Charge Boundary Routing I
Phase 1 — Layer C Chamber Comparison Report
phase1_layerC_chamber_comparison_report.txt

Generated: 2026-06-15

Layer
-----
Phase 1 — Layer C
Name: Composite Closures

Layer C purpose:
    Test whether fractional internal charge coordinates route into integer
    or neutral external composite charge closures.

Layer C examples:
    proton, neutron, pi+, pi0, pi-, K+, K0, K-, Delta++, Omega-.

Expected closure / route classes:
    COMPOSITE_INTEGER_CLOSURE
    COMPOSITE_NEUTRAL_CLOSURE
    COMPOSITE_CLOSURE

Purpose of This Report
----------------------
This report combines the Layer C STRUC-PERC-I v2.5.0 batch result
with the Layer C STRUC-I v1.0.4 result.

The purpose is to test the composite closure layer in isolation, after
Layer B has established confined fractional charge coordinates and before
Layer D introduces boundary absences and non-observed cases.

Instruments
-----------
STRUC-PERC-I v2.5.0
    Role: full pairwise vulnerability graph / percolation / fragmentation screen.

STRUC-I v1.0.4
    Role: admissibility-pressure / perturbation-boundary screen.
    Inequality: inv(P_epsilon; L) <= nu(V_epsilon(L)).

Input Files
-----------
- layerC_composite_closure_ladder_signed_charge.csv
- layerC_composite_closure_ladder_absolute_charge.csv
- layerC_composite_closure_ladder_boundary_route_coordinate.csv
- layerC_composite_closure_ladder_closure_class_code.csv
- layerC_composite_closure_ladder_closure_state_code.csv
- layerC_composite_closure_ladder_route_class_code.csv

Executive Result
----------------
Layer C is fully connected as a composite closure layer, but still
admissibility-transitional under STRUC-I.

For Layer C:

    all six encodings fully percolate in STRUC-PERC-I;
    all six encodings remain Structural Boundary / Transitional Structure in STRUC-I.

Compact result statement:

    Layer C is fully percolating as composite closure, but remains
    admissibility-transitional.

This means composite states restore connectivity, but the composite layer
alone does not eliminate boundary pressure. Its meaning depends on the
cross-layer route from fractional internal coordinates to external closure.

Combined Result Table
---------------------

| Encoding | STRUC-PERC-I verdict | Giant ratio | Isolated | kappa_connect | STRUC-I regime | STRUC-I state | mean Aκ | min Aκ | mean rho | max rho | Interpretation |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---|
| signed_charge | FULL_PERCOLATION | 1 | 0 | 0.01 | Structural Boundary | Transitional Structure | 0.746437 | 0.6905 | 0.944942 | 1.008667 | Signed composite charge fully percolates, but remains pressure-sensitive in STRUC-I. It connects the composite charge outcomes but does not become persistent as an isolated layer. |
| absolute_charge | FULL_PERCOLATION | 1 | 0 | 0.01 | Structural Boundary | Transitional Structure | 0.8805 | 0.8485 | 0.85267 | 0.88425 | Absolute composite charge is the strongest Layer C STRUC-I encoding. It fully percolates and has the best mean A-kappa and lowest rho profile among the six encodings. |
| boundary_route_coordinate | FULL_PERCOLATION | 1 | 0 | 1 | Structural Boundary | Transitional Structure | 0.736475 | 0.6765 | 0.970401 | 1.010875 | Boundary-route coordinate fully percolates, but STRUC-I shows high boundary pressure with rho crossing above 1. Composite route coding connects but is not yet persistent alone. |
| closure_class_code | FULL_PERCOLATION | 1 | 0 | 1 | Structural Boundary | Transitional Structure | 0.733375 | 0.6805 | 0.972833 | 1.011625 | Closure-class coding fully percolates but is the weakest Layer C STRUC-I encoding. It sits closest to the admissibility boundary and has max rho above 1. |
| closure_state_code | FULL_PERCOLATION | 1 | 0 | 1 | Structural Boundary | Transitional Structure | 0.860225 | 0.842 | 0.899715 | 0.9066 | Closure-state coding fully percolates and behaves as a middle-strength Layer C encoding. It is cleaner than closure-class or signed charge but remains transitional. |
| route_class_code | FULL_PERCOLATION | 1 | 0 | 1 | Structural Boundary | Transitional Structure | 0.8621 | 0.8405 | 0.90086 | 0.9098 | Route-class coding fully percolates and behaves similarly to closure-state coding. It connects the layer but remains Structural Boundary / Transitional Structure. |

STRUC-PERC-I Layer C Findings
-----------------------------
The Layer C STRUC-PERC-I batch result is uniform:

    all six encodings -> FULL_PERCOLATION

- signed_charge: FULL_PERCOLATION (giant ratio = 1, isolated = 0, kappa_connect = 0.01, n = 3)
- absolute_charge: FULL_PERCOLATION (giant ratio = 1, isolated = 0, kappa_connect = 0.01, n = 2)
- boundary_route_coordinate: FULL_PERCOLATION (giant ratio = 1, isolated = 0, kappa_connect = 1, n = 2)
- closure_class_code: FULL_PERCOLATION (giant ratio = 1, isolated = 0, kappa_connect = 1, n = 2)
- closure_state_code: FULL_PERCOLATION (giant ratio = 1, isolated = 0, kappa_connect = 1, n = 2)
- route_class_code: FULL_PERCOLATION (giant ratio = 1, isolated = 0, kappa_connect = 1, n = 2)

Interpretation:
    Composite charge states do not fragment under the percolation screen.
    This supports the view that fractional internal coordinates can route
    into integer or neutral composite outcomes without breaking the ladder.
    However, several encodings again have low unique-dimensionality, so
    STRUC-PERC-I alone is not sufficient for a final claim.

STRUC-I Layer C Findings
------------------------
STRUC-I classifies all six Layer C encodings as:

    Structural Boundary / Transitional Structure

This means Layer C is connected, but remains pressure-sensitive.

Strongest STRUC-I encoding:

    layerC_composite_closure_ladder_absolute_charge
    mean Aκ = 0.8805
    min Aκ  = 0.8485
    mean rho = 0.85267
    max rho  = 0.88425

Weakest STRUC-I encoding:

    layerC_composite_closure_ladder_closure_class_code
    mean Aκ = 0.733375
    min Aκ  = 0.6805
    mean rho = 0.972833
    max rho  = 1.011625

Interpretation:
    Absolute charge is the most coherent Layer C STRUC-I representation.
    Closure-class coding is the weakest in this isolated composite layer.
    Boundary-route, closure-class, and signed-charge encodings all show
    max rho above 1, indicating proximity to the admissibility boundary.

Comparison with Layer B
-----------------------
Layer B:
    all encodings -> FULL_PERCOLATION
    all encodings -> Structural Boundary / Transitional Structure
    role: confined fractional coordinates

Layer C:
    all encodings -> FULL_PERCOLATION
    all encodings -> Structural Boundary / Transitional Structure
    role: composite integer/neutral closures

Interpretive contrast:
    Layer B is an internally connected fractional coordinate layer.
    Layer C is an internally connected composite closure layer.

Both percolate, but neither becomes fully persistent in isolation. This
supports the idea that the charge-boundary structure is not contained in
a single layer alone. It emerges from the route relation between layers.

Comparison with Layer A
-----------------------
Layer A:
    signed_charge -> FULL_PERCOLATION + Geometric Persistence / Weak Persistence
    route/closure encodings -> fragmented or transitional

Layer C:
    all encodings -> FULL_PERCOLATION
    all encodings -> Structural Boundary / Transitional Structure

Layer A is the already externalized charge baseline. Layer C is external
closure through composition. The difference is that Layer C carries the
trace of fractional internal routing, which keeps it transitional under
STRUC-I when tested alone.

Comparison with ABCD Combined Result
------------------------------------
In the combined ABCD corpus:

    signed_charge fragments
    route/closure encodings percolate

In Layer C alone:

    all encodings percolate
    all remain transitional

This shows that Layer C contributes composite closure connectivity, but
the full ABCD route-space result depends on its coupling to Layer A
external primitive closures, Layer B confined fractional coordinates,
and Layer D boundary absences.

UNNS Interpretation
-------------------
Layer C represents the first explicit closure-routing test:

    fractional internal coordinates -> integer/neutral composite boundary

The combined chamber result supports this interpretation:

    STRUC-PERC-I: Layer C is connected across all encodings.
    STRUC-I:      Layer C remains a transitional structural boundary.

Therefore composite closure should be understood as a connected routing
operation, not as a complete standalone explanation of charge quantization.

Key finding:

    Composite closure restores connectivity but does not remove boundary
    pressure when isolated from the full charge-route structure.

What Can Be Claimed from Layer C
--------------------------------
Supported:

1. All six Layer C encodings fully percolate in STRUC-PERC-I.
2. All six Layer C encodings remain Structural Boundary / Transitional Structure in STRUC-I.
3. Absolute charge is the strongest Layer C STRUC-I encoding.
4. Closure-class coding is the weakest Layer C STRUC-I encoding.
5. Composite states form a connected closure layer, but not a fully persistent
   standalone structure.

Not claimed:

1. Layer C alone does not derive charge quantization.
2. Layer C alone does not prove confinement.
3. Layer C alone does not explain the absence of free fractional charge.
4. Layer C alone does not replace the full ABCD boundary-route analysis.

Operational Consequence
-----------------------
Layer C should be retained as the composite closure layer.
Its role is to show that fractional internal coordinates can be routed
into externally integer or neutral composite states. It must be interpreted
together with Layer B and Layer D.

The next required run is:

    Phase 1 — Layer D
    Boundary Absences and Non-observed Cases

Layer D is expected to be the boundary-marker layer: free fractional
charge absences, monopole search absence, and charge-violation constraints.

Recommended Next Files
----------------------
Run STRUC-PERC-I batch first on:

    layerD_boundary_absence_ladder_signed_charge.csv
    layerD_boundary_absence_ladder_absolute_charge.csv
    layerD_boundary_absence_ladder_boundary_route_coordinate.csv
    layerD_boundary_absence_ladder_closure_class_code.csv
    layerD_boundary_absence_ladder_closure_state_code.csv
    layerD_boundary_absence_ladder_route_class_code.csv

Then run STRUC-I on the same six files.

File Placement
--------------
Save this report as:

    charge_boundary_routing_i/
    └── outputs/
        └── reports/
            └── phase1_layer_resolved/
                └── phase1_layerC_chamber_comparison_report.txt

Supporting result files:

    results/struc_perc_i/phase1_layer_C_resolved/
        struc_perc_batch_results.csv
        struc_perc_batch_results.json

    results/struc_i/phase1_layer_C_resolved/
        chamber_struc_i_v1_0_4_results.json
        chamber_struc_i_v1_0_4_profiles.csv
