourth derivatives. A noncircular argument uses an already establishedregular source product to admit the graph and homotopies, and checks the fourth-derivative shoulder separatelyin the original action domain.For each of two identified branches, fresh complete source records and exact rational assembly verify a locallyunique real stationary section on [1536,24576]τ, where τ = 2−61, in normalized balls of radius 2−32 about theexact tangent predictor at 3072τ. The common predictor-error bound is 3.25241355 10−13. Actual-root overlapsand the supplied post-publication bridge connect the stationary range to [3,24576]τ. Holding the geometry,source records, tangent enclosures, mixed inverse and value-response bound fixed, the typed calculation passes allfour declared tests; the unrestricted-response comparison fails the residual and required-error budgets. Its largersufficient residual ceiling differs by approximately 288.32 on the worst branch. The conclusion remains conditionalon the explicit source, analytic membership and directed-enclosure premises. This manuscript records executednumerical evidence and an assessed paper-specific Lean supporting subset. The latter establishes conditionalfinite-dimensional, scalar, geometric, exact-arithmetic, overlap and recovery results; it does not formalize thephysical action or the complete analytic existence and source-membership argument.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Qingchun Zhang (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: