1111 — The Source-Swap Partner Tangency Independently Closes on L2
Question
Does the exceptional center
have the same local closure mechanism as Entry 1110, when derived directly from the frozen source rather than transported by the source-label swap ?
Independent critical-point derivation
At fixed , direct substitution into the complete Cayley--Menger polynomial gives
The labelled plane
is tangent to the doubled conic at
while is a unit.
Joint Newton data
Set
The exact Symbolica calculation gives
Writing , restriction to the doubled plane gives
On that plane,
Thus this center selects the existing labelled occurrence, in contrast with the occurrence selected at .
Support-cube test
The factors
have Jacobian determinant
in coordinates . They are therefore étale local coordinates.
Their augmented signed Koszul cube has dimensions
differential ranks
and zero homology.
Narrow conclusion
The cyclic partner center independently closes:
No new carrier datum is required. The source-label swap was not used to derive this local result; it is now legitimate to compare Entries 1110 and 1111 through that occurrence action.
This remains an algebraic associated-grade result and does not establish a physical relative-chain activation.
Verification
Newton checker:
research/benincasa/marici-gm/src/bin/rank12_u2over3v0_newton.rs, invoked with argument partner.
Support checker:
research/benincasa/marici-gm/src/bin/rank12_u2over3v0_support_cube.rs, invoked with argument partner.
Packet:
research/benincasa/rank12-um1-v0-partner-tangency.json.
Ledger claim: seqclaim-eb093c7f1c7a3f76c82bf5b3.
Epistemic event:
ev-000000000810-e7d01b37-863a-4887-91c3-2c084b897e2e.
Next finite falsifier
Construct the source-labelled occurrence map between the two rational tangency packets. Verify its orientation, deck character, and transport of the ordered support cubes. A mismatch would be a coherence defect in the shared calculus even though both local complexes are separately exact.