Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This paper is a registration, written in the desk's seal-before-the-fact register: dated, unconditional, and constructed so that no hedging after the fact is possible. Paper A (#756) priced the existing frame-dragging bound: LAGEOS / LAGEOS 2 / LARES satellite laser ranging measures μ = 0.9910 ± 0.02 (systematic) of the general-relativistic value (Ciufolini et al. 2019), which in Einstein–Cartan theory proper prices the torsion contribution at **exactly zero** — torsion is algebraic, sourced by intrinsic spin density, and absent in the vacuum a satellite flies through — and bounds every *propagating or anomalous* gravitomagnetic addition at ε = μ − 1 = −0.009 ± 0.020, the interval [−0.029, +0.011], |ΔΩ̇| ≲ 1.0 mas/yr on the ~50.16 mas/yr combined observable. LARES-2, in orbit since 13 July 2022 on a supplementary inclination to LAGEOS, is built to tighten that bound. A sub-percent LARES-2 figure circulates in secondary coverage; it is **not verified against a primary paper, and it is not used anywhere in this registration** — not as a premise, not as an expectation, not as a target. What this paper does instead is compute, now, the exact re-grade the house frame will owe for each candidate *verified* outcome: confirmation of general relativity at 1%, confirmation at 0.1%, a confirmation at the present central value with a tightened error, and deviations of stated size in either direction. The re-grade is stated as a mechanical rule (§3) plus worked cases with the arithmetic shown (§4), followed by the tighten / die / untouched ledger (§5) and, in the last section, what would falsify, void, or break this registration itself (§7). **Untouched, at full size: most of this corpus.** LARES-2 measures one number in one channel around one planet; the cosmological body of the frame never routed through it, and no outcome registered here reaches it.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
William Alexander Aldred (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: