The P6 Relative Monodromy Does Not Lift Diagonally
Question
Entry 1764 excludes the companion-deletion relative sign as a generic diagonal symmetry of the marked extension. Can the same sign nevertheless arise canonically as monodromy on an existing carrier divisor?
Source-derived boundary sign
Entry 867 gives the exact algebraic splitting
At a generic point of (P_6=0), with (D_1\ne0), its residue vector is
Hence the local algebraic monodromy is
The relative (Z) sign is therefore not invented: it is already present as an intrinsic boundary monodromy of the algebraic coefficient submodule.
Lift test
Entry 1764 proves that the generic marked source support graph is
For a diagonal lift, each of the three marked generators would need a sign equal to the sign on both incident algebraic lines. Since those signs are opposite, no assignment exists. Exhausting all eight source-sign assignments gives
Narrow result
The companion-deletion sign has a canonical home on the existing (P_6) boundary coefficient system, but it does not extend diagonally through the generic marked rank-twelve extension.
This distinguishes two claims:
is established, while
is false for diagonal lifts.
The full marked local monodromy may instead be triangular and nonsplit. Its off-diagonal nearby-cycle extension is the next typed object; no new carrier stratum is warranted.
Durable artifacts
- checker:
research/benincasa/checkers/p6_relative_monodromy_lift.rs; - result:
research/benincasa/results/p6-relative-monodromy-lift.json; - convention note:
research/benincasa/p6-relative-monodromy-lift.md; - allocator claim:
seqclaim-eed8f3049d9a3a8c2032cdbf.