Charge Boundary Routing I
Phase 2 — Bridge Tests Plan
README_phase2_bridge_tests_plan.txt

Generated: 2026-06-15

Purpose
-------
Phase 2 begins after Phase 1 isolated-layer testing.

Phase 1 established that the charge-boundary structure is not contained in
any single isolated layer:

    Layer A — external signed-charge coherence
    Layer B — internally percolating confined fractional coordinates
    Layer C — connected composite closures
    Layer D — boundary absences / constraints, not a standalone STRUC-I ladder

Phase 2 now tests the bridges between these layers.

Core Phase 2 question:

    Where does charge-route coherence first appear?


Bridge Set
----------
The Phase 2 bridge ladders are:

    A <-> B
    B <-> C
    C <-> D
    A <-> B <-> C
    B <-> C <-> D

These bridges are generated by:

    scripts/build_phase2_bridge_ladders.py

The script reads:

    data/derived/charge_boundary_phase1_combined.csv

and writes:

    ladders/phase2_bridges/
    ladders/phase2_bridges/one_column/
    ladders/phase2_bridges/diagnostics/


Bridge Meanings
---------------

1. B <-> C
----------
Meaning:
    Confined fractional coordinates to composite closures.

Physical / structural question:
    Do fractional quark charge coordinates route coherently into integer or
    neutral composite closures?

Why this is the first bridge to test:
    This is the central physical bridge of Charge Boundary Routing I.

Interpretation target:
    If B <-> C percolates strongly in route / closure encodings, then the
    fractional-to-composite bridge is probably the structural core of the
    charge-boundary route.

Recommended run priority:
    FIRST.


2. A <-> B
----------
Meaning:
    External primitive closures to confined fractional coordinates.

Physical / structural question:
    How does the system behave when ordinary external charges are placed
    beside confined fractional internal coordinates?

Expected diagnostic value:
    This bridge may be unstable or transitional. That would not be a failure.
    It would support the distinction between external free charge and confined
    fractional charge.

Recommended run priority:
    SECOND.


3. C <-> D
----------
Meaning:
    Composite closures to boundary absences / constraints.

Physical / structural question:
    Does the boundary-absence layer sharpen or alter the composite closure
    structure?

Expected diagnostic value:
    If C <-> D changes metrics sharply, Layer D is acting as an empirical
    externalization boundary marker.

Important:
    Layer D is not an ordinary charge ladder. It participates only through
    boundary / closure / route encodings.

Recommended run priority:
    THIRD.


4. A <-> B <-> C
----------------
Meaning:
    External primitive closures to confined fractional coordinates to
    composite closures.

Physical / structural question:
    Does composite closure mediate the difficult transition between external
    primitive charge and confined fractional charge?

Expected diagnostic value:
    If A <-> B is weak but A <-> B <-> C stabilizes, then composite closure
    is acting as the bridge mediator.

Recommended run priority:
    FOURTH.


5. B <-> C <-> D
----------------
Meaning:
    Confined fractional coordinates to composite closures to boundary absences.

Physical / structural question:
    Does the fractional-to-composite route acquire a boundary edge when
    absence / constraint cases are attached?

Expected diagnostic value:
    If B <-> C is coherent but B <-> C <-> D shows boundary sharpening, then
    Layer D is acting as a no-externalization marker.

Recommended run priority:
    FIFTH.


Correct Run Order
-----------------
Recommended Phase 2 order:

    1. B <-> C
    2. A <-> B
    3. C <-> D
    4. A <-> B <-> C
    5. B <-> C <-> D

Reason:
    B <-> C tests the main structural route directly:

        confined fractional coordinate -> composite closure

The remaining bridge tests then show whether A and D modify, destabilize,
or sharpen that central bridge.


Encodings
---------
The available bridge encodings are:

    signed_charge
    absolute_charge
    boundary_route_coordinate
    closure_class_code
    closure_state_code
    route_class_code

However, bridges involving Layer D follow a special rule.


Layer D Rule
------------
Layer D is a boundary-absence / constraint layer, not an ordinary charge-state
ladder.

Therefore, for bridges involving Layer D:

    C <-> D
    B <-> C <-> D

the builder skips:

    signed_charge
    absolute_charge

and generates only:

    boundary_route_coordinate
    closure_class_code
    closure_state_code
    route_class_code

This is intentional.

Do not manually add charge values for Layer D.

Do not force Layer D into ordinary signed / absolute charge ladders.

Layer D's scientific role is to mark boundary absences and constraints, not
to supply ordinary charge-state values.


Generated Output Naming
-----------------------
The script generates full provenance CSV files in:

    ladders/phase2_bridges/

and chamber-ready one-column files in:

    ladders/phase2_bridges/one_column/

Expected filename patterns:

    AB_bridge_external_to_fractional_ladder_<encoding>.csv
    BC_bridge_fractional_to_composite_ladder_<encoding>.csv
    CD_bridge_composite_to_boundary_ladder_<encoding>.csv
    ABC_bridge_external_fractional_composite_ladder_<encoding>.csv
    BCD_bridge_fractional_composite_boundary_ladder_<encoding>.csv


Chamber Workflow
----------------
For each bridge:

    1. Upload the bridge one-column files to STRUC-PERC-I v2.5.0.
    2. Save the batch CSV and JSON.
    3. Upload the same bridge one-column files to STRUC-I v1.0.4.
    4. Save the STRUC-I profiles CSV and results JSON.
    5. Produce a bridge comparison report.

Do not mix bridges in one chamber run.

Run one bridge at a time.


Recommended Result Folders
--------------------------

B <-> C:

    results/struc_perc_i/phase2_bridges/BC/
    results/struc_i/phase2_bridges/BC/
    outputs/reports/phase2_bridges/BC/

A <-> B:

    results/struc_perc_i/phase2_bridges/AB/
    results/struc_i/phase2_bridges/AB/
    outputs/reports/phase2_bridges/AB/

C <-> D:

    results/struc_perc_i/phase2_bridges/CD/
    results/struc_i/phase2_bridges/CD/
    outputs/reports/phase2_bridges/CD/

A <-> B <-> C:

    results/struc_perc_i/phase2_bridges/ABC/
    results/struc_i/phase2_bridges/ABC/
    outputs/reports/phase2_bridges/ABC/

B <-> C <-> D:

    results/struc_perc_i/phase2_bridges/BCD/
    results/struc_i/phase2_bridges/BCD/
    outputs/reports/phase2_bridges/BCD/


First Run: B <-> C
------------------
Start with the B <-> C bridge.

Use these one-column files:

    ladders/phase2_bridges/one_column/
        BC_bridge_fractional_to_composite_ladder_signed_charge.csv
        BC_bridge_fractional_to_composite_ladder_absolute_charge.csv
        BC_bridge_fractional_to_composite_ladder_boundary_route_coordinate.csv
        BC_bridge_fractional_to_composite_ladder_closure_class_code.csv
        BC_bridge_fractional_to_composite_ladder_closure_state_code.csv
        BC_bridge_fractional_to_composite_ladder_route_class_code.csv

Run these first in:

    STRUC-PERC-I v2.5.0

Save as:

    results/struc_perc_i/phase2_bridges/BC/
        BC_STRUC_PERC_I_v2_5_0_batch_results.csv
        BC_STRUC_PERC_I_v2_5_0_batch_results.json

Then run the same six files in:

    STRUC-I v1.0.4

Save as:

    results/struc_i/phase2_bridges/BC/
        BC_STRUC_I_v1_0_4_profiles.csv
        BC_STRUC_I_v1_0_4_results.json

Then produce:

    outputs/reports/phase2_bridges/BC/
        BC_bridge_chamber_comparison_report.txt


Interpretation Guide
--------------------
Possible B <-> C outcomes:

1. Route / closure encodings percolate strongly:
       The fractional-to-composite route is likely the structural core.

2. Signed charge fragments but route encodings percolate:
       Charge value alone does not carry the structure; routing does.

3. Absolute charge performs best:
       Magnitude closure dominates the bridge.

4. STRUC-PERC-I percolates but STRUC-I remains Structural Boundary:
       The bridge is connected but still admissibility-transitional.

5. STRUC-I shows Geometric Persistence for any bridge encoding:
       That encoding is a strong candidate for canonical bridge coordinate.


What Not to Do
--------------
Do not run all Phase 2 bridge files at once.

Do not mix AB, BC, CD, ABC, and BCD in a single chamber batch.

Do not force Layer D charge-value files.

Do not treat small-n percolation as final proof.

Do not replace Phase 1 reports; Phase 2 is an extension, not a correction.


Expected Scientific Value
-------------------------
Phase 2 should show whether the cross-layer coherence observed in the ABCD
combined result is already present in:

    B <-> C

or whether it requires:

    A <-> B <-> C
    B <-> C <-> D
    A <-> B <-> C <-> D

The main discovery target is the bridge where charge-route structure first
becomes coherent.


Recommended Phase 2 Thesis Sentence
-----------------------------------
Use this as the guiding statement:

    Phase 2 tests whether the charge-boundary structure emerges at the
    fractional-to-composite bridge, at the external-to-fractional interface,
    at the composite-to-boundary edge, or only in the larger cross-layer
    route system.


File Placement
--------------
Save this plan as:

    charge_boundary_routing_i/
    └── outputs/
        └── reports/
            └── phase2_bridges/
                └── README_phase2_bridge_tests_plan.txt

Also acceptable:

    charge_boundary_routing_i/
    └── ladders/
        └── phase2_bridges/
            └── diagnostics/
                └── README_phase2_bridge_tests_plan.txt

Recommended primary placement:

    outputs/reports/phase2_bridges/README_phase2_bridge_tests_plan.txt
