Charge Boundary Routing I
Integrated Synthesis Report
CHARGE_BOUNDARY_ROUTING_I_integrated_synthesis_report.txt

Generated: 2026-06-15


Purpose
-------
This report synthesizes the completed Charge Boundary Routing I sequence.

It integrates:

    Phase 1      — Boundary classification
    Phase 2      — Bridge geometry
    Phase 2C-P   — Same-charge route control
    Phase 3      — Seed transition dynamics
    Phase 3B     — Expanded transition robustness

The purpose is to record what the program established, what was gained, what
the controls showed, what is supported, what is not claimed, and what the next
research branch should be.


Core Thesis
-----------
The integrated result of Charge Boundary Routing I is:

    Charge value is a projection.
    Structural route is a separate coordinate.
    Allowed transitions preserve route / closure structure.

The strongest project statement is:

    Charge conservation is the visible projection;
    boundary-route preservation is the structural invariant.


Program Question
----------------
The project began with a charge-boundary question:

    Is charge structure exhausted by external Q-value, or does the same
    charge value occupy different admissible routes depending on closure,
    confinement, composition, and transition geometry?

The completed sequence answers:

    External Q-value is not sufficient.

Charge objects separate into different route classes. Same-charge objects do
not collapse into one structural route. Allowed transitions conserve charge,
but the persistent geometry appears most strongly in route / closure transition
coordinates.


Project Status
--------------
Current status:

    Phase 1      COMPLETE
    Phase 2      COMPLETE
    Phase 2C-P   COMPLETE
    Phase 3      COMPLETE
    Phase 3B     COMPLETE

The core empirical program is complete.

The validation control is complete.

The expanded robustness test is complete.


Canonical Folder Outputs
------------------------
The main reports produced by the sequence are:

    outputs/reports/phase1_layer_resolved/
        phase1_layerA_chamber_comparison_report.txt
        phase1_layerB_chamber_comparison_report.txt
        phase1_layerC_chamber_comparison_report.txt
        README_phase1_layerD_boundary_absence_note.txt
        phase1_layer_resolved_synthesis_report.txt

    outputs/reports/phase2_bridges/
        AB/AB_bridge_chamber_comparison_report.txt
        BC/BC_bridge_chamber_comparison_report.txt
        CD/CD_bridge_chamber_comparison_report.txt
        ABC/ABC_bridge_chamber_comparison_report.txt
        BCD/BCD_bridge_chamber_comparison_report.txt

    outputs/reports/phase3_transitions/
        PHASE3_TRANSITIONS_chamber_comparison_report.txt
        PHASE3_TRANSITIONS_synthesis_report.txt

    outputs/reports/phase3B_expanded_transitions/
        PHASE3B_EXPANDED_chamber_comparison_report.txt

    outputs/reports/phase2C_pairwise_same_charge_control/
        PHASE2C_PAIRWISE_chamber_comparison_report.txt

This file is the integrated synthesis across all of them.


Phase 1 — Boundary Classification
---------------------------------
Phase 1 built the static charge-boundary corpus.

It separated the corpus into four layers:

    A = primitive external closures
    B = confined fractional coordinates
    C = composite closures
    D = boundary absences / empirical constraints

Layer A included primitive external charge closures such as charged leptons,
neutrinos, photons, W bosons, Z boson, and Higgs-like neutral external closure
objects.

Layer B included confined fractional quark and antiquark coordinates.

Layer C included composite closures such as baryons and mesons.

Layer D included boundary absences and constraints, including free-quark absence
and other empirical boundary constraints.

The key Phase 1 result was:

    charge structure is layered.

External integer/neutral closures, confined fractional coordinates, composite
closures, and boundary absences do not occupy the same structural role.

Phase 1 established the static vocabulary needed by later phases.


Phase 1 Key Findings
--------------------
Layer A:

    External primitive charge closures are coherent in signed-charge space, but
    sparse in route-taxonomy space.

Layer B:

    Confined fractional charge coordinates are internally connected as a
    fractional coordinate system, but do not become external closure objects by
    themselves.

Layer C:

    Composite states restore integer or neutral closure from internal
    fractional coordinates, but composite closure remains a distinct structural
    regime.

Layer D:

    Boundary absences are not failed ladders. They are boundary conditions of
    the charge-routing system.

Compact Phase 1 statement:

    Charge boundary structure separates into external closures, confined
    fractional coordinates, composite closures, and boundary absences.


Phase 2 — Bridge Geometry
-------------------------
Phase 2 tested how the Phase 1 layers connect.

The bridge map was:

    AB  = external-to-fractional interface
    BC  = fractional-to-composite bridge
    CD  = composite-to-boundary interface
    ABC = external / fractional / composite mediation
    BCD = fractional / composite / boundary extension

The purpose was to determine whether charge-value space and route space behave
the same way.

They do not.


Phase 2 Bridge Pattern
----------------------
AB bridge:

    Magnitude-stable boundary interface.

    The A ↔ B bridge fragments in charge-value topology but shows weak
    persistence in absolute-charge perturbation geometry.

BC bridge:

    Route-connected fractional-to-composite bridge.

    The B ↔ C bridge percolates in route, closure, and magnitude coordinates,
    while signed charge fragments. It is route-connected but
    admissibility-transitional.

CD bridge:

    Fragmentation boundary with stable boundary-state identity.

    Adding Layer D shows that boundary absence is not a smooth continuation of
    composite closure. The C ↔ D bridge fragments graph-wise, while some
    boundary-state encodings show weak persistence.

ABC bridge:

    Composite-mediated connectivity, still admissibility-transitional.

    Adding composite closure restores selected percolation channels, but does
    not remove boundary pressure.

BCD bridge:

    Terminal boundary extension of BC.

    Once Layer D is attached, BCD becomes graph-fragmented and transitional.
    Layer D acts as a terminal boundary condition.

Compact Phase 2 statement:

    Bare charge-value encodings fragment.
    UNNS route / closure encodings percolate.
    Boundary absence terminates the route rather than extending it smoothly.


Phase 2 Key Finding
-------------------
The main Phase 2 result was:

    charge-value space and charge-route space are not equivalent.

More explicitly:

    The same charge value can participate in different route geometries, and
    different encodings reveal different admissibility behavior.

Phase 2 showed that charge cannot be understood only as a scalar Q-value in
this framework. It must be accompanied by its route, closure, and boundary
context.


Phase 2C-P — Same-Charge Route Control
--------------------------------------
Phase 2C-P was the clean validation/control test.

The original Phase 2C idea was:

    Compare objects with the same external charge Q/e = +1.

Control objects:

    positron
    proton
    pi+
    K+
    W+

All have:

    Q/e = +1

But they differ by:

    layer
    category
    subtype
    route class
    closure class
    structural route
    composite / external status
    boson / fermion status
    hadron / lepton / gauge-boson status

The object-level corpus had only five rows, so a pairwise version was built:

    5 choose 2 = 10 pair rows

Pairwise control question:

    When charge_difference = 0 for every pair, do structural route differences
    remain nonzero?

The answer was yes.


Phase 2C-P STRUC-PERC-I Result
------------------------------
The pairwise same-charge control reached:

    27 tested encodings -> FULL_PERCOLATION
    0 tested encodings  -> HARD_FRAGMENTATION

This showed that the pairwise control was chamber-usable after conversion from
five object rows to ten pair rows.

It also showed that the same-charge control forms a connected graph across
structural route, category, subtype, layer, class, type-distance, and
difference coordinates.


Phase 2C-P STRUC-I Result
-------------------------
The most important STRUC-I results were:

    structural_route_pair_code -> Geometric Persistence / Stable Structure
    sub_category_pair_code     -> Geometric Persistence / Stable Structure
    category_pair_code         -> Geometric Persistence / Weak Persistence

The trivial charge encodings remained transitional:

    charge_difference -> Structural Boundary / Transitional Structure
    same_charge_pair  -> Structural Boundary / Transitional Structure

This is the desired control behavior.

It means the chamber was not merely rewarding the fact that all objects share
Q/e = +1. The persistence appeared in the structural encodings, not in the
trivial same-charge invariant.

Phase 2C-P key finding:

    Same Q = +1 does not imply same structural route.

More formal:

    Charge equality is not structural-route equivalence.


Phase 3 — Seed Transition Dynamics
----------------------------------
Phase 3 moved from static objects and bridge geometry into allowed
closure-preserving transitions.

The Phase 3 seed corpus contained seven controlled transitions:

    T001 — neutron_beta_decay
           n -> p + e- + anti_nu_e

    T002 — positive_pion_muonic_decay
           pi+ -> mu+ + nu_mu

    T003 — negative_muon_decay
           mu- -> e- + anti_nu_e + nu_mu

    T004 — w_minus_leptonic_decay
           W- -> e- + anti_nu_e

    T005 — w_plus_leptonic_decay
           W+ -> e+ + nu_e

    T006 — neutral_pion_two_photon_decay
           pi0 -> gamma + gamma

    T007 — positive_kaon_muonic_decay
           K+ -> mu+ + nu_mu

The central Phase 3 question was:

    Do allowed particle transitions preserve the charge-boundary invariant
    while routing identity between different structural regimes?


Phase 3 STRUC-PERC-I Result
---------------------------
The seed transition corpus produced:

    9 encodings -> FULL_PERCOLATION
    1 encoding  -> HARD_FRAGMENTATION

The fragmented encoding was:

    charged_multiplicity_delta

This was meaningful, not a failure.

It showed that allowed transitions are not organized primarily by how many
charged objects appear or disappear.

The graph-connected encodings included:

    closure_transition_code
    route_transition_code
    layer_transition_code
    transition_class_code
    initial_total_charge
    final_total_charge
    externalization_delta
    composite_count_delta
    neutral_multiplicity_delta

Phase 3 STRUC-PERC-I statement:

    Allowed transitions percolate in route, closure, layer, class, and
    total-charge coordinates, while charged-object-count change can fragment in
    a small seed.


Phase 3 STRUC-I Result
----------------------
Phase 3 STRUC-I showed:

    route_transition_code      -> Geometric Persistence / Weak Persistence
    closure_transition_code    -> Geometric Persistence / Weak Persistence
    transition_class_code      -> Geometric Persistence / Weak Persistence
    initial_total_charge       -> Geometric Persistence / Weak Persistence
    final_total_charge         -> Geometric Persistence / Weak Persistence

Count and multiplicity coordinates mostly remained transitional.

Phase 3 key finding:

    Allowed transitions become weakly persistent in route-transition,
    closure-transition, transition-class, and total-charge coordinates.

Interpretation:

    Charge conservation is the visible projection.
    Boundary-route preservation is the structural invariant.


Phase 3B — Expanded Transition Robustness
----------------------------------------
Phase 3B expanded the transition corpus from 7 to 38 allowed transitions.

The purpose was to test whether the Phase 3 seed result was robust or merely a
small-corpus artifact.

Phase 3B included:

    7 original seed-continuity transitions
    31 new expansion transitions

Expansion families included:

    charged meson decays
    neutral meson decays
    baryon decays
    baryon resonance decays
    W / Z mediated channels
    radiative decays

Phase 3B question:

    Do route_transition_code and closure_transition_code remain persistent when
    the allowed-transition corpus grows beyond the 7-transition seed?


Phase 3B STRUC-PERC-I Result
----------------------------
Phase 3B STRUC-PERC-I produced:

    21 tested encodings -> FULL_PERCOLATION
    0 tested encodings  -> HARD_FRAGMENTATION

This was stronger than the seed result.

In the 7-transition seed, charged_multiplicity_delta fragmented.

In Phase 3B, even charged_multiplicity_delta percolated.

Phase 3B STRUC-PERC-I statement:

    The expanded allowed-transition corpus is globally connected across route,
    closure, class, family, category, charge, multiplicity, composite, and
    externalization coordinates.


Phase 3B STRUC-I Result
-----------------------
Phase 3B STRUC-I showed that the main structural invariants survived expansion:

    route_transition_code      -> Geometric Persistence / Boundary-Stabilized
    closure_transition_code    -> Geometric Persistence / Boundary-Stabilized
    category_transition_code   -> Geometric Persistence / Boundary-Stabilized
    transition_class_code      -> Geometric Persistence / Boundary-Stabilized
    transition_family_code     -> Geometric Persistence / Weak Persistence
    layer_transition_code      -> Geometric Persistence / Weak Persistence

Count and multiplicity coordinates mostly remained transitional.

Important difference from the Phase 3 seed:

    total-charge coordinates became less structurally decisive as the corpus
    expanded.

This strengthened the interpretation:

    Raw charge conservation remains necessary, but the persistent geometry
    concentrates in route, closure, category, class, family, and layer
    transition coordinates.

Phase 3B key finding:

    The Phase 3 route / closure result was not a seven-transition artifact.


Integrated Finding
------------------
Across all completed phases, the integrated finding is:

    Charge value alone does not determine charge structure.

The project established:

1. Charge objects separate into external closures, confined fractional
   coordinates, composite closures, and boundary absences.

2. Bridge behavior differs across layer interfaces.

3. Bare charge-value coordinates and route / closure coordinates do not behave
   the same way.

4. Same external charge Q/e = +1 does not imply the same structural route.

5. Allowed transitions conserve charge, but their persistent structure appears
   most strongly in route / closure transition coordinates.

6. The route / closure transition result survives expansion from 7 to 38
   allowed transitions.


The Main Principle
------------------
The core principle of Charge Boundary Routing I is:

    Charge conservation is the visible projection;
    boundary-route preservation is the structural invariant.

Equivalently:

    Charge value is a scalar projection.
    Structural route is the admissibility coordinate.
    Closure-preserving transitions are dynamic routes through that coordinate.


What Was Gained
---------------
The project gained a complete empirical chain:

    static boundary classification
        -> bridge geometry
            -> same-charge route control
                -> transition dynamics
                    -> expanded robustness

This is important because each phase protects against a different weak
interpretation.

Phase 1 prevents reducing the corpus to one undifferentiated charge list.

Phase 2 prevents reducing bridges to scalar charge equality.

Phase 2C-P prevents claiming that same charge means same route.

Phase 3 prevents reducing transitions to ordinary charge conservation alone.

Phase 3B prevents dismissing the Phase 3 transition result as a small-corpus
artifact.

Together, the phases establish a coherent charge-boundary program.


Scientific Significance
-----------------------
The result is significant because it reframes charge as a routed structure.

Traditional external charge bookkeeping asks:

    What is Q?

Charge Boundary Routing I asks:

    Where does Q close?
    Is it primitive external, confined fractional, composite, or boundary-absent?
    What route carries it?
    What closure class stabilizes it?
    What transition preserves it?

The project does not discard charge conservation. It embeds charge
conservation inside a richer structural question.

The visible law is:

    sum(Q_initial) = sum(Q_final)

The structural question is:

    Which admissible route / closure transformation preserves the boundary?


Relation to Fractional Charge
-----------------------------
Layer B is crucial.

Fractional quark charges are not treated as failed external charges. They are
treated as confined internal coordinates.

This explains why a fractional charge can be structurally meaningful inside a
system without appearing as a free external closure.

In this framing:

    fractional charge is an internal route coordinate;
    integer charge is an external or composite closure result;
    confinement is a boundary-routing condition.

This does not by itself prove confinement, but it provides the charge-boundary
language in which confinement becomes a routing phenomenon rather than a mere
absence.


Relation to Same-Charge Objects
-------------------------------
The same Q = +1 control is essential.

The objects:

    positron
    proton
    pi+
    K+
    W+

share the same external charge value.

But they do not share the same structural route.

They occupy different categories:

    external lepton
    composite baryon
    composite meson
    composite strange meson
    external gauge boson

The Phase 2C-P control showed that route/subtype encodings remain persistent
even when Q is fixed.

This validates the central distinction:

    charge equality is not structural-route equivalence.


Relation to Allowed Transitions
-------------------------------
Phase 3 and Phase 3B move the program from objects to transformations.

An allowed transition is not only:

    Q_initial = Q_final

It is also:

    an admissible route / closure transformation.

The transition results showed that route_transition_code and
closure_transition_code are among the strongest persistent encodings.

In Phase 3B, these became Boundary-Stabilized.

That means the dynamic program does not collapse into charge arithmetic.
It retains structural route geometry.


Supported Claims
----------------
The completed Charge Boundary Routing I sequence supports the following claims:

1. Charge-boundary objects separate into distinct structural layers.

2. Primitive external closures, confined fractional coordinates, composite
   closures, and boundary absences play different roles.

3. Charge-value encodings and route / closure encodings can produce different
   chamber behavior.

4. Same Q/e = +1 does not imply same structural route.

5. Pairwise same-charge route/subtype encodings can reach Stable Structure
   under STRUC-I.

6. Allowed transition corpora percolate strongly under STRUC-PERC-I.

7. Route-transition and closure-transition encodings reach Geometric Persistence
   under STRUC-I.

8. The transition result survives expansion from 7 to 38 allowed transitions.

9. Raw total-charge coordinates become less structurally decisive as the
   transition corpus expands.

10. Boundary-route preservation is a stronger structural reading than ordinary
    charge conservation alone.


Not Claimed
-----------
The completed sequence does not claim:

1. A full derivation of the Standard Model.

2. A complete particle-decay database.

3. A proof of confinement.

4. A proof that all possible transition expansions will preserve the same exact
   profile.

5. That categorical numeric codes are physical magnitudes.

6. That charge value is irrelevant.

7. That route structure replaces charge conservation.

8. That forbidden transitions have already been tested.

The correct claim is narrower and stronger:

    Within the tested corpus, charge equality and charge conservation are not
    sufficient descriptions. Route and closure coordinates carry persistent
    structural information.


Core Tables to Preserve
-----------------------

Phase 2C-P strongest control encodings:

    structural_route_pair_code
        Geometric Persistence / Stable Structure
        mean Aκ = 1
        min Aκ  = 1

    sub_category_pair_code
        Geometric Persistence / Stable Structure
        mean Aκ = 1
        min Aκ  = 1

Phase 3 seed strongest dynamic encodings:

    closure_transition_code
        Geometric Persistence / Weak Persistence
        mean Aκ ≈ 0.999925

    route_transition_code
        Geometric Persistence / Weak Persistence
        mean Aκ ≈ 0.999925

    transition_class_code
        Geometric Persistence / Weak Persistence

Phase 3B strongest robustness encodings:

    route_transition_code
        Geometric Persistence / Boundary-Stabilized
        mean Aκ ≈ 0.985100

    closure_transition_code
        Geometric Persistence / Boundary-Stabilized
        mean Aκ ≈ 0.983850

    category_transition_code
        Geometric Persistence / Boundary-Stabilized

    transition_class_code
        Geometric Persistence / Boundary-Stabilized

    transition_family_code
        Geometric Persistence / Weak Persistence

    layer_transition_code
        Geometric Persistence / Weak Persistence


Narrative Summary
-----------------
The Charge Boundary Routing I program began with a simple question: whether
charge should be treated merely as an external scalar value, or whether it has
a structural route.

Phase 1 showed that the charge corpus separates into boundary layers.

Phase 2 showed that bridges between layers behave differently depending on
whether one uses charge values or route/closure coordinates.

Phase 2C-P showed that even identical external charge Q/e = +1 does not imply
identical structural route.

Phase 3 showed that allowed transitions preserve route/closure transition
structure in a controlled seed corpus.

Phase 3B showed that this dynamic result survives expansion to a larger
allowed-transition corpus.

Therefore the program gained a coherent result:

    charge is conserved as a projection,
    but charge structure is routed through admissible closure geometry.


Recommended Next Research Branch
--------------------------------
The next scientific branch should be:

    Phase 3C — Constrained / Forbidden Transition Boundary Tests

Purpose:

    Add forbidden or constrained comparison transitions and test whether the
    route / closure geometry fails, fragments, or moves toward boundary regimes.

Examples of Phase 3C categories:

    charge-violating mock transitions
    forbidden free-fractional externalization attempts
    baryon-number or lepton-number violating comparison channels
    constrained rare-decay boundary cases
    unphysical same-charge but route-incoherent transformations

Primary Phase 3C question:

    Do forbidden or constrained transitions fail route / closure persistence
    even when they are numerically close to allowed transitions?

Expected result:

    allowed transitions preserve route / closure geometry;
    forbidden or constrained transitions drift toward boundary, fragmentation,
    or non-admissibility.

Phase 3C would complete the contrast:

    allowed transformations versus forbidden boundary attempts.


Recommended Public / Manuscript Direction
-----------------------------------------
This program is now mature enough for a manuscript section or public article.

Suggested article/manuscript framing:

    Charge Is Not Only a Number:
    Boundary Routing, Fractional Coordinates, and Closure-Preserving Transitions

Alternative title:

    Charge Boundary Routing:
    Why Same Charge Does Not Mean Same Structure

Core public-facing claim:

    The same charge value can be carried by different structural routes, and
    allowed transitions preserve more than charge sums: they preserve route and
    closure structure.

Recommended figures:

1. Four-layer charge-boundary diagram:
       A external closures
       B confined fractional coordinates
       C composite closures
       D boundary absences

2. Bridge map:
       AB, BC, CD, ABC, BCD

3. Same-charge control:
       positron, proton, pi+, K+, W+ all Q/e = +1 but different routes

4. Transition persistence:
       allowed transitions preserve route / closure geometry

5. Phase 3B robustness:
       seed to expanded corpus, route / closure persistence survives


Final Integrated Statement
--------------------------
Charge Boundary Routing I establishes a routed view of charge.

The project does not replace charge conservation.

It refines it.

The completed empirical chain shows that:

    charge value is a projection;
    structural route is a coordinate;
    composite closure, fractional confinement, and boundary absence are
    different regimes;
    same charge does not imply same route;
    allowed transitions preserve route / closure structure.

The final principle is:

    Charge conservation is the visible projection.
    Boundary-route preservation is the structural invariant.
