Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
We report a conditional assembly of the passage from Theorem 3.11 to Corollary 3.12 in inter-universal Teichmüller theory (IUT), expanding the seams that the source treats by abbreviation conventions and citations to numbered results. This paper does not claim an unconditional proof of Corollary 3.12 or of the ABC conjecture. The claim has the following form: accept the numbered statements of IUT I-IV as black boxes, take Mochizuki's non-IUT papers and classical results as known inputs, accept a semantic principle S (prime-strip isomorphisms are isomorphisms of collections of data intertwining all constituents, and compatibility is read as commutative squares), and explicitly accept the central value-group switch H*val (hull compatibility of the switch from Psi_LGP to Psi_q); then each step of the passage is filled by named grounds. The scalar layer that was not derivable in the cited theory of the preceding note — chart calibration, generator scalars and transport distortion — is supplied at the statement level using material outside the cited range. What remains at the centre is the profile layer: the loop argument for the two routes proves identity of the chart calibration only, not equality of pilot value-group profiles, so the value-group switch remains the core of strong (SHE)/(9-1). The sufficiency of the assembly is also checked in Lean 4 (capstone cor312_of_assembly, within the standard three axioms in the recorded selected build). What remains is the IUT black box itself, H*val, inhabitation of Principle S in the actual construction (frame fidelity), and independent re-verification of this paper. Version 1.0.1 adds only a caution note: the Venn diagram in Figure 1 is currently misrendered (labels overlap/overflow) and will be corrected in a later version; please rely on the caption in the meantime. No text, result or conclusion is changed. The correspondence with preceding reductions (Scholze-Stix, Project LANA's (9-1) and xi_iff) is made explicit.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Toshihisa Urahigashi (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: