Charge Boundary Routing I
Phase 1 — Layer A Chamber Comparison Report
phase1_layerA_chamber_comparison_report.txt

Generated: 2026-06-15

Layer
-----
Phase 1 — Layer A
Name: Primitive External Charge Closures

Layer A purpose:
    Establish the external integer-neutral charge baseline.

Layer A examples:
    electron, positron, muon, antimuon, tau, antitau,
    electron neutrino, muon neutrino, tau neutrino,
    photon, W-, W+, Z, Higgs.

Expected closure classes:
    FREE_INTEGER_CLOSURE
    FREE_NEUTRAL_CLOSURE

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

The purpose is to determine how primitive external charge closures behave
when isolated from the other Phase 1 layers:

    Layer B — confined fractional coordinates
    Layer C — composite closures
    Layer D — 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
-----------
- layerA_external_charge_ladder_signed_charge.csv
- layerA_external_charge_ladder_absolute_charge.csv
- layerA_external_charge_ladder_boundary_route_coordinate.csv
- layerA_external_charge_ladder_closure_class_code.csv
- layerA_external_charge_ladder_closure_state_code.csv
- layerA_external_charge_ladder_route_class_code.csv

Executive Result
----------------
Layer A behaves differently from the combined ABCD corpus.

For Layer A alone:

    signed_charge fully percolates and persists geometrically.
    all route/closure encodings fragment in STRUC-PERC-I
    and remain Structural Boundary / Transitional Structure in STRUC-I.

Compact result statement:

    Layer A is signed-charge coherent but route-taxonomy sparse.

This means primitive external charge closures are already organized by
their external signed charge values. Route/closure encodings become
structurally meaningful only when the other Phase 1 layers are present.

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 | Interpretation |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---|---|---:|---:|---:|---|
| signed_charge | FULL_PERCOLATION | 1 | 0 | 0.01 | Geometric Persistence | Weak Persistence | 0.957188 | 0.9455 | 0.788545 | Layer A is naturally organized by signed external charge. It fully percolates in STRUC-PERC-I and is the only Layer A encoding classified by STRUC-I as Geometric Persistence / Weak Persistence. |
| absolute_charge | HARD_FRAGMENTATION | 0.857142857143 | 1 | null | Structural Boundary | Transitional Structure | 0.906575 | 0.888 | 0.858786 | Magnitude-only charge loses the signed external distinction. It fragments in STRUC-PERC-I and remains a transitional structural boundary in STRUC-I. |
| boundary_route_coordinate | HARD_FRAGMENTATION | 0.857142857143 | 1 | null | Structural Boundary | Transitional Structure | 0.908 | 0.8845 | 0.858843 | The route coordinate is too sparse when Layer A is isolated from Layers B-D. It fragments in STRUC-PERC-I and remains transitional in STRUC-I. |
| closure_class_code | HARD_FRAGMENTATION | 0.857142857143 | 1 | null | Structural Boundary | Transitional Structure | 0.906187 | 0.88 | 0.859241 | Closure taxonomy is not sufficiently rich inside Layer A alone. It needs cross-layer contrast with confined, composite, and boundary-absence cases. |
| closure_state_code | HARD_FRAGMENTATION | 0.857142857143 | 1 | null | Structural Boundary | Transitional Structure | 0.822225 | 0.7915 | 0.928679 | The closed-state encoding compresses Layer A too strongly. It does not generate a connected route structure by itself. |
| route_class_code | HARD_FRAGMENTATION | 0.857142857143 | 1 | null | Structural Boundary | Transitional Structure | 0.82345 | 0.8055 | 0.927939 | Route-role coding is meaningful in the combined ABCD corpus, but Layer A alone does not contain enough route diversity for percolation. |

STRUC-PERC-I Layer A Findings
-----------------------------
The Layer A STRUC-PERC-I batch result shows a one-versus-five split:

    signed_charge        -> FULL_PERCOLATION
    all other encodings  -> HARD_FRAGMENTATION

- signed_charge: FULL_PERCOLATION (giant ratio = 1, isolated = 0, kappa_connect = 0.01)
- absolute_charge: HARD_FRAGMENTATION (giant ratio = 0.857142857143, isolated = 1, kappa_connect = null)
- boundary_route_coordinate: HARD_FRAGMENTATION (giant ratio = 0.857142857143, isolated = 1, kappa_connect = null)
- closure_class_code: HARD_FRAGMENTATION (giant ratio = 0.857142857143, isolated = 1, kappa_connect = null)
- closure_state_code: HARD_FRAGMENTATION (giant ratio = 0.857142857143, isolated = 1, kappa_connect = null)
- route_class_code: HARD_FRAGMENTATION (giant ratio = 0.857142857143, isolated = 1, kappa_connect = null)

Interpretation:
    Signed charge is sufficient for Layer A because Layer A contains only
    primitive external integer/neutral closures. The difficult route
    transitions are absent. Route/closure encodings therefore become
    too compressed or too sparse inside Layer A alone.

STRUC-I Layer A Findings
------------------------
STRUC-I confirms the same separation.

The signed-charge encoding is the only one classified as:

    Geometric Persistence / Weak Persistence

Signed-charge STRUC-I values:
    mean Aκ = 0.957188
    min Aκ  = 0.9455
    mean rho = 0.788545

The remaining five encodings are classified as:

    Structural Boundary / Transitional Structure

- absolute_charge: Structural Boundary / Transitional Structure (mean Aκ = 0.906575, mean rho = 0.858786)
- boundary_route_coordinate: Structural Boundary / Transitional Structure (mean Aκ = 0.908, mean rho = 0.858843)
- closure_class_code: Structural Boundary / Transitional Structure (mean Aκ = 0.906187, mean rho = 0.859241)
- closure_state_code: Structural Boundary / Transitional Structure (mean Aκ = 0.822225, mean rho = 0.928679)
- route_class_code: Structural Boundary / Transitional Structure (mean Aκ = 0.82345, mean rho = 0.927939)

Interpretation:
    Layer A signed charge is not merely connected; it is persistently
    admissible under the STRUC-I perturbation screen. The other encodings
    remain boundary-like, confirming that their structural role depends on
    cross-layer contrast.

Comparison with the ABCD Combined Result
----------------------------------------
The Layer A result is the opposite of the ABCD combined pattern.

ABCD combined:
    signed_charge fragments
    route/closure encodings percolate

Layer A alone:
    signed_charge percolates and persists
    route/closure encodings fragment or remain transitional

This contrast is important. It shows that the ABCD route-space result was
not automatic. It appears only when the corpus contains cross-layer
transitions among external closures, confined fractional coordinates,
composite closures, and boundary absences.

UNNS Interpretation
-------------------
Layer A represents already externalized charge states.
Their admissibility does not require a complex route taxonomy because
they already sit on the external closure side of the charge boundary.

Therefore Layer A is best understood as:

    the external integer-neutral baseline,
    coherent under signed charge,
    but insufficient by itself to express the full charge-routing topology.

The key finding is:

    Primitive external closures are signed-charge coherent.
    Charge-route percolation is not a Layer A property alone;
    it is a cross-layer property of the full ABCD corpus.

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

1. Layer A signed_charge fully percolates in STRUC-PERC-I.
2. Layer A signed_charge is Geometric Persistence / Weak Persistence in STRUC-I.
3. Layer A absolute_charge, boundary_route_coordinate, closure_class_code,
   closure_state_code, and route_class_code do not percolate in STRUC-PERC-I.
4. Those five encodings remain Structural Boundary / Transitional Structure
   under STRUC-I.
5. Primitive external charge closures are therefore most naturally organized
   by signed charge rather than route taxonomy when isolated.

Not claimed:

1. Layer A alone does not explain fractional charge.
2. Layer A alone does not test confinement.
3. Layer A alone does not establish composite closure.
4. Layer A alone does not produce the ABCD route-space percolation result.

Operational Consequence
-----------------------
Layer A should be retained as the external-charge baseline/control layer.
Its signed-charge persistence gives the reference against which Layers B,
C, and D can be compared.

The next required run is:

    Phase 1 — Layer B
    Confined Fractional Coordinates

Layer B is expected to be more diagnostic because it isolates fractional
charge before composite closure.

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

    layerB_fractional_charge_ladder_signed_charge.csv
    layerB_fractional_charge_ladder_absolute_charge.csv
    layerB_fractional_charge_ladder_boundary_route_coordinate.csv
    layerB_fractional_charge_ladder_closure_class_code.csv
    layerB_fractional_charge_ladder_closure_state_code.csv
    layerB_fractional_charge_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_layerA_chamber_comparison_report.txt

Supporting result files:

    results/struc_perc_i/phase1_layer_resolved/
        phase1_layerA_STRUC_PERC_I_v2_5_0_batch_results.csv
        phase1_layerA_STRUC_PERC_I_v2_5_0_batch_results.json

    results/struc_i/phase1_layer_resolved/
        phase1_layerA_STRUC_I_v1_0_4_results.json
        phase1_layerA_STRUC_I_v1_0_4_profiles.csv
