docs(jfm): establish traceable manuscript planning baseline

Track the research dossiers, section freezes, supporting manuscript materials, and round-aware agent controls so future drafting decisions can be reviewed across both repository mirrors.

Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>

docs/JFM_WYQ/ROUND2_TOP_DOWN/01_PHYSICS_NARRATIVE_AND_OUTLINES.md

@@ -0,0 +1,160 @@
+# JFM Round 2 — Physics Narrative and Outline Recommendation
+
+> Top-down structural design, not manuscript prose. Round-1 files `01_DRL_CONTROL_AND_CASES.md`–`08_EXPERIMENT_AND_CASE_METRICS.md` were read in full (current filenames), together with `src/README.md`, DRL/SR/CCD/OID/steady authority documents and the CelerisLab validation dossier. Nowledge Mem Context/Working Memory and targeted recall informed routing and author/adviser direction, not scientific authority. Round-1 audit records 63 current Markdown plus 8 selected authority/index JSON files read-full; raw/external artifacts remain authority-led deferrals.
+
+## 1. Scientific question, central claim and reader takeaway
+
+**Scientific question.** In a moderate-Re fluidic pinball with separation and periodic wake dynamics, can sparse downstream signatures and force measurements support a closed-loop controller whose apparent complexity reduces to a persistent rotation skeleton plus a smaller dynamic correction, and can field/steady analyses bound that interpretation?
+
+**Central claim (recommended, cautious).** For the named Legacy Kármán cloaking contract, DRL produces bounded observer-level and field-level wake modification. Independent SR, corrected CCD and steady/context analyses consistently identify a persistent rear counter-rotation component as the dominant tested backbone, with a smaller phase-coherent, action-associated residual. Together they motivate—but do not establish—a near-constant-rotation skeleton plus dynamic feedback correction as a compact organization of the learned control.
+
+Use “named,” “tested,” “bounded,” “dominant tested element,” “descriptive,” and “motivate.” Do not use mechanism, causality, optimality, stability, universality or Legacy–V5 equivalence language. CCD residual is a reference residual, not a paired counterfactual; steady/theory is context/outer reference; potential circulation cancellation failed by sign.
+
+**Reader takeaway.** A controller that improves a wake signature need not be intrinsically complicated: in this bounded case, most measured improvement is associated with persistent rear rotation, while the remaining correction is smaller and phase-organized. The contribution is evidence triangulation with explicit limits, not a universal law.
+
+## 2. Candidate title families
+
+### A — learned control reduced to a physical skeleton *(recommended)*
+1. *A near-constant rotation skeleton in learned cloaking control of a fluidic pinball*
+2. *From sparse wake signatures to a rotation skeleton for fluidic-pinball cloaking*
+3. *Interpreting learned wake cloaking as persistent rotation with dynamic correction*
+
+Promise: a physical object emerging from control, SR, field and steady evidence. Risk: “skeleton” may overstate definitiveness; retain “near-constant” and bound it to tested cases. Title 1 is safest; title 3 most clearly promises the correction but risks causal expectations.
+
+### B — observer-level cloaking and signature control
+1. *Sparse-signature control of a moderate-Reynolds-number fluidic pinball wake*
+2. *Active wake cloaking with sparse sensing: control, reduction and field evidence*
+3. *Controlling the observer-level wake signature of a fluidic pinball*
+
+Promise: the estimand is the wake signature/field, not unqualified stealth. Risk: under-promises the skeleton interpretation and may resemble a standard DRL paper; define cloaking as a declared signature/reference objective.
+
+### C — triangulated white-box analysis
+1. *A physics-based audit of learned wake cloaking in the fluidic pinball*
+2. *Symbolic and field-level interpretation of sparse-sensor wake control*
+3. *Triangulating learned wake control with symbolic regression and field analysis*
+
+Promise: policy reduction plus field audit. Risk: “audit,” “physics-based,” and “interpretation” invite stronger mechanism expectations than CCD/OID support. Use only if methodological contribution must lead.
+
+**Recommendation:** work with A1; use B1 if “skeleton” cannot survive final evidence audit. Avoid “universal,” “robust,” “mechanism,” and standalone “interpretable” in the title.
+
+## 3. Recommended hierarchy and section bridges
+
+### 1. Introduction — visibility to nonlinear wake signatures
+- **Question:** why nonlinear bluff-body signature cloaking differs from linear-wave cloaking and ordinary drag reduction.
+- **Input:** cloak/illusion, active hydrodynamic, pinball, sparse-observation DRL and interpretable-control literature.
+- **Output:** define observer-level/field objective; motivate pinball; state gap as policy reduction plus field audit.
+- **Bridge:** fix plant, sensors, actions and evidence contracts.
+
+### 2. Problem formulation and evidence contracts
+**2.1 Plant and actuation:** geometry, body order, coordinates, Re convention, wall/action sign, `q_in/q_blk/q_ctl`, and separate Legacy/V5 chains.
+**2.2 Sparse objective:** forces plus six downstream velocity channels; reward terms and DTW; full-field L2 is independent validation; DTW is not delay/causality.
+**2.3 Case-specific metrics:** periodic cycle, transient event and steady profile/`E_inf_vector` semantics remain distinct.
+- **Output:** one plant vocabulary, non-interchangeable estimands.
+- **Bridge:** show capability briefly, then select Re100 for depth.
+
+### 3. Compact capability map and principal case
+**3.1 Visual hook:** aligned Kármán Re100 plus qualified representative vortex/steady/Illusion view, with role/status labels.
+**3.2 Case choice:** Legacy Kármán Re100 is the intersection of periodic signature, field, SR and CCD evidence; V5 Re100 seeds support modern discovery/retention separately.
+**3.3 Breadth:** compact named-condition map; complete matrix and degradation details in supplement; no positive Illusion-SR claim.
+- **Output:** bounded capability, Re100 anchor.
+- **Bridge:** define what success means before interpreting action.
+
+### 4. What was optimized: signature matching under sparse observation
+**4.1** Reward and sensor design as a physical measurement choice. **4.2** Compare reward/DTW/force with independent mean/phase field errors. **4.3** Give only bounded DRL discovery/retention evidence (V5 seed dependence explicit).
+- **Output:** compressed sensor objective requires white-box/field audit.
+- **Bridge:** ask whether the action law has a persistent component.
+
+### 5. Physical question I — is the learned action intrinsically complex?
+**5.1** SR as closed-loop distillation: Stage 1–2–3, causal pairing, symmetry mapping, CFD arbiter. **5.2** Canonical Kármán law: rear constant, rear-lift feedback, tested front term, exact sign/order. **5.3** Closed-loop tests, named transfer and steady correspondence; deletion is parent-relative, not causal necessity.
+- **Output:** rear counter-rotation is the dominant tested SR element; feedback remains nonzero/case-dependent.
+- **Bridge:** what field improvement corresponds to the constant component?
+
+### 6. Physical question II — what changes after removing the constant reference?
+**6.1** Corrected mean field: zero, constant-mean, DRL and exact 93.42/6.58 additive split for the stated Legacy Kármán ROI/mask/window. **6.2** Define separately centered DRL-minus-constant-template residual; show rank-3 stability and phase reconstruction. **6.3** CCD/POD: action-coordinate association, nearly same field subspace; no CCD superiority/unique modes.
+- **Output:** most measured field improvement is associated with constant mean; residual is smaller and descriptively organized.
+- **Bridge:** place recurrence of the constant component in steady context.
+
+### 7. Physical question III — steady context and theory boundary
+**7.1** Canonical free-slip `Re_D=50`, accepted `[0,+Omega,-Omega]`, `s`, direct `E_inf_vector` at `x/D=10`. **7.2** One-cylinder impermeability/circulation and outer potential/dipole reference; show sign failure. **7.3** Gap flux/near-wake/partial NS diagnostics as bounded observations; gap/base-bleed chain remains hypothesis.
+- **Output:** plausible organizing context, not mechanism/stability/causality/no-slip transfer.
+- **Bridge:** state supported claim and decisive future tests.
+
+### 8. Synthesis, limitations and prospective experiment
+**8.1** SR ranking, CCD decomposition and steady endpoint are compatible but non-identical observations. **8.2** Briefly quarantine negative Illusion SR, claim-free OID, old CCD/steady routes and failed theory. **8.3** One compact qualitative open-loop experiment note/panel only; no synchronized PIV/force validation.
+- **Output:** bounded, falsifiable physical organization.
+
+### 9. Methods/reproducibility
+Keep only interpretation-protecting details in the main text; put solver/PPO/SR/CCD implementation, manifests, hashes, normalization, seeds, phase gates and full metric contracts in supplement. OID remains method-only, not a results section.
+
+## 4. Two materially different alternatives (not recommended)
+
+**A — method silos:** Introduction; DRL method/results; SR; CCD; OID; steady theory; experiment; discussion. Easy package ownership, but delays the physics, makes compatible evidence look independent, repeats definitions and gives claim-free OID unjustified weight.
+
+**B — broad capability-first catalogue:** Introduction; full matrix; reward; all Kármán/vortex/erase/Illusion results; SR generalization; fields; theory; experiment. Visually attractive, but forces incomparable metrics into one progression, dilutes Re100, and risks reviving withdrawn Illusion/generalization claims.
+
+A steady/theory-first outline is also not recommended: endpoint evidence is bounded, potential theory failed by sign, and NS closure is incomplete, so it would overpromise the theory.
+
+## 5. Space, equations, tables and figures
+
+### Text (100% of body)
+| Part | % | Function |
+|---|---:|---|
+| Introduction | 10 | vocabulary, gap, question |
+| Problem/objectives/contracts | 10 | plant, sensors, reward, metrics |
+| Capability + Re100 setup | 10 | visual hook, case choice |
+| SR question | 18 | law and closed-loop evidence |
+| Mean/dynamic field + CCD | 20 | decomposition and residual |
+| Steady/theory | 17 | endpoint, reference, sign boundary |
+| Synthesis/limits/experiment | 10 | bounded conclusion and future tests |
+| Methods bridge | 5 | essential reproducibility |
+
+Target **8–10 displayed equations** (5–6 main): objective; reward/DTW; representative field metric; SR law and symmetry; mean identity; CCD residual/operator; steady `s`/`E_inf_vector`; outer reference/clearly incomplete ledger. Target **4 main tables**: contracts with Legacy/V5 separated; Re100 evidence chain; SR term ranking/non-claims; cross-analysis synthesis. Supplement: full matrix, seed/calibration/normalizer, provenance, metrics, sensitivity and artifact ledgers.
+
+Target **7 main figures**:
+1. visual capability hook;
+2. geometry/action sign/sensors/roles;
+3. objective versus independent field validation;
+4. SR law, actions and bounded deletion;
+5. zero–constant–DRL mean fields and 93.42/6.58 split;
+6. corrected CCD residual, rank-3 and POD comparison;
+7. steady endpoint, profiles, theory reference and sign failure.
+
+Experiment belongs as an inset in 1 or 7 only if raw-image provenance exists; otherwise supplement. Target 4–6 supplement figures.
+
+## 6. Main text / supplement boundary
+
+**Main:** scientific question; cloak/signature definition; sparse objective; one visual hook; Legacy Re100; canonical SR law; exact meaning of dominant tested constant; corrected mean/dynamic result; CCD/POD descriptive result; steady endpoint and failed potential route; one experiment limitation; final non-claims.
+
+**Supplement:** full case/seed matrix; all V5 curves; separate Legacy/V5 solver and contract table; reward/DTW implementation; SR topology/deletion/per-case tables; full CCD sensitivities; OID equations/reset history without positive result; MFS convergence; partial NS ledger; steady sweep/reverse details; transient/Erase metrics; experiment apparatus/calibration/dye sequence; paths/hashes/exclusions/negative routes.
+
+## 7. Concrete SR/CCD/theory interweaving
+
+Use **physical-question interweaving**, not three method chapters:
+1. How much is persistent? — SR law and closed-loop term ranking.
+2. What does it account for? — constant-mean versus DRL field errors.
+3. What remains? — corrected CCD residual, rank-3 stability and action coordinates.
+4. Is there steady context? — endpoint, magnitude correspondence, theory as outer reference and sign check.
+5. Synthesis — skeleton-plus-correction as compatible organization, with non-crossable estimands stated.
+
+At each interface state the estimand and chain. Never imply SR law, CCD left action functions, and steady `E_inf_vector` are the same object.
+
+## 8. Honest Legacy/V5 presentation
+
+- **Legacy:** principal analysis chain for SR, corrected CCD, standardized Target/PPO/SR/Zero and field interpretation.
+- **V5:** supporting modern chain for solver qualification context, Re100 five-seed discovery/retention, parameter/seed examples and named-condition demonstrations.
+- Use explicit panel/caption labels `Legacy analysis` and `V5 support`; never pool means/errors.
+- Explain Legacy→V5 as a deliberate rewrite changing grid/API/readback, body/action interfaces, normalization/calibration and smoothing; this is provenance discipline, not numerical continuation.
+- State V5 Re100 late retention is seed-dependent; other points are mostly n=1 and retained evaluations are historical compatibility data, not post-fix retraining.
+- Do not use V5 to rescue Legacy SR, negative Illusion SR, CCD, or steady mechanism claims.
+
+## 9. Structure-freeze decisions (recommendation first; max 5)
+
+1. Adopt working title A1; retain “near-constant,” “tested,” and bounded language. If “skeleton” is rejected, use B1 and keep it as a section-level interpretation.
+2. Freeze Legacy Kármán Re100 as the sole deep case; V5 is separate support; full matrix is supplement.
+3. Freeze physical-question order SR → mean/dynamic field → CCD → steady/theory; no standalone OID results section.
+4. Freeze experiment as qualitative open-loop feasibility/future direction only, compact or supplement.
+5. Freeze strongest mechanism wording at “consistent with/motivates a candidate organization”; no causal, stable, optimal, general or universal wording without matched intervention, closure and independent evidence.
+
+## Evidence dependency gate
+
+Before prose or figure assembly, every number/panel must carry chain, solver/configuration, geometry/body order, signed action, Re definition, case/seed/role, target/reference, metric/ROI/mask, window, normalization/calibration, artifact path/hash and evidence status. Resolve CCD canonical designation while preserving the validated suffixed artifact; quarantine OID sign conflict and historical results; preserve SR semantic current/archive split; verify external role manifests; retain steady sign failure/incomplete NS closure and absent synchronized PIV/force validation. No figure is publication-ready merely because a plot or manifest exists.

docs/JFM_WYQ/ROUND2_TOP_DOWN/02_JFM_STRUCTURE_AND_SPACE_BENCHMARK.md

@@ -0,0 +1,137 @@
+# JFM Round 2 — Structure, Space and Figure Benchmark
+
+> Structural calibration only; not manuscript prose or submission-format advice. Based on six Round-1 dossiers, existing DynamisLab Undermind reports, and ten existing full-PDF reads. No new deep search, CFD, training, experiment, Undermind write, or commit was performed.
+
+## Executive recommendation
+
+Use a physics-led narrative:
+
+`visual capability hook → precise gap → plant/reward/metric contracts → representative capability → SR control skeleton → mean/dynamic field decomposition → steady/theory context → limitations and bounded synthesis`.
+
+Do not make DRL, SR, CCD and theory four isolated method papers. Interleave them around (i) what persistent control component accounts for the tested improvement and (ii) what smaller dynamic correction remains. Kármán Re100 is the deep-analysis case. Other cases are named-condition capability/failure evidence, not universal generalization.
+
+## Sample literature and read level
+
+All entries were selected from the existing DynamisLab workspace and read with Undermind `read_pdfs`; `full-PDF` means paper-level full-text extraction, not independent raw-data or equation-by-equation auditing. Counts below are approximate where extraction was not reliable.
+
+| Key / identity | DOI | Read level | Structural lesson |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Deng et al., “Low-order model for successive bifurcations of the fluidic pinball”, *JFM* 884 A37 (2020) [Den18b] | `10.1017/jfm.2019.959` | `full-PDF` | Physics-first gap; rigorous model then verification; master phenomenogram; extensive appendices. |
+| Cornejo Maceda et al., “Stabilization of the fluidic pinball with gradient-enriched machine learning control”, *JFM* 917 A42 (2021) [Mac20] | `10.1017/jfm.2021.301` | `full-PDF` | Baseline → simple forcing → asymmetric forcing → feedback; capability paired with mechanism. |
+| Rabault et al., “Artificial neural networks trained through deep reinforcement learning discover control strategies for active flow control”, *JFM* 865, 281–302 (2019) [Rab18b] | `10.1017/jfm.2019.62` | `full-PDF` | Very short entry to gap; learning/capability followed by physical wake explanation. |
+| Paris et al., “Robust flow control and optimal sensor placement using deep reinforcement learning”, *JFM* 913 A25 (2021) [Par20] | `10.1017/jfm.2020.1170` | `full-PDF` | Performance → mechanism → robustness → sensor placement; strong claims matched by tests. |
+| Li & Zhang, “Reinforcement-learning-based control of confined cylinder wakes with stability analyses”, *JFM* 932 A44 (2022) [Li21] | `10.1017/jfm.2021.1045` | `full-PDF` | Stability/sensitivity informs reward and probes; it is not an ornamental final section. |
+| Xia et al., “Active flow control for bluff body drag reduction using reinforcement learning with partial measurements”, *JFM* 981 A17 (2024) [Xia23] | `10.1017/jfm.2024.69` | `full-PDF` | Partial-observation failure → history-based fix → robustness and mechanism. |
+| Wang et al., “Dynamic feature-based deep reinforcement learning for flow control of circular cylinder with sparse surface pressure sensing”, *JFM* 988 A4 (2024) [Wan23b] | `10.1017/jfm.2024.333` | `full-PDF` | Information problem → dynamic lifting → sparse capability → harder-Re tests. |
+| Loiseau et al., “Sparse reduced-order modelling: sensor-based dynamics to full-state estimation”, *JFM* 844, 459–490 (2018) [Loi17] | `10.1017/jfm.2018.147` | `full-PDF` | Black-box sensor dynamics precede field reconstruction and grey-box interpretation. |
+| Gautier et al., “Closed-loop separation control using machine learning”, *JFM* 770, 442–457 (2015) [Gau14] | `10.1017/jfm.2015.95` | `full-PDF` | Concise setup → optimization → explicit law → spectral mechanism → benchmark. |
+| Mao et al., “Nonlinear optimal suppression of vortex shedding from a circular cylinder”, *JFM* 775, 241–265 (2015) [Mao15] | `10.1017/jfm.2015.304` | `full-PDF` | Validation precedes interpretation; spatial mechanism and stability follow performance; realizability caveat explicit. |
+
+## Space and opening benchmark
+
+Closest concise control papers reach the gap in about **1–3 pages / 4–7 functional paragraphs**. Long physics/model papers may use about five paragraphs but more pages ([Den18b]). Use five Introduction paragraphs and roughly **2–3 pages**:
+
+1. wake/signature matching as a physical question;
+2. bluff-body/pinball complexity and why scalar force success is insufficient;
+3. DRL and sparse/partial observations as capability, not explanation;
+4. SR and field decomposition as complementary audits with noncausal boundaries;
+5. exact gap and contributions for this named plant.
+
+Do not let linear cloaking history delay the gap; it supplies vocabulary, not nonlinear-Navier–Stokes equivalence.
+
+### Total planning range
+
+Use **8,000–10,000 word-equivalents**, or roughly **22–28 compact LaTeX pages** including figures/equations but excluding references and detailed supplement. This is coarse planning, not a journal limit.
+
+| Function | Share | Approx. words | Approx. pages |
+|---|---:|---:|---:|
+| Introduction | 12–15% | 1,000–1,400 | 2–3.5 |
+| Plant, contracts, metrics, CFD validation | 16–20% | 1,300–1,900 | 4–5.5 |
+| Capability/case map | 10–14% | 800–1,300 | 2.5–4 |
+| SR law and closed-loop validation | 13–17% | 1,100–1,600 | 3–4.5 |
+| CCD descriptive decomposition | 10–14% | 800–1,300 | 2.5–4 |
+| Steady/theory context | 10–14% | 800–1,300 | 2.5–4 |
+| Integrated discussion, limitations, experiment, conclusion | 12–16% | 1,000–1,500 | 3–4 |
+
+A suitable balance is **Methods 25–30% / Results 45–50% / Discussion and limitations 20–25%**. Discussion should be woven into each result subsection, following [Mac20], [Gau14], [Xia23], [Mao15].
+
+## Main figures, tables and equations
+
+Plan **7–9 main figures**, about **20–28 panels**, and **3–4 tables**.
+
+1. Headline Kármán Re100 target/zero/controlled field and signature plate.
+2. Plant/evidence contracts: geometry, action sign, sensors, `q_in/q_blk/q_ctl`, Legacy/V5 boundary.
+3. Compact named-condition capability matrix; separate DTW, field-L2, force roles and n/status.
+4. Re100 time series plus phase-registered field validation and selected-seed provenance.
+5. SR law, symmetry deployment, closed-loop PPO/SR/zero comparison and bounded deletion result.
+6. Mean/dynamic field decomposition, ROI/mask, CCD rank-3 descriptive modes and POD comparison.
+7. Integrated SR–CCD–steady physical map showing compatible observations versus unresolved arrows.
+8. Steady/theory endpoint, reverse/wrong-sign boundary, outer reference and incomplete NS ledger.
+9. Optional bounded open-loop experiment demo; omit or move to supplement if synchronized force/PIV evidence is unavailable.
+
+Tables: (1) evidence/contract ledger; (2) capability summary; (3) SR/CCD/theory estimands and claim boundaries; optional (4) validation/limitations ledger. Full 11-case/15-run matrices, seeds and provenance belong in supplement.
+
+Plan **12–18 numbered equations**: geometry/Re/action (2–3), reward and independent metrics (2–3), SR law/symmetry (2–3), mean/CCD estimands (2–3), steady metric/outer reference (2–4), explicit balance/claim ledger (1–2). Put PPO, DTW dynamic programming, feature libraries, CCD matrices, MFS collocation and long solver details in supplement.
+
+## Capability without a gallery paper
+
+Capability should be **10–14% of main text**, one early hook plus one compact table/summary. Use a three-layer funnel: one Re100 hook; breadth matrix with named degradation/failure; return to Re100 for SR/CCD/theory. Every capability claim needs a same-condition comparator and one explanatory diagnostic. Do not show attractive fields without metric/window/role identity. Illusion SR is historical/negative, not positive capability evidence. Vortex/Erase and complete seed galleries belong in supplement unless they answer a distinct physical question.
+
+## Interweaving and space bounds
+
+Organize results by physical questions:
+
+1. DRL achieves a declared signature/field improvement at named scope.
+2. SR exposes a compact persistent control component and validates it in Legacy closed loop.
+3. CCD separates a dominant mean increment from a smaller action-associated dynamic increment.
+4. CCD modes organize descriptive phase-coherent variation; this is not causality or stability.
+5. Steady/theory contextualizes constant rotation under its own V5 free-slip contract; failed circulation sign and incomplete NS ledger define the mechanism boundary.
+6. Synthesis: persistent rear counter-rotation/base-bleed-or-gap-jet-family **hypothesis** plus smaller dynamic correction, not a proven momentum law.
+
+| Component | Minimum main text | Maximum recommended | Role |
+|---|---:|---:|---|
+| SR | 1.5–2 pages | 3.5–4 | Law, deployment, closed-loop and deletion boundary. |
+| CCD | 1.5 pages | 3–3.5 | Mean/dynamic estimands and descriptive rank-3 result. |
+| OID | 0.25–0.75 page | 1 | Method-only/claim-free; historical positive rows quarantined. |
+| Steady/theory | 1.5–2 pages | 3.5–4 | Contract, endpoint, short outer reference, open gates. |
+| DRL capability | 2–3 pages | 4 | Hook plus Re100 return; no gallery. |
+
+SR is an `observation → action` surrogate under Legacy CFD arbitration; CCD is action-associated field organization; theory is contextual/reference mathematics. Do not claim that any one explains the same physical arrow as another.
+
+## CFD, experiment, negatives, Legacy/V5
+
+**CFD validation:** 1.5–2.5 pages plus one panel/table. Establish active V5 and separate Legacy plant contracts, grid/BC/role checks and qualification limits. Solver validation does not validate DRL mechanism.
+
+**Experiment:** current status is open-loop feasibility (streaklines/dye; no complete synchronized force/PIV package). Use 0.5–1 page at the end or supplement, explicitly as demonstration/future validation.
+
+**Negative results:** keep visible but compact: cross-Re degradation/action saturation and weak Re400 phase; Illusion SR collapse toward physical zero; wrong-sign steady branch and failed potential-circulation explanation; OID force-gate failure/reset. Full failed logs, rejected formulas, incomplete crossings and archive provenance go to supplement.
+
+**Legacy/V5:** state prominently in Methods and at every transition. LegacyCelerisLab supports active SR and corrected CCD; modern V5 supports current DRL/steady retained chains. They are not numerically identical. Use explicit labels such as `Legacy Kármán Re_code=100 (Re_D=50)` and V5 code-Re labels; never pool them silently.
+
+## Supplement boundary
+
+Carry hyperparameters, normalization/seed ledgers, complete cases and metrics, SR feature/split/hash/deletion tables, CCD masks and sensitivity, OID derivations and historical audit, MFS convergence/one-cylinder/Laurent checks, experiment calibration/raw inventory/uncertainty, and all negative/archive provenance. Do not move an essential comparator or essential limitation out of the main text.
+
+## Title, abstract and prohibited strength
+
+Possible bounded title register:
+
+- **Interpreting reinforcement-learning flow control in a fluidic pinball through sparse laws and wake-field decomposition**
+- **A sparse control skeleton for wake-signature matching in a fluidic pinball**
+- **From reinforcement-learning control to a bounded physical decomposition of a fluidic-pinball wake**
+
+Safe terms, with scope qualifiers: `wake-signature matching`, `sparse sensing`, `symbolic-regression surrogate`, `descriptive field decomposition`, `steady reference`, `physics-guided interpretation`. Avoid unqualified `universal`, `optimal`, `robust`, `generalizable`, `causal`, `mechanism`, `stability`, `control authority`, `full-state`, `complete`, `first`, `real-time`, `experimentally validated`, `momentum restoration`, `energy-efficient`, `illusion control` and `target tracking`. Avoid unqualified `hydrodynamic cloaking` if the estimand is only a declared sensor/field space. `Interpretable` should describe the compact SR law, not imply CCD/OID causality.
+
+The abstract should promise only: named-plant DRL discovery; independent sparse-signature and field evaluation; compact SR law under the Legacy contract; descriptive mean/dynamic decomposition; bounded steady/theory context. Include one limitation sentence: named conditions, separate Legacy/V5 chains, no causal/mechanistic closure, limited experiment.
+
+## Warnings for the structure agent
+
+**Over-expand:** cloak history; all cases/seeds/plots; four method silos; OID historical rows or Illusion SR as positive evidence; unvalidated MFS derivation; applications involving seals, marine structures, sediment, defense or low observability.
+
+**Over-contract:** field pair plus reward without comparators; CFD/Legacy–V5/Re conventions; SR without closed-loop arbitration and deletion window; CCD “93%” without ROI/mask/estimand; steady appearance presented as stability/mechanism; negative results and experiment limitations hidden in supplement.
+
+The target is fewer claims, each attached to a comparator, artifact/metric contract, named evidence status and one physical question.
+
+## Provenance
+
+Nowledge Mem `read_context_bundle` was read first and targeted memory recall used. Undermind `get_orientation` preceded `list_workspaces`; existing DynamisLab workspace `4383d145-2c80-4991-8a9c-7ac2dd683438` was used. No new deep search or Undermind mutation occurred. Round-1 `01`–`06` dossiers and Round-2 README were read. All ten samples above were requested through `read_pdfs` and are marked `full-PDF`; uncertain counts are explicitly approximate.

docs/JFM_WYQ/ROUND2_TOP_DOWN/03_EVIDENCE_STRESS_TEST.md

@@ -0,0 +1,183 @@
+# JFM Round 2 — Evidence-to-Structure Stress Test
+
+## Executive verdict
+
+The proposed arc is publishable only as a **bounded Kármán/cloaking case study**: DRL demonstrates named-condition policy discovery, Legacy SR supplies a closed-loop-tested compact surrogate, corrected CCD describes a smaller action-associated residual around a dominant constant component, and steady/theory supply contextual physical constraints. The stronger reading—“DRL discovers a general physical law, CCD proves the dynamic correction, and theory closes the mechanism”—is not supported. **Recommendation: submit the minimal defensible paper; keep the ambitious layer in Discussion/Supplement.**
+
+## 1. Claim–evidence dependency graph
+
+```text
+C0 Visual capability / observer-level objective
+ ├─ DRL: scene, target/zero comparator, observation/reward/action contracts,
+ │       seed/checkpoint/VecNormalize, window
+ ├─ literature: sparse signature motivation only
+ └─ field validation: E_mean and separately E_phase8
+        ↓
+C1 Reward/signature is physically motivated
+ ├─ exact reward, DTW implementation/window/calibration identity
+ ├─ sensor geometry and x/D≈10 precedent
+ ├─ DTW separated from full-field L2
+ └─ no optimality/observability/delay claim
+        ↓
+C2 Kármán policy has a compact control law
+ ├─ frozen Legacy PPO trajectories and causal alignment
+ ├─ SR topology/formula/provenance
+ ├─ offline fit diagnostics (supporting only)
+ └─ Stage-3 Legacy closed-loop gates, long runs, named extensions
+        ↓
+C3 Law contains a near-constant skeleton
+ ├─ fixed-formula deletion/scaling under declared 40-step Kármán window
+ ├─ steady constant-rotation sweep under exact sign/Re/action contract
+ └─ named cross-case observations, not a universal law
+        ↓
+C4 Residual is smaller and dynamically organized
+ ├─ corrected CCD mean-field decomposition, exact ROI/mask/window
+ ├─ cycle-template residual and rank-3 stability
+ ├─ action-coordinate association and phase diagnostics
+ └─ constant and DRL cycles are not paired counterfactuals
+        ↓
+C5 Constant + dynamic correction explains finite-Re mechanism
+ ├─ matched intervention or independent closed-loop designs
+ ├─ wall-resolved vorticity/pressure/shear and complete NS CV budget
+ ├─ action sign/torque/body-order parity
+ └─ held-out endpoints and uncertainty
+        ↓
+C6 Generality / limits
+ ├─ repeated seeds and retained cross-Re/size cases with parity
+ ├─ case-specific metrics and per-case failures
+ ├─ Legacy/V5 separation or explicit parity artifact
+ └─ experiment only qualitative feasibility without synced PIV/force
+```
+
+C0→C1 is green/amber; C1→C2 is amber-green only for Legacy Kármán; C2→C3 is amber; C3→C4 is amber for descriptive organization; C4→C5 is red; C5→C6 is red if phrased as generality, but green for an explicit limits section.
+
+## 2. Link-by-link status and strongest defensible wording
+
+| Link | Status | Strongest surviving wording |
+|---|---|---|
+| Visual capability → task success | **Green/amber** | “Under the declared cases and contracts, PPO policies reduced sensor/field error relative to the case-specific zero comparator.” Separate mean and phase claims and include failures. |
+| Capability → cloaking vocabulary | **Amber** | “Cloaking denotes approach to a declared background/target in measured wake space.” Not invisibility or full-state equivalence. |
+| Capability → reward/signature | **Green** | “The signature objective is computationally economical and physically motivated, with independent registered downstream field evaluation.” |
+| Reward → full-field cloaking | **Amber** | “Sensor optimization was accompanied by, but does not imply, improved mean-field agreement.” Report `E_mean`, `eta_mean`, `E_phase8`, mismatch and regularity separately. |
+| DRL → SR law | **Green/amber** | “A symmetry-mapped SR surrogate reproduced the selected Legacy Kármán policy sufficiently for declared closed-loop gates and named windows.” Not unique or fully explained. |
+| SR → near-constant skeleton | **Amber** | “Within the fixed topology/coefficient/40-step deletion contract, persistent rear constant rotation was the largest tested contribution; steady results provide magnitude context.” Not necessity or sufficiency. |
+| Steady constant → SR skeleton | **Amber** | “Steady and SR observations are consistent with a recurring rear-opposite constant component.” Do not pool their metrics or amplitudes. |
+| SR constant → CCD mean dominance | **Amber** | “Two analyses organize the bounded Kármán evidence around a dominant constant component.” State shared lineage; do not call causal triangulation. |
+| CCD → dynamic correction | **Amber** | “The residual is phase-coherent and action-associated in the declared cycle-template analysis.” Not response time, mechanism or causal correction. |
+| CCD → special physical modes | **Red/amber** | “CCD labels an action-associated organization of a low-dimensional residual; CCD is not shown superior to POD.” |
+| Dynamic correction → mechanism | **Red** | No mechanism sentence is authorized; retain action→near-body→wake→signature as hypothesis/open question. |
+| Theory → finite-Re mechanism | **Red** | “Theory provides an outer reference and sign/contract constraints, not finite-Re mechanism closure.” |
+| Solver qualification → mechanism | **Amber for numerics, red for physics** | “Selected configurations were qualified against bounded benchmark observables.” Kan99 lift sign remains unresolved; no control-mechanism inference. |
+| Legacy/V5 → generality | **Red if pooled; amber if bounded** | “Generality is limited to named, chain-specific conditions.” |
+| CFD → experiment | **Red** | “Experiments demonstrate deployment feasibility and qualitative open-loop wake modification; quantitative validation remains future work.” |
+
+## 3. Duplicate/correlated evidence
+
+1. Reward DTW and evaluation DTW reuse the same signal family, target, lag convention and often trajectory lineage; they are not independent wake evidence.
+2. Offline SR RMSE is measured on PPO-visited states; it is not closed-loop stability or field performance.
+3. SR long runs, deletion and scaling share the frozen formula, Legacy plant and parent lineage. Deletion is sensitivity, not a new realization.
+4. Steady sweep and SR constant term are correlated by control family and context; the sweep is calibration, not an independent intervention.
+5. CCD mean and phase analyses share one Kármán DRL lineage; different estimands add information, not stochastic replication.
+6. CCD rank stability, singular values, phase reconstructions and POD comparison are views of the same operator/19-cycle set.
+7. V5 seeds 41–45 are repeated stochastic searches in one case, not independent physical experiments; selection remains relevant.
+8. Kan99 regularized and inlet-sensitivity runs are numerical closures of one benchmark; their common lift-sign mismatch is a shared risk.
+9. Literature precedent supports plausibility, not local Re, metric, sign or observability validation.
+
+Use “convergent descriptive evidence under different estimands,” with lineage caveats. Do not say “independent triangulation” without independent parent realization, intervention, estimator and artifact.
+
+## 4. Structural risks
+
+- **Legacy/V5:** Legacy SR/CCD and modern V5 DRL differ in grid, API, inlet/BC, readback, calibration, normalization and smoothing. V5 retained `legacy-policy-v1` evaluation is not simply current native-v2. Never pool their numbers.
+- **Re convention:** Legacy `Re_code` uses `2D`; `re100` means `Re_D=50`. The steady contract uses `Re_D=50` directly. Every comparison must print `Re_code`, `Re_D`, `U0`, `D`, `nu`, chain and inlet.
+- **Action sign/body order:** order is `(front, rear_y_plus, rear_y_minus)`; accepted cloak is `[0,+Omega,-Omega]`, with `(Uw,Vw)=(-omega ry,omega rx)`: base-bleed/gap-jet, not boat-tail. Historical reverse labels are withdrawn. OID/CCD sign disagreement remains unresolved and must be quarantined.
+- **Metric/window:** native Legacy DTW, V5 calibrated DTW, target-normalized DTW, complete-cycle `E_mean`, nearest-snapshot `E_phase8`, steady `E_inf_vector`, quadrature L2 and event metrics are non-equivalent. Print comparator, window, crossings, calibration and status every time.
+- **CCD alias:** validated per-cycle sibling is complete; preferred pinball-inclusive publication is derived and canonical promotion remains pending. Name the exact artifact; do not use “canonical CCD” loosely.
+- **Experiment:** dye/open-loop observations support feasibility and qualitative modification only. No synchronized calibrated PIV/force package exists.
+- **Theory:** potential/MFS is an outer impermeability/reference problem, not rotating no-slip finite-Re physics. Circulation cancellation has a sign conflict with the accepted finite-Re fit; NS CV closure is incomplete.
+
+## 5. Structure: method chapters versus physics questions
+
+### Why SR/CCD/theory chapters fail
+They make three methods look like three independent proofs: SR appears to establish the skeleton, CCD to rediscover it, and theory to explain it. In fact they use non-equivalent estimands and related Legacy Kármán lineage. A reader may infer that SR terms are validated by CCD, or that CCD association is causal. OID would add a method chapter with no current positive result.
+
+### Risks of physics-first organization
+Physics-first is better, but each question can silently merge V5 performance, Legacy SR deletion, CCD mean reduction and steady endpoint. “Why does it work?” can promote the gap-jet hypothesis to mechanism; “is it general?” can convert n=1 demonstrations into a law. Every question needs a ledger row naming chain, estimator, window and status.
+
+### Recommended question order
+1. Can sparse observer-level control make the declared signature/field closer to target? DRL + field L2, with failures.
+2. What control structure is recoverable? Legacy SR, closed-loop validation and deletion.
+3. What is mean versus dynamic? Corrected CCD, explicitly descriptive.
+4. What physical context is compatible? Steady endpoint and short theory constraints; mechanism open.
+5. Where does it fail? Cross-Re/size, seeds, phase mismatch, solver/sign and experiment.
+
+Put a one-page `claim | chain | parent artifact | metric | window | comparator | n | status | prohibited inference` ledger before Results.
+
+## 6. Material disposition
+
+### Retain main text
+- One compact capability panel with exact chain labels and target/control/zero.
+- Reward/signature definition plus independent field metric.
+- Legacy Kármán SR law, contracts and closed-loop validation.
+- SR deletion panel for rear constant dominance under the fixed window.
+- CCD mean/dynamic scalar decomposition, with descriptive and CCD/POD caveats.
+- One steady/theory panel with accepted branch, `s` and outer-reference limitation.
+- Explicit limitations/generalization panel.
+
+### Supplement or downgrade
+- Full V5 11-case/15-run matrix and training histories.
+- n=1 cross-Re/size rows and LR-confounded disturbance-size comparisons.
+- Full SR topology/coefficient/scaling history.
+- Full CCD mode/phase/POD diagnostics.
+- OID equations/tests as method appendix only; no result.
+- Solver manifests/hashes, full metric/phase definitions and experiment apparatus/dye detail.
+- Legacy→V5 migration history and negative routes.
+
+### Delete from mainline
+Positive Illusion SR efficacy/target tracking/necessity/generalization; OID importance/causality; DTW-as-delay; potential circulation as accepted mechanism; boat-tail wording; unqualified Re=100; universal/optimal/causal/stability language; unaudited experiment numbers or digitized plots.
+
+## 7. Eight likely reviewer objections and preventive structure
+
+1. **Proxy reward:** Put reward and independent field metric together; state reward success is not field equivalence.
+2. **Cherry-picked seed:** Show all Re100 seeds, selected-seed rule, retention distribution and failures.
+3. **Inconsistent Re:** Add chain-specific `Re_code/Re_D` contract table.
+4. **In-sample SR:** Make closed-loop Legacy validation primary; label RMSE diagnostic; show failed gates.
+5. **False triangulation:** Share lineage and call constant/dynamic results descriptive convergent indications.
+6. **CCD causality:** State non-paired cycles, action association only, rank stability and POD near-equivalence.
+7. **Solver/sign error:** Expose Kan99 partial pass/lift mismatch, action oracle and withdrawn branch.
+8. **Experiment overclaim:** Label dye as qualitative open-loop feasibility; list missing PIV/force/calibration.
+
+## 8. Offline analyses/tables before writing (≤8, ranked)
+
+1. **Mandatory:** claim/evidence ledger with chain, artifact/hash, metric, comparator, window, n and forbidden inference.
+2. **Mandatory:** separate Legacy/V5 contract table (solver, BC, Re, order/sign, norm/calibration, reward/DTW, field metric and time units).
+3. **Mandatory:** all-five-Re100-seed selection/retention table with VecNormalize identity and field metrics.
+4. **Mandatory:** SR closed-loop table by case/window/comparator for PPO/SR/target/zero, including failed gates and deletion variants; separate offline RMSE.
+5. **High:** metric/window concordance table contrasting native/normalized DTW, `E_mean`, `E_phase8` and steady `E_inf_vector`, including Re400 disagreement.
+6. **High:** constant/dynamic provenance panel with CCD values, ROI/mask/window/cycles/rank and non-pairing caveat beside SR deletion and steady context.
+7. **High:** offline virtual sensor-plane/feature robustness (`x/D=8–12`, centre/outer/all-six signals) if artifacts pass contracts; supports reasonable, not optimal.
+8. **Medium:** solver/sign/CCD-alias audit table (Kan99 mismatch, accepted/reverse actions, sibling/derived CCD identities).
+
+Do not spend time on new CFD, theory closure, OID revival or unsupported experiment analysis.
+
+## 9. Paper boundaries
+
+### Minimal defensible paper
+**Claim:** In a named Legacy Kármán/cloaking setting, sparse wake-signature DRL reduces declared downstream field error versus zero; a symmetry-mapped SR surrogate passes declared closed-loop tests and exposes a dominant tested rear constant component with smaller state-dependent terms; corrected CCD descriptively separates a dominant constant-field contribution from a smaller action-associated residual.
+
+Include exact contracts, separate mean/phase metrics, SR closed-loop/deletion evidence, CCD bounded decomposition, steady/theory context and negative limits. Exclude universal generality, optimal placement, causal mechanism, stability, physical delay, Legacy/V5 equivalence, positive Illusion SR, solver-mechanism closure and quantitative experiment validation.
+
+### Ambitious but defensible paper
+Across a separated V5 capability matrix and a Legacy Kármán interpretation chain, recurring control organization is consistent with a near-constant rear-opposite backbone plus smaller dynamic correction, while breakdown is mapped. This demands complete selection accounting, exact chain labels, all failures, no pooled estimands, and a prominent “bounded organizing pattern, not universal law” warning. It remains moderate-to-high risk because readers will mentally pool chains.
+
+### Recommendation
+Choose the **minimal defensible paper** for the main submission. Retain the ambitious material as a controlled second layer in Supplement/Discussion. If the ambitious version is chosen, abstract/title must use “bounded,” “named-condition,” “descriptive” and “chain-specific,” and must not headline “universal,” “mechanism,” “causal,” “optimal” or “validated across Reynolds number.”
+
+## 10. Final editorial verdict
+
+**Green core:** named-condition Kármán DRL capability plus independent field evaluation; real Legacy SR closed-loop pipeline; physically motivated sparse signature.
+
+**Amber bridge:** SR constant interpretation, steady magnitude correspondence, CCD mean/dynamic organization and cross-condition capability. These are useful organizing evidence, not independent proof of a common mechanism.
+
+**Red bridge:** CCD/theory → causal finite-Re mechanism; pooled Legacy/V5 generality; experiment → quantitative validation; solver benchmark → control mechanism; positive Illusion SR.
+
+Write the paper so the red links are visibly absent. A skeptical JFM editor is more likely to accept a precise negative boundary around an interesting interpretation than a broad story whose strongest arrows require evidence the project explicitly does not possess.

docs/JFM_WYQ/ROUND2_TOP_DOWN/04_TOP_LEVEL_SYNTHESIS.md

@@ -0,0 +1,371 @@
+# JFM Round 2 — Top-level synthesis and freeze recommendation
+
+
+> **2026-08-10 author-ratified revision.** The author's final decisions are frozen in `05_REVISED_STRUCTURE_FREEZE.md` and supersede the affected recommendations below without changing their evidence status. In particular, the old title in §3, the capability-only treatment of late cases in §§4–5, the Kármán → steady narrative ordering, the Fig. 1 composition, and the index/card-style Round-3 schema in §12 are superseded. The retained evidence audit, claim ceiling, Legacy/V5 separation, positive-SR boundary, CCD/OID cautions and compact CFD-validation allocation remain in force.
+
+> **文档角色。** 顶层结构综合与作者讨论底稿，不是 manuscript prose。本文基于 Round 2 `01`–`03`、Round 1 `01`–`08`、coverage audit A7–A13、Nowledge Mem Context/Working Memory与定向 closure/manuscript-direction recall，并回读 DRL/SR/CCD/steady handoff与 claims、CelerisLab validation dossier、wake-L2/sensor dossier。未开展新文献检索、CFD、训练或实验分析。仓库 authority、manifest 与 immutable artifact 始终高于本综合。
+
+## 0. 单一推荐
+
+冻结一个**“能力先行、Kármán 深挖、物理问题组织、边界显式”**的结构：
+
+`惊艳但有合同标签的能力钩子 → 任务/测量/数值合同 → reward与独立L2检验 → 持续旋转分量 → mean/dynamic场分解与CCD → steady/theory约束 → 有限综合与失败边界`。
+
+不采用“DRL / SR / CCD / theory”四个平行方法筒仓，也不采用完整 case gallery。主文只深挖 **Legacy Kármán `re_code=100`（`Re_D=50`）**；V5 是独立的发现/保持与能力支持链，绝不与 Legacy 数值池化。全文最高物理结论是：**多种非等价估计量在该命名条件下共同支持一种“near-constant persistent rotation + smaller dynamic correction”的受限组织方式；它不是已闭合机制、普适规律或稳定性结论。**
+
+## 1. Editorial verdict：80% minimal core + 20% controlled ambitious outer layer
+
+### 1.1 精确比例
+
+采用 **80:20** 的论证权重：
+
+- **80% minimal core**：命名的 Legacy Kármán 主链；稀疏 signature/reward 与独立 field-L2；SR 的原 plant 闭环重部署和固定窗口 term ranking；corrected mean/dynamic estimand；CCD/POD 的描述性结果；所有合同、比较器与非主张。
+- **20% controlled ambitious outer layer**：V5 五 seed discovery/retention 支持与少量代表性跨 case 能力；steady `Re_D=50` 低亏损 endpoint 和理论 sign boundary；定性实验可行性；“constant + dynamic”作为讨论层组织假说。
+
+这不是把 20% 做成第二篇论文。外层材料只允许完成三件事：证明问题值得看、显示该组织并非只来自一张图、明确它在哪里失效。它不得改变 core 的 claim ceiling。
+
+### 1.2 为什么不是更激进或更保守
+
+- 若外层超过约 25%，读者会自然池化 Legacy/V5、把 SR/CCD/steady 当作三重独立机制证明，并把 n=1 case 与 qualitative experiment 读成 generality/validation。
+- 若外层低于约 15%，文章会退化为“一个 Legacy policy 的后验解释”，浪费 V5 多 seed、视觉能力、steady endpoint 和失败边界对 JFM 读者的价值。
+- 80:20 允许开头有足够的视觉冲击，同时把约四分之三的结果空间留给 reward、SR、field decomposition 与 Kármán physics。
+
+### 1.3 三路分歧的裁决
+
+1. **minimal vs ambitious**：minimal 是主干，ambitious 只作受控外层；不并列。
+2. **方法节 vs 物理问题节**：一级标题全部用物理问题/论证功能命名；SR、CCD、theory 仅作为二级节中的工具与证据来源。
+3. **“skeleton”是否进标题**：**不进推荐标题**。它可在正文被严格定义为“compact organizing skeleton”并在 Discussion 复现；当前证据只支持 dominant tested element 与 descriptive organization，标题中的 skeleton 会被编辑和审稿人理解成已识别且较稳健的物理结构。
+
+## 2. 一句话 paper identity 与 claim ceiling
+
+- **Question：** 在具有分离和周期脱涡的中等 Reynolds 数 fluidic pinball 中，稀疏下游 signature 驱动的学习控制能否被约化为一个持续旋转分量与较小动态修正，并由闭环 law、场分解和稳态约束在命名条件下共同限定？
+- **Central claim：** 对命名的 Legacy Kármán cloaking 合同，SR 闭环检验把持续的后圆柱反向旋转识别为最大 tested contribution，而 corrected field analysis 显示 constant-mean 分量占该 ROI 中 zero-to-DRL 误差降低的大部分，剩余较小 residual 是 phase-coherent、action-associated 且低秩的；steady 结果仅提供相容的量级和边界语境。
+- **Novelty：** 不是“DRL 首次控制 wake”，而是把**原 plant 闭环可执行的稀疏控制律、独立场误差分解、action-associated residual 与失败的理论解释**放在同一套显式 evidence contracts 下，形成可证伪的 bounded interpretation。
+- **Reader takeaway：** 该命名控制器的主要可测改善与持续后部反向旋转相联系，动态反馈提供较小但非零、相位组织的修正；这是一种紧凑组织，不是普适控制定律。
+- **Claim ceiling：** 最高可写 `consistent with`, `organizes`, `accounts for the measured error reduction under the declared estimand`, `dominant tested element`, `phase-coherent and action-associated`。不得升级为 `causes`, `mechanism`, `restores momentum`, `necessary/sufficient`, `optimal`, `stable`, `robust`, `general`, `universal`, `Legacy–V5 equivalent` 或 `experimentally validated`。
+
+“Cloaking”必须在首次出现时定义为**相对于指定 target/background 的 observer/field-space 接近**，不是 invisibility、全场恒等或跨观察者隐身。
+
+## 3. Working title
+
+### 推荐标题
+
+**Interpreting learned wake-signature cloaking in a fluidic pinball: persistent rotation and dynamic correction**
+
+理由：`wake-signature cloaking` 保留项目辨识度并限定 estimand；`interpreting` 与证据层级匹配；`persistent rotation and dynamic correction` 传达文章核心，但不预先宣判二者为唯一机制或普适 skeleton。
+
+### 有排序的备选
+
+1. **A bounded physical decomposition of learned wake-signature control in a fluidic pinball**  
+   最安全的备选；`bounded` 直接压住 claim，但 `physical decomposition` 可能让读者期待更严格的动力学正交分解。
+2. **A near-constant rotation skeleton in learned cloaking control of a fluidic pinball**  
+   最有记忆点；仅当结构冻结前的 ledger、SR deletion、CCD provenance 与 Legacy/V5 标签全部通过，且作者接受更高审稿风险时使用。
+3. **From sparse wake signatures to persistent-rotation control of a fluidic pinball**  
+   强调 measurement-to-action 路径；但弱化 smaller dynamic correction，容易被读成纯 constant-control paper。
+4. **Sparse-sensor reinforcement learning for wake-signature matching in a fluidic pinball**  
+   最保守；证据完全承受，但过弱，遮蔽 SR/CCD/steady 的真正新意，容易被归类为常规 DRL capability paper。
+
+### 词强度裁决
+
+- **不用过强词**：`mechanism`, `causal`, `universal`, `robust`, `optimal`, `stability`, `momentum restoration`, `experimentally validated` 都越过证据上限。
+- **推荐标题不使用 skeleton**：不是否定这一概念，而是把它留给正文定义、检验和限缩；标题不应把 amber bridge 写成 green result。
+- **不用过弱的纯 DRL 标题作为首选**：它会让编辑期待算法/训练创新，而文章最强贡献实际是受限的物理解释与证据纪律。
+
+## 4. 推荐最终一级/二级目录与空间预算
+
+规划基准：约 **8,500–9,500 word-equivalents，24–27 个紧凑 LaTeX pages（含主图/表/方程，不含 references/supplement）**。下表文字比例总和为 **100%**。页数是含本节图表占位的编辑预算，不是期刊限制。
+
+| 一级/二级目录 | 文字比例 | 约页数 | 物理任务 | 核心证据 | 主图/表/方程 | 主张上限 | 向下一节桥 |
+|---|---:|---:|---|---|---|---|---|
+| **1. Introduction: from visibility vocabulary to nonlinear wake signatures** | **10%** | 2.0–2.5 | 五段完成：定义 signature cloak；说明 nonlinear wake 与 linear cloak 不等价；pinball/DRL gap；解释为何需要 law + field audit；列贡献与限制 | Round1 literature index；JFM structural dossiers | Fig. 1 在文首被引用；不设历史大图 | 只说 linear literature 提供 vocabulary；不说连续物理谱系或 first | “先看控制能做到什么，再说明它在什么合同下成立” |
+| 1.1 Declared observer-space cloaking | 3% |  | 背景/target/zero 的定义 | target/zero/controlled contracts | 1 个简短 objective equation | declared-space approach only | 进入 nonlinear plant |
+| 1.2 Why a fluidic pinball is difficult and useful | 3% |  | separation、periodicity、symmetry/multi-attractor context | pinball literature | — | benchmark motivation, not project dynamics proof | 进入 sparse learning gap |
+| 1.3 Gap and contributions | 4% |  | 从 capability 到可执行 law 与场审计 | 本项目 authority | contribution bullets | bounded named-case interpretation | 引出视觉结果 |
+| **2. Phenomenology first: what the learned control can do** | **12%** | 3.0–3.5 | 先展示惊艳能力，但只用一个 funnel：headline Re100 → 2–3 个 representative named cases → 明确深挖选择 | Legacy/V5 flow roles、DTW、L2、case-specific metrics；失败/退化行 | **Fig. 1**, **Table 1** | named-condition capability；不做 gallery/generalization | “视觉改善是否只是 reward proxy，需先固定合同与独立指标” |
+| 2.1 Headline Kármán cloak | 5% |  | target/zero/controlled signature 与 field 的直接视觉比较 | Legacy principal role；可旁列 V5 support | Fig. 1a–d | observer/field error reduced under named comparator | 进入 breadth |
+| 2.2 Representative breadth and breakdown | 4% |  | 只放 vortex、`075` illusion 或 steady 中最能承担不同任务者；同时给 Re400/大 illusion 退化 | case-specific DTW/L2；V5 n/status | Fig. 1e–h；Table 1 compact rows | demonstration, not law | 解释为何选 Re100 |
+| 2.3 Why Kármán Re100 is the principal case | 3% |  | 说明其为 DRL/SR/CCD 的证据交集 | chain map | Table 1 chain/status | evidence intersection only | 进入合同/方法 |
+| **3. Problem, measurements and evidence contracts** | **15%** | 3.5–4.0 | 把 plant、action sign、sensors、reward、metrics、solver与 Legacy/V5 边界一次固定；Methods 不后置 | executable contracts、validation dossier、L2 dossier | **Fig. 2**, **Table 2**, Eq. 1–4 | methods/qualification only；solver qualification 不证明控制物理 | “在这些合同下检验 reward 是否对应扩展场改善” |
+| 3.1 Geometry, actuation and chain-specific Reynolds conventions | 4% |  | body order、wall law、`Re_code/Re_D`、Legacy/V5 | DRL/steady contracts | Fig. 2a–c；Eq. Re/action | exact contract | 进入 sensing |
+| 3.2 Sparse observations and reward | 4% |  | force + six velocity channels，DTW 的训练角色 | reward code；sensor rationale | Fig. 2d；Eq. reward/DTW summary | physically motivated, not optimal/observable | 进入 independent metrics |
+| 3.3 Independent field metrics and case-specific semantics | 4% |  | `E_mean`, `E_phase8`, L2/DTW分工；event/steady不同语义 | wake-L2 evaluator | Eq. L2/eta；Table 2 | geometry-guarded ROI；phase8 diagnostic | 进入 numerics |
+| 3.4 Numerical qualification and reproducibility boundary | 3% | 0.5–0.75 页纯文字等价 | 只交代所用配置、sensor readback、Sah04 pass、Kan99 partial pass与 Legacy 独立链 | 两份 validation dossier/manifest | Table 2 一角或 supplement pointer | selected-observable qualification only | 转入 reward–field 对照 |
+| **4. From reward success to field success** | **11%** | 2.5–3.0 | 重点解释 reward 的物理选择，并用 L2 反证“低 DTW=全场相同”；展示 seed selection/retention | all-five V5 Re100 seeds；Legacy/V5 separated DTW/L2；mean/phase disagreement | **Fig. 3**, Eq. 5 | reward/signature improvement accompanied by independent field improvement；不说 observability/optimality | “若性能真实，动作律本身是否复杂？” |
+| 4.1 What each reward term asks the flow to do | 3% |  | force balance 与 temporal signature 分工 | reward components | Fig. 3a | design rationale | 进入 metric comparison |
+| 4.2 DTW and L2: agreement and disagreement | 5% |  | L2 为 JFM 主证据，DTW 为 complementary signature metric；突出 Re400 mean/phase mismatch | canonical summary | Fig. 3b–d | association across metrics, not identity | 进入 seed/provenance |
+| 4.3 Discovery, selection and retention | 3% |  | 五 seed、same-selection VecNormalize、late retention | V5 retained artifacts | Fig. 3e；Table 1 | repeated discovery, seed-dependent retention | 进入 law reduction |
+| **5. How much of the learned action is persistent?** | **17%** | 4.0–4.5 | 围绕物理问题组织 SR：从 PPO 行为到原 Legacy plant 的可执行 sparse law，再做 term deletion | Stage1→2→3；canonical Kármán law；PPO/SR/zero；deletion/scaling；steady magnitude correspondence仅作末端 context | **Fig. 4**, **Table 3**, Eq. 6–7 | symmetry-mapped surrogate passes named closed-loop gates；rear constant is largest tested contribution in declared window | “动作中的 constant 是否对应场改善的大部分？” |
+| 5.1 Recovering an executable sparse law | 5% |  | causal pairing、imposed symmetry、CFD arbiter | SR authority | Fig. 4a；Eq. G map | surrogate, not unique/global law | 进入 formula |
+| 5.2 Persistent rear counter-rotation and state-dependent terms | 6% |  | 展示 front/rear law、准确 action order/sign | canonical formula | Fig. 4b–c；Eq. SR law | persistent dominant tested element；feedback secondary but nonzero | 进入 closed-loop |
+| 5.3 Closed-loop arbitration and bounded deletion | 6% |  | PPO/SR/zero、40/200/400 window区别、failed gates | Legacy runs/tables | Fig. 4d–f；Table 3 | parent-relative sensitivity, not necessity/sufficiency | 进入 field decomposition |
+| **6. What does the persistent component account for, and what remains dynamic?** | **18%** | 4.5–5.0 | 把 corrected mean decomposition 与 CCD 放在同一物理问题下，但不混淆 estimand；这是文章最大结果节 | zero/constant/DRL ROI errors；93.42/6.58；19×10 residual；rank-3；CCD/POD principal cosines | **Fig. 5–6**, Eq. 8–10 | constant mean accounts for most measured error reduction in exact ROI/window；residual phase-coherent/action-associated；CCD not causal/superior | “这种 constant recurrence 有何 steady 物理语境？” |
+| 6.1 Constant mean versus DRL mean | 7% |  | 三角色场与 additive scalar ledger | corrected ROI mean artifact | Fig. 5；Eq. mean identity | `accounts for measured reduction`，不是 actuator causal effect | 进入 residual |
+| 6.2 A separately centred dynamic residual | 4% |  | 明确非 paired counterfactual，定义 cycle-template residual | corrected CCD contract | Fig. 6a；Eq. residual | reference residual only | 进入 low-rank organization |
+| 6.3 Action-associated low-rank organization | 7% |  | rank-3 stability、symmetry coordinates、phase reconstruction、POD near-equivalence | CCD/POD publication | Fig. 6b–f；Eq. operator | descriptive action association; only subspace stable | 进入 steady context |
+| **7. What steady physics is compatible with the recurring rotation?** | **11%** | 2.5–3.0 | 用 steady endpoint、sign oracle 和失败 theory 约束解释；不承担 mechanism closure | accepted `[0,+,-]`, `s=3.55`, `E_inf_vector`; reverse mismatch；potential sign failure；partial NS ledger | **Fig. 7**, Eq. 11–12 | bounded free-slip endpoint and outer-reference constraint；gap/base-bleed is hypothesis | “把相容观察与未闭合箭头集中综合” |
+| 7.1 A low-deficit constant-rotation endpoint | 4% |  | direct profile与L2，accepted/reverse标签 | steady v3b | Fig. 7a–c；Eq. `s,E_inf` | settling-qualified endpoint, not optimum/stability | 进入 sign/theory |
+| 7.2 Rotation sign and the gap-facing motion | 3% |  | 显式 cardinal wall velocities，消灭 boat-tail误读 | sign oracle | Fig. 7d | base-bleed/gap-jet family wording only | 进入 theory boundary |
+| 7.3 Outer theory and the failed closure route | 4% |  | one-circle impermeability、rear dipole、`g` sign conflict、partial ledger | theory/NS authority | Fig. 7e–f；短 outer-reference equation | theory constrains; does not explain finite-Re mechanism | 进入 synthesis |
+| **8. Bounded synthesis, failures and outlook** | **6%** | 1.5–2.0 | 将 SR/field/CCD/steady 画成“相容但不等价”的证据图；列 failure、experiment status 与 decisive future tests | claim ledger；negative routes；qualitative experiment status | **Fig. 8**, **Table 4** | candidate organization, not universal law | 结束于可证伪的下一步，而非应用夸张 |
+| 8.1 Near-constant plus dynamic: what is and is not connected | 3% |  | chain/estimand/lineage map | cross-package ledgers | Fig. 8 | bounded organizing pattern | 进入 limits |
+| 8.2 Failure envelope and qualitative experiment | 2% |  | cross-Re/phase failure、Illusion SR negative、experiment feasibility | retained negatives | Table 4；实验仅可作 inset（有 provenance 才用） | no generality/validation | 进入 conclusion |
+| 8.3 Conclusions and decisive tests | 1% |  | 4–5条结论+matched intervention/NS closure需求 | evidence stress test | — | 重述 claim ceiling | — |
+| **Total** | **100%** | **24–27** |  |  |  |  |  |
+
+### Introduction 线性 cloak 历史硬上限
+
+Introduction 仅允许 **1 个功能段、约 180–250 words（正文总字数约 2–3%）** 处理 optical/active linear/water-wave cloak 与 illusion vocabulary。它必须以“not a Navier–Stokes equivalence”结束，随后立即进入 finite-Re wake、active hydrodynamic precedent、pinball 与 sparse-control gap。不得展开 science-fiction、metamaterial 分类史或应用场景目录。
+
+### CFD validation 空间裁决
+
+不接受 1.5–2.5 页独立 validation section。当前文章中 CFD validation 是支撑合同而非科学主角，主文控制在 **0.5–0.75 页 + Table 2 的若干行**；Kan99 mean-lift sign mismatch 必须可见。完整 K2/S2 配置、bands、hashes、smoke/partial matrix 放 supplement。
+
+## 5. 八幅主图 storyboard
+
+| 图 | Storyboard（建议 panels） | 现有数据支持 | 后续离线图/表需求 |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| **Fig. 1 Capability before explanation** | (a–c) Kármán target/zero/controlled 同色标 vorticity/velocity；(d) 三探针 signature；(e) vortex event；(f) `075` Illusion PPO；(g) steady accepted；(h) 一个明确 degradation/failure 小面板 | reproduction plots/manifests；periodic/event/late roles；V5/Legacy retained views | 统一坐标/色标/role/chain/case/seed/phase标签；核对每个 panel 的 raw manifest/hash；Vortex/Illusion若 metric contract 不完整，只作视觉 named demo，不给统一效率条 |
+| **Fig. 2 Plant and evidence contracts** | (a) geometry/body order；(b) wall-sign cardinal arrows；(c) sensors/ROI；(d) `q_target/q_zero/q_constant/q_DRL` roles；(e) Legacy/V5 两条不相交 provenance lanes | geometry/contract code；sensor dossier；role docs | 新绘 schematic；从合同自动导出坐标/Re/action sign；不依赖 CFD |
+| **Fig. 3 What was optimized vs what improved** | (a) reward components；(b) DTW vs `E_mean`；(c) `E_phase8`与frequency/period regularity；(d) Re400 mean/phase disagreement；(e) Re100 five-seed best vs late retention with selected normalizer | retained V5 tables；canonical wake-L2 summary | 必须先完成 five-seed/VecNormalize table 与 metric concordance；不拟合跨 case 通用趋势线 |
+| **Fig. 4 Executable sparse law** | (a) Stage1→2→3/CFD arbiter；(b) canonical formula tree；(c) PPO/SR action traces；(d) PPO/SR/zero signature；(e) constant deletion；(f) feedback/front deletion与failed gate | SR plotting package、telemetry、deletion tables | 统一 window/comparator；offline RMSE 与 closed-loop metric 分栏；exact formula/hash footnote |
+| **Fig. 5 How much the persistent component accounts for** | target/zero/constant/DRL mean fields；zero→constant与constant→DRL difference；ROI/mask inset；`E={0.4694,0.1110,0.0858}` 与 93.42/6.58 additive bar | corrected ROI mean artifact | 从 machine redraw fields 重绘，不 digitize PNG；每个 panel 印 ROI/common-mask/window/Legacy lineage；bar 明确是 error-difference share 非 energy/causal share |
+| **Fig. 6 What remains dynamic** | (a) residual definition；(b) singular strengths/rank checks；(c–d) rear-symmetric/antisymmetric action coordinates and modes；(e) four phase reconstructions；(f) CCD vs raw POD principal cosines | preferred pinball-inclusive CCD publication、plot_data | 解决 manuscript-facing canonical designation；保留 source sibling identity；简化现有四组图为一张主图，其余敏感性进 supplement |
+| **Fig. 7 Steady context and theory boundary** | (a) stationary/accepted/reverse profiles；(b) `E_inf_vector(s)` nearby points；(c) accepted field；(d) wall sign/gap-facing arrows；(e) outer potential reference；(f) `g_opt` vs descriptive `g` sign conflict + incomplete NS ledger badge | steady current display/CSV、theory artifacts、partial ledger | 重绘 accepted/reverse时显式标注 amplitude mismatch；不得画成机制闭环；MFS若 validation 未完成，只展示最短 one-circle/outer-reference结果，不展示“精美但未验证”MFS场 |
+| **Fig. 8 Integrated claim map and failure envelope** | 中心为 `persistent + dynamic`；四周分别 SR estimand、mean-field estimand、CCD association、steady endpoint；实线=定义/同链，虚线=compatible observation，断线=unresolved mechanism；侧栏列 Re400、Illusion SR、OID、experiment limits | Round1/2 ledgers | 新绘 evidence graph；每条边标 chain/metric/status；实验图片只有在 raw provenance 核实后作为小 inset，否则不进主图 |
+
+**实验图裁决：** 不预留第九幅主图。若 raw dye image/video、condition、frame rate/scale 与 trial provenance 在出图前可核实，可把一张小 inset 放 Fig. 8；否则实验全部进 supplement。没有同步 PIV/force 时，任何情况下都不把实验置于 headline Fig. 1。
+
+## 6. Tables 与 equation budget
+
+### 6.1 主文 tables（4个）
+
+1. **Table 1 — Capability and evidence status.** 只列 6–8 个代表行：case、chain、Re convention、seed/n、target/zero、DTW、L2 semantic、status、failure。完整 11-case/15-run 与 Legacy roles 进 supplement。
+2. **Table 2 — Plant/solver/metric contracts.** Legacy 与 V5 并排但绝不合并：grid/BC、`Re_code/Re_D`、body/action sign、observation order、normalization、reward/DTW、field metric、solver qualification状态。CFD validation 数字只保留 Sah04 S2 pass 与 Kan99 K2 partial pass摘要。
+3. **Table 3 — SR law and closed-loop evidence.** formula identity、case/window、PPO/SR/zero、deletion variant、status与 prohibited inference；offline RMSE 单列为 diagnostic。
+4. **Table 4 — Cross-analysis claim ledger.** `claim | chain | parent artifact | estimand | comparator/window/n | status | strongest wording | prohibited inference`，同时承担 final limitations table。
+
+### 6.2 Equation budget
+
+主文 **12 个 numbered equations 上限**，其中只有 8–10 个需要独立展示；其余可行内或合并：
+
+1. `Re_D` 与 Legacy `Re_code` 映射；
+2. wall velocity/action sign 与 `s`；
+3. sparse objective/reward（只保留物理组成，不展开 PPO）；
+4. DTW role 的简式或定义性引用；
+5. registered field RMS 与 `eta`；
+6. SR reflection map；
+7. canonical SR law；
+8. mean-field additive identity与 `E_r`；
+9. separately centered dynamic residual；
+10. weighted CCD operator/mode normalization；
+11. steady `E_inf_vector`；
+12. one-circle/outer dipole或 incomplete NS ledger（二选一主文，另一项 supplement）。
+
+Supplement 放：DTW dynamic programming recursion、PPO objective、完整 SR feature library、CCD/POD代数细节、MFS collocation/images/multipoles、完整 NS CV identity、phase extraction、mask/quadrature实现。Equation 数量服务于论证，不为展示理论深度而扩张。
+
+## 7. Main text vs supplement
+
+### 7.1 Main text 必须保留
+
+- cloak/signature 的精确定义与 named comparator；
+- 一张 capability hook，含至少一个失败/退化信号；
+- Legacy/V5、`Re_code/Re_D`、body order/action sign 的可见合同；
+- reward与DTW的物理角色，以及 L2 为独立主要 field evidence；
+- Re100 五 seed selection/retention 的最小完整交代；
+- canonical Legacy Kármán SR law、imposed symmetry、Stage-3 closed-loop arbiter；
+- rear constant deletion与“dominant tested”边界；
+- zero/constant/DRL mean decomposition及93.42/6.58的精确 estimand；
+- corrected residual、rank-3、action association与POD near-equivalence；
+- steady accepted branch、`s=3.55` endpoint、wrong-sign/reverse与potential sign failure；
+- Kan99 partial pass、Illusion SR negative、OID claim-free、experiment qualitative 的短限制；
+- 一页 cross-analysis claim ledger。
+
+### 7.2 Supplement
+
+- V5 全 11-case/15-run matrix、所有 seeds/curves/checkpoints/normalizers、selection细节；
+- Legacy/V5完整 solver/config/API/readback/migration合同与hash ledger；
+- periodic Kármán/Illusion的完整 native/normalized DTW、`E_mean/E_phase8`、phase/frequency diagnostics；
+- Vortex event L2、Erase mean L2（只有合法 exact roles 时）、steady full profiles/L2；
+- SR 全 topology、feature library、fit/split/provenance、per-case coefficients、200/400/named extension、all deletion/scaling、failed gates；
+- CCD 全 domain/mask/bin/origin/LOCO sensitivity、全部 modes/phase/POD plots、wake-only sibling与pinball-inclusive派生关系；
+- OID 只作为 method/reset/negative audit appendix，不放 positive result；
+- steady sweep/reverse细节、MFS validation、Laurent/one-circle checks、partial NS diagnostics与所有 open gates；
+- CFD K2/S2完整 qualification、bands、hashes、smoke说明；
+- experiment apparatus、raw dye sequence、conditions与 limitations（若 provenance 可核实）；
+- archive/negative-route、exclusion、artifact-path/hash与claim-status ledgers。
+
+### 7.3 OOD/OID裁决
+
+- **OOD（若指 out-of-distribution/generalization）**：不设一级/二级主结果节；只在 capability Table 1 和 Section 8 failure envelope 中占约 0.25–0.5 页。n=1 cross-Re/size 不构成 OOD law。
+- **OID**：不设结果节，不占主图；主文最多 2–4 句说明 active core claim-free、旧路线为何不能承担机制证据。方法方程与 reset history 进 supplement。
+
+## 8. Legacy / V5 的具体呈现语言与布局
+
+### 8.1 固定语言
+
+首次出现时使用：
+
+- **Legacy analysis chain**：`Legacy Kármán re_code=100 (Re_D=50)`；支持 principal SR closed-loop、corrected mean/CCD 与标准化 Target/PPO/SR/Zero roles。
+- **V5 support chain**：`CelerisLab V5 Kármán code-Re100 (Re_D=50 under its stated convention)`；支持现代 solver/context、五 seed discovery/retention 与 named-condition capability。
+
+推荐句式：
+
+> LegacyCelerisLab and CelerisLab V5 are treated as separate evidence chains. Their geometry, boundary conditions, APIs, readback, normalization/calibration and retained-policy contracts differ; no numerical pooling or equivalence is assumed.
+
+> The Legacy chain is used for the principal policy-reduction and field-interpretation analysis, whereas V5 supplies independent support on policy discovery, retention and named-condition capability.
+
+### 8.2 固定布局
+
+- 所有混合 figure 采用两条水平泳道或明显边框：**Legacy analysis** / **V5 support**。
+- 不在同一回归线、均值、error bar 或颜色连续谱中混合两链；若同一 panel 显示，marker shape 与背景带必须同时区分。
+- Table 2 固定双栏；每个数值行打印 solver/config、Re定义、role、seed/n、metric/window。
+- 章节顺序上先用 V5/representative cases 做 capability hook，再明确“从此处起的深分析回到 Legacy Re100”；Section 7 steady 再次标明 V5 free-slip 独立 contract。
+- 不用 `validation across implementations`、`reproduction of Legacy`、`consistent numerical continuation`。可用 `separate supporting chain`, `contract-driven rewrite`, `qualitatively compatible at named scope`。
+
+### 8.3 V5不能做的事
+
+V5不能 rescue Legacy SR、为 CCD 提供 independent replication、把 Illusion SR 负结果改写为正、证明 steady mechanism、或把五 seed policy search 变成物理独立实验。V5 late retention 必须写成 seed-dependent；非 Re100 case 大多 n=1。
+
+## 9. 八项 offline 工作重新排程
+
+这里严格重排 pressure-test 的八项，不新增第九项。
+
+### A. 结构冻结前必要
+
+1. **Claim/evidence ledger**：`claim | chain | artifact/hash | metric | comparator | window | n | status | forbidden inference`。  
+   决定哪些箭头可进入目录、abstract和标题；未完成不得冻结 Section 5–8 的措辞。
+2. **Legacy/V5 contract table**：solver、BC、Re、body/action sign、normalization/calibration、reward/DTW、field metric、time units。  
+   决定 Figure 2/Table 2 与所有跨链桥是否成立。
+3. **All-five Re100 seed selection/retention table**：same-selection `VecNormalize` identity、best/late、field metrics、selected-seed rule。  
+   防止 capability hook 被批评为 cherry-picking。
+4. **SR closed-loop table**：PPO/SR/target/zero、case/window、failed gates、deletion variants，offline RMSE 独立列。  
+   决定 “executable sparse law” 与 “dominant tested” 是否能进入 central claim。
+
+### B. 写正文前完成
+
+5. **Metric/window concordance table**：native/normalized DTW、`E_mean`、`E_phase8`、steady `E_inf_vector`，突出 Re400 disagreement。  
+   用于统一术语，防止正文中把不同指标互换。
+6. **Solver/sign/CCD-alias audit table**：Kan99 sign mismatch、accepted/reverse action、OID/CCD sign conflict、validated sibling与pinball-inclusive publication身份。  
+   用于消除 caption 与 methods 中最危险的 provenance/sign 错误。
+
+### C. 出图前完成
+
+7. **Constant/dynamic provenance panel ledger**：CCD values、ROI/mask/window/cycles/rank/non-pairing caveat，与 SR deletion和steady context并排但不合并。  
+   这是 Fig. 5–8 的 source-of-truth；必须先于视觉合成。
+
+### D. 可选
+
+8. **Offline virtual sensor-plane/feature robustness**：`x/D=8–12`、centre/outer/all-six。  
+   只在作者/审稿人需要“placement reasonable”之外的项目内 robustness 时做；它不能建立 optimality，不应阻塞结构或正文。
+
+## 10. 不纳入文章的内容
+
+| 不纳入主线 | 理由 |
+|---|---|
+| positive Illusion SR tracking/efficacy/generalization/term necessity | standardized long-window结果接近 physical zero，当前为 historical/negative |
+| OID importance、control authority、causality或active scene result | active OID 是 claim-free method core，旧 force gates失败且action受feedback混杂 |
+| old temporal/phase CCD、response lag、CCD superiority | 已被 corrected cycle-template route取代；当前只能描述association，POD子空间近等价 |
+| potential circulation cancellation作为finite-Re机制 | `g` sign冲突；Euler impermeability不提供 rotating no-slip closure |
+| closed momentum/energy restoration、gap jet causes cloak | NS ledger不完整，缺matched intervention与wall-resolved closure |
+| boat-tail表述 | accepted `[0,+,-]` wall motion 对应 gap-facing downstream motion，是base-bleed/gap-jet family，不是已证明boat-tail |
+| universal/continuous Re或size law | 大多数跨条件 n=1，metrics/learning rate/contracts不统一 |
+| full case/seed gallery、所有训练曲线 | 稀释Kármán深分析并制造gallery paper；放supplement |
+| OOD/OID独立一级节 | 证据角色小且易过度承诺；仅限failure/method boundary |
+| 1.5–2.5页 CFD validation chapter | solver在本文角色小；当前qualification partial且不证明control physics |
+| 长线性 cloak/metamaterial史 | 只提供vocabulary，拖延nonlinear gap并暗示错误等价 |
+| seals、marine structures、sediment、defence/low-observability应用 | 已被作者/导师路线否决或证据不足；应用只留一句前瞻 |
+| quantitative experimental efficacy、PIV/force agreement | 无完整同步校准包；dye仅支持qualitative open-loop feasibility |
+| archival transfer analyses与计划中的 parity/post-fix retraining | archive/plans不是当前科学authority |
+| 未完成MFS精美场图或未闭合CV图 | 易把计算 capability 误读为 validated explanation |
+
+负结果不等于删除：Re400 phase failure、Illusion SR collapse、Kan99 lift sign、potential sign failure与实验限制必须在主文短而可见；其完整材料进 supplement。
+
+## 11. 只需作者决定的四个问题
+
+### Q1. 标题是否允许使用 “skeleton”？
+
+- **明确推荐：** 不用于工作标题；保留为 Section 8 的定义性术语。
+- **影响：** 使用会显著提高辨识度，也会把审稿预期从 bounded interpretation 提升到结构唯一性、跨条件稳健性和物理闭合。
+- **默认选项：** 采用推荐标题 *Interpreting learned wake-signature cloaking...*；只有四项结构冻结前 offline ledger 全部通过且作者主动接受更高风险，才切换备选2。
+
+### Q2. 文章的首要名词是 “cloaking” 还是 “wake-signature matching”？
+
+- **明确推荐：** 标题和引言采用 `wake-signature cloaking`，方法定义为 declared target/background matching；表格与指标处优先用 `signature/field error`。
+- **影响：** 纯 `cloaking` 更醒目但容易被要求全场/多观察者等价；纯 `matching` 最安全但失去项目概念新意。
+- **默认选项：** 双层用法：概念层 `wake-signature cloaking`，定量层 `target-relative signature/field matching`。
+
+### Q3. headline capability 图是否保留一个 Illusion PPO panel？
+
+- **明确推荐：** 保留一个明确标注 `PPO capability; no positive SR claim` 的 `075` Illusion panel；不进入后续深分析。
+- **影响：** 保留可兑现“先展示惊艳能力”和 cloak/illusion项目范围，但会增加读者误以为 Illusion SR/跨size是本文主张的风险；删除则文章更聚焦但视觉范围变窄。
+- **默认选项：** 保留单 panel + Table 1 单行，完整 Illusion cases、saturation和negative SR进 supplement/limits。
+
+### Q4. manuscript-facing CCD package 采用哪个正式称呼？
+
+- **明确推荐：** 主文图采用 pinball-inclusive preferred reader publication，但在 caption/ledger 中把 validated wake-only per-cycle sibling列为 primary source lineage；不要把两者合称一个“canonical result”。
+- **影响：** 选择决定 Fig. 6 的可重绘入口、artifact citation与审稿复现路径；错误合并会掩盖 derived-vs-primary关系。
+- **默认选项：** 在用户完成 canonical-promotion choice 前，使用 `preferred pinball-inclusive derived publication, bound to the validated per-cycle source`，不写 `canonical CCD`。
+
+实验是否进主文**不作为作者偏好问题**：由 raw image provenance gate 决定；通过则 Fig. 8 inset，不通过则 supplement。其余 case、metric、sign、claim ceiling 均由证据判断，不推给作者。
+
+## 12. Round 3：先做 section-level evidence briefs，不直接写全文
+
+Round 3 应按本目录生成 **8 个 section-level evidence briefs**，每个 brief 是可审计的“写作接口”，不是段落草稿。建议文件与责任如下：
+
+1. `R3_01_INTRO_AND_GAP_BRIEF.md`
+2. `R3_02_CAPABILITY_BRIEF.md`
+3. `R3_03_CONTRACTS_AND_METHODS_BRIEF.md`
+4. `R3_04_REWARD_TO_FIELD_BRIEF.md`
+5. `R3_05_PERSISTENT_ACTION_BRIEF.md`
+6. `R3_06_MEAN_DYNAMIC_CCD_BRIEF.md`
+7. `R3_07_STEADY_CONTEXT_BRIEF.md`
+8. `R3_08_SYNTHESIS_LIMITS_BRIEF.md`
+
+### 每个 brief 的固定 schema
+
+- **Section question / one-sentence answer**：只写本节要回答的物理问题与当前最强答案。
+- **Claim ladder**：`green / amber / red`，每条 claim 给 strongest wording 与 prohibited wording。
+- **Evidence cards**：每张卡必须含 `chain, case/seed/role, artifact/hash, metric/estimand, comparator, window, n, status, exact number`。
+- **Lineage/correlation note**：指出哪些证据共享 parent realization、不是独立重复。
+- **Required equations**：只列方程ID、定义目的、变量合同和放主文/补充的理由。
+- **Figure/table panel contract**：panel question、source arrays、色标/ROI/mask/phase、caption必须包含的限制、是否需要离线重绘。
+- **Paragraph function map**：每段只列功能（claim → evidence → limitation → bridge），不写成 manuscript prose。
+- **Cross-section imports/exports**：从上一节接收什么定义，向下一节交付什么已建立事实；禁止重复定义或跨链偷渡。
+- **Open gate**：仅列在进入正式写作前真正阻塞该节的 offline work；不新增 CFD/文献调研愿望清单。
+- **Word/figure budget**：不得突破本文件Section 4分配。
+
+### Round 3 的编排顺序
+
+1. 先完成 `03 contracts`、`05 SR`、`06 mean/dynamic/CCD` 三个硬证据 brief；
+2. 再完成 `04 reward-to-field` 与 `07 steady context`；
+3. 用这些结果反向收紧 `02 capability` 与 `01 introduction`；
+4. 最后写 `08 synthesis/limits`，并运行一次 whole-brief claim/terminology/Legacy-V5 consistency audit；
+5. 只有所有 brief 的 artifact/metric/window/claim status 通过，才进入 Round 4 的 rough section drafting。不得在 Round 3 直接并行写全文，因为那会在合同冻结前固化跨链措辞、重复方法并放大三路分歧。
+
+## 13. Freeze checklist
+
+讨论后若以下项目无异议，即可冻结结构：
+
+- [ ] 80:20 core/outer editorial ratio；
+- [ ] 推荐标题register与`skeleton`正文级定位；
+- [ ] 8节物理问题目录及100%空间预算；
+- [ ] Legacy Re100唯一深分析、V5独立support；
+- [ ] 8主图、4表、12方程上限；
+- [ ] L2为主要独立场证据，DTW为signature/reward-compatible补充；
+- [ ] CFD validation 0.5–0.75页，不设独立一级节；
+- [ ] OOD/OID不占显著正文；
+- [ ] experiment由provenance gate决定主文inset或supplement；
+- [ ] central claim不越过 descriptive/bounded organization；
+- [ ] Round 3先做8个evidence briefs，不写全文。
+
+**最终 editorial verdict：** 这篇文章最有竞争力的形态不是“DRL展示很多 cloak/illusion cases”，也不是“SR、CCD和theory各自证明同一机制”，而是：**用早期视觉能力建立问题价值，用reward与L2建立测量可信度，用Legacy闭环SR和corrected field decomposition解释Kármán主例，再以CCD和steady/theory明确动态剩余与物理边界。** 读者应带走一个清晰、有限、可证伪的 `persistent rotation + dynamic correction` 图景，同时明确知道哪些箭头仍未被证明。
+
+
+## 14. Author-ratified revision summary (controls conflicts above)
+
+- **Provisional frozen title:** *Interpreting learned hydrodynamic cloaking and illusion in a fluidic pinball*. There is no colon and no A-opening. Interpretation depth remains cloak/Kármán-centred; illusion and erase are bounded extensions. The title does not authorize positive Illusion SR.
+- **Terminology hierarchy:** concept/goal = hydrodynamic cloaking and illusion; learning/execution = wake-signature matching using forces plus sparse downstream observations; independent quantitative validation = field matching, with L2 primary for JFM and DTW complementary and case-specific. `control skeleton` is interpretation-level language only. CCD remains `CCD`; its manuscript-facing physical outputs are `action-correlated correction-field modes`, descriptive and noncausal.
+- **Corrected progression:** steady → Kármán → vortex → illusion/erase → experiment. Steady rotation was discovered first; later periodic Kármán analysis found a learned law closer to steady than expected, with a dominant steady/near-constant core and smaller dynamic correction. Kármán Re100 remains dominant because it has the richest evidence intersection.
+- **Late extensions:** vortex removes periodicity and supports only a bounded comparable-scale incoming/arbitrary-flow hypothesis; use acquired phase-midpoint event-snapshot downstream-ROI L2 plus current DTW. Illusion/erase extend suppression/background matching toward retargeting/erasure; use periodic Illusion complete-cycle mean/phase L2 plus normalized DTW, and Erase mean-field L2 plus DTW only where exact roles exist. No shared metric contract and no positive Illusion SR.
+- **Figures and experiment:** Fig. 1 remains left-to-right capability/progression, Kármán visually dominant, with steady/vortex/`075` Illusion smaller; Illusion is PPO capability only. Experiment follows the extensions and is qualitative open-loop feasibility: straighter steady dye streaklines and altered illusion shedding frequency, without synchronized calibrated force/PIV validation. Frank will draft that section later.
+- **Structure and workflow:** CFD validation remains fully covered but compact (about 0.5–0.75 page plus contract-table rows and supplement). Kármán deep analysis remains the largest block, while vortex and illusion/erase receive meaningful late main-text space. Round 3 is section/module based and approaches JFM prose: author-readable structured drafts/dossiers with narrative paragraphs or paragraph functions, evidence citations/contracts, figure needs and claim boundaries. A detailed chapter-level JFM style study must precede or guide drafting. The earlier evidence-card/index-first Round-3 recommendation is superseded.

docs/JFM_WYQ/ROUND2_TOP_DOWN/05_REVISED_STRUCTURE_FREEZE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,133 @@
+# Round 2 — Revised structure freeze after author feedback
+
+> **Status.** Author-ratified Round-2 structure freeze and Round-3 handoff. This is not polished manuscript prose and does not alter evidence packages. It controls conflicts with Round-2 `01`–`04`; superseded recommendations remain in those files as provenance. Repository authority, manifests and immutable artifacts still control scientific facts.
+
+## 1. Frozen paper identity
+
+### Provisional working title
+
+**Interpreting learned hydrodynamic cloaking and illusion in a fluidic pinball**
+
+The wording is frozen provisionally: no colon and no opening article “A”. “Hydrodynamic cloaking and illusion” names the concept and project goal, not the evidentiary strength of every case. Interpretation depth is explicitly cloak/Kármán-centred; Illusion and Erase are bounded objective extensions. The title therefore does **not** revive positive Illusion SR, target-tracking, efficacy-over-zero, necessity or generalization claims.
+
+### Terminology hierarchy
+
+1. **Concept/goal:** `hydrodynamic cloaking and illusion`. Cloaking means approach to a declared background/reference; illusion means retargeting a declared hydrodynamic signature. Neither means universal invisibility or full-state equivalence.
+2. **Learning/execution:** `wake-signature matching using forces plus sparse downstream observations`. This names what the policy receives and optimizes; it does not establish observability or optimal sensing.
+3. **Independent quantitative validation:** `field matching`. Spatial L2 is the primary JFM quantitative metric. DTW is complementary, signal-level and case-specific; it is not a physical delay, causal diagnostic or universal cross-case score.
+4. **Interpretation only:** `control skeleton`. It may summarize the dominant steady/near-constant core plus smaller dynamic correction in the Kármán analysis, but is not a title-level mechanism, unique law or cross-case result.
+5. **Field organization:** retain `CCD`; call the manuscript-facing physical outputs **action-correlated correction-field modes**. They are descriptive/noncausal, and CCD is not claimed superior to POD.
+
+## 2. Frozen physical progression
+
+The narrative is not “Kármán to steady.” The historically and physically correct progression is:
+
+`steady discovery → Kármán periodic interpretation → vortex nonperiodic extension → illusion/erase objective extension → qualitative experiment`
+
+### Steady → Kármán
+
+Steady rotation control was discovered first. Later Kármán analysis showed that the periodic learned law differs less from steady control than expected: it retains a dominant steady/near-constant rear-rotation core with a smaller dynamic correction. This ordering supplies the discovery logic, but does not make the separate V5 steady contract evidence for the Legacy SR/CCD numbers. Kármán Re100 remains the deep-analysis case because it has the richest intersection of PPO, executable SR, independent fields, corrected mean/dynamic decomposition and CCD.
+
+### Kármán → vortex
+
+The vortex case removes periodicity. Pulse-like action supports only a bounded hypothesis that comparable-scale combinations of incoming/arbitrary flow and the pinball wake can be handled; do not claim arbitrary-flow capability or universality. Evaluate the acquired **event-snapshot downstream-ROI L2 at the acquisition phase-midpoints**, preserving event labels/offsets rather than relabelling them periodic phase, together with the current DTW contract. If an exact target/control/zero event role or schema is absent, report the gap rather than manufacturing a metric.
+
+### Cloak → illusion/erase
+
+This extends the control objective and the force-centred conceptual argument from suppression/background matching to retargeting/erasure. For periodic Illusion, use complete-cycle mean L2 and phase-resolved L2 separately, plus normalized DTW. For Erase, use mean-field L2 plus DTW only where exact target/control/comparator roles exist. Do not force these estimands into the Kármán or vortex metric contract. Illusion is PPO capability evidence only; Illusion SR remains historical/negative.
+
+### Experiment follows the extensions
+
+The experiment is qualitative open-loop feasibility only: steady operation shows straighter dye streaklines, while illusion operation shows a shedding-frequency change. There is no synchronized calibrated force/PIV validation, no quantitative field match and no closed-loop experimental claim. Frank will write this section later; the structure must reserve its role without inventing details or numbers.
+
+## 3. Frozen section hierarchy and space allocation
+
+Use a physics/progression-led hierarchy, while making Kármán interpretation the dominant analytical block. Percentages are body-text planning shares and sum to 100%; figures/tables may alter page equivalents.
+
+1. **Introduction: hydrodynamic cloaking, illusion and the interpretation gap — 10%**  
+   Define the concept/goal, distinguish nonlinear finite-Re wake control from linear cloaking analogies, introduce force-plus-sparse-observation wake-signature matching, and state the bounded contribution.
+
+2. **Problem, execution and evidence contracts — 13%**  
+   Geometry, action/body/sign conventions, Legacy/V5 separation, observations and reward, L2/DTW hierarchy, case-specific estimands, and compact CFD qualification. CFD validation receives about **0.5–0.75 page**, contract-table coverage, and full supporting supplement treatment.
+
+3. **Capability and progression: steady, Kármán, vortex and illusion — 11%**  
+   Introduce the historical steady discovery, then the Kármán headline and smaller vortex/`075` Illusion demonstrations. Establish why Kármán Re100 is selected for depth. Do not reduce this section to a pooled performance gallery.
+
+4. **Kármán performance: signature objective and independent field matching — 12%**  
+   Put L2 first for JFM validation and DTW in its complementary signal role; include seed/retention and mean/phase distinctions with Legacy/V5 labels.
+
+5. **Kármán action law: dominant near-constant core and smaller correction — 17%**  
+   Present executable Legacy SR, symmetry, closed-loop arbitration and bounded deletion. “Control skeleton” appears only as an interpretation-level organization; positive SR scope remains Kármán/cloak.
+
+6. **Kármán correction fields and action-correlated modes — 17%**  
+   Present the exact constant-mean versus DRL mean estimand, separately centred dynamic residual, and CCD action-correlated correction-field modes. Preserve non-pairing, descriptive/noncausal and CCD/POD boundaries. OID remains claim-free and has no results subsection.
+
+7. **Cross-case extensions beyond periodic cloaking — 10%**  
+   Give meaningful main-text space to vortex nonperiodic event metrics and illusion/erase objective extensions. Keep their metric contracts distinct and show boundaries/failures alongside capability. This is a late scientific extension, not merely an early gallery.
+
+8. **Steady context, physical synthesis and theory limits — 6%**  
+   Return to steady as the historical and physical reference for the Kármán near-constant core; retain accepted sign, separate chain, bounded endpoint, failed potential-sign route and incomplete NS closure. The narrative return does not reverse the discovery order.
+
+9. **Qualitative experiment, limitations and conclusions — 4%**  
+   Reserve a short author-written open-loop feasibility subsection, then state chain/metric/causality limits and decisive future tests.
+
+Kármán-specific Sections 4–6 occupy 46% and remain dominant. Sections 7 and 9 ensure the late extensions have visible main-text roles without diluting the positive Kármán/cloak interpretation scope.
+
+## 4. Frozen figure and table logic
+
+### Figure 1
+
+Keep a left-to-right **capability/progression composition**. Kármán must be visually dominant. Smaller panels show steady, vortex and `075` Illusion. Panel labels and caption must identify case, chain, role, comparator and metric status. The Illusion panel is explicitly `PPO capability; no positive SR evidence`. Do not pool efficiencies or imply one metric contract. The experiment follows the CFD extensions in the manuscript and is not part of the frozen Fig. 1 composition.
+
+### Remaining main figures
+
+- plant, force/sparse-observation, action sign, metric and Legacy/V5 contracts;
+- Kármán DTW versus independent mean/phase L2 and seed/retention evidence;
+- executable Kármán SR law, closed-loop arbitration and bounded deletion;
+- constant/DRL mean-field matching and exact estimand;
+- residual definition and CCD action-correlated correction-field modes with POD comparison;
+- vortex event-midpoint ROI-L2 + DTW and periodic Illusion/Erase case-specific extension panels;
+- steady discovery/context, accepted/reverse sign boundary, outer-theory failure and integrated claim limits.
+
+Use a compact contract table that keeps Legacy/V5 and all metric/window semantics separate. Full solver qualification, case matrices, sensitivities, artifact/hash ledgers and negative routes belong in the supplement, while essential comparators and limitations remain visible in the main text.
+
+## 5. Evidence and claim boundaries that remain frozen
+
+- **Legacy/V5:** separate chains; never pool or imply numerical continuation/equivalence.
+- **Positive SR:** Kármán/cloaking only. Illusion SR is historical/negative; steady is contextual.
+- **CCD:** descriptive action correlation only; no causality, response time, mechanism, stability or superiority claim. Use `action-correlated correction-field modes`.
+- **OID:** active package is claim-free; no positive result, importance or control-authority claim.
+- **Metrics:** periodic complete-cycle mean/phase L2, vortex event snapshots, Erase mean fields, steady profiles/`E_inf_vector`, native/normalized DTW are non-equivalent.
+- **Vortex:** comparable-scale pulse-response hypothesis only, not arbitrary-flow universality.
+- **Experiment:** qualitative open-loop feasibility; no synchronized calibrated force/PIV validation.
+- **Theory:** outer reference and failure boundary only; no finite-Re mechanism closure.
+
+## 6. Round-3 organization approaching JFM prose
+
+Round 3 is **section/module based**, not another bottom-up index and not a set of AI-only evidence cards. A detailed **chapter-level JFM style study** must precede the drafting agents or actively guide them. It should examine paragraph progression, placement of definitions and caveats, figure-to-text cadence, evidence density, transitions, and how comparable JFM papers separate capability from interpretation. Exact bibliography identities/DOIs and read levels remain required.
+
+Each Round-3 output must be an author-readable structured section draft/section dossier containing:
+
+1. section purpose and one-sentence bounded answer;
+2. narrative paragraphs or a paragraph-by-paragraph function map approaching prose;
+3. evidence citations/contracts for every quantitative or physical claim, including chain, case/role, comparator, metric, window and artifact authority;
+4. figure/table needs and caption-level limitations;
+5. explicit claim boundaries, conflicts and non-claims;
+6. definitions imported from previous sections and the bridge exported to the next;
+7. unresolved gates that truly block drafting.
+
+Sentence-level polishing is not required. Agents should not emit raw indexes, card stacks or machine-oriented handoffs as the primary output. Evidence cards may exist underneath as working support, but the delivered module must read as a coherent section plan/draft for Frank. Frank retains authorship of the experiment subsection.
+
+Suggested module order: (i) JFM chapter-level style study; (ii) contracts/metrics; (iii) Kármán performance; (iv) Kármán SR action law; (v) Kármán field/CCD interpretation; (vi) cross-case vortex/illusion/erase extensions; (vii) steady-context synthesis; (viii) introduction and capability progression; (ix) Frank's experiment section; (x) limitations/conclusion and whole-manuscript terminology/claim audit.
+
+## 7. Explicit supersession ledger
+
+The following prior Round-2 recommendations are retained for provenance but no longer control the manuscript:
+
+- `01` A1 and `04` §3 title recommendations → superseded by the provisional frozen title in §1.
+- Kármán → steady as the implied physical progression → superseded by historical steady → Kármán, with a later steady-context return.
+- Vortex/Erase primarily in supplement or only an early gallery → superseded by a meaningful late cross-case extension section using case-specific metrics.
+- `04` §12 evidence-brief/card-first Round 3 and deferral of rough drafting to Round 4 → superseded by author-readable section/module drafts/dossiers approaching JFM prose in Round 3, guided by chapter-level JFM style study.
+- Any generic CCD mode label implying response/causality → superseded by `action-correlated correction-field modes`, with descriptive/noncausal status explicit.
+
+Unchanged recommendations include compact CFD validation, Kármán Re100 analytical dominance, Legacy/V5 separation, L2 primacy with DTW complementarity, case-specific metric semantics, bounded `control skeleton` usage, positive-SR Kármán/cloak scope, negative Illusion SR, descriptive CCD, claim-free OID and qualitative-only experiment.

docs/JFM_WYQ/ROUND2_TOP_DOWN/06_SECTION_LEVEL_JFM_STYLE_GUIDE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,350 @@
+# Round 3 section-level JFM writing-style guide
+
+> **Role.** Author-facing style and section-architecture guide for Round 3 evidence briefs. It is not manuscript prose or a claim authority. Recommendations follow the supplied final intent if it differs from a concurrently revised `04_TOP_LEVEL_SYNTHESIS.md`.
+>
+> **Final intent used here.** Working title *Interpreting learned hydrodynamic cloaking and illusion in a fluidic pinball*; capability Fig. 1; compact contracts/CFD; historical physics logic steady → Kármán, implemented in two passes: a short steady discovery/result seed in the early capability progression, then Kármán as the deep case with SR, mean/dynamic decomposition and CCD, followed by cross-case extensions and a later return to full steady context/theory; qualitative open-loop experiment; conclusion.
+
+## 1. Evidence base and status
+
+`Full-PDF` means paper-level full-text reading through the existing DynamisLab Undermind workspace, not equation-by-equation verification or artifact audit. `Full-report` means a repository literature report/dossier was read. `Snippet` means abstract, metadata or limited text only.
+
+| Exact identity | DOI | Status | Observed section-level lesson |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Deng, Noack, Morzyński & Pastur, “Low-order model for successive bifurcations of the fluidic pinball”, *JFM* 884, A37 (2020) | `10.1017/jfm.2019.959` | full-PDF | Section order mirrors physical chronology; a visible failure motivates refinement; final phenomenogram synthesizes rather than inventories. |
+| Cornejo Maceda, Li, Lusseyran, Morzyński & Noack, “Stabilization of the fluidic pinball with gradient-enriched machine learning control”, *JFM* 917, A42 (2021) | `10.1017/jfm.2021.301` | full-PDF | Baseline → simple steady forcing → asymmetric forcing → feedback; performance and physical interpretation remain coupled. |
+| Rabault, Kuchta, Jensen, Réglade & Cerardi, “Artificial neural networks trained through deep reinforcement learning discover control strategies for active flow control”, *JFM* 865, 281–302 (2019) | `10.1017/jfm.2019.62` | full-PDF | Short entry to the gap; capability precedes wake interpretation; limitations appear beside findings. |
+| Paris, Beneddine & Dandois, “Robust flow control and optimal sensor placement using deep reinforcement learning”, *JFM* 913, A25 (2021) | `10.1017/jfm.2020.1170` | full-PDF | Reference-case efficacy precedes mechanism, robustness and sensor extensions; strong claims follow dedicated tests. |
+| Li & Zhang, “Reinforcement-learning-based control of confined cylinder wakes with stability analyses”, *JFM* 932, A44 (2022) | `10.1017/jfm.2021.1045` | full-PDF | Physics analysis earns early placement because it later changes reward and probe logic. |
+| Xia, Zhang, Kerrigan & Rigas, “Active flow control for bluff body drag reduction using reinforcement learning with partial measurements”, *JFM* 981, A17 (2024) | `10.1017/jfm.2024.69` | full-PDF | Baseline success → partial-observation failure → history-based repair → parametric limits. |
+| Wang, Yan, Hu, Chen, Rabault & Noack, “Dynamic feature-based deep reinforcement learning for flow control of circular cylinder with sparse surface pressure sensing”, *JFM* 988, A4 (2024) | `10.1017/jfm.2024.333` | full-PDF | Information gap → feature method → baseline capability → harder cases → physical interpretation. |
+| Loiseau, Noack & Brunton, “Sparse reduced-order modelling: sensor-based dynamics to full-state estimation”, *JFM* 844, 459–490 (2018) | `10.1017/jfm.2018.147` | full-PDF | Black-box sensor dynamics precede full-state reconstruction and grey-box interpretation; one schematic carries the method logic. |
+| Gautier, Aider, Duriez, Noack, Segond & Abel, “Closed-loop separation control using machine learning”, *JFM* 770, 442–457 (2015) | `10.1017/jfm.2015.95` | full-PDF in this pass; Round-1 card was snippet/preprint-level | Concise plant → objective → explicit law → temporal/spectral interpretation → benchmark/envelope. |
+| Mao, Blackburn & Sherwin, “Nonlinear optimal suppression of vortex shedding from a circular cylinder”, *JFM* 775, 241–265 (2015) | `10.1017/jfm.2015.304` | full-PDF | Numerical integrity precedes interpretation; global performance precedes spatial/stability explanation; realizability caveat remains visible. |
+| Round-1 Introduction, SR, CCD/OID, steady/theory, experiment/metrics dossiers | repository dossiers | full-report | Exact bibliography, evidence/metric boundaries, negative routes and experiment limits. |
+| Round-2 narrative, JFM benchmark, stress test and top-level synthesis | repository reports | full-report | Project-specific order, space/claim ceilings, Legacy/V5 and estimand boundaries. |
+
+**Coverage ledger.** Read: all four current Round-2 top-down reports; the relevant five Round-1 dossiers named above; ten exact JFM papers. Mapped: remaining Round-1 dossiers and existing Undermind `JFM/` and `JFM References/` indexes. Not covered: exhaustive sentence coding of all JFM papers, full facility-literature bibliography and unrelated papers; not required for this bounded task. External-inaccessible: none essential. Existing literature establishes style precedent, never internal results.
+
+## 2. Cross-paper observations and manuscript recommendation
+
+### Observed style
+
+1. A section is an argument: question/baseline → comparison → evidence → physical reading → caveat → next question.
+2. Results normally establish a reference case before extensions. Scalar/time evidence comes before or beside fields, and interpretation follows the declared comparator.
+3. Equations define objects used later; figures carry empirical burden; prose explains how the comparison changes the inference.
+4. Discussion is distributed. Papers interpret a result and state its local limitation before moving on.
+5. Strong words such as robustness, stability or optimality follow tests designed for those claims. Attractive fields alone do not license them.
+6. Bridges transform one result into the next scientific question; they do not merely announce a section number.
+
+### Recommendation
+
+Use the local rhythm above at a lower claim register. Treat **control skeleton** as the interpretation assembled after SR and field evidence, never as an initial premise. Keep terminology fixed:
+
+- concept: **hydrodynamic cloaking / hydrodynamic illusion**;
+- execution: **wake-signature matching**;
+- evaluation: **field matching**, L2 primary and DTW complementary;
+- interpretation: **control skeleton**;
+- dynamic field result: **CCD** and **action-correlated correction-field modes**.
+
+Do not replace the last phrase with causal-response, control-authority, importance or uniquely-CCD language.
+
+## 3. Section-level writing contracts
+
+Paragraph counts below are functional targets, not rigid formatting. Each subsection distinguishes the sample’s observed practice from the recommendation.
+
+### 3.1 Introduction
+
+**Observed.** Closest JFM papers funnel from physical problem to precise difficulty, nearest methods, gap and present contribution. Citations cluster in context/gap paragraphs; equations and detailed local results are absent. Deng uses history only to prepare the model question; Rabault and Paris reach the control gap quickly; Loiseau uses taxonomy because it organizes the contribution.
+
+**Recommended five-paragraph sequence.**
+
+1. **Concept.** Define cloak as approach to a declared background and illusion as approach to a declared non-zero target in observer/field space. Give one compact linear-cloak genealogy and end with non-equivalence to finite-Re Navier–Stokes wakes.
+2. **Physical difficulty.** Separation, shedding and the multi-cylinder pinball make wake-signature matching different from scalar drag reduction. Cite pinball dynamics and active hydrodynamic precedents.
+3. **Capability and gap.** Sparse-sensor DRL can discover nonlinear control, but reward/signature success does not establish field matching or a physical law. Cite nearest DRL/partial-observation work.
+4. **Missing evidence chain.** Motivate executable policy reduction, independent field evaluation, mean/dynamic separation and bounded steady context. Cite SR/low-order methods only for their roles.
+5. **Question, contribution, scope.** Name capability breadth, sole deep Kármán case, qualitative experiment and principal non-claims. Promise capability first, then contracts and interpretation—not a package list.
+
+**Placement, tense, strength.** Present tense for definitions/physics; past or present perfect for literature; present for paper purpose. No project number in paragraphs 1–3. Refer prospectively to Fig. 1 near the end without narrating panels. Use `can be interpreted as`, `under the declared contract`; reserve `demonstrates` for named-condition capability. Do not claim priority without a separate audit.
+
+**Bridge.** Convert the gap into the definitions and estimands needed before the capability progression can be compared.
+
+**Anti-patterns.** Cloak-history catalogue; one paragraph per paper; “AI is revolutionizing science”; contributions as `DRL/SR/CCD/theory/experiment`; citations appended without argumentative grouping; announcing persistent rotation as cause before evidence.
+
+### 3.2 Problem, method and compact CFD contracts
+
+**Observed.** JFM control papers establish geometry/BC, objective, sensing/action and qualification before dependent claims. Definitions use present tense; validation outcomes use past. Equations cluster around reusable contracts.
+
+**Recommended six functional paragraphs.**
+
+1. **Plant:** geometry, body order, coordinates, BCs and Reynolds convention; declare Legacy/V5 separation.
+2. **Actuation:** wall-velocity sign, action order and normalization; use a sign schematic.
+3. **Observation/objective:** forces and six velocity channels; define wake-signature matching and reward roles.
+4. **Evaluation:** field L2 is primary independent evaluation; DTW is complementary alignment. Separate periodic phase, transient event and steady profile semantics.
+5. **Evidence roles:** target/zero/controlled/constant and which chain supports capability versus interpretation.
+6. **Numerical qualification:** selected benchmark checks, unresolved mismatch, configuration scope and supplement boundary.
+
+**Placement, tense, strength.** Put geometry/sensor/role schematic early. Display only equations reused later: Reynolds/action sign, objective, L2 and perhaps compact DTW notation. Cite methods/benchmarks at the defining sentence. CFD qualification supports selected observables, not control physics. Present for contracts, past for checks.
+
+**Bridge.** With contracts fixed, introduce the historical capability progression—steady seed first, then Kármán and bounded extensions—without pooling its metrics.
+
+**Anti-patterns.** Configuration/hash dump; standard-PPO pseudo-code; detached validation chapter; equations never reused; “all parameters are in table”; repeated definitions; silent Re/action shifts.
+
+### 3.3 Capability/results opening and Fig. 1
+
+**Observed.** Rabault, Paris, Xia and Wang establish a reference case and comparator before extending scope. The first results figure combines a quantitative headline and physical view. Variation/failure enters where it changes the headline.
+
+**Recommended four-to-five-paragraph sequence.**
+
+1. **Viewing contract.** State Fig. 1’s question: can learned actuation approach declared targets across distinct tasks? Name comparator and metric roles without repeating Methods.
+2. **Short steady discovery seed.** Introduce the historically first steady-rotation result in one compact comparison. Establish only discovery chronology and visible capability; defer its separate contract, theory and physical synthesis to the later steady return.
+3. **Headline Kármán.** Read target, zero and controlled panels as one comparison; state L2 field matching first and DTW as complementary signature alignment. Explain why Kármán becomes the deep case.
+4. **Kármán → vortex and cloak → illusion.** Mark the changed temporal or target contract and give only bounded, case-specific capability here; full cross-case analysis returns after the Kármán block.
+5. **Scope/selection.** Show one degradation/failure and n/seed status; distinguish the early progression preview from later analytical sections.
+
+**Placement, tense, strength.** Place Fig. 1 at paragraph 1. Every number needs case, chain, comparator and metric semantics. Past for training/evaluation; present for figure reading. Prefer `reduces the declared field error`; breadth is demonstration, not generality.
+
+**Bridge.** With the early progression established under already declared contracts, select Kármán for deep performance and interpretation.
+
+**Anti-patterns.** Caption-like panel narration; gallery; one score across periodic/transient/steady; DTW as field equivalence; hidden failures; Legacy/V5 pooling; illusion image as target-tracking proof.
+
+### 3.4 Kármán performance
+
+**Observed.** Reference-case sections start with baseline and headline metric, move from scalar/time traces to fields and only then interpretation. Paris and Mao pair global performance with spatial evidence; comparator limits appear locally.
+
+**Recommended four paragraphs.**
+
+1. **Exact test:** chain, case/Re convention, roles/comparator, window and seed/selection status.
+2. **Signature result:** reward components and DTW as optimized/reward-adjacent evidence, not independent validation.
+3. **Field result:** L2 mean and phase evidence separately; use agreement/disagreement with DTW as a finding.
+4. **Boundary:** seed dependence, phase limitation or cross-Re degradation; conclude only named-contract improvement.
+
+**Placement, tense, strength.** Lead with field result, not a training diary. Training/selection goes in compact inset/table. Past for computation, present for figure. Use `was accompanied by`, not `therefore produced`; `field matching improved`, not `wake restored`.
+
+**Bridge.** Field matching shows the result is not solely a reward proxy; it does not reveal action-law complexity.
+
+**Anti-patterns.** Chronological training log; all seeds as narrative protagonists; best checkpoint conflated with retained policy; low DTW as full-field identity; no interpretive handoff.
+
+### 3.5 SR interpretation
+
+**Observed.** Gautier isolates an explicit law, then its dynamic behaviour and benchmark. Cornejo Maceda compares simpler/richer spaces and tests the averaged law. Executable comparison—not formula complexity—is primary.
+
+**Recommended five paragraphs.**
+
+1. **Question/estimand:** SR is an observation-to-action surrogate in the Legacy plant, not a field-causal model.
+2. **Recovery contract:** causal pairing, symmetry mapping, formula identity and closed-loop CFD arbitration; library/search detail goes to supplement.
+3. **Law:** display once and immediately translate order, sign and persistent rear counter-rotation.
+4. **Closed loop:** PPO/SR/zero under the same window; offline fit is diagnostic, closed-loop wake performance is arbiter.
+5. **Term tests:** persistent rear term is largest tested; feedback is smaller but non-zero. State fixed-window, parent-relative, non-necessity limits.
+
+**Placement, tense, strength.** Formula before performance figure. Failed gates/weaker deletions sit beside successes. Past for fitting/testing; present for formula meaning. Use `surrogate`, `largest tested contribution`; avoid `mechanism`, `necessary`, `sufficient`, `unique`, `governing law`.
+
+**Bridge.** Term ranking does not show how much field-level improvement the persistent component accounts for.
+
+**Anti-patterns.** Stage/package handoff; coefficient inventory; offline RMSE as control success; hidden imposed symmetry; deletion called causal ablation; positive Illusion SR import.
+
+### 3.6 Mean/dynamic decomposition and CCD
+
+**Observed.** Loiseau moves from predictive success to spatial reconstruction; Deng uses model failure to justify refinement. The estimand and comparison precede modes; prose states the new inference each representation permits.
+
+**Recommended six paragraphs.**
+
+1. **Question/four roles:** target, zero, constant and DRL means on exact ROI/mask/window.
+2. **Mean comparison:** fields and scalar errors before percentages; then additive error-difference ledger.
+3. **Mean limit:** `accounts for measured error reduction` is an estimand statement, not causality, energy share or momentum restoration.
+4. **Residual definition:** separately centred cycle-template residual; constant/DRL cycles are not paired counterfactuals.
+5. **CCD result:** rank/subspace stability, action coordinates and phase reconstructions as **action-correlated correction-field modes**; no response time or causal direction.
+6. **POD comparison/boundary:** near-equivalent subspaces mean CCD adds action-coordinate association, not superior/unique field modes; single lineage remains explicit.
+
+**Placement, tense, strength.** Mean figure precedes residual-mode figure. Put error identity, residual and (only if interpretively needed) CCD operator immediately before their figures. Past for construction, present for figure. Use `separates`, `organizes`, `is action-correlated`, `accounts for measured difference`; avoid `explains`, `drives`, `responds`, `energy captured` for CCD strengths, and `unique CCD modes`.
+
+**Bridge.** Kármán supports a persistent mean contribution plus smaller action-correlated residual; return later to what this bounded organization does and does not connect.
+
+**Anti-patterns.** Linear algebra first; mode gallery; singular strengths as explained variance; 93.42% without errors/ROI/window; SR law equated to CCD left functions; shared parent called independent triangulation.
+
+### 3.7 Cross-case extensions
+
+**Observed.** Xia’s failure-to-fix chronology and Paris/Wang’s harder-case sections change one difficulty at a time, restate the needed comparator and qualify breadth according to dedicated tests.
+
+**Recommended three modules.**
+
+1. **Kármán → vortex:** phase cycle becomes event/relative-offset semantics. State what remains fixed and use one case-specific result; never average event snapshots into phase metrics.
+2. **Cloak → illusion:** define non-zero target matching, show bounded PPO capability and explicitly separate negative Illusion SR.
+3. **Illusion → erase:** change target/reference again; use mean semantics only with exact roles, otherwise mark visual demonstration or omit. End with failure envelope.
+
+**Placement, tense, strength.** One question, comparator, principal result and limit per module. Past for demonstrations; conditional for transfer. Use `extends the objective`, not `generalizes`.
+
+**Bridge.** Execution accommodates changed temporal/target contracts, but the Kármán control-skeleton interpretation does not transfer with them.
+
+**Anti-patterns.** One prose row per case; common efficiency bar for incompatible metrics; n=1 called robustness; positive Illusion SR; Kármán SR/CCD used to interpret vortex/erase.
+
+### 3.8 Steady context, physical synthesis and theory limits (later return)
+
+**Observed.** Cornejo Maceda proceeds from simpler steady actuation to feedback; Deng mirrors physical chronology; Li puts stability first because it changes later choices. Theory earns early placement only when it supplies a baseline or constraint used later.
+
+**Two-pass recommendation.** The early capability section has already introduced steady discovery/result as a short narrative seed, preserving the historical physics logic `steady → Kármán`. This later full section returns only after Kármán performance, SR, mean/dynamic+CCD analysis and cross-case extensions. Its job is retrospective contextualization of the near-constant core, not chronological placement before the Kármán analysis.
+
+**Recommended four-to-five-paragraph sequence.**
+
+1. **Return and scope.** Recall the early steady seed in one sentence, then state why the full analysis returns here: to contextualize the near-constant Kármán core without treating the separate steady chain as proof of periodic-controller mechanism.
+2. **Contract/result.** Separate V5 free-slip `Re_D=50`, accepted sign, spin ratio, comparator and settling-qualified low-deficit endpoint.
+3. **Physical description.** Gap-facing motion/base-bleed or gap-jet-family compatibility as observation/hypothesis; not boat-tail or closed momentum pathway.
+4. **Theory constraint.** Give only the shortest outer-reference equation/sign result. Place circulation-sign conflict and rotating-no-slip limitation beside the attractive comparison.
+5. **Synthesis export.** Relate the returned steady evidence retrospectively to the already established Kármán near-constant core, transferring only recurrence/magnitude context—not metric equality, plant equivalence, stability or mechanism.
+
+**Placement, tense, strength.** Contract/sign schematic precedes field interpretation. Present for mathematics; past for computed endpoint; conditional for physical chain. Use `compatible with`, `provides context`, `constrains`; avoid `explains`, `validates the skeleton`, `optimal`, `stable`, `restores momentum`.
+
+**Bridge.** The later steady return closes the historical loop: it supplies a compatible endpoint and sign-constrained context for the already established Kármán near-constant core, then hands the bounded synthesis to the qualitative experiment and conclusion.
+
+**Anti-patterns.** Detached theory chapter; unvalidated MFS spectacle; failed sign route delayed to Discussion; V5 steady metric transferred into Legacy; universal skeleton pre-announced.
+
+### 3.9 Qualitative open-loop experiment
+
+**Observed.** Experimental JFM papers define facility, observable and actuation before results (Gautier); numerical papers place realizability caveats near constrained findings (Mao). A qualitative demo cannot inherit quantitative CFD wording.
+
+**Recommended two-to-three paragraphs.**
+
+1. **Purpose/apparatus boundary:** establish deployability and open-loop operation; give conditions needed to interpret media.
+2. **Observation:** neutral streakline/shedding description tied to raw-media panel and trial identity.
+3. **Limit/next test:** no synchronized calibrated PIV/force validation; low-speed/background issue; requirements for quantitative validation.
+
+**Placement, tense, strength.** Caption carries provenance, scale/frame/condition. Past tense; use `qualitative`, `open-loop`, `feasibility`. No efficacy percentage, field match, force reduction or experimental validation from dye.
+
+**Bridge.** Experiment establishes qualitative deployability; interpretation and quantitative evidence remain chain-specific computational results.
+
+**Anti-patterns.** Build diary/hardware promotion; image aesthetics as evidence; unregistered CFD overlay; thermal convection declared sole cause; open-loop called policy validation.
+
+### 3.10 Discussion and conclusion
+
+**Observed.** Discussion is integrated; the final section synthesizes rather than replays. Deng uses a phenomenogram, Cornejo Maceda closes across a hierarchy, Li separates physics/control findings. Conclusions add no new result and shift to conditional future work.
+
+**Recommended discussion sequence.**
+
+1. Assemble steady context, SR term ranking and mean/dynamic evidence while naming different chains/estimands: `compatible observations`, not independent proof.
+2. Define dynamic component: smaller, phase-organized, represented by action-correlated correction-field modes; not causal response or unique CCD subspace.
+3. Define envelope: periodicity removal, objective extension, seeds/cross-Re degradation, negative Illusion SR, failed theory and qualitative experiment.
+4. Name only decisive tests that change claim ceiling: matched interventions, independent parents, same-plant field comparison, closed budgets, synchronized experiment.
+
+**Recommended conclusion sequence.**
+
+1. Restate question and named scope, not methods.
+2. Answer in evidence order: capability → L2 field matching → persistent SR/mean contribution → smaller action-correlated residual.
+3. State strongest boundary and one decisive future test; return to cloak/illusion as declared matching, not invisibility.
+
+**Placement, tense, strength.** No new figures, equations, citations or numbers. Past/present perfect for work; present for bounded conclusion; conditional/future for outlook. Use `supports a control-skeleton interpretation under the declared Kármán contract`. Avoid `proves`, `mechanism`, `universal`, `robust`, `optimal`, `experimentally validated` and generic “opens new avenues”.
+
+**Anti-patterns.** Abstract replay; bullet per package; limitations first introduced here; unsupported applications; every caveat converted into future work; three non-equivalent analyses said to validate one mechanism.
+
+## 4. Bridges and integrated discussion
+
+Use bridges as logical transforms:
+
+- Introduction → contracts: convert the gap into definitions and estimands needed for every later comparison.
+- Contracts → capability/progression: ask what control can do under named, non-pooled contracts.
+- Within capability: use a short steady discovery/result seed first, then Kármán, vortex and illusion; this preserves historical `steady → Kármán` logic without placing the full steady analysis early.
+- Capability → Kármán performance: select Kármán as the sole deep case and move from visual result to independent field matching.
+- Performance → SR: success becomes an action-complexity question.
+- SR → mean/dynamic+CCD: term ranking becomes field-accounting and residual-organization questions.
+- Kármán deep block → cross-case extensions: change one task dimension without transferring the Kármán interpretation.
+- Extensions → later steady/theory return: revisit the early steady seed to contextualize the now-established near-constant core and expose theory limits.
+- Steady synthesis → experiment: move from computational interpretation to bounded physical deployability.
+- Experiment → conclusion: separate feasibility from quantitative/causal evidence.
+
+Within each result subsection use:
+
+`observation → comparator → physical reading → alternative/limit → consequence`.
+
+Cite literature at the physical reading/comparison, not decoratively after a number. Put the most dangerous limitation beside the claim it limits. Do not rely on final Discussion to repair upstream overstatement.
+
+## 5. Tense, strength and compression
+
+- **Present:** definitions/equations, what a figure shows, bounded interpretation.
+- **Past:** training, simulations, measurements and obtained outcomes.
+- **Present perfect:** development of literature, sparingly.
+- **Conditional/future:** hypotheses, transfer, experiment and decisive tests.
+
+**Claim ladder**
+
+- Green: `defines`, `shows`, `reduces the declared error`, `passes the stated gate`, `is lower than`.
+- Amber: `is consistent with`, `organizes`, `accounts for measured error difference`, `is action-correlated`, `provides context`, `motivates a control-skeleton interpretation`.
+- Red without new evidence: `causes`, `mechanism`, `necessary/sufficient`, `restores momentum`, `stable`, `optimal`, `robust/general`, `independently validates`, `experimentally validates`.
+
+**Compression/anti-AI rules**
+
+1. One paragraph, one argumentative job; first sentence states it.
+2. One principal figure claim per paragraph; secondary panel details stay in caption.
+3. A number must change the inference or move to table/supplement.
+4. Define each acronym once; do not rename CCD modes for variety.
+5. Use concrete subjects (`registered field error`, `fixed-law deletion`) rather than `the results`.
+6. Delete throat-clearing: `It is worth noting`, `Interestingly`, `As can clearly be seen`, `In order to`.
+7. Avoid repeated three-item lists, identical paragraph templates, `not only…but also`, and conclusions that restate headings.
+8. Delete artifact inventories, package histories and status-ledger prose from narrative; retain them in briefs/tables/supplement.
+
+## 6. Practical Round-3 section-agent prompt
+
+```text
+Prepare the Round-3 evidence brief for [SECTION NAME] of
+“Interpreting learned hydrodynamic cloaking and illusion in a fluidic pinball”.
+Do not draft manuscript prose.
+
+Section question: [ONE PHYSICAL QUESTION]
+Answer ceiling: [ONE GREEN/AMBER SENTENCE]
+Imports from earlier sections: [DEFINITIONS/EVIDENCE]
+Exports to later sections: [ESTABLISHED FACT/NEXT QUESTION]
+Word/figure/equation budget: [BUDGET]
+
+Use repository authority and Round-1/Round-2 dossiers. Keep chain, case/seed/role,
+Reynolds convention, comparator, metric/estimand, ROI/mask/window and status explicit.
+External literature supports narrative/method precedent only, never internal results.
+
+Terminology:
+- concept: hydrodynamic cloaking / hydrodynamic illusion;
+- execution: wake-signature matching;
+- evaluation: field matching, L2 primary and DTW complementary;
+- interpretation: control skeleton;
+- dynamic fields: CCD and “action-correlated correction-field modes”.
+
+Produce:
+1. Section question and bounded one-sentence answer.
+2. Paragraph-function map. For each paragraph give opening move, claim/definition,
+   exact evidence/comparator, figure/equation/citation placement, local limitation,
+   and bridge.
+3. Green / amber / prohibited-red claim ladder.
+4. Figure/table/equation contracts: what each proves and does not prove.
+5. Literature-use cards: exact identity, DOI when available,
+   full-PDF/full-report/snippet status; separate observed style from recommendation.
+6. Cross-section imports/exports and final bridge function (not polished prose).
+7. Anti-pattern audit: index/report/package-handoff language, metric pooling,
+   method silos, caption narration, generic AI prose, delayed limits, overclaiming.
+8. Only genuine drafting blockers; no general wish list.
+
+Required rhetorical sequence:
+[PASTE THE RELEVANT SECTION SEQUENCE FROM THIS GUIDE]
+
+Frozen ordering check:
+- The early capability/progression module introduces steady discovery/result first as a
+  short narrative seed, then Kármán, vortex and illusion capability.
+- The full steady context/physical synthesis/theory-limits module is later: after the
+  Kármán deep-analysis and cross-case extension modules.
+- Preserve the historical physics logic steady → Kármán, but do not describe the full
+  steady/theory analysis as physically or textually placed before Kármán.
+
+Do not invent quotations, page counts, citations, numbers or artifacts. Label sourced
+fact, bounded observation, interpretation, historical/negative result and open question.
+```
+
+## 7. Strongest operational findings
+
+1. Draft section interfaces—question, answer ceiling, imports, exports and bridge—before sentences.
+2. Start results with a comparator, not a method.
+3. Use steady in two passes: an early discovery/result seed preserves historical `steady → Kármán` logic; the full steady/theory analysis returns only after Kármán depth and cross-case extensions.
+4. Keep capability broad but interpretation asymmetric: only Kármán receives SR/mean-dynamic/CCD depth.
+5. Make L2 carry field claims; DTW remains complementary signature evidence, never field equivalence, delay or causality.
+6. Put one visible caveat beside every major result.
+7. Use exactly `action-correlated correction-field modes`; do not imply response, authority or CCD superiority.
+8. Use failed routes (theory sign conflict, mean/phase mismatch, negative Illusion SR, experiment limits) to define the claim boundary and next test.
+9. End sections with scientific questions, not “Section X presents…”.
+10. Run an anti-index pass before drafting: narrative must not read like artifact inventory, report, package handoff or generic AI synthesis.
+
+## 8. Provenance
+
+Undermind orientation preceded workspace access. The ten named papers were read at full-PDF level for rhetorical patterns; relevant Round-1/Round-2 repository dossiers were read as full reports. No new deep search, CFD, training, experiment analysis or Undermind mutation was performed. Existing files and immutable evidence packages were not modified.

docs/JFM_WYQ/ROUND2_TOP_DOWN/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+# Round 2 — Top-Down JFM Design
+
+## 目标
+
+Round 2 基于 Round 1 的全部 dossiers 与 coverage audit，进行自上而下的 JFM manuscript 设计。目标是明确：
+
+- manuscript title；
+- physics narrative；
+- section hierarchy；
+- approximate text / figure allocation；
+- main-text / supplement boundary；
+- evidence dependencies。
+
+本轮不是写 manuscript prose，而是建立可审计的论文结构、物理叙事和证据依赖框架。
+
+## 预定输出
+
+1. `01_PHYSICS_NARRATIVE_AND_OUTLINES.md`
+2. `02_JFM_STRUCTURE_AND_SPACE_BENCHMARK.md`
+3. `03_EVIDENCE_STRESS_TEST.md`
+4. `04_TOP_LEVEL_SYNTHESIS.md`
+5. `05_REVISED_STRUCTURE_FREEZE.md` — author-ratified revision and Round-3 structure handoff
+6. `06_SECTION_LEVEL_JFM_STYLE_GUIDE.md` — controlling chapter-level JFM style input for Round 3
+
+## 工作约束
+
+- `04_TOP_LEVEL_SYNTHESIS.md` 必须回读 Round 1 的全部 dossiers，以及关键 package authority；不得只依据摘要或二手汇总。
+- 保留并明确区分 Legacy / V5。
+- 保留 case-specific metrics，不将个案指标无依据地泛化为普适结论。
+- 明确 claim boundaries：区分已被证据支持的主张、条件性主张、待验证主张与不应提出的主张。
+- 每一项关键结构或叙事选择都应能追溯到相应的 evidence dependencies。
+
+
+## Author-ratified freeze (2026-08-10)
+
+Round 3 is jointly controlled by `05_REVISED_STRUCTURE_FREEZE.md` for manuscript structure and `06_SECTION_LEVEL_JFM_STYLE_GUIDE.md` for chapter-level JFM style, read together with the evidence dependencies in `04_TOP_LEVEL_SYNTHESIS.md`. It records the provisional frozen title, terminology and metric hierarchy, corrected steady → Kármán → vortex → illusion/erase → experiment progression, revised section/space allocation, and the section/module-based Round-3 handoff. Where it conflicts with recommendations in `01`–`04`, the older recommendation is retained as provenance but marked superseded; evidence status and repository authority are unchanged.