Charge Boundary Routing I
Phase 1 — Layer B Chamber Comparison Report
phase1_layerB_chamber_comparison_report.txt

Generated: 2026-06-15

Layer
-----
Phase 1 — Layer B
Name: Confined Fractional Coordinates

Layer B purpose:
    Establish quark fractional charges as locally valid but externally non-free.

Layer B examples:
    up, down, strange, charm, bottom, top,
    anti-up, anti-down, anti-strange, anti-charm, anti-bottom, anti-top.

Expected closure / route classes:
    INTERNAL_FRACTIONAL_COORDINATE
    CONFINED_ROUTE

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

The purpose is to test the confined fractional layer in isolation, before
fractional coordinates are routed into composite closures in Layer C.

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
-----------
- 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

Executive Result
----------------
Layer B is internally connected, but not geometrically persistent.

For Layer B:

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

Compact result statement:

    Layer B is internally percolating but admissibility-transitional.

This means confined fractional charge forms a connected internal coordinate
system, but it does not become an externally persistent closure layer by itself.

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 | 1 | Structural Boundary | Transitional Structure | 0.72375 | 0.6555 | 0.951608 | 1.011375 | Signed fractional charge fully percolates in STRUC-PERC-I, but is the weakest Layer B encoding under STRUC-I. Its rho reaches above 1, indicating pressure sensitivity near the admissibility boundary. |
| absolute_charge | FULL_PERCOLATION | 1 | 0 | 0.01 | Structural Boundary | Transitional Structure | 0.92485 | 0.904 | 0.834929 | 0.856333 | Absolute fractional charge is the strongest Layer B STRUC-I encoding. It fully percolates and has the highest mean A-kappa, suggesting that fractional magnitude is internally coherent even though it remains transitional. |
| boundary_route_coordinate | FULL_PERCOLATION | 1 | 0 | 0.01 | Structural Boundary | Transitional Structure | 0.839163 | 0.823 | 0.917125 | 0.925417 | Boundary-route coordinate fully percolates, but STRUC-I keeps it as Structural Boundary. The route coding connects the layer but does not turn confined fractional charge into an external closure by itself. |
| closure_class_code | FULL_PERCOLATION | 1 | 0 | 0.01 | Structural Boundary | Transitional Structure | 0.8412 | 0.82 | 0.915194 | 0.92625 | Closure-class coding fully percolates and remains transitional. This is consistent with Layer B being a confined internal class rather than a completed external closure layer. |
| closure_state_code | FULL_PERCOLATION | 1 | 0 | 0.01 | Structural Boundary | Transitional Structure | 0.840162 | 0.817 | 0.916454 | 0.92725 | Closure-state coding fully percolates but remains boundary-like under perturbation. The layer is internally connected but not externally persistent. |
| route_class_code | FULL_PERCOLATION | 1 | 0 | 0.01 | Structural Boundary | Transitional Structure | 0.838288 | 0.823 | 0.916525 | 0.924667 | Route-class coding fully percolates but remains transitional. The confined-route role is coherent, but Layer B alone lacks composite closure. |

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

    all six encodings -> FULL_PERCOLATION

- signed_charge: FULL_PERCOLATION (giant ratio = 1, isolated = 0, kappa_connect = 1, n = 4)
- 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 = 0.01, n = 2)
- closure_class_code: FULL_PERCOLATION (giant ratio = 1, isolated = 0, kappa_connect = 0.01, n = 2)
- closure_state_code: FULL_PERCOLATION (giant ratio = 1, isolated = 0, kappa_connect = 0.01, n = 2)
- route_class_code: FULL_PERCOLATION (giant ratio = 1, isolated = 0, kappa_connect = 0.01, n = 2)

Interpretation:
    Layer B does not fragment as an isolated fractional coordinate set.
    Its internal charge states are compact enough to percolate in every
    tested encoding. However, several encodings collapse to very small
    unique ladders, so this is low-complexity percolation rather than
    proof of a full charge law.

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

    Structural Boundary / Transitional Structure

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

Strongest STRUC-I encoding:

    layerB_fractional_charge_ladder_absolute_charge
    mean Aκ = 0.92485
    min Aκ  = 0.904
    mean rho = 0.834929
    max rho  = 0.856333

Weakest STRUC-I encoding:

    layerB_fractional_charge_ladder_signed_charge
    mean Aκ = 0.72375
    min Aκ  = 0.6555
    mean rho = 0.951608
    max rho  = 1.011375

Interpretation:
    Absolute charge is the most coherent Layer B STRUC-I representation.
    Signed fractional charge is the most fragile, with max rho exceeding 1.
    This suggests that sign-sensitive fractional routing is more boundary-
    pressured than magnitude-only fractional structure.

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

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

Interpretive contrast:
    Layer A is an external closure baseline.
    Layer B is an internal fractional coordinate layer.

Layer A is externally signed-charge coherent. Layer B is internally connected
but does not become persistent under STRUC-I because fractional charge alone
is not an external closure.

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

    signed_charge fragments
    route/closure encodings percolate

In Layer B alone:

    all encodings percolate
    but all remain transitional

This shows that Layer B supplies a connected internal fractional coordinate
system, but the full ABCD route-space result depends on how Layer B connects
to Layer A, Layer C, and Layer D.

UNNS Interpretation
-------------------
Layer B represents charge as an internal coordinate rather than as an
external observable closure.

The combined chamber result supports this interpretation:

    STRUC-PERC-I: Layer B is internally connected.
    STRUC-I:      Layer B remains a transitional structural boundary.

Therefore confined fractional charge should not be treated as failed charge
or as an external charge state. It behaves as an admissible internal coordinate
that requires later composite routing to become externally closed.

Key finding:

    Fractional charge percolates internally but does not persist externally
    as an isolated layer.

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

1. All six Layer B encodings fully percolate in STRUC-PERC-I.
2. All six Layer B encodings remain Structural Boundary / Transitional Structure in STRUC-I.
3. Absolute charge is the strongest Layer B STRUC-I encoding.
4. Signed fractional charge is the weakest Layer B STRUC-I encoding.
5. Layer B behaves as a connected but non-persistent internal coordinate layer.

Not claimed:

1. Layer B alone does not establish external charge closure.
2. Layer B alone does not prove confinement.
3. Layer B alone does not explain composite hadron charge closure.
4. Layer B alone does not derive charge quantization.

Operational Consequence
-----------------------
Layer B should be retained as the internal fractional-coordinate layer.
Its role is not to provide external closure by itself, but to provide the
fractional internal coordinates that Layer C must route into composite
integer or neutral closures.

The next required run is:

    Phase 1 — Layer C
    Composite Closures

Layer C is expected to test the central transition:

    fractional internal coordinates -> integer/neutral external composite closure

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

    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

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_layerB_chamber_comparison_report.txt

Supporting result files:

    results/struc_perc_i/phase1_layer_B_resolved/
        struc_perc_batch_results.csv
        struc_perc_batch_results.json

    results/struc_i/phase1_layer_B_resolved/
        chamber_struc_i_v1_0_4_results.json
        chamber_struc_i_v1_0_4_profiles.csv
