Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Two distinct clock architectures are constructed from one real cosine interaction on actualoccupied FCC support: a single-site librator and an adjacent pair with an internal-bond restoringterm. The common twenty-site graph contains sixty-three contacts. Under one compatiblestationary phase strain, their complete nonlinear periods give different calibrated rate responses.The discrepancy persists at finite amplitude on a phase-protected branch with a rigoroustransverse linear-stability certificate. An isolated amplitude can match the rates at one load,but no fixed amplitude supplies a common load law. FCC triangle compatibility also obstructsa nontrivial shared positive tangent factor for the entire specified local clock family. We thenconstruct a different mechanism: a smooth four-class source protocol, with explicit prescribedclock-site torques, whose average multiplies the entire nonlinear interaction by one calculablefactor. Matched librations consequently share a rate in the controlled fast-source limit. Afinite-time error estimate, physical readout, controller work and finite-period computationsspecify this result. Removing the clock-site actuation leaves an unscaled internal bond andrestores unequal rates. The required source acceleration also exceeds the bounded native contacttorque in the fast limit, so this is a controlled driven realization rather than an autonomoussource derived from the original action. Fixed-action preparation, changing loads and motionidentify the further structure needed before a common clock response can be interpreted asuniversal proper time. Complete executable audits are embedded and printed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Michael Sarnowski (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: