1805 — No Generic Higher Collision Survives the Complement-Pair Gate
Question
Do Entry 1804's two complementary occurrence pairs meet the physical five-site threshold as genuine higher Landau collisions?
Complement reduction
For complementary regions ,
The defining complement wall is
Therefore simultaneous vanishing of a complementary pair forces the second shared boundary distance to vanish.
First pair
For
the shared boundary is . Hence
which pins the loop point to the labelled focus .
At that focus, exact rational interval arithmetic proves that
are nonparallel. Their cross-product norm is strictly positive. Thus the nonzero-multiplier stationarity equation has no solution.
Second pair
For
the shared boundary is , so
But is one of the two defining distances in
The ordinary unit-gradient Landau model is therefore undefined. This locus is the already existing defining-edge soft corner and must be treated by a radial/Rees resolution.
Result
Neither complementary pair produces a generic higher collision:
- one is killed by exact stationarity;
- one is confined to existing soft support.
No new carrier stratum is indicated.
Next falsifier
Resolve the remaining corner in loop polar coordinates. Retain the two complementary occurrence labels separately and test whether their double pole produces a first-Rees class, a Kummer sign, or zero.
Evidence
- research/benincasa/checkers/five_site_g5_complement_pair_activation.py
- research/benincasa/results/five-site-g5-complement-pair-activation.json
- allocator claim: seqclaim-01cc7a482ecc96e51956ecbd