Verification and dependency summary

Verification has a declared scope. The mathematical arguments are supported by finite executions whose inputs, counts and dependencies are specified here. Computational checks establish the stated finite properties; they do not test an awareness attribution, human insight or philosophical premises. The complete record separates inherited foundations, newly checked transactions and the physical and experiential assumptions still requiring independent assessment.

Download the executable finite-check supplement. It contains the thirteen self-contained mathematical checks and their execution records. The written proofs and the declared scope below remain essential to interpreting those results.

B Verification and dependency summary

B.1 What carries the conclusions

Common-ground participation is an explanatory interpretation, not a new operational exclusion theorem. The self-description radius and target-completion applications are conditional consequences of inherited mathematics. Report/read/commit/monitor contrasts are discriminating predictions within the nominated model; whether human interventions instantiate them is empirical. Functional realization alone is compatible with several ontological interpretations.

B.2 Preserved transaction executions

All new finite checks use Python’s standard library and exact rational arithmetic; the local quantum circuit uses exact Gaussian-rational sparse amplitudes. The package contains code and emitted JSON. The checks supplement the written proofs and do not test metaphysical, semantic, psychological or consciousness premises.

The publication-candidate reproduction also reruns the selected first-draft scripts for the calibration frontier, quotient enumeration, noisy-majority values, public-agency arithmetic and finite countermodels. Their emitted JSON is compared with the preserved baseline. The old countermodel script includes floating-point information metrics; this does not change the exact arithmetic of the current recognition and history constructions. These selected reruns do not certify every inherited result or execution. The appendix retains the foundation proofs used here.

B.3 New history and spacetime executions

The actual runner and JSON report specify interpreter, execution time, script hashes and successful baseline comparisons. The current pass additionally checks 1,360 finite data/future/target-map cases, four exact conditioning models, and an independent reconstruction of the actual compiled word: 717 windows before ingress, 35 for ingress, and 1,122 after ingress. The general selected-benefit formula is checked against direct joint enumeration, including a correlation counterexample in which the noisy advantage becomes $-7/128$. A stationary coupling check gives accuracy $31/44$ under the selector-conditional task law and $29/44$ when that condition fails, with the same selector distribution. Mathematical proofs supply the general claims; enumeration checks finite instances. No simulation tests the truth of common ground, an awareness attribution, human insight or a phenomenal temporal flow.

B.4 Dependencies of the expanded synthesis

The bibliography and source-engagement record identify the supplied editions, duplicate Schaffer files and consulted author preprints. Current source checks are recorded separately from the inherited complete-corpus coverage. Hoefer’s original-text locators refer to his fully inspected 2001 author preprint. The maximal-development result is used through Sbierski’s inspected primary reconstruction, without claiming that the original 1969 article was recovered. No unavailable text is represented as read.