refactor(workflow): update JFM research workflow and remove obsolete figures

Revise the JFM research workflow documentation to clarify project structure, decision-making processes, and tool routing. Remove outdated figures and images that are no longer relevant to the current manuscript. Ensure that the workflow aligns with the latest research objectives and safety protocols.

docs/JFM_WYQ/ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/00_DISPLAY_EQUATION_INVENTORY.md

@@ -13,12 +13,12 @@ Classifications: `required`, `optional`, `dependency-gated`, `blocked`, `author-
 | **SR law/deletion** | law/deletion `required`; PPO/SR/Zero panel `dependency-gated` | SR | Exact executable law/symmetry; deployment; largest-tested persistent term | Law/deletion text-ready. Same-protocol panel blocked without exact roles/comparator/window. Deletion noncausal | Keep law, symmetry, deletion; omit direct role panel |
 | **CCD mean/share display** | `dependency-gated` | Field/CCD | Target/zero/constant/DRL means before residual; scalar error-difference accounting | Ledger bound; redraw needs publication arrays and exact mask/window. Cannot validate M04 | Compact scalar ledger if fields unavailable |
 | **CCD residual/modes/POD sequence** | `dependency-gated` | Field/CCD | Define non-paired residual; show action-correlated modes, phase, POD boundary | Equation/text ready; panels need corrected parent/derived arrays, orientation, lineage, captions. No causality/lag/energy/superiority | Keep residual equation and concise statement/table |
-| **Cross-case display** | overall `dependency-gated`; quantitative Vortex/Erase `blocked` | Cross-case | Event-relative Vortex, non-zero-target Illusion PPO, Erase boundary | Vortex visuals/Illusion capability are bounded candidates. Vortex L2 needs roles/offsets/ROI/mask/evaluator; Illusion L2 conditional; Erase roles absent | Use sourced visuals; omit quantitative Vortex/Erase and state gaps |
+| **Cross-case display** | overall `dependency-gated`; quantitative Vortex/Erase `blocked` | Cross-case | Event-relative Vortex, non-zero-target Illusion PPO, Erase boundary | Vortex, Illusion and Erase physical-variable role fields are available/mapped candidates. Quantitative Vortex and Erase products remain blocked pending versioned evaluators; Illusion is bounded PPO capability and its exact scalar binding is conditional | Use sourced visuals; omit quantitative Vortex/Erase and state gaps |
 | **Cross-case event equation** | `optional` | Cross-case | Define conditional event-relative ROI error without calling offsets phase | Definition creates no roles/mask/evaluator/result | Use prose/table semantics |
-| **Steady/theory display** | `dependency-gated` | Steady/theory | Separate uniform/free-slip endpoint/sign context; accepted/reverse boundary; failed closure | Text ledger ready. Fields need payloads and reverse amplitude-mismatch caption. New MFS field blocked | Sign schematic + endpoint table + one-circle/sign conflict; omit MFS field |
+| **Steady/theory display** | `dependency-gated` | Steady/theory | Separate uniform/free-slip endpoint/sign context; accepted/reverse boundary; failed closure | Existing finite-Re and outer-reference assets are bounded redraw sources; reverse amplitude mismatch must remain in the caption. No new MFS computation is authorized; Frank’s main equation/composition choice remains open | Sign schematic + endpoint table + one-circle/sign conflict; omit MFS field |
 | **Steady/theory equations** | `required` minimum | Steady/theory | Wall law/spin ratio, steady metric, and shortest outer-reference or partial-budget boundary | Existing derivation/check states distinct; no inviscid rotating no-slip closure | Full MFS/multipole/strip/CV derivations to supplement |
 | **Experiment display** | `author-supply-gated` | Experiment | Qualitative open-loop apparatus and, if gated, steady/Illusion dye observations | Needs Frank's conditions, action/sign, trials, raw media, scale/frame rate, processing, repeats, permissions. No calibrated force/PIV panel | Omit images; retain short author-written interface or bounded supplement media |
-| **Integrated conclusion aid** | evidence map `optional`; limitations table `required` | Conclusion | Synthesize ladder, compatible/non-equivalent links, failures, decisive tests | Text-ready. Map is not causal or pooled. Conclusion adds no scientific equation | Keep limitations table; omit map if misleading/cluttered |
+| **Conclusion display/equation** | `omitted` | Conclusion | Text-only synthesis under current author correction | No conclusion-owned display, table, equation, citation or new number | No display; optional author-owned limitations/outlook remains outside the frozen synthesis |
 
 ## Equation ownership
 1. Problem/method/evaluation owns reusable bulk/mean-based $Re_D$, action/sign, objective/role, DTW, and field-metric definitions.
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ Classifications: `required`, `optional`, `dependency-gated`, `blocked`, `author-
 4. Cross-case event equation is conditional, never a result.
 5. Steady/theory owns `s`, steady metric, and selected outer-reference/budget equation.
 6. Conclusion introduces no equation, numerical result, citation, or artifact.
-7. Freeze notation once for `Kármán`, `Re_D`, `Re_code`, spatial L2, DTW, ROI/mask, action order/sign, and percentages; delete duplicates or move them to supplement.
+7. Freeze notation once for `Kármán`, `Re_D`, provenance-only `Re_code`, spatial L2, DTW orientation, ROI/mask, action order/sign, and percentages; delete duplicates or move them to supplement. The reference parabolic-source case carries no reader-facing Reynolds value until inherited-label conversion closes.
 
 ## Panel readiness check
 Before calling any item panel-ready, record exact authority/artifact; chain/solver/geometry; case/seed/role; comparator; metric/estimand; ROI/domain/mask; weighting/normalization; window/phase/event coordinate; array orientation; rendering provenance; caption limitations; and artifact-audit state. Missing required fields mean `dependency-gated`, `blocked`, or `author-supply-gated`, with the listed fallback.

docs/JFM_WYQ/ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/00_GLOBAL_DECISION_LEDGER.md

@@ -47,24 +47,25 @@ Introduction freezes last so framing cannot outrun settled results.
 | Cross-case | Vortex boundary, Illusion PPO/negative SR, Erase gap | Capability preview; conclusion envelope | Kármán transfer, common metric |
 | Steady/theory | Uniform-inflow/free-slip-wall endpoint/sign/context, theory failure/budgets | Capability seed; conclusion limit | Cross-configuration continuation, amplitude agreement, mechanism/optimum |
 | Experiment | Author provenance and qualitative observation | Conclusion gate only | Quantitative CFD validation/numbers |
-| Conclusion | Integrated answer, limits, decisive tests | No new evidence | Detailed replay/new equations/results |
+| Conclusion | Text-only integrated established answer | Optional visibly author-owned limitations/outlook outside frozen synthesis | Detailed replay, limitations table, evidence map, decisive-tests programme, new equations/citations/numbers/results |
 
 Near-collision: M04 standardized PPO and M06 corrected mean values are **different estimands**. SR action magnitude and V5 steady spin ratio are **related contextual diagnostics**, not amplitude agreement. No arithmetic or replication/validation/agreement/triangulation language.
 
 ## Fixed scientific boundaries
-Cloaking/illusion is declared-reference matching, not universal invisibility. Positive SR is Kármán/cloak-only; Illusion SR is negative/historical. CCD is descriptive/noncausal; OID claim-free. Vortex is named comparable-scale transient capability; Erase quantification stays blocked. Steady is separate-chain base-bleed/gap-jet-family context, not boat-tail or mechanism. Theory constrains without finite-Re closure. Experiment is qualitative/open-loop/provenance-gated. No mechanism, momentum restoration, stability, optimality, robustness, universality, priority, or quantitative experimental validation is licensed.
+Cloaking/illusion is declared-reference matching, not universal invisibility. Positive SR is Kármán/cloak-only; Illusion SR is negative/historical. CCD is descriptive/noncausal; OID claim-free. Vortex is named comparable-scale transient capability; Erase quantification stays blocked. Steady is separate-chain kinematics-first viscous context, not a base-bleed/gap-jet mechanism label, boat-tail analogy, or mechanism. Observed gap-jet-family compatibility is allowed only after wall-motion direction is established and with a local hypothesis ceiling. Theory constrains without finite-Re closure. Experiment is qualitative/open-loop/provenance-gated. No mechanism, momentum restoration, stability, optimality, robustness, universality, priority, or quantitative experimental validation is licensed.
 
 ## Open author choices
 | Choice | Recommendation / safe default | Status | Consequence |
 |---|---|---|---|
 | Final title | Retain provisional title unless reopened after section freezes | `discuss` | Any change needs terminology/claim audit |
-| Fig.1 set and optional Re400 marker | Kármán dominant; retain sourced steady/Vortex/`ill_075L`; drop Re400 first | `discuss` | Omission fallback; ladder unchanged |
-| Standardized PPO/SR/Zero panel | Omit without same-protocol roles/window | `discuss` | Text unaffected |
-| CCD manuscript label | Exact preferred derived publication plus validated parent; avoid “canonical CCD” | `discuss` | Caption/reproducibility only |
-| Quantitative Vortex/Erase panels | Default omit while blockers remain | `blocked` | Named visual capability may remain |
+| Fig.1 set and optional Re400 marker | Author accepted the two-figure safe default: steady profiles plus a Kármán-dominant wake composition with one source-bound Vortex and one `ill_075L` preview; no Re400 marker | `author-choice-closed` | Exact panel source/provenance/caption/artwork remain gated; ladder unchanged |
+| Standardized PPO/SR/Zero panel | Omit; mismatched same-target acquisition blocks PPO inclusion | `blocked` | Use Target/SR/physical-zero only where exact local roles bind |
+| CCD manuscript label | Use `action-correlated correction-field modes` for outputs and `CCD analysis` generically | `revise` | Exact output terminology is mandatory |
+| Quantitative Vortex/Erase panels | Omit all scalars/efficacy wording until a versioned evaluator binds target, roles, ROI/mask, normalization, window and provenance | `blocked` | Named target/controlled/physical-zero role-field material may remain |
 | MFS field panel | Default omit until validation gates close | `blocked` | Use one-circle/sign-failure boundary |
-| Experiment image/final wording | Frank supplies prose/provenance; omit image if gate fails | `blocked` | Keep qualitative interface only |
-| Final display/equation compression | Minimum argumentative set | `discuss` | Move optional items to supplement/omit |
+| Experiment image | Author-provenance-gated; omit if the image gate fails | `author-interface` | This dependency does not block the author interface or authorize an observation |
+| Experiment wording | Frank-reserved substantive wording; no agent fill | `author-interface` | If new provenance-passing material arrives, import requires a new targeted provenance audit and explicit coordinator reopening decision |
+| Final display/equation compression | Minimum argumentative set; S8 uses the Hodge/period display with adjacent one-circle incompatibility and one integrated figure | `partially closed—S8 only` | S8 source/provenance/caption/artwork remain gated; other compression remains drafting-level |
 
 Defaults do not make unresolved rows frozen.
 
@@ -84,7 +85,7 @@ Defaults do not make unresolved rows frozen.
 - The experiment remains a short author-owned main-text subsection near the end.
 - The Introduction architecture is the accepted five-paragraph sequence: fascination/gap → pinball/force mediation → nonlinear feedback/PPO/analytical hooks → realization, independent evaluation, action-side and field-side analysis → narrowed question/contribution ladder/contracts bridge.
 - Reader-facing `Legacy`/`V5` naming is prohibited. Use `parabolic-inflow/no-slip-wall channel configuration` and `uniform-inflow/free-slip-wall channel configuration`; retain internal chain IDs only for provenance and ownership separation.
-- Reynolds naming is frozen in Section 2: use article-wide $Re_D=U_{ref}D/\nu$ with bulk/mean inlet speed for the parabolic configuration and uniform inlet speed for the uniform configuration; state $U_{max}\simeq1.5U_{ref}$ for the parabolic profile, convert authoritative $2D$ code labels by one half, prohibit bare `Re100`, and never infer equality from inherited labels.
+- Reynolds naming is frozen in Section 2: use article-wide $Re_D=U_{ref}D/\nu$ with bulk/mean inlet speed for the parabolic configuration and uniform inlet speed for the uniform configuration; state $U_{max}\simeq1.5U_{ref}$ for the parabolic profile, convert a $2D$ code label by one half only when the owning source establishes the same velocity reference; parabolic inherited labels remain gated where historical `U0` may be centreline or bulk/mean; prohibit bare `Re100`; never infer equality from inherited labels.
 - Section 2 reader-facing title is `Problem formulation, control framework and evaluation`; `contract` remains internal governance language only.
 - Section 2 architecture is frozen. Main text foregrounds the canonical improved method and uses one compact neutral sentence that later deep analyses use data generated with an earlier implementation under the same parabolic-inflow/no-slip-wall physical configuration; implementation differences and the absence of a complete canonical rerun are documented in the supplement. No canonical-generation, equivalence, reproduction, or rerun-completion claim is licensed.
 - The sensor note is `read`: placement is $x/D=10$, $y/D=0,\pm2$, radius $0.25D$, with both velocity components, and its ROI/metric boundaries are current. Raibaudo supports the streamwise precedent, Cornejo Maceda and Li support downstream phase/state sensing, and Marra (`mapped/full record`, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2024.593`) supports only low-dimensional controlled-flow plausibility; none establishes optimality or observability.
@@ -106,10 +107,46 @@ Format: `date | item | previous | new | authority/author instruction | affected
 | 2026-08-10 | Overall architecture | Under discussion | Structure/logic accepted; proportions provisional pending all section discussions | Author feedback | All Round-4 section freezes | Recheck final assembled balance |
 | 2026-08-10 | Conclusion and experiment | Conclusion/experiment placement carried but not restated as author decision | Distinct short Conclusion required; short author-owned experiment subsection retained near manuscript end | Author feedback | Experiment, Conclusion, assembled order | Preserve qualitative/provenance gates |
 | 2026-08-10 | Introduction | Freeze candidate with unresolved reader adjectives | Five-paragraph architecture frozen; exact boundary-condition configuration labels adopted | Author feedback plus repository configuration/kernel evidence | Introduction, Contracts, captions/ledgers | Revisit wording after detailed sections without reopening architecture |
-| 2026-08-10 | Reynolds naming | Configuration-local convention with parabolic reference unresolved | Section 2 freezes article-wide bulk/mean-based $Re_D=U_{ref}D/\nu$; uniform speed for uniform inlet; $U_{max}\simeq1.5U_{ref}$ for parabolic inlet; authoritative $2D$ labels convert by one half | Author feedback and repository evidence | Section 2, Introduction, labels/captions | Confirm every displayed inherited label against source authority |
+| 2026-08-10 | Reynolds naming | Configuration-local convention with parabolic reference unresolved | Section 2 freezes article-wide bulk/mean-based $Re_D=U_{ref}D/\nu$; uniform speed for uniform inlet; $U_{max}\simeq1.5U_{ref}$ for parabolic inlet; source-bound $2D$ labels convert by one half only when the velocity reference matches; historical parabolic labels remain gated | Author feedback and repository evidence | Section 2, Introduction, labels/captions | Confirm every displayed inherited label against source authority |
 | 2026-08-10 | Fig. 1 | Open choice | Undiscussed; no new decision | Author feedback | Capability/display planning | Keep open |
 | 2026-08-10 | Section 2 formulation and provenance | Freeze candidate; sensor/validation authorities misclassified; provenance too defensive | Architecture frozen; canonical main text plus compact neutral earlier-implementation sentence; differences and no-complete-rerun fact supplementary; sensor note `read`; CelerisLab dossier `read/full-report`; no equivalence claim | Author correction plus current training, sensor and validation authorities | Section 2, captions, supplement provenance, inventories | Keep run values and production dependency-gated; no Fig. 1 decision |
 | 2026-08-10 | Agent-control priority | Round-1-style comprehensive coverage remained prominent in R4 controls | Author-facing argument/design and decision value take priority; retain compact controlling-read/gap ledger | Author process correction | All R4/R5 prompts, packets and audits | Reject dossier-scale rediscovery or governance-heavy outputs |
 | 2026-08-10 | Section cadence | Sections researched/frozen individually | Present two detailed packets together; after author feedback launch two scoped continuation agents in parallel; coordinator second-audits both | Author process decision | Remaining R4 sections and R5 handoffs | Audit pair interfaces, duplication, ownership and accepted feedback |
 | 2026-08-10 | Continuation context | Agents assembled context from broad controls/dossiers | Coordinator minimum packet freezes exact reads, feedback, materials/readiness, decision, exclusions, length/share, paragraph jobs, display layout, ownership and questions; targeted Nowledge recall precedes repository verification when relevant | Author process decision | Coordinator, all continuation agents | Memory never overrides artifacts; no whole-project rediscovery |
 | 2026-08-10 | Kan99b mean-lift sign | `partial pass` with sign/convention described as unresolved | Preserve exact `partial pass`; sign difference is understood as CFD coordinate/force-direction convention, not unresolved physics or suspected wrong rotation | Author correction and qualification interpretation | Section 2, controls, future prose/captions | Remove unresolved-sign wording while preserving dossier label |
+
+## Integration closeout record — 2026-08-11
+
+All five pair audits and the final reconciliation were completed on 2026-08-11. Round 4 closed with S3/S8 author choices open and S9 as an author-interface. For R5 production, the author has now accepted the recorded S3 and S8 safe recommendations and permits explicit author-field placeholder TeX for S9. These decisions close author-choice status only; they do not retroactively approve artifacts, provenance or experimental content.
+
+| Section | Current integrated choice/default | Status after integration | Recommended disposition | Coordinator second-audit focus |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| 3 | Capability/progression preview only; one representative Vortex and one Illusion source-bound preview; steady exact endpoint detail deleted; Fig. 1 composition remains author choice | `discuss` | `discuss` | Final reconciliation complete; Fig. 1 composition remains an open author choice |
+| 4 | Reference parabolic-source case uses exact configuration wording and no reader-facing Reynolds value; body jobs are inference/comparator-led; layout items are coordinator defaults | `frozen` | R5 eligible; artifacts gated | Final reconciliation passed; no figure generated |
+| 5 | Historical effective applied $\alpha=\omega/U_0$ retains its source convention; general $s=\alpha R(U_0/U_{ref})$, reducing to $s=\alpha R$ only with source-established $U_0=U_{ref}$; neutral source-case labels and shared-lag six-channel native-DTW deletion contract fixed | `frozen` | R5 eligible; artifacts gated | Final reconciliation passed; parabolic velocity-reference conversion remains gated; no figure generated |
+| 6 | Exact configuration wording; target → physical zero → constant reference → DRL is the sole accounting-order exception; complementarity internal; POD supplemental; cross-cloak small multiples omitted; source-case Reynolds conversions removed from the Figure Plan | `frozen` | R5 eligible; artifacts gated | Final reconciliation passed; title/composition remain drafting-level; no figure generated |
+| 7 | Bounded role-identity/morphology text architecture; all provisional Vortex/Erase scalars and efficacy implications omitted; quantitative displays blocked and role-field visuals dependency-gated | `frozen` text contract | R5 text eligible | Final reconciliation passed; no figure generated |
+| 8 | Tangential wall velocity alone is directly prescribed; shear/vorticity, shear-layer, inter-cylinder and recirculation features are endpoint observations/hypotheses | `discuss` | `discuss` | Frank must decide the main equation/composition; no acceptance inferred |
+| 9 | Author-owned substantive wording remains reserved; image and physical command map are separately provenance-gated | `author-interface` | `author-interface` | Any future D3/C1 import requires a new targeted provenance audit and explicit coordinator reopening decision |
+| 10 | Text-only established synthesis; no Erase success, experiment result, display, equation, citation, number, limitations table, evidence map or decisive-tests programme | `frozen` | R5 eligible | Pair-E second audit passed; later author limitations/outlook remains outside the frozen synthesis |
+
+**Final reconciliation status:** Pair audits and final reconciliation completed on 2026-08-11. S1 is frozen/R5 eligible; S2 frozen/eligible with local gates; S3 remains `discuss` for the genuine Fig. 1 author choice; S4–S6 are frozen/eligible with artifacts gated; S7 text is frozen/eligible with quantitative Vortex/Erase displays blocked and role visuals gated; S8 remains `discuss` for the genuine author equation/composition choice; S9 remains author-interface, not agent drafting; S10 is frozen/eligible.
+
+**Safe defaults applied:** omit provisional Section-7 scalars; omit PPO from the mismatched Section-5 same-target comparison; keep Section-6 complementarity diagnostics internal; keep POD supplementary; omit cross-cloak small multiples; omit a conclusion display. These defaults support the frozen text contracts but do not resolve S3/S8 author choices or alter the S9 interface.
+
+**Supersessions:** current Sections 1 and 2 are the active integrated owners of former Style-01/02 content; deleted Style files are historical/superseded provenance only. The current Section-10 author correction supersedes any control that required a limitations table, evidence map, decisive-tests/future-work programme, or conclusion-owned display/equation/citation/number.
+
+
+## Final coordinator outcome — 2026-08-11
+
+Pair audits and final reconciliation are complete. Round 4 is closed for frozen units but is not globally all-sections frozen because Sections 3 and 8 remain `discuss` and Section 9 remains an author-interface. The figure-spec phase may proceed under recorded gates. Literature/style enrichment may cover all units, but it must not override the open S3 Fig. 1 choice, the open S8 equation/composition choice, or the S9 author interface.
+
+## Round-5 author-choice record — 2026-08-11
+
+| Date | Item | Previous | Accepted R5 control | Closed status | Gates explicitly retained |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| 2026-08-11 | S3 figure composition | Genuine author choice; two-figure recommendation only | Two-figure safe default: steady profile figure plus Kármán-dominant wake figure with one source-bound Vortex and one 0.75-radius Illusion preview | Author-choice gate closed | Exact panel selection, source/provenance, crop/scale, caption, artwork, rendering and publication readiness |
+| 2026-08-11 | S8 equation/composition | Genuine author choice; recommendation only | Multi-cylinder Hodge/period outer-solution display with prescribed periods, adjacent one-circle incompatibility, and one integrated CFD/outer-reference/sign-failure figure | Author-choice gate closed | Equation/source check, figure assets, provenance, caption, redraw/rendering, finite-image status and all finite-Re mechanism ceilings |
+| 2026-08-11 | S9 R5 output form | Author-interface; agent prose blocked | Explicit author-field placeholder TeX is permitted | Placeholder-format choice closed | All apparatus facts, execution details, trial IDs, command map, raw media, processing, permissions, morphology observations and result import remain author/provenance-gated |
+
+These accepted choices supersede only the corresponding `discuss`/output-form status in the earlier closeout rows. They do not close any artifact, evaluator, source, provenance, caption or publication-readiness gate.

docs/JFM_WYQ/ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/00_QUALITY_GATE.md

@@ -43,5 +43,8 @@ A subagent failing this gate is not launched to rediscover the project.
 - `revise`: targeted argument/design/interface correction is needed.
 - `frozen`: coordinator second audit locked the R4 text contract.
 - `blocked`: required authority, material, role, comparator, decision or conflict resolution is absent.
+- `author-interface`: substantive content is explicitly reserved for author supply and provenance binding; it is neither frozen nor an agent-filled gap.
+
+An integration correction pass returns recommendations only; it does not perform the coordinator second audit or set a new freeze.
 
 Final Round-4 audit checks the paired sections in the whole-manuscript order, ownership, bridges, claim ladder, display/equation inventory, accepted author decisions and Round-5 handoff. Optional omitted panels do not block text when a safe fallback preserves the argument.

docs/JFM_WYQ/ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/00_R4_CLOSEOUT_AUDIT.md

@@ -0,0 +1,126 @@
+# Round-4 horizontal closeout audit
+
+**State:** final reconciliation complete; pair audits and final reconciliation closed on 2026-08-11.
+
+**Role:** coordinator-auditable correction, final Round-5 admission decision and handoff control; not evidence, manuscript prose, artifact approval, or a section freeze.
+
+**Date:** 2026-08-11.
+
+## 1. Scope and consolidated correction categories
+
+This integration pass normalized the current Round-4 controls and Sections 1–10 under six categories:
+
+1. **Configuration and Reynolds convention:** article-wide $Re_D=U_{ref}D/\nu$ remains fixed; $U_{ref}$ is bulk/mean for parabolic inflow and uniform speed for uniform inflow. The reference parabolic-source Kármán case carries no reader-facing Reynolds value until its inherited `U0` centreline-versus-bulk/mean label is source-bound.
+2. **Action, order and signs:** computational order is $(F,U,L)=(\text{front},\text{rear}_{y+},\text{rear}_{y-})$; positive $\omega$ is counter-clockwise under $(U_w,V_w)=(-\omega r_y,\omega r_x)$. Historical SR $\alpha=\omega/U_0$ has inverse-length units unless radius is already nondimensionalized; the general article surface-speed command is $s=\omega R/U_{ref}=\alpha R(U_0/U_{ref})$; $s=\alpha R$ is allowed only when source authority establishes $U_0=U_{ref}$. Historical parabolic $U_0$ is not retroactively bound.
+3. **Ownership and preview/detail splits:** Section 3 previews progression; Section 7 owns detailed Vortex/Illusion/Erase material; Section 8 owns exact steady endpoint/theory context; Figure Plans own crop, scale and panel geometry.
+4. **Metric and interpretation boundaries:** generic metric definitions remain in Section 2; local Section-6 and steady estimands remain non-equivalent. DTW orientation/window/aggregation and deletion-delta sign are explicit. CCD outputs use exactly `action-correlated correction-field modes`.
+5. **Evidence ceilings and safe omissions:** provisional Vortex/Erase scalars and efficacy wording are omitted; PPO is omitted from the mismatched Section-5 comparison; Section-6 complementarity stays internal, POD supplemental, cross-cloak small multiples omitted; experiment remains author-interface.
+6. **Conclusion and supersession controls:** Section 10 is text-only established synthesis. Required limitations table, evidence map, decisive-tests/future-work programme and conclusion-owned display/equation/citation/number are superseded. Former Style-01/02 files are historical; current Sections 1/2 are active owners.
+
+## 2. Section 1–10 integration matrix
+
+| Section | Formal current status | Text readiness | Artifact readiness | Open author choices | Safe fallback | Recommended disposition |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| 1 Introduction | `frozen` | Architecture ready | No owned empirical display | Drafting-level cultural hook/optional example | Generic hook; omit optional example | R5 eligible; Pair A passed |
+| 2 Problem/method/evaluation | `frozen` | Architecture ready; local source gates explicit | Required schematics/tables dependency-gated | No architecture choice | Minimal schematic/tables; provenance detail supplementary | R5 eligible with local source/display gates; Pair A passed |
+| 3 Capability/progression | `discuss` | Preview/detail split complete | Fig. 1 dependency-gated | Genuine Fig. 1 author choice | One representative Vortex and one Illusion source-bound preview | Keep open; do not freeze Fig. 1 |
+| 4 Kármán performance | `frozen` | Text contract R5 eligible | Field redraw/caption binding dependency-gated | No scientific choice; production defaults recorded | Compact table; optional spectrum/disturbance material omitted first | Frozen text; artifacts gated; no figure generated |
+| 5 Kármán SR law | `frozen` | Text contract R5 eligible after final narrow fix | Target/SR/zero available; PPO mismatch gate retained | Optional deployment envelope is drafting-level | Omit PPO/envelope; retain law, Target/SR/zero and deletion | Frozen text; artifacts gated; no figure generated |
+| 6 Field/CCD | `frozen` | Text contract R5 eligible | Main composites dependency-gated; POD supplemental | Title/final composition choices are drafting-level | Scalar ledger + residual definition | Frozen text; artifacts gated; no figure generated |
+| 7 Cross-case | `frozen` text contract | Text R5 eligible | Quantitative Vortex/Erase blocked; role visuals dependency-gated | Final visual selection remains production-level | Physical-variable role fields only; positive Illusion PPO | Frozen text; displays remain gated; no figure generated |
+| 8 Steady/theory | `discuss` | Direct-prescription/endpoint-observation boundary repaired | Integrated composition dependency-gated | Frank: main equation/composition | Endpoint/sign table + concise outer boundary | Remain `discuss`; no acceptance invented |
+| 9 Experiment | `author-interface` | Scaffold only; substantive wording author-reserved | Image/command map separately provenance-gated | Frank supplies apparatus, trials, media and wording | Omit observation/media | Pair E passed as author-interface; not a frozen agent-written section |
+| 10 Discussion/conclusion | `frozen` | Text-only synthesis architecture passed | No display | Optional author-owned limitations/outlook outside synthesis | Omit experiment and Erase | R5 eligible; Pair E passed |
+
+## 3. Coordinator second-audit result — 2026-08-11
+
+- **Pair A — Sections 1–2: PASS.** Scientific content was not altered. S1 is frozen/R5 eligible; S2 is frozen/R5 eligible with its local source/display gates.
+- **Pair B — Sections 3–4: PASS AFTER REPAIR.** Section 3 remains `discuss` because Fig. 1 composition is a genuine author choice; it uses one representative Vortex preview and leaves event evolution to Section 7. Section 4 is frozen/R5 eligible with artifact gates retained.
+- **Pair C — Sections 5–6: PASS AFTER REPAIR.** Section 5 now binds historical effective applied $\alpha=\omega/U_0$, the conditional physical conversion, neutral source-case labels and the exact shared-lag six-channel deletion contract. Sections 5 and 6 are frozen/R5 eligible with artifact gates retained.
+- **Pair D — Sections 7–8: PASS WITH OPEN S8 AUTHOR CHOICE.** Section 7 text is frozen/R5 eligible; quantitative Vortex/Erase displays remain blocked and role visuals gated. Section 8 remains `discuss`, preserving the genuine author equation/composition choice and the direct-prescription versus endpoint-observation boundary.
+- **Pair E — Sections 9–10: PASS.** Section 9 remains an author-interface with image/provenance dependencies separated from author-reserved wording. Section 10 is frozen/R5 eligible. Any future experiment import requires a new targeted provenance audit and explicit coordinator reopening decision.
+
+Pair audits and the final reconciliation are complete. Frozen text units are Round-5 eligible under their recorded local and artifact gates; Sections 3 and 8 remain `discuss`, and Section 9 remains an author-interface.
+
+## 4. Post-R4 handoff fields
+
+- **Final coordinator record:** `2026-08-11 | Pairs A–E audited; final reconciliation complete; frozen units R5 eligible under recorded gates | coordinator pair audits and final reconciliation`.
+- **Accepted author choices:** none newly inferred in this repair.
+- **Open author choices:** `S3 FIG.1 COMPOSITION`; `S8 MAIN EQUATION/COMPOSITION (FRANK)`.
+- **Drafting-level production choices:** `S4 density/spectrum defaults`; `S5 optional envelope`; `S6 title/phase-bin composition`—these do not reopen the frozen text contracts.
+- **Remaining blocked authorities:** `PARABOLIC SOURCE VELOCITY-REFERENCE CONVERSION`; `S7 VERSIONED EVALUATOR FOR QUANTITATIVE VORTEX/ERASE`; `S9 AUTHOR PROVENANCE/COMMAND MAP/WORDING`.
+- **Final section statuses:** `S1 frozen/R5 eligible; S2 frozen/R5 eligible with local gates; S3 discuss—genuine Fig. 1 author choice; S4 frozen/R5 eligible—artifacts gated; S5 frozen/R5 eligible—artifacts gated; S6 frozen/R5 eligible—artifacts gated; S7 frozen text/R5 eligible—Vortex/Erase quantitative displays blocked and role visuals gated; S8 discuss—genuine author equation/composition; S9 author-interface—not agent drafting; S10 frozen/R5 eligible`.
+- **R5 authorization:** all frozen text units are eligible under their recorded gates; S3/S8 remain discuss and S9 remains author-interface.
+- **Figure-specification phase:** integration complete. Specifications, provenance fields, normalized readiness states and safe fallbacks are organized for Sections 1–10 under recorded artifact/evaluator/author gates. No panel, table, figure or artifact was generated, promoted, recomputed or newly independently audited.
+- **Paragraph-level literature/style enrichment:** may cover all units but must not override the open S3/S8 author choices or the S9 author interface; no new literature was used in this repair.
+
+## 5. Compact coverage ledger
+
+| State | Material | Boundary |
+|---|---|---|
+| `read` | Four current Cursor rules; all six R4 controls; current Sections 1–10 | Architecture, terminology, ownership and current claims; read is not independent scientific verification or artifact audit |
+| `read` | Targeted current SR authority/code for historical action definition and DTW deletion contract | Exact implementation binding only; no CFD, fitting, recomputation or artifact generation |
+| `memory-recalled` | Three narrow Nowledge searches for Reynolds/ownership, SR action history, and Sections 7/9/10 decisions | Navigation/history only; repository authorities controlled edits |
+| `mapped` | Owning R3/package authorities already named by current packets | Not reread except the concrete SR conflict; mapping is not verification |
+| `not-covered` | New literature, R1–R3 edits, artifacts, CFD/training/rendering/computation, experiment media | Explicitly excluded; targeted current Figure-Plan text was edited |
+| `external-inaccessible` | None required for the integration decisions | No accessibility claim beyond current packet records |
+
+## 6. Integration disposition
+
+All five pair audits and the final reconciliation are complete as of 2026-08-11. Round 4 is closed for frozen units, but it is not globally all-sections frozen: Sections 3 and 8 remain `discuss` for genuine author choices, and Section 9 remains an author-interface rather than agent drafting. The figure-specification integration is complete under recorded gates; literature/style enrichment may cover all units but cannot override those open choices or interface.
+
+## 7. Round-5 admission audit — 2026-08-11
+
+**Audit basis.** All ten current `SECTION_*.md` packets, including their dated paragraph-level literature/style enrichments, were read against the current global ledger, style crosswalk, Round-2 structure/style controls and terminology/writing rules. `PASS` admits the packet's authorized prose jobs; `CONDITIONAL` admits only the listed text scope while retaining local author, source or artifact exclusions; `BLOCKED` admits no agent drafting for that unit. Prose readiness is not artifact readiness.
+
+| Section | Admission | Packet/jobs, authority and claim ceiling | Terminology, displays/equations and provenance | Interfaces, author inputs and gates |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| 1 Introduction | **PASS** | Frozen five-job architecture; internal ladder/definitions remain authority-owned and literature remains framing/style only; no detailed result or raised claim | Configuration names and `Kármán` fixed; no owned empirical display, equation or table; optional hook/example safely omittable | Imports ladder and exports definitions bridge; cultural hook/citation wording are drafting choices, not blockers |
+| 2 Problem/method/evaluation | **CONDITIONAL** | Frozen jobs and claim ceiling; current method/configuration authorities own facts; exact run rows remain source-bound | Required method schematics/tables are production-gated; reusable equations admitted only with source-bound notation; inherited parabolic Reynolds conversion remains gated | Prose may draft definitions and bounded qualification; do not print unbound run values, imply canonical rerun/equivalence or claim display readiness |
+| 3 Capability/progression | **CONDITIONAL** | Paragraph jobs and preview/detail ownership are ready, but packet remains `discuss`; no pooled efficacy or transferred depth | Fig. 1 composition is a genuine author choice and all panels remain source/production-gated; no equation | Draft only figure-independent viewing contract, non-equivalence, bounded previews and Kármán-selection logic. Exclude final panel count/layout, source-bound representative choice and composition-dependent caption prose pending author choice |
+| 4 Kármán performance | **PASS** | Frozen text contract; authority-bound tested range, five-realization result and deep-case field comparison; local repeatability/metric ceilings explicit | Two figures are not generated/approved; field redraw, hash/scale/crop and exact shared spectrum window remain gated; no new equation ownership | Paragraph prose may begin using packet facts; use omission/supplement fallbacks and never present artifact readiness |
+| 5 Kármán SR law | **PASS** | Frozen five jobs; executable surrogate, imposed symmetry and parent-relative deletion ceilings explicit | Required owner equations are definition-ready; main figure production gated; PPO/SR common-target comparison blocked pending reconciliation; historical $U_0$ conversion gated | Draft formula-parent/standardized SR scopes separately; omit PPO from common panel and optional envelope unless exact gates close |
+| 6 Field/CCD | **PASS** | Frozen six jobs; exact four-role authority, scalar ceiling, non-paired residual and descriptive CCD/POD boundary explicit | Required share/residual equations ready; composites need redraw/recomposition; POD supplemental; cross-cloak audit omitted; optional CCD operator only if needed | Draft bounded mean/scalar/residual/modal prose; do not promote internal complementarity diagnostics or infer causality/triangulation |
+| 7 Cross-case extensions | **PASS** | Frozen text contract with role-field-only Vortex/Erase and positive PPO Illusion ceiling; local clocks/comparators and strict non-transfer explicit | Quantitative Vortex/Erase displays **BLOCKED** without versioned evaluators; role visuals dependency-gated; no scalar efficacy; source-bound fallbacks recorded | Draft changed-contract and morphology/role prose only; omit efficacy, common score, arbitrary-flow, transfer and Kármán interpretation |
+| 8 Steady/theory | **CONDITIONAL** | Paragraph jobs, endpoint authority, kinematics-first hypothesis and failed closure ceiling are ready, but packet remains `discuss` | Frank must select the main equation and integrated composition; source assets are redraw-ready, not approved; outer field retains bounded-reference status | Draft only figure/equation-independent context, endpoint and failure logic. Exclude final displayed equation, composition-dependent narration/caption and any acceptance of the recommendation |
+| 9 Experiment | **BLOCKED** for agent prose | Author-interface only; scaffold has jobs but Frank owns apparatus, execution, trial observations and wording; no experimental result currently exports | Image/command-map provenance unresolved; no equation/table; single frames cannot support temporal, field, force or validation claims | Agent may preserve placeholders/interface only. Manuscript paragraph drafting waits for author supply, targeted provenance audit and explicit reopening; omission is the current fallback |
+| 10 Discussion/conclusion | **PASS** | Frozen three-plus-two text-only synthesis; current Sections 1–8 own all imported meanings; no new evidence, values, citations or outlook programme | No display, equation, citation or number; exact terminology and non-equivalence controls ready | Draft from established retained results only; no Section-9 observation unless its separate reopening gate later passes; author-only limitations/outlook remains outside freeze |
+
+### Admission result and conditional exclusions
+
+**Round-5 paragraph drafting may begin now for Sections 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10, and only for the figure/equation-independent portions of Sections 3 and 8 described above. Section 9 is blocked for agent manuscript drafting.** The manuscript is therefore **prose-admitted with conditional exclusions**, not globally unconditional and not artifact-ready.
+
+The remaining conditions are exact:
+
+1. **S2 source/display gates:** bind per-result settings, selected policy/normalizer/target, qualification rows, displayed inherited Reynolds labels and required schematic/table sources before printing dependent detail.
+2. **S3 author gate:** Frank selects Fig. 1 composition; until then, no final panel selection, layout, source-bound representative choice or composition-dependent caption prose.
+3. **S4–S6 production gates:** redraw/recompose and provenance-bind figures; keep spectrum/window, PPO/SR target reconciliation, historical velocity-reference conversion, action-trace choice, optional operator/POD and cross-cloak material under their recorded gates/fallbacks.
+4. **S7 evaluator gates:** no quantitative Vortex or Erase efficacy, scalar or publication panel until a versioned evaluator binds target, roles, ROI/mask, normalization, window and provenance; role-field visuals remain production-gated.
+5. **S8 author gate:** Frank selects the main equation and composition; no composition-dependent prose or implied acceptance. MFS/outer material remains a prescribed-circulation reference, not finite-$Re$ mechanism validation.
+6. **S9 author/provenance gate:** no agent-authored apparatus/result prose and no promoted media until author facts, trial/media provenance, permissions, command map and morphology wording pass a targeted audit and explicit reopening. Otherwise omit.
+7. **Article-wide artifact gate:** no figure, table or panel is publication-ready merely because a textual specification or source exists. Every retained display still requires source/provenance, crop/scale/role binding, caption-ceiling and final production review.
+
+### Audit dimensions and final determination
+
+Packet status, paragraph jobs, evidence authority, claim ceiling, terminology, display provenance/readiness/fallback, equation ownership, literature style support, interfaces/bridges, author-only inputs and artifact gates are explicit for every section. No unresolved production gate was marked resolved. The operative distinction is:
+
+- **Prose-ready:** authorized paragraph jobs can be drafted within the owning packet's scientific and wording ceiling.
+- **Artifact-ready:** a retained display has passed source/provenance, role/metric, rendering and caption approval. No Round-4 planning statement grants this state; current main displays remain gated or absent as recorded above.
+
+**Final admission:** **CONDITIONAL PASS for Round 5.** Begin bounded paragraph drafting under the updated writing protocol and the section-by-section exclusions above; do not treat this as admission of S9 agent prose, approval of S3/S8 author choices, or publication readiness of any artifact.
+
+## 8. Final style-closeout coverage record
+
+- `read`: all current Round-4 Sections 1–10 in full, including every dated 2026-08-11 enrichment block; current global ledger, style crosswalk, closeout audit and README; Round-2 structure freeze/style guide; current terminology and writing rules. These reads govern architecture/style only and are not independent scientific or artifact audits.
+- `memory-recalled`: three narrow Nowledge searches for Round-4 admission/status, recurring paragraph style and artifact gates. Memory was navigation/history only; repository controls determined the audit.
+- `durable-memory write`: not used; this closeout records its decision in repository controls, and no separate durable memory was needed.
+- `thread recall`: not used; exact conversation wording was unnecessary after current repository authorities were read.
+- `literature`: no new search or PDF read was performed in this final synthesis. The section packets' dated literature work was **read as recorded planning evidence** and mapped to recurring global style contracts; it was not independently re-read, verified, or used as internal scientific authority.
+- `Working Memory`: not used.
+- `not-covered`: raw artifacts, scientific recomputation, CFD, training, SR/CCD/theory reruns, experiment media audit, figure generation and publication rendering.
+
+## 9. Round-5 author-choice update — 2026-08-11
+
+The author accepted the S3 two-figure safe default and the S8 recommended equation/composition, and authorized explicit author-field placeholder TeX for S9. R5 admission is updated only as follows: S3 may draft against the two-figure interface; S8 may draft the Hodge/period display with adjacent one-circle incompatibility and integrated-figure responsibilities; S9 may create placeholders containing author fields only.
+
+This update closes no scientific, source, evaluator, provenance, caption, artwork, rendering or publication-readiness gate. S7 quantitative Vortex/Erase remains blocked; S3/S8 displays remain production-gated; S9 remains blocked for agent-authored facts, observations and experimental results. The exact R5 controls and output paths are in `../ROUND5_BOTTOM_UP/README.md`.

docs/JFM_WYQ/ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/00_STYLE_CROSSWALK.md

@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
-# Round 4 Gate-A style audit and crosswalk
+# Round 4 style synthesis and Round-5 crosswalk
 
-**Role:** coordinator audit of `STYLE_01_INTRODUCTION.md` through `STYLE_10_DISCUSSION_CONCLUSION.md`. This is style/architecture control, not manuscript prose, scientific evidence, artifact approval, or a section freeze.
+**Role:** historical Gate-A audit of the original ten style memos; its style findings are progressively integrated into active `SECTION_*.md` files, and parallel style memos are deleted after integration. This is style/architecture control, not manuscript prose, scientific evidence, artifact approval, or a section freeze.
 
-**Overall Gate-A result: PASS.** All ten style memos pass after the four targeted corrections. This file records the coordinator re-audit only.
+**Overall result: PASS for global style synthesis.** The historical Gate-A audit remains below; the 2026-08-11 paragraph-level enrichment in all ten active section packets is now consolidated into the operational Round-5 protocol without changing science or readiness.
 
 ## 1. Scope and complete coverage ledger
 
@@ -23,18 +23,18 @@ Observed comparator order, cadence and caveat practice come from the memos' decl
 
 ## 2. Gate-A result by memo
 
-| Memo | Result | Exact reason | Targeted correction |
+| Integrated owner | Result | Exact reason | Targeted correction |
 |---|---|---|---|
-| `STYLE_01_INTRODUCTION.md` | **PASS** | Four exact DOI records and declared PDF-version limits; complete controlling reads; observed practice and recommendation separated; section-specific jobs, caveats, bridges and anti-patterns; no project value invented | None; retain publisher-version caveat and freeze Introduction last |
-| `STYLE_02_CONTRACTS_METRICS.md` | **PASS** | Four exact identities/DOIs/read levels; sampled comparator-first practice is not universalized; complete controls and owner inputs; precise display/equation/qualification ceiling | None; retain selected-observable qualification, not broad validation |
-| `STYLE_03_CAPABILITY_FIGURE.md` | **PASS** | Four exact identities/DOIs/read levels; non-pooled hierarchy, caption/body split, local failure, readiness and fallbacks are explicit; no quantitative annotation invented | None; panel selection stays `discuss`, blocked content omitted |
-| `STYLE_04_KARMAN_PERFORMANCE.md` | **PASS** | Four exact identities/DOIs/read levels; scalar-first literature practice is distinguished from authority-led L2-first recommendation; M04/M06 and Legacy/V5 boundaries explicit | None. Its first-pass `revise` label reflects no-self-freeze, not a Gate-A content defect |
-| `STYLE_05_SR_LAW.md` | **PASS** | Required R2/R3 controls are now read, and panel status, ownership and Kármán/cloak-only scope are reconciled without changing the claim ceiling | None; targeted controlling-read correction verified |
-| `STYLE_06_FIELD_CCD.md` | **PASS** | Three exact full-PDF identities plus one exact mapped/inaccessible record; read levels are not inflated; mean-before-modes, non-pairing, fixed terminology, POD boundary and M04/M06 separation explicit | None; keep Noack et al. (2016) mapped unless full text is read |
-| `STYLE_07_CROSS_CASE.md` | **PASS** | The Wang et al. author identity and DOI are corrected; structure, evidence boundaries and scientific recommendation are unchanged | None; targeted bibliographic correction verified |
-| `STYLE_08_STEADY_THEORY.md` | **PASS** | Four exact DOI-bearing full-PDF records; controls, owner dossier and relevant theory authorities read; observation, outer reference, failed route and recommendation distinct; MFS/mechanism ceilings correct | None; preserve blocked MFS field and one-circle/sign-failure fallback |
-| `STYLE_09_EXPERIMENT.md` | **PASS** | The display/equation inventory is now read, and experiment displays retain explicit author-supply gates and prose/omission fallbacks without promoting an observation | None; targeted inventory reconciliation verified |
-| `STYLE_10_DISCUSSION_CONCLUSION.md` | **PASS** | The Deng et al. and Cornejo Maceda author forms now match the controlling identities; architecture and scientific recommendation are unchanged | None; targeted identity corrections verified |
+| `SECTION_01_INTRODUCTION_FREEZE.md` | **PASS** | Current owner of the integrated Introduction architecture and former Style-01 findings | Deleted `STYLE_01_INTRODUCTION.md` is historical/superseded provenance only |
+| `SECTION_02_PROBLEM_METHOD_EVALUATION.md` | **PASS** | Current owner of the integrated method/evaluation architecture and former Style-02 findings | Deleted `STYLE_02_CONTRACTS_METRICS.md` is historical/superseded provenance only |
+| `SECTION_03_CAPABILITY_PROGRESSION.md` | **PASS** | The former Style-03 findings, four exact identities/DOIs/read levels, comparator-led visual hierarchy, caption/body division, local limits, anti-patterns and fallbacks are integrated into the active Section file; the parallel style memo was deleted | None; publication-size event-sequence choice remains `discuss` |
+| `SECTION_04_KARMAN_RESULTS.md` | **PASS** | The former Style-04 findings, four exact identities/DOIs/read levels, comparator-led escalation, field/signal separation, caption practice and anti-patterns are integrated into the active Section file; the parallel style memo was deleted. Current author feedback replaces the old retention emphasis with five-realization high-performance discovery | None; final two-figure density choices remain `discuss` |
+| `SECTION_05_KARMAN_SR_LAW.md` | **PASS** | Gate-A style research passed: required R2/R3 controls were read, and panel status, ownership and Kármán/cloak-only scope were reconciled without changing the claim ceiling; these findings were integrated into the Section file and the parallel style memo was deleted | None; targeted controlling-read correction verified |
+| `SECTION_06_KARMAN_FIELD_CCD.md` | **PASS** | Gate-A style research passed: three exact full-PDF identities plus one exact mapped/inaccessible record; read levels are not inflated; mean-before-modes, non-pairing, fixed terminology, POD boundary and M04/M06 separation remain explicit; these findings were integrated into the Section file and the parallel style memo was deleted | None; keep Noack et al. (2016) mapped unless full text is read |
+| `SECTION_07_CROSS_CASE_EXTENSIONS.md` | **PASS** | Gate-A style research passed and was integrated with the author-corrected changed-contract architecture, actual Vortex/Illusion/Erase data audit, evidence boundaries and two-figure production interface; the parallel style memo was deleted | None; retain event-relative semantics, local comparators and strict non-transfer boundaries |
+| `SECTION_08_STEADY_THEORY.md` | **PASS** | Gate-A style research and author feedback were integrated into the Section file: finite-Re observation, improved kinematics-first physical hypothesis, prescribed-circulation outer solution, streamline display and failed sign/closure route remain distinct; the parallel style memo was deleted | None; retain outer-reference status and finite-Re mechanism ceiling |
+| `SECTION_09_EXPERIMENT.md` | **PASS** | Gate-A style research passed and was integrated: experiment media retain explicit author-supply gates and prose/omission fallbacks, with no observation promoted before provenance closes; the parallel style memo was deleted | None; retain author-supply gating, prose/omission fallback and no-observation-promotion ceiling |
+| `SECTION_10_DISCUSSION_CONCLUSION.md` | **PASS** | Gate-A style research passed and was integrated: exact Deng et al. and Cornejo Maceda literature identities were corrected, and the evidence-order/separate-Discussion-and-Conclusion rationale was retained; the current author instruction supersedes the former limitations/future-work design, and the parallel style memo was deleted | None; retain exact identities and the evidence-order/split rationale without restoring limitations or future-work design |
 
 No memo uses literature to establish an internal result, and no memo invents a new internal number. The corrected defects were limited to exact identity and control-coverage bookkeeping; they do not alter scientific claims.
 
@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ No memo uses literature to establish an internal result, and no memo invents a n
 - **Cross-case:** change one contract dimension where possible; renew comparator; label visual-only and negative evidence locally.
 - **Steady/theory:** late context is narrower than a second climax; attractive theory and failed sign/closure stay adjacent.
 - **Experiment:** apparatus/acquisition/provenance precede qualitative observation; omit media when provenance fails.
-- **Discussion/Conclusion:** complete interpretation before the short close; synthesize in evidence order; future work names decisive tests.
+- **Discussion/Conclusion:** complete interpretation before the short close and synthesize only established answers in evidence order. Limitations/outlook are optional, visibly author-owned, and outside the current synthesis architecture.
 
 ## 4. Global Round-4 rules to freeze
 
@@ -70,11 +70,11 @@ No memo uses literature to establish an internal result, and no memo invents a n
 2. **Evidence escalation:** named capability → Legacy Kármán independent field evaluation → bounded Kármán/cloak-only interpretation; cross-cases do not inherit deeper levels.
 3. **Local caveats:** put mask/window, acquisition, causal, transfer, theory and provenance limits with the affected sentence/caption.
 4. **One job per paragraph:** delete package chronology, inventory prose and panel narration.
-5. **Ownership:** Contracts owns reusable definitions; Capability Fig. 1/progression; Performance detailed Legacy L2/DTW; SR deployment/law/deletion; Field/CCD corrected means/residual/modes/POD; Cross-case changed-contract extensions; Steady/theory V5 endpoint/sign/failure; Experiment provenance/observation; Conclusion synthesis/limits/tests and no new evidence.
+5. **Ownership:** Section 2 owns reusable definitions; Capability Fig. 1/progression; Performance detailed reference-case L2/DTW; SR deployment/law/deletion; Field/CCD corrected means/residual/modes/POD; Cross-case changed-contract extensions; Steady/theory separate-chain endpoint/sign/failure; Experiment provenance/observation; Conclusion text-only synthesis and no new evidence.
 6. **Caption/body division:** caption states chain, case/role, comparator, metric/coordinate, source and ceiling; body explains inferential consequence.
 7. **Display discipline:** inventory never means existence. Every retained display needs owner, job, source, readiness, caption ceiling and fallback; text and artifact readiness stay separate.
 8. **Equation discipline:** freeze reusable notation once; do not duplicate owner equations; Conclusion has none.
-9. **Bridges:** gap → contracts → capability → independent Kármán evaluation → law complexity → field accounting → non-transfer → steady context → qualitative deployability → limits/tests.
+9. **Bridges:** gap → contracts → capability → independent Kármán evaluation → law complexity → field accounting → non-transfer → steady context → qualitative deployability → established synthesis.
 10. **Claim ceilings:** positive SR Kármán/cloak only; Illusion SR historical/negative; CCD descriptive/noncausal using exactly **action-correlated correction-field modes**; OID claim-free; steady contextual; experiment qualitative, open-loop and provenance-gated.
 11. **Notation/chain:** preserve `Kármán`, `Re_D`, `Re_code`, spatial L2 versus Level/Stage, DTW orientation, action order/sign, ROI/mask/window and percentages. Legacy/V5 never pool, continue, validate or imply equivalence.
 12. **Metric boundary:** periodic mean/phase, event-relative, mean-only, steady profile/`E_inf_vector`, and native/normalized DTW are non-equivalent. M04/M06 means are **different estimands**; SR action magnitude/V5 spin are **related contextual diagnostics** only.
@@ -82,9 +82,9 @@ No memo uses literature to establish an internal result, and no memo invents a n
 ## 5. Author decisions for macro discussion (maximum five)
 
 1. **Figure density and main/supplement split.** Recommend the minimum argumentative main set; move derivations, qualification matrices and optional diagnostics to supplement; omit before crowding. Decide final Fig. 1 panels and optional Re400/limit markers.
-2. **Gated displays.** Recommend omitting standardized PPO/SR/zero, quantitative Vortex/Erase, and MFS field panels unless exact gates close. Decide whether CCD operator/POD/evidence-map displays do distinct work.
+2. **Gated displays.** Recommend omitting standardized PPO/SR/zero, quantitative Vortex/Erase, and MFS field panels unless exact gates close. Treat CCD operator/POD choices as coordinator production recommendations; the evidence-map proposal is superseded and is not an open decision.
 3. **Experiment inclusion.** Retain a short author-owned subsection only if provenance supports a named qualitative observation; otherwise use a limit/interface sentence and omit media. Quantitative validation remains prohibited.
-4. **Discussion/Conclusion split.** Recommend separate integrated Discussion and short Conclusion because multiple non-equivalent chains require synthesis before compression; safe fallback is one top-level section with clearly distinct functions.
+4. **Discussion/Conclusion structure.** Retain the accepted integrated Discussion followed by a distinct short Conclusion; no one-section fallback remains active.
 5. **Introduction freeze and title.** Freeze Introduction last; retain the provisional title unless reopened. Any title change triggers terminology/claim audit.
 
 ## 6. Section-specific crosswalk
@@ -94,13 +94,13 @@ No memo uses literature to establish an internal result, and no memo invents a n
 | Introduction | concept/boundary → difficulty → capability/gap → evidence-chain need → scope/bridge | No owned empirical display; optional prospective Fig. 1 reference | Full ladder, concept, gap, scope | No display; five-job funnel |
 | Contracts | comparison need → plant/chain → action/sign → observation/objective → metrics/roles/windows → qualification | Required contract table + minimal schematic; reusable metric equations | Reusable definitions and qualification | Compact table/schematic; supplement detail |
 | Capability | viewing contract → steady seed → dominant Kármán → bounded extensions → limit/deep-case selection | Kármán-dominant distinct-contract Fig. 1 | Progression, evidence levels, deep-case choice | Source-bound panels only or prose |
-| Performance | exact Legacy contract → mean/phase L2 → DTW → retention boundary → SR question | L2-first display; DTW subordinate; V5 inset optional | Detailed Legacy result and retention boundary | Compact table |
+| Performance | tested conditions and repeated learning → exact deep-case field comparison → mean/phase L2 → signal/action organization → SR question | Two figures: integrated condition/learning map and L2-first reference-case display | Condition range, five learning histories, detailed deep-case L2/DTW and PPO action/sensor evidence | Move disturbance-size group and spectrum/DTW detail to supplement |
 | SR | surrogate boundary → deployment → law → execution → deletion → field question | Required deployment map/law/deletion; direct role panel gated | Executable law, imposed structure, arbitration, tested deletion | Equations + deletion table |
 | Field/CCD | four roles → means/ledger → limit → residual → CCD → POD boundary | Mean before modes; residual equation required; CCD operator optional | Corrected means, residual, descriptive modes, POD boundary | Scalar ledger + residual equation |
 | Cross-case | framing → event-relative → non-zero target → blocked/failure route → envelope | Distinct-contract display; quantitative Vortex/Erase gated | Comparator renewal, evidence levels, negative routes | Case-contract table + sourced visuals |
 | Steady/theory | return → V5 endpoint → bounded description → outer reference/failure → export | Sign contract and failure required; endpoint gated; MFS blocked | Separate-chain endpoint/sign/context/theory failure | Sign schematic + endpoint table + trace |
 | Experiment | purpose → apparatus/provenance → qualitative comparison → limit/test | Author-supply-gated media; no quantitative panel/equation | Frank-owned provenance and observation | Prose interface or omission |
-| Discussion/Conclusion | ladder → interpretation → envelope → tests; short close | Required limitations table; map optional; no new equation/result | Integrated answer, limits, tests | Discussion prose + limitations table |
+| Discussion/Conclusion | breadth-to-depth → bounded interpretation → short close | No conclusion display/equation/citation/number | Integrated established answer only | Text-only synthesis; optional author-owned limitations/outlook outside frozen synthesis |
 
 ## 7. Macro-discussion input
 
@@ -108,8 +108,8 @@ No memo uses literature to establish an internal result, and no memo invents a n
 
 - **Assembled order:** Introduction → contracts → capability → Kármán performance → SR → field/CCD → cross-case → steady/theory → experiment → Discussion/Conclusion.
 - **Freeze order:** contracts → capability → Kármán performance → SR → field/CCD → cross-case → steady/theory → experiment → Discussion/Conclusion → Introduction last.
-- **Claim ladder:** named cross-task capability; Legacy Kármán Re100-only independent field matching; bounded Legacy Kármán/cloak-only control-skeleton interpretation.
-- **Planning shares:** Introduction 10%, contracts 13%, capability 11%, Kármán performance 12%, SR 17%, field/CCD 17%, cross-case 10%, steady/theory 6%, experiment/limitations/conclusion 4%. These are carried R2 allocations, not new measurements.
+- **Claim ladder:** named cross-task capability; independent field matching for the reference periodic Kármán cloak case in the parabolic-inflow/no-slip-wall channel configuration; bounded Kármán/cloak-only control-skeleton interpretation. The internal source label remains provenance only.
+- **Historical planning shares:** Introduction 10%, contracts 13%, capability 11%, Kármán performance 12%, SR 17%, field/CCD 17%, cross-case 10%, steady/theory 6%, experiment/limitations/conclusion 4%. This is a superseded R2 allocation record, not an active requirement for a limitations unit and not a new measurement.
 - **Physical chronology:** steady discovery → Kármán → Vortex → Illusion/Erase → qualitative experiment, with steady as an early seed and later contextual return.
 
 ### Coordinator recommendation; not author-ratified
@@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ No memo uses literature to establish an internal result, and no memo invents a n
 1. Preserve both orders and keep SR, field/CCD, capability and cross-case as distinct ownership units.
 2. Protect the Kármán block as the analytical centre; cross-case and steady define breadth/boundaries, not competing interpretation.
 3. Apply the claim ladder sentence by sentence; interpretation remains Kármán/cloak-only and noncausal.
-4. Retain the minimum display inventory: contract table/schematic; Kármán-dominant Fig. 1; Kármán performance; SR law/deletion; mean then residual/CCD; bounded cross-case display/table; steady sign/endpoint/failure; provenance-gated experiment if available; limitations table. Optional operators, insets, maps and blocked panels are drop-first.
+4. Retain the minimum display inventory: method table/schematic; Kármán-dominant Fig. 1; Kármán performance; SR law/deletion; mean then residual/CCD; bounded cross-case role-field display/table; steady sign/endpoint/failure; provenance-gated experiment if available. Conclusion has no display. Optional operators, insets, maps and blocked panels are drop-first.
 5. Retain the minimum equation inventory: reusable definitions in Contracts; SR deployment/law; scalar identity only if retained plus residual in Field/CCD; event equation only with a retained quantitative result; steady definition only if not imported plus one outer-reference boundary. Full derivations go to supplement.
 6. Keep result ownership exclusive: previews name conclusions without values; owners carry exact comparisons; Discussion compresses without replay.
 
@@ -127,7 +127,33 @@ These recommendations remain `discuss` until recorded as author decisions; they
 
 1. Present the five decision bundles to the author for macro discussion; record decisions or safe omissions in the global ledger. Do not falsely freeze unresolved choices.
 2. Freeze architecture only when ownership, bridges, ladder, notation, space and display/equation inventory agree. Optional panels may remain gated; retained required panels with missing source or roles remain unavailable.
-3. For section freezes, reread the owning R3 dossier and current authorities, not only this crosswalk; run local near-collision and caption-ceiling checks and require coordinator second audit.
+3. For section freezes, reread the owning R3 dossier and current authorities, not only this crosswalk; current Sections 1/2 replace deleted Style 01/02 as active reads; run local near-collision and caption-ceiling checks and require coordinator second audit.
 4. Before Round 5, audit `Kármán`, Legacy/V5, `Re_D`/`Re_code`, spatial L2 versus Level/Stage, DTW orientation, action order/sign, ROI/mask/window, percentages, equation ownership, duplicate detail and whitespace.
 
 **Gate-A handoff:** the ten-memo style set is **PASS** and ready for macro discussion through the five author-decision bundles. Optional display dependencies and later section-freeze checks retain their recorded gates. No manuscript prose, literature, internal number, artifact or panel is created by this audit.
+
+## 9. Final paragraph-enrichment synthesis and authority — 2026-08-11
+
+### Authority and supersession
+
+The dated 2026-08-11 paragraph-level enrichment blocks in `SECTION_01`–`SECTION_10` are the current section-local owners of paper identities, read states, paragraph-specific observations, local wording ladders, caveats, captions and anti-patterns. They supersede the corresponding globalized recommendations in the Round-2 style guide and this file wherever a section packet is more specific. The Round-2 structure freeze still controls author-ratified architecture where not superseded by recorded Round-4 author decisions; `00_GLOBAL_DECISION_LEDGER.md` controls Round-4 architecture, ownership, claim and supersession conflicts. The global `.cursor/rules/jfm-writing-style.mdc` contains only recurring Round-5 operations. It does not replace a section packet, establish evidence or carry paper lists.
+
+### Cross-section contracts extracted from all five dual-section enrichments
+
+| Recurring contract | Section-enrichment mapping | Global Round-5 operation |
+|---|---|---|
+| Paragraph move | S1–S2 define before inference; S3–S4 comparator and principal result before diagnostics; S5–S6 object/equation before execution or modes; S7–S8 renew changed contracts and keep failed routes adjacent; S9–S10 comparator/provenance before observation and synthesis in earned evidence order | One job; claim/question → comparator/definition → evidence → interpretation → local caveat → consequence/bridge |
+| Evidence and citations | Every pair separates repository-owned internal statements from literature-owned rhetorical/context statements | Cite the external proposition only; never use literature to certify an internal result, value, artifact or readiness; retain source-state labels |
+| Caveat timing and wording | Acquisition, metric, non-pairing, intervention, evaluator, theory-closure and provenance limits repeatedly sit beside the attractive result | Green direct; amber only with named test and adjacent condition; red prohibited without dedicated authority/test; no terminal disclaimer repair |
+| Caption/body division | Across field, signal, modal, theory and experiment displays, captions decode conditions and provenance while body states inference | Caption: configuration/roles/variable/coordinate/window/metric/source/local ceiling; body: comparison/inference/limit/consequence |
+| Equation/display discipline | S1/S9/S10 prohibit equations; S2 owns reusable definitions; S5/S6/S8 place only immediately used owner equations; all packets separate inventory from readiness | Define once with symbols/units/sign/domain; keep beside dependent evidence; no decorative duplication; require owner/source/readiness/fallback for displays |
+| Transitions | Every pair converts the established result into the next scientific question and preserves the manuscript interface | Scientific bridge, never section/package announcement; previews do not steal owner detail and synthesis does not replay it |
+| Anti-patterns | All pairs reject catalogues, chronology, panel narration, generic AI prose, metric pooling, delayed caveats and unsupported strong verbs | Run the anti-AI and paragraph self-audit in the global rule before accepting each paragraph |
+
+### Section-local material deliberately not globalized
+
+Paper identities and DOIs, paragraph-by-paragraph support sets, exact values, local role order exceptions, individual captions, figure compositions, equation choices, production defaults and case-specific green/amber/red phrases remain in their owning section packets. This prevents a paper catalogue or local scientific constraint from becoming a false manuscript-wide convention.
+
+### Round-5 handoff
+
+The global writing rule operationalizes these recurring contracts. Round 5 must read the owning R4 packet first, then use this crosswalk for manuscript-wide consistency. A global PASS here does not change `discuss`, `author-interface`, dependency-gated or blocked statuses and does not approve any artifact.

docs/JFM_WYQ/ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/README.md

@@ -22,3 +22,6 @@ Current repository authorities, manifests, code/configuration and immutable arti
 
 ## Round-5 handoff
 Each frozen packet carries its bounded answer, target length/share, paragraph jobs, exact displays/equations, ownership/imports/exports, claim ceiling, accepted author decisions, exclusions, compact coverage/gap ledger and separate text/artifact readiness. Round 5 drafts only from that packet and its controlling authorities; it does not silently reopen decisions or fill evidence gaps.
+
+## Current horizontal integration status
+The consolidated correction, final style synthesis and Round-5 admission matrix is `00_R4_CLOSEOUT_AUDIT.md`; recurring enrichment contracts and supersession are mapped in `00_STYLE_CROSSWALK.md`. Round 5 has a **conditional pass**. The author has accepted the S3 two-figure safe default and S8 recommended equation/integrated composition, so those author-choice gates are closed for bounded R5 drafting; their source, provenance, caption, artwork and production gates remain open. Section 9 remains an author-owned provenance-gated interface and permits explicit author-field placeholder TeX only, not agent-authored facts or results. Prose admission does not approve any panel or artifact. Current Sections 1/2 own integrated former Style-01/02 content; deleted Style files remain historical/superseded provenance only.

docs/JFM_WYQ/ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/SECTION_01_INTRODUCTION_FREEZE.md

@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
 ## 3. Author feedback incorporated
 
 - **Reader-facing configuration terminology:** use the exact pair `parabolic-inflow/no-slip-wall channel configuration` and `uniform-inflow/free-slip-wall channel configuration`. Do not use historical/current, earlier/revised, or internal chain IDs as reader-facing adjectives. The configurations remain separate because solver, outlet, geometry, actuation, Reynolds convention, roles, and windows also differ; those details remain in contracts. Internal chain IDs (`Legacy`, `V5`) are provenance only.
-- **Reynolds language:** never use bare `Re100`. Prefer the reader-facing basis $Re_D=U_{ref}D/\nu$, with $U_{ref}$ defined separately for each configuration. For the uniform-inflow/free-slip-wall configuration, the configured uniform inlet speed supplies $U_{ref}$. For the parabolic-inflow/no-slip-wall configuration, repository code shows that configured `U0` is the bulk/mean scale and the profile peaks at approximately $1.5U0$; the authoritative manuscript choice between centreline/maximum and mean/bulk convention, and any exact conversion of inherited labels, remains a contracts-section decision. Equal code labels must never be presented as equal physical Reynolds numbers.
+- **Reynolds language:** never use bare `Re100`. Prefer the reader-facing basis $Re_D=U_{ref}D/\nu$, with $U_{ref}$ defined separately for each configuration. For the uniform-inflow/free-slip-wall configuration, the configured uniform inlet speed supplies $U_{ref}$. For the parabolic-inflow/no-slip-wall configuration, the article-wide convention fixes $U_{ref}$ as the bulk/mean inlet speed and $U_{max}\simeq1.5U_{ref}$. Only conversion of inherited source labels remains gated where historical `U0` may denote centreline rather than bulk/mean speed; that source-specific gate does not reopen the article convention. Equal code labels must never be presented as equal physical Reynolds numbers.
 - **P1:** open from concealment as longstanding fiction/human fascination; use Harry Potter only with a precise source. Move to hydrodynamic cloaking and then illusion as hiding-to-deception. Radar stealth/deception is optional. End on the finite-Re gap after naming nonlinear advection, separated wakes, dissipation, boundary conditions, active forcing, and observer/target dependence. Delete literature disclaimers.
 - **P2:** start from the scale gap between shaping an extended Navier–Stokes field and controlling a compact rotating object. Select the pinball for rich nonlinear dynamics, prior rotation knowledge, and broad force/action authority. Distinguish force-target matching from scalar drag minimization. Include Noack lineage and Feng et al. only under exact roles. End with the natural force-mediated control question.
 - **P3:** bridge to nonstationary feedback; motivate DRL/PPO; treat sparse sensing as application-driven. Force feedback complements sparse observations without novelty or observability claims. Preview objective execution, target-field evaluation, and extractable/checkable action/field organization as reader hooks.
@@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ Internal chain IDs (`Legacy`, `V5`) are retained only for provenance, ownership,
 
 - Prefer the reader-facing definition $Re_D=U_{ref}D/\nu$ and define $U_{ref}$ per configuration, together with diameter $D$, viscosity $\nu$, and any relation to a code label.
 - For the uniform-inflow/free-slip-wall configuration, $U_{ref}$ is the declared uniform inlet speed.
-- For the parabolic-inflow/no-slip-wall configuration, source evidence implements a profile with bulk/mean scale `U0` and centreline/maximum approximately $1.5U0$. Contracts must decide which is authoritative for manuscript $U_{ref}$ and state the exact conversion before a concise Reynolds label is used.
+- For the parabolic-inflow/no-slip-wall configuration, $U_{ref}$ is the bulk/mean inlet speed and $U_{max}\simeq1.5U_{ref}$. Source-specific inherited-label conversion remains gated only where historical metadata do not establish whether `U0` meant centreline or bulk/mean speed.
 - Do not use bare `Re100`, `Re=100`, or `Kármán Re100`. Use `the periodic Kármán cloak case` or the exact configuration label until contracts define Reynolds naming.
 - Equal code labels do not imply equal physical Reynolds numbers; never unify them by label coincidence.
 - Exact case and chain IDs remain provenance, not reader-facing physical definitions.
@@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ Internal chain IDs (`Legacy`, `V5`) are retained only for provenance, ownership,
 
 | State | Source/input | Boundary |
 |---|---|---|
-| `read` | R4 `STYLE_01_INTRODUCTION.md`, `00_STYLE_CROSSWALK.md`, `00_GLOBAL_DECISION_LEDGER.md`, `00_MASTER_AGENT_PROMPT.md` | Full repository reads for style/ownership/claims; not scientific verification or artifact audit |
+| `read` | Current Section 1, `00_STYLE_CROSSWALK.md`, `00_GLOBAL_DECISION_LEDGER.md`, `00_MASTER_AGENT_PROMPT.md`; deleted `STYLE_01_INTRODUCTION.md` is historical/superseded provenance only | Full repository reads for style/ownership/claims; not scientific verification or artifact audit |
 | `read` | R2 `05_REVISED_STRUCTURE_FREEZE.md`, `06_SECTION_LEVEL_JFM_STYLE_GUIDE.md` | Full-report reads; architecture and literature-state records |
 | `read` | R3 M01 `01_INTRODUCTION.md`, M03 `03_CONTRACTS_METRICS.md`, M10 `10_LIMITATIONS_CONCLUSION.md`, `11_FINAL_CONSISTENCY_AUDIT.md` | Full-report reads for architecture/contracts/ladder/audit; no recomputation |
 | `read` | Chen et al. (2022) open article; Feng et al. (2023) full accessible preprint; Garnier et al. (2021) full accessible preprint/web text | Targeted identity, DOI, role, framing verification; not reproduction |
@@ -243,3 +243,38 @@ Internal chain IDs (`Legacy`, `V5`) are retained only for provenance, ownership,
 **Near-collision:** M04 policy field metrics and M06 corrected mean-field accounting remain **different estimands**. Periodic, transient, steady, native/normalized DTW, and field metrics remain non-equivalent. Separate chains are not pooled or called replication, validation, agreement, or triangulation.
 
 **Disposition: `frozen` for Round-4 architecture.** The five-paragraph logic, configuration labels, Reynolds policy, PPO boundary, evidence ladder, and contracts bridge are settled. This is still not manuscript prose; cultural-hook choice, optional Chen example, experiment mention, and sentence-level citation wording remain drafting choices and do not block or reopen the architecture.
+
+## 12. Paragraph-level literature/style enrichment — 2026-08-11
+
+**Boundary.** Post-freeze planning guidance only: no paragraph job, claim, evidence owner, display status or frozen disposition changes. Observations are bounded to the named `full-PDF` sample, not universal JFM rules; literature does not verify DynamisLab science.
+
+### P1 — fascination, definitions and finite-$Re$ boundary
+- **Selected (`full-PDF`, paragraph-specific read):** Pendry, Schurig & Smith (2006), *Science*, DOI `10.1126/science.1125907`; Ma et al. (2013), *PRL*, DOI `10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.173901`; Urzhumov & Smith (2012), *PRE*, DOI `10.1103/PhysRevE.86.056313`; Mirzakhanloo et al. (2020), *JFM*, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2020.665`; Ren et al. (2021), *Physics of Fluids*, DOI `10.1063/5.0060690`.
+- **Observed, not automatically recommended:** concrete field/flow subjects precede methods; background cloaking precedes substitute-target illusion; citations cluster by genealogy/regime; restrictions sit beside the governing regime. **Recommendation:** one fascination clause, then declared background, then non-zero illusion comparator; order nonlinearity → separation/wake → dissipation/BC/forcing → observer/target. **Green/amber/red:** green `approach a declared background`, `retarget`, `does not transfer directly`; amber `cloak` with comparator scope; red `invisible`, `undetectable`, perfect equivalence. Cite at the first technical definition; no owned display, body carries inference. Bridge to a compact force-coupled body. Anti-patterns: literary detour, catalogue, opening equation, regime promotion, applications list.
+
+### P2 — pinball selection and force mediation
+- **Selected (`full-PDF`):** Deng et al. (2020), *JFM*, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2019.959`; Cornejo Maceda et al. (2021), *JFM*, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2021.301`; Raibaudo et al. (2020), *Physics of Fluids*, DOI `10.1063/1.5127202`; Feng et al. (2023), *Physics of Fluids*, DOI `10.1063/5.0142949`.
+- **Observed:** geometry/plant precede objective/optimizer; force-reference tracking differs from extremization by naming the requested quantity first. **Recommendation:** extended-field/compact-boundary mismatch → pinball → scalar drag → time-dependent force target → independent field match; isolate Feng at force tracking. **Green/amber/red:** green `compact nonlinear plant`, `intermediary signal`; amber `control authority` as accessible actuation; red force matching proves cloaking, optimal benchmark, fully controllable. Section 2 captions own geometry/sign; P2 body owns selection. Bridge to nonstationary feedback. Anti-patterns: author catalogue, bare Reynolds label, solver detail, nearby result as present evidence.
+
+### P3 — nonlinear feedback, PPO and analytical hooks
+- **Selected (`full-PDF`):** Rabault et al. (2019), *JFM*, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2019.62`; Paris et al. (2021), *JFM*, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2020.1170`; Li & Zhang (2022), *JFM*, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2021.1045`; Xia et al. (2024), *JFM*, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2024.69`.
+- **Observed:** learning follows a physical nonlinear obstacle; partial-measurement and delay/history limits are local; observables precede reward/algorithm. **Recommendation:** open on nonstationary following; introduce DRL as response, bound PPO in one clause, then sparse sensing plus complementary force. Order hooks execution → field match beyond reward space → checkable action/field organization. **Green/amber/red:** green `learns a policy`, `uses clipped updates`, `complements`; amber `regularizes update size` relative to the previous policy; red convergence/optimality/observability guarantees and generic AI claims. Cite DRL after the obstacle and PPO beside its caveat. No tutorial, hyperparameters or result-like hooks. Bridge to layered evidence.
+
+### P4 — layered evidence chain
+- **Selected (`full-PDF`):** Cornejo Maceda et al. (2021), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2021.301`; Loiseau et al. (2018), *JFM*, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2018.147`; Li et al. (2022), *JFM*, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2022.908`; Li & Zhang (2022), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2021.1045`.
+- **Observed:** layered methods state the gap before stages, preserve dependencies, and separate online objective from post-hoc analysis; captions decode workflow while body explains need. **Recommendation:** `realize` execution → `evaluate` fields → `check` executable reduced policy → `organize` field evidence descriptively; state non-equivalence and avoid `triangulate`. **Green/amber/red:** green `evaluate independently`, `check by deployment`, `organize descriptively`; amber `interpret` only Kármán/cloak; red cross-layer validation, mechanism revelation, internal full-state reconstruction. Caption dependencies without causal arrows; body states inference/limit; bridge to the aligned deep case. Anti-patterns: package names, mini-reviews, decorative lists, formula duplication.
+
+### P5 — narrowed question and contracts bridge
+- **Selected (`full-PDF`, reused):** Deng et al. (2020), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2019.959`; Cornejo Maceda et al. (2021), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2021.301`; Loiseau et al. (2018), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2018.147`.
+- **Observed:** closing paragraphs compress objective, approach and scope before the next definition; strong verbs remain evidence-bound and values absent. **Recommendation:** exact question → three levels in ascending evidence order → Kármán-depth rationale → one asymmetric-scope sentence; keep contributions normally uncited and end on configuration, action/sign, observations, targets, comparators, metrics, ROI and windows. **Green/amber/red:** green `examines`, `evaluates`, `supports a bounded interpretation`; amber `contributes` with immediate scope; red priority, unified proof, generality, robustness, mechanism. No caption/equation; bridge through definitions. Anti-patterns: contribution bullets, negative inventory, experiment caveats, values, roadmap ending.
+
+### Compact coverage/read-state ledger
+| Job | Full-PDF sample | Lower-state boundary |
+|---|---|---|
+| P1 | Pendry; Ma; Urzhumov; Mirzakhanloo; Ren | Chen remains prior web read |
+| P2 | Deng; Cornejo Maceda; Raibaudo; Feng | None promoted |
+| P3 | Rabault; Paris; Li & Zhang; Xia | Schulman remains `mapped/full-text record` |
+| P4 | Cornejo Maceda; Loiseau; Li et al.; Li & Zhang | None promoted |
+| P5 | Deng; Cornejo Maceda; Loiseau | No literature authority for internal contributions |
+
+**Read-state note:** each `full-PDF` item above was read with one paragraph-specific question on 2026-08-11. These are rhetorical samples, not internal-science checks. Mapped/full-report/web states remain distinct; no snippet was promoted, no deep search was launched and no Undermind content was changed.

docs/JFM_WYQ/ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/SECTION_02_PROBLEM_METHOD_EVALUATION.md

@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ This is a methodology/problem-formulation section. Its sequence is configuration
 
 ### 2.2 Rotational actuation, observations and PPO training
 
-**P1 — actuation in physical variables.** Define the three angular velocities or nondimensional surface-speed commands in fixed body order and sign convention. Present the canonical no-preset-bias mapping and smoothing/persistence only to the degree needed for physical reproduction. Avoid code-level upload/readback order unless it changes the physical command.
+**P1 — actuation in physical variables.** Fix the computational body/action order as $(F,U,L)=(\text{front},\text{rear}_{y+},\text{rear}_{y-})$. The current computational convention uses $\omega>0$ in the solver's positive angular direction and the wall law $(U_w,V_w)=(-\omega r_y,\omega r_x)$; thus positive $\omega$ is counter-clockwise in the stated Cartesian coordinates. Define the manuscript command $s_i=\omega_iR/U_{ref}$. Historical SR output is exactly $\alpha_i=\omega_i/U_0$, where $\omega_i$ is the solver angular-velocity command. Thus $\alpha_i$ has inverse-length units in dimensional notation (or inverse-lattice-length in the historical lattice convention), and the physical surface-speed command is $s_i=\alpha_iR$ when $U_0=U_{ref}$. It must not be called dimensionless without also declaring a radius-one nondimensionalization. Present the canonical no-preset-bias mapping and smoothing/persistence only to the degree needed for physical reproduction. This computational map does not validate or determine the physical apparatus command map, which remains Section 9 author-supply-gated.
 
 **P2 — observations and sensor placement.** Define body-force components and both velocity components at three circular sensing regions centred at $x/D=10$ and $y/D=0,\pm2$, each of radius $0.25D$. Explain the rationale: downstream enough to carry a developed wake signature, transversely distributed to capture symmetry/deflection and shedding, and sparse enough to represent limited remote sensing. Raibaudo et al. provide the direct $x/D=10$ experimental precedent; Cornejo Maceda et al. and Li et al. support downstream multi-location wake sensing and phase/state information. These sources do **not** establish optimality, sufficiency or observability for the present arrangement.
 
@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ This is a methodology/problem-formulation section. Its sequence is configuration
    Re_D=\frac{U_{ref}D}{\nu},\qquad U_{max}\simeq1.5U_{ref}\ \text{for the parabolic inlet}.
    \]
    Definition only; exact conversion note accompanies inherited labels.
-2. **Nondimensional actuation** (`required`, exact sign/order source-gated): use $s_i=\omega_iR/U_{ref}$ or an equivalent physical map. Avoid reproducing obsolete affine maps in main text.
+2. **Nondimensional actuation** (`required`): use $(F,U,L)=(\text{front},\text{rear}_{y+},\text{rear}_{y-})$, $\omega>0$ counter-clockwise under $(U_w,V_w)=(-\omega r_y,\omega r_x)$, and $s_i=\omega_iR/U_{ref}$. Historical SR traces/laws use $\alpha_i=\omega_i/U_0$ (inverse-length, or inverse-lattice-length, unless radius has already been nondimensionalized) and convert by $s_i=\alpha_iR$ when $U_0=U_{ref}$. Avoid obsolete affine maps in main text; experiment mapping remains author-supply-gated.
 3. **Online objective** (`required concept; formula optional`): a force discrepancy plus a sensor discrepancy, with case-specific weighting. Prefer one compact symbolic equation if reused; implementation-specific constants belong to supplement.
 4. **Mean-field L2** (`required`): area-weighted, $U_{ref}$-normalised velocity-vector error over the registered ROI, with target/control/zero roles declared.
 5. **Phase-resolved L2** (`required if later reused`): same spatial definition indexed by periodic phase slots; do not imply ensemble averaging.
@@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ The article-wide convention uses bulk/mean inlet speed for the parabolic profile
 
 | State | Source/input | Why in scope | Evidence boundary |
 |---|---|---|---|
-| `read` | Round-4 `README.md`, `00_MASTER_AGENT_PROMPT.md`, `00_GLOBAL_DECISION_LEDGER.md`, `00_DISPLAY_EQUATION_INVENTORY.md`, `00_QUALITY_GATE.md`, `00_STYLE_CROSSWALK.md`, `STYLE_02_CONTRACTS_METRICS.md`, `SECTION_01_INTRODUCTION_FREEZE.md`, `STYLE_01_INTRODUCTION.md` | Workflow, author decisions, style evidence, interfaces, deletion check | Full repository reads; not independent scientific verification or artifact audit |
+| `read` | Round-4 `README.md`, `00_MASTER_AGENT_PROMPT.md`, `00_GLOBAL_DECISION_LEDGER.md`, `00_DISPLAY_EQUATION_INVENTORY.md`, `00_QUALITY_GATE.md`, `00_STYLE_CROSSWALK.md`, current `SECTION_02_PROBLEM_METHOD_EVALUATION.md`, and `SECTION_01_INTRODUCTION_FREEZE.md`; deleted Style 01/02 files are historical/superseded provenance only | Workflow, author decisions, style evidence, interfaces, deletion check | Full repository reads; not independent scientific verification or artifact audit |
 | `read` | Round-2 `05_REVISED_STRUCTURE_FREEZE.md`, `06_SECTION_LEVEL_JFM_STYLE_GUIDE.md`; Round-3 `03_CONTRACTS_METRICS.md`, `00_MODULE_INTERFACE_LEDGER.md`, `11_FINAL_CONSISTENCY_AUDIT.md` | Controlling architecture, method dossier, ownership and consistency | `full-report`; internal values/artifacts not recomputed |
 | `read` | `src/drl_pinball/train/TRAIN_PIPELINE.md`, `DESIGN_DECISIONS.md` | Current canonical training method, settings and explicit no-post-fix-rerun boundary | Current authority read directly; selected historical policies/results not independently rerun or artifact-audited |
 | `read` | Cornejo Maceda et al., Rabault et al., Paris et al., Mao et al. records retained from Style 02 | JFM organization and method-section practice | Declared `full-PDF` targeted reads; literature is style/context only |
@@ -235,3 +235,38 @@ The article-wide convention uses bulk/mean inlet speed for the parabolic profile
 - [x] `STYLE_01_INTRODUCTION.md` may be deleted because its unique necessary Introduction style evidence and exact identities/read states are preserved in `SECTION_01_INTRODUCTION_FREEZE.md`; no Section 1 architecture or caution depends solely on the style memo.
 
 **Disposition:** `frozen` for Round-4 Section 2 architecture. No unresolved author choice remains. Run-specific numerical rows, source-specific parabolic Reynolds conversions, bibliography completion and display production are dependency-gated execution tasks and do not block the freeze.
+
+## 13. Paragraph-level literature/style enrichment — 2026-08-11
+
+**Boundary.** Post-freeze planning guidance only: no method, value, provenance statement, claim ceiling, display readiness, ownership or disposition changes. Observations are bounded to the named `full-PDF` sample; literature cannot qualify DynamisLab numerics or promote an artifact.
+
+### §2.1 — configuration and numerics dependency order
+- **Selected (`full-PDF`, paragraph-specific read):** Cornejo Maceda et al. (2021), *JFM*, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2021.301`; Rabault et al. (2019), *JFM*, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2019.62`; Mao et al. (2015), *JFM*, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2015.304`; Li & Zhang (2022), *JFM*, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2021.1045`.
+- **Observed, not automatically recommended:** geometry/normalization precede numerical realization/control; reusable equations follow physical meaning; qualification follows the discretization/observable it limits. Definitions use present tense; completed checks use past tense. **Recommendation:** object/coordinates → separate configurations/ownership → nondimensionalization → CFD; define $Re_D$ after inlet references and keep confinement rationale beside its non-mechanism caveat. **Green/amber/red:** green `defines`, `uses`, `is resolved with`; amber `adequate` only for a named observable/condition; red `validated solver`, unsupported `grid independent`, equivalent configurations, canonical rerun. Cite exact methods locally; captions decode boundaries/grids, body states consequence. Bridge to action and wake information. Anti-patterns: solver-first order, action sign in geometry, implementation chronology, bare `Re100`, footnote-only configuration split.
+
+### §2.2 — action/sign, observations and PPO
+- **Selected (`full-PDF`):** Raibaudo et al. (2020), *Physics of Fluids*, DOI `10.1063/1.5127202`; Cornejo Maceda et al. (2021), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2021.301`; Li et al. (2022), *JFM*, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2022.908`; Xia et al. (2024), *JFM*, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2024.69`; Rabault et al. (2019), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2019.62`.
+- **Observed:** plant/actuator precede observations, objective and optimizer; sensor coordinates/components, rationale and limited-observation caveats are local; scaling precedes algorithms. **Recommendation:** action order/sign/wall law/command → forces and velocity disks → averaging/scaling/whitening with matched normalizer → PPO. Derive sign from wall law before $s_i$; keep historical $\alpha_i$ units adjacent. Cite Raibaudo for $x/D=10$ and Cornejo Maceda/Li for phase/state precedent, with non-optimality/non-observability local. **Green/amber/red:** green `commands`, `measures`, `area-averages`, `normalizes`, `clipped surrogate`; amber `captures asymmetry/phase information` as rationale; red ungrounded sign, dimensionless $\alpha_i$, optimal/observable sensors, PPO convergence, zero-bias superiority. Computational authority owns sign; PPO citation/caveat stay together. Geometry caption carries coordinates/sign; body carries role/limit; flow caption decodes arrows. Bridge to target definition. Anti-patterns: PPO before interface, merged normalization layers, detached normalizer, apparatus-map transfer.
+
+### §2.3 — target roles and online objective
+- **Selected (`full-PDF`):** Ma et al. (2013), *PRL*, DOI `10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.173901`; Feng et al. (2023), *Physics of Fluids*, DOI `10.1063/5.0142949`; Rabault et al. (2019), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2019.62`; Li & Zhang (2022), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2021.1045`.
+- **Observed:** comparator roles precede methods; background cloak precedes non-zero illusion; force reference is named before tracking differs from minimization; online reward follows the interface. **Recommendation:** roles → background → non-zero target → force-plus-sensor discrepancy; separate target generation from physical-zero acquisition and declare case-dependent geometry at first use. **Green/amber/red:** green exact role names and `compares signals`; amber `similarity` only with orientation/scaling; red unsupported `ground truth`, ambiguous `zero`, reward-as-field-match, role transfer. Ma supports target order; Feng supports reference versus minimization. Put full-field non-equivalence after reward. Caption places independent evaluation outside the loop; body explains the boundary. Bridge to independent evaluation. Anti-patterns: undefined slash roles, caption-only target construction, merged weights, code narration.
+
+### §2.4 — DTW and spatial L2 independent evaluation
+- **Selected (`full-PDF`):** Ishar et al. (2019), *JFM*, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2019.447`; Li & Zhang (2022), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2021.1045`; Loiseau et al. (2018), *JFM*, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2018.147`; Li et al. (2022), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2022.908`.
+- **Observed:** compared objects precede recurrence/norm; elementary distance precedes aggregation; sensitivities follow affected definitions; online objective and post-hoc analysis remain distinct. **Recommendation:** DTW object/path/orientation → local DTW limits → registered ROI/mask/weights/roles → mean/phase/event/steady semantics → division of labour. Define constraints before tolerance and comparators/guard before L2. `Independent` means outside reward for same-case roles, not triangulation. **Green/amber/red:** green `aligns under declared constraints`, `registered spatial error`, `complementary`; amber `independent` under that limit; red `corrects phase`, physical delay, field equivalence, common score, exact common-fluid mask. Put algorithm sources at path definition and warping caveat locally; Ishar marks the non-periodic boundary only. Semantics captions decode roles/windows; body explains distinct questions. Bridge to selected-observable qualification. Anti-patterns: DTW afterthought, L2 before ROI, nearest-snapshot phase average, pooling, M04/M06 collision.
+
+### §2.5 — compact qualification and provenance close
+- **Selected (`full-PDF`):** Rabault et al. (2019), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2019.62`; Cornejo Maceda et al. (2021), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2021.301`; Mao et al. (2015), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2015.304`; Paris et al. (2021), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2020.1170`.
+- **Observed:** checks follow what they qualify and precede results; observable-specific rows replace provenance dumps; caveats sit in affected rows; tables carry conditions/values and body states one bounded inference. **Recommendation:** purpose/ceiling → K2/S2 exact labels → local incomplete/smoke boundary → frozen neutral provenance sentence. Preserve K2 `partial pass` and put coordinate/force-direction explanation in or beside its row. Keep implementation differences/no-rerun supplementary. **Green/amber/red:** green `qualifies selected observables`, `passes the declared gate`, `retains partial pass`; amber `sufficiently resolved` only with named condition; red solver/control validation, reproduction, equivalent implementation, canonical rerun, unresolved-physics sign framing. Benchmark citations belong in exact rows; internal dossier/artifacts own status. Table decodes conditions; body states inference. Bridge to non-pooled case capability. Anti-patterns: full matrices, smoke promotion, old-solver validation, detached provenance.
+
+### Compact coverage/read-state ledger
+| Job | Full-PDF sample | Lower-state boundary |
+|---|---|---|
+| §2.1 | Cornejo Maceda; Rabault; Mao; Li & Zhang | CelerisLab dossier remains internal `read/full-report` |
+| §2.2 | Raibaudo; Cornejo Maceda; Li et al.; Xia; Rabault | Schulman remains `mapped/full-text record` |
+| §2.3 | Ma; Feng; Rabault; Li & Zhang | None promoted |
+| §2.4 | Ishar; Li & Zhang; Loiseau; Li et al. | DTW foundations remain mapped unless reread |
+| §2.5 | Rabault; Cornejo Maceda; Mao; Paris | Qualification status remains internal-only |
+
+**Read-state note:** each `full-PDF` item above was read with one self-contained paragraph-specific question on 2026-08-11. These are style samples only. Mapped/full-report/repository states remain distinct; no mapped paper was promoted, no deep search was launched and no Undermind content was written.

docs/JFM_WYQ/ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/SECTION_03_CAPABILITY_PROGRESSION.md

@@ -1,252 +1,114 @@
-# Round 4 discussion draft — Capability and physical progression
+# Section 3 — From steady cloaking to wake retargeting
 
-## 1. Status, purpose and bounded answer
+**Status:** R5 author-choice gate closed at the two-figure safe default; integrated Round-4 section/style packet and R5 drafting authority. This is not final manuscript prose or a claim that either composition has passed source, provenance, caption, artwork or publication-size review.
 
-**Disposition:** `discuss`. This is an author-discussable Round-4 architecture, not polished prose, a frozen section, or a publication-panel claim.
+## Physical question and concise answer
 
-**Provisional reader-facing title:** **Capability across steady, periodic, transient and retargeted wakes**.
+**Question.** What should the reader see first to grasp the range of flows produced by learned rotational control, and why does periodic Kármán cloaking become the paper’s central case?
 
-This is the first results-facing argument. It must establish, selectively rather than as a gallery, capability in four physically different settings; show why the periodic Kármán cloak has the strongest intersection of visual, signal and independent field evidence; and convert that hierarchy into the reason for analytical depth. Detailed Kármán evaluation, full cross-case metrics, steady interpretation and mechanisms remain owned later.
+**Answer.** Preview the historical steady profile discovery, then make the periodic Kármán cloak the dominant representative comparison. Add one source-bound Taylor-vortex event view and one source-bound 0.75-radius Illusion target → controlled → physical-zero view to establish breadth. Detailed event sequences, changed-target triplets and efficacy assessment belong to Section 7. The distinct configurations and temporal coordinates make this a progression, not a pooled test.
 
-Call the display **the first results figure (likely Fig. 3)**, not Fig. 1. Section 2 owns preceding geometry/configuration and DRL-flow schematics; final numbering depends on whether those become one or two figures.
+## Six-paragraph flow and figure cadence
 
-**Question.** What evidence shows progression from steady control to periodic Kármán cloaking, an event-relative Vortex case and a non-zero-target Illusion case without turning breadth into a pooled or general claim?
+### 1. Open with the observable transformation
 
-**Bounded answer.** Named displays support capability under distinct steady, periodic, event-relative and retargeted comparisons. The periodic Kármán cloak additionally has target–controlled–uncontrolled evidence in which complete-cycle mean and phase-resolved spatial L2 both improve strongly, with complementary signal alignment. That intersection warrants depth; it does not establish transfer, generalization, universal control, positive Illusion SR or causality.
+Open with the physical inference: learned rotation can approach declared steady, periodic, event-relative and non-zero references under distinct definitions, while only the periodic Kármán cloak supports deep evaluation. Use the figures as evidence for that inference. Keep crop, scale, panel geometry and publication-size composition in the Figure Plans; body jobs do not narrate layout.
 
-Targeted Nowledge recall was used only to recover recent figure decisions; internal claims below were checked against repository files.
+### 2. Recover the steady background in measured components
 
-## 2. Exact argumentative arc and space budget
+In the uniform-inflow/free-slip-wall configuration, the historical controlled endpoint follows the uniform target in both velocity components more closely than the stationary pinball profile. Use $U_\infty\equiv U_{ref}$ only for this uniform-inflow configuration. Section 8 owns the exact spin ratio, endpoint metric, settling qualification and theory context.
 
-Use this continuous arc:
+### 3. Make periodic Kármán cloaking the visual centre
 
-`viewing question → steady discovery seed → comparator-bearing Kármán headline → mean/phase quantitative result → action/sensor evidence → removal of periodicity in Vortex → non-zero-target Illusion → envelope and Kármán selection`
+The large target → controlled → physical-zero vorticity triplet should be read before any scalar annotation. In the parabolic-inflow/no-slip-wall reference case, the controlled wake preserves the alternating street and periodic organization far more closely than the passive pinball. A rounded annotation may state that the independent complete-cycle mean and eight-slot phase velocity errors are each about 82% lower than physical zero. Section 4 owns the exact values, ROI, phase construction and DTW; repeating those details here would weaken the reveal. This block explains the choice of Kármán for depth without implying that reward or visual resemblance is itself a field metric.
 
-The reader should leave knowing: (i) four named capabilities are non-commensurate; (ii) Kármán is more than the most attractive image because controlled fields move closer to target in persistent-mean and phase-resolved senses; and (iii) only Kármán currently joins policy execution, independent fields and later action/field interpretation.
+### 4. Let the isolated vortex unfold as an event
 
-**Recommended budget:** 1,250–1,550 body words, eight functional paragraphs of about 140–190 words, plus one near-full-page two-column figure and caption. This is about 2.2–2.8 two-column text pages, or 3.5–4.5 pages of combined article real estate with the display. For an 11,500–13,500-word results/discussion body, this supports the provisional 11% share. Five paragraphs were too thin: separate jobs are needed for visual comparison, mean-versus-phase evidence, action/sensor evidence and the breadth boundary. If compression is required, merge P2/P3 and P6/P7; retain P4, P5 and P8.
+Use one representative source-bound Taylor-vortex event view in target → controlled → physical-zero order. It previews a named event-relative role-field response only; Section 7 owns offset selection, event evolution, detailed role fields and the unresolved quantitative evaluator binding.
 
-Use at most two printed subheadings: **Periodic Kármán cloaking as the reference case** and **Extensions in temporal and target definition**. The same paragraph order works unheaded.
+### 5. End with a changed target, not a footnote
 
-## 3. Paragraph-by-paragraph architecture
+Use one representative source-bound 0.75-radius Illusion view in target → controlled → physical-zero order. It previews positive PPO retargeting to a declared non-zero reference under the uniform-inflow/free-slip-wall configuration; Section 7 owns the detailed triplet, acquisition binding and quantitative gap. No positive Illusion SR is implied.
 
-### P1 — Viewing contract and figure placement
+### 6. Select the case that can sustain deeper questions
 
-**Says.** Place the figure with the opening. All blocks compare a controlled state with a declared target/reference and uncontrolled state, but target meaning and temporal coordinate change. Renew only Section 2's target/controlled/uncontrolled, spatial-L2 and DTW vocabulary. State explicitly that layout does not create a common ranking.
+Close by stating what changes across the progression: a steady profile becomes a periodic street, periodic phase becomes an isolated event coordinate, and the desired field changes from a background to a non-zero wake. Kármán is selected for detailed analysis because it uniquely combines repeated learning trajectories, retained condition variation, sparse signal histories, registered target/control/physical-zero fields, executable policy reduction and corrected field analysis. The next question is consequently quantitative and case-specific: over which tested Kármán conditions is high-performance control learned, and in the reference wake how closely do fields and measured trajectories approach the target?
 
-**Evidence.** Section 2 definitions; Round-2 progression; Round-3 capability/audit; reproduction role schema.
+## Recommended figures and responsibilities
 
-**Local caveat.** Reader prose uses physical configuration names; internal Legacy/V5 identifiers remain provenance-only. Similar graphics do not make windows or metrics equivalent.
+1. **S3-1 — Steady downstream profile recovery** (`FIGURE_PLANS/SECTION_03_FIGURE_01_STEADY_DISCOVERY_PROFILE.md`). Two primary profile panels at $x/D=10$, with optional compact streamline context. It owns the historical first result and preserves actual component information.
+2. **S3-2 — Wake cloaking and retargeting** (`FIGURE_PLANS/SECTION_03_FIGURE_02_WAKE_CLOAKING_AND_RETARGETING.md`). One Kármán-dominant composition with a periodic target/control/zero triplet, one source-bound representative Taylor-vortex view/comparison and a 0.75-radius Illusion target/control/zero triplet.
 
-**Transition.** Explain why the progression begins with a steady result.
+This two-figure arrangement is preferred over forcing all material into one very tall plate: the profiles require graph axes and fine component differences, whereas the wake composition relies on spatial fields and rapid visual comparison. If page layout demands one figure, S3-1 can become a narrow top strip above S3-2; it must not be reduced to a scalar badge.
 
-### P2 — Steady discovery seed
+## Result ownership and interfaces
 
-**Says.** Approximately steady rear-cylinder rotation produced the first useful low-deficit state. Compare uniform reference, accepted controlled endpoint and stationary/uncontrolled pinball in the uniform-inflow/free-slip-wall configuration at manuscript $Re_D=50$. A late streamline or disturbance view supplies genuine empirical content without opening the full steady analysis.
+Section 3 owns the visual reveal, steady-first chronology, the rounded Kármán field-improvement preview, one representative Vortex preview and one representative positive 0.75-radius Illusion PPO preview. Section 2 supplies configuration, role, Reynolds-number and metric definitions. Section 4 owns the Kármán condition range, five learning trajectories, exact mean/phase L2, DTW, actions and sensor portrait. Section 7 owns detailed Vortex and Illusion interpretation and their quantitative gaps; Section 8 owns steady kinematics, endpoint physics and theory limits. No SR law, deletion, corrected four-role mean field, CCD mode or experiment panel enters either Section-3 figure.
 
-**Evidence.** Current steady endpoint/display authorities and Round-3 steady synthesis.
+## Local inference limits
 
-**Local caveat.** This is a late/settled endpoint, not a periodic mean or phase view; it is not an optimum, stability result, mechanism or evidence for parabolic/no-slip SR/CCD.
+- The four displays do not share a temporal averaging rule, physical configuration or efficacy metric.
+- The Kármán field preview is an independent spatial comparison; reward and DTW remain separate quantities.
+- The single Taylor-vortex preview identifies source-bound event roles and morphology only; no evolution or quantitative event efficacy is inferred.
+- The Illusion block is positive PPO capability only. Target has no action trajectory, and no target-action proxy is constructed.
+- Visual similarity does not imply complete field identity, arbitrary-flow control, transfer, stability, optimality or a common mechanism.
 
-**Transition.** Periodic shedding tests whether controlled evolution follows a time-dependent target.
+## Compact source, production and reading appendix
 
-### P3 — Kármán comparator-bearing headline
+### Existing material and production decision
 
-**Says.** For the periodic Kármán cloak in the parabolic-inflow/no-slip-wall configuration, read three phase-0 vorticity panels as **target/reference → controlled → uncontrolled**. The controlled wake approaches the target more closely in the registered downstream region. Discuss target proximity and wake organization, not colours or whole-domain identity.
+- **Steady profiles — redraw from data.** `src/steady_pinball_theory/figures/profiles_long.csv`, `figures/summary/profile_Einf_vector.csv`, `figures/manifest.json`, and `plot_results.py`. The current CSVs are direct redraw sources. Optional streamlines `figures/fields/streamlines/cfd-accepted-s3p55.png` and `cfd-stationary.png` are source views to crop/recompose, not final panels.
+- **Periodic Kármán — crop/recombine or redraw from roles.** `src/drl_pinball/data/reproduction/legacy/karman_re100/{target,controlled,zero}/phase_fields.npz`, metadata and summaries; current diagnostic `data/reproduction_plots/legacy/karman_re100.png`; renderers `plot_reproduction_summary.py` and `plot_flow_fields.py`. The diagnostic already supplies the role triplet but includes sensor portraits and full-domain framing that should not be inherited here.
+- **Taylor vortex — select one representative comparison from existing event fields.** `data/reproduction/legacy/vortex_taylor_y000/{target,controlled,zero}/event_fields.npz` contains offsets $[-10,-5,0,5,10]$; use one source-bound offset/view only in Section 3. `plot_flow_fields.py` renders every offset, and `docs/My_Confirmation/Graphs/cloak_tylor.pdf` is provenance/design precedent only; Section 7 owns any detailed event sequence.
+- **Illusion — crop/recombine or redraw from roles.** `data/reproduction/v5/ill_075L/target`, `ill_075L_seed43/controlled`, `ill_075L/zero`; current diagnostic `data/reproduction_plots/v5/ill_075L_seed43.png`; manifest and plotting scripts above. Use phase slot 0 unless a later production audit records another literal phase.
 
-**Evidence.** Current `karman_re100` role authorities, reproduction manifest and registered evaluation.
+### Literature identities and read states
 
-**Local caveat.** Phase 0 is one deterministic phase-aligned snapshot, not a mean, ensemble or uncertainty statement. Final $Re_D$ follows Section 2 policy; no bare inherited `Re100` appears.
+External literature informs presentation only and supplies no project result. Metadata and DOI were checked in Undermind on 2026-08-11; all seven records below were read at `full-PDF` level with paragraph-specific questions, without numerical reproduction or phrase copying.
 
-**Transition.** One phase view is persuasive but cannot carry the field claim.
+1. Jean Rabault, Miroslav Kuchta, Atle Jensen, Ulysse Réglade & Nicolas Cerardi, “Artificial neural networks trained through deep reinforcement learning discover control strategies for active flow control,” *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **865** (2019), 281–302, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2019.62`.
+2. Romain Paris, Samir Beneddine & Julien Dandois, “Robust flow control and optimal sensor placement using deep reinforcement learning,” *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **913** (2021), A25, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2020.1170`.
+3. Chao Xia, Jiaqi Zhang, Eric C. Kerrigan & Georgios Rigas, “Active flow control for bluff body drag reduction using reinforcement learning with partial measurements,” *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **981** (2024), A17, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2024.69`.
+4. Qiulei Wang, Dong Yan, Guodong Hu, Gang Chen, Jean Rabault & Bernd R. Noack, “Dynamic feature-based deep reinforcement learning for flow control of circular cylinder with sparse surface pressure sensing,” *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **988** (2024), A4, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2024.333`.
+5. Xuerui Mao, Hugh M. Blackburn & Spencer J. Sherwin, “Nonlinear optimal suppression of vortex shedding from a circular cylinder,” *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **775** (2015), 241–265, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2015.304`.
+6. Guy Y. Cornejo Maceda, Yiqing Li, François Lusseyran, Marek Morzyński & Bernd R. Noack, “Stabilization of the fluidic pinball with gradient-enriched machine learning control,” *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **917** (2021), A42, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2021.301`.
+7. Ji-chao Li & Mengqi Zhang, “Reinforcement-learning-based control of confined cylinder wakes with stability analyses,” *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **932** (2022), A44, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2021.1045`.
 
-### P4 — Mean and phase quantitative headline
+### Observed practice versus Section-3 recommendation
 
-**Says.** Give one substantive callout: controlled registered target-field error is about **82% lower than uncontrolled** for both complete-cycle mean and separate eight-slot phase diagnostics. The badge may show rounded source values: $E_{mean}=0.086$ versus $0.475$ and $E_{phase}=0.113$ versus $0.631$ (controlled versus uncontrolled). The mean tests persistent organization; phase-resolved L2 tests evolving periodic organization at matched slots.
+Across this seven-paper sample, the recurring observed practice is to define a baseline, target or reference before interpreting a controlled state; establish the principal result before adding sensor, action or mechanistic detail; use captions to decode variables, conditions, symbology and representative-state selection; and place a limitation where it changes the adjacent inference. The papers differ in whether scalar performance or fields appear first, so that ordering is not a universal JFM convention. **Recommendation for this section:** the viewing contract, not a scalar score, should lead because Section 3 is a capability reveal. Preserve target → controlled → physical-zero order, allocate visual area by argumentative importance, and let each paragraph state one inference and one local ceiling. Use present tense for what a displayed comparison shows and past tense only for source-bound acquisition or selection actions.
 
-**Evidence.** Exact authority rows `0.085771/0.475206`, `0.112680/0.630878`, relative reductions `0.819508/0.821392`.
+### Paragraph-level style enrichment
 
-**Local caveat.** This is a preview. Kármán performance owns ROI, geometry guard/mask, normalization, cycles, phase selection, precision and interpretation. Never add the numerically close corrected four-role CCD errors: they are a different estimand.
+The support sets below identify 3–5 close papers for each paragraph job. They support rhetorical decisions only; citations, if retained in Round 5, should sit after the external methodological or presentation context they actually support, never after a sentence reporting a DynamisLab result.
 
-**Transition.** Ask what action and sparse signals add.
+1. **Viewing contract — support: Rabault et al. (2019), Xia et al. (2024), Mao et al. (2015), Cornejo Maceda et al. (2021).** Observed: these papers make the comparator and displayed variable legible before physical interpretation, then move from a representative outcome toward deeper evidence. Recommendation: open with the declared-reference comparison and explicitly tell the reader that the four blocks are non-equivalent demonstrations. **Green:** `shows`, `compares`, `previews`, `under its declared reference`. **Amber:** `approaches` or `recovers`, only with the named component/comparator beside it. **Red:** `validates`, `generalizes`, `across flows`, `common performance`, or any sentence that invites a pooled ranking. Put the non-equivalence caveat in this opening paragraph, not only in the appendix.
 
-### P5 — Action/sensor evidence and depth selection
+2. **Qualitative steady seed — support: Cornejo Maceda et al. (2021), Mao et al. (2015), Rabault et al. (2019).** Observed: a representative controlled state is useful when it is tied to a specific baseline and measured observable; detailed mechanism and parametric interpretation follow later. Recommendation: name the two velocity components and the stationary comparator, keep the endpoint qualitative, and bridge by asking what changes when the reference itself is periodic. **Green:** `follows more closely in both displayed components`, `historical controlled endpoint`. **Amber:** `recovery`, only if immediately restricted to the downstream profiles. **Red:** `steady cloaking is established`, `mechanism`, `stability`, or importing the Section-8 spin ratio/metric.
 
-**Says.** Show three controlled rotation commands over roughly three target cycles beside one legible sensor phase portrait (or, only if readable, a 2×3 six-channel microgrid). Legend order remains target → controlled → uncontrolled. The target has no action and must not receive a fictitious zero-action trace. State that controlled sparse signals align more closely with target; optionally report target-normalized DTW similarity `0.933` versus `0.625` in prose/caption. Repeated action offset plus modulation motivates later inquiry but is not yet a control-skeleton conclusion.
+3. **Dominant Kármán preview — support: Rabault et al. (2019), Paris et al. (2021), Xia et al. (2024), Wang et al. (2024), Mao et al. (2015).** Observed: comparator fields become persuasive when the baseline/reference is decoded before scalar interpretation, while exact metrics remain distinct from morphology. Recommendation: let the target → controlled → physical-zero triplet carry the first reading; place the rounded 82% mean/phase preview only after the independent field estimands are named, and cite no external paper after that internal number. **Green:** `closer under both declared estimands`, `preserves the displayed alternating organization more closely`. **Amber:** `cloaking`, only as declared-reference shorthand. **Red:** `reward confirms the field`, `reproduces the target`, `identical wake`, or collapsing mean and phase into replicated evidence. The local caveat is that visual resemblance, reward and field L2 answer different questions.
 
-**Evidence.** `timeseries.csv` schema, reproduction phase portraits, Kármán DTW summaries and plotting authority.
+4. **Event-relative Vortex preview — support: Mao et al. (2015), Li & Zhang (2022), Wang et al. (2024), Cornejo Maceda et al. (2021).** Observed: representative snapshots are normally bounded by the selected condition or coordinate; time evolution requires a dedicated sequence or temporal diagnostic. Recommendation: identify the source-bound event offset in the caption and make the body inference morphological only. **Green:** `representative event-relative view`, `role-field morphology`. **Amber:** `response`, only when grammatically tied to the displayed offset rather than an evolution. **Red:** `suppression`, `tracking performance`, `event evolution`, or an arbitrary frame presented as typical without the source-bound selection rule. Bridge to the changed-reference preview, not to event efficacy.
 
-**Local caveat.** DTW is higher-is-better signal similarity under a declared window—not spatial error, delay or causality. SR formula/deletion belongs later. Training reward is omitted.
+5. **Non-zero-target Illusion preview — support: Xia et al. (2024), Wang et al. (2024), Li & Zhang (2022), Rabault et al. (2019).** Observed: changed control objectives remain intelligible when target and baseline roles precede the controlled state and when the test condition is kept local. Recommendation: retain target → controlled → physical-zero order, name the 0.75-radius target and positive PPO scope, and attach the no-positive-Illusion-SR caveat to this paragraph. **Green:** `retargets toward the declared non-zero reference`, `positive PPO capability`. **Amber:** `Illusion`, only with the declared-reference meaning nearby. **Red:** `transfer`, `generalization`, `SR Illusion`, `target action`, or cross-task metric comparison.
 
-**Transition.** Change one physical condition at a time.
+6. **Selection of Kármán for depth — support: Paris et al. (2021), Xia et al. (2024), Wang et al. (2024), Li & Zhang (2022), Cornejo Maceda et al. (2021).** Observed: close papers establish a reference case before extensions and let the next analysis answer a sharper physical question rather than merely announce another section. Recommendation: select Kármán because of the intersection of repeated learning records, registered fields and action-side evidence, not because it is visually strongest or supposedly representative of the other tasks. **Green:** `selected for detailed analysis because`, `uniquely combines the retained evidence needed to ask`. **Amber:** `representative`, only for the named periodic case, never for all tasks. **Red:** `canonical`, `general`, `transferable`, or a package inventory as the bridge. End with the tested-range and independent-field question already stated above.
 
-### P6 — Vortex: removing periodicity
+### Citation and caveat placement
 
-**Says.** Use one centred incoming Lamb-vortex case. Show **target/reference → controlled → uncontrolled** vorticity at one declared event-relative offset, recommended `o=0` subject to source/legibility audit. A tiny controlled-action sparkline is optional; do not add another phase portrait.
+- External citations belong after statements about prior DRL/wake-control presentation or methodology; internal visual, metric and status statements point to project authorities, not literature.
+- The opening paragraph carries the cross-task non-equivalence ceiling; the Vortex and Illusion paragraphs repeat only their dangerous local caveats. Do not collect all repairs at the section end.
+- Captions decode configuration, role, variable, phase/event coordinate, source-bound representative selection, normalization and crop/scale. The body states the comparison, its bounded inference and why Kármán is selected.
+- If a caption must mention that a panel is representative, it must also name the selection coordinate or rule; `representative` alone is not a provenance statement.
 
-**Evidence.** `vortex_lamb_y000`, `event_fields.npz`, offsets `[-10,-5,0,5,10]`, Vortex timeseries authority.
+### Caption practice and anti-patterns
 
-**Local caveat.** This is event-relative, never phase-resolved. Quantitative event L2 is blocked pending exact evaluator/role binding, so no Vortex L2 appears. It supports named comparable-scale transient capability, not arbitrary-flow control, transfer or generalization.
+Captions should decode configuration, role, variable, phase/event coordinate, normalization, crop/scale and the single local limit. They should not carry the whole selection argument. Avoid an equal-weight gallery, a common colour scale that suggests cross-configuration equivalence, comparator labels added only after viewing, exact Kármán result duplication, an arbitrary one-frame Vortex panel, tiny Illusion thumbnails, mechanism pre-announcement, or a bridge that merely names the next section.
 
-**Transition.** Vortex changes temporal coordinate; Illusion changes the desired signature.
+### Readiness
 
-### P7 — Illusion: non-zero retargeting
+`read`: current Round-4 Sections 1–8 and controls; Round-2 freeze/style; Round-3 Sections 2–8 and final audit; Confirmation Result chapter and named graphics; current DRL claims/results/data dictionary, manifests, plotting/evaluation code and retained tables; former Style-03 memo. `external full-PDF, checked 2026-08-11`: seven JFM papers listed above, each queried at paragraph level for comparator order, result/caption division, realization language, metric hierarchy, caveats, tense and transitions; this is a style read, not independent verification of DynamisLab evidence. `mapped`: symlink-backed role payloads and existing derived plot families through current manifests. `not-covered`: new CFD, training, artifact generation, publication typography rendering or a new event evaluator. External payload portability remains a production dependency, not a text blocker.
 
-**Says.** Show **non-zero target → controlled pinball → uncontrolled pinball** for the retained 0.75 target-radius Illusion case at periodic phase 0. The target is a separately constructed body wake/signature, not physical-zero flow. The question is retargeting rather than suppression.
+## Author decision
 
-**Evidence.** `ill_075L`, seed 43, target/controlled/physical-zero phase roles and reproduction manifest; physical target radius ratio 0.75.
-
-**Local caveat.** PPO capability only. Print no field L2 unless exact current roles/evaluator are production-bound. This is not full-state equivalence, pooled efficacy or positive Illusion SR. Mention historical negative Illusion SR in one clause, not as another panel.
-
-**Transition.** Bound breadth and narrow the paper.
-
-### P8 — Envelope, Re400 decision and bridge
-
-**Says.** Configuration, temporal coordinate and target definition change, so no pooled ranking follows. Kármán is selected because it uniquely combines comparator-bearing field evidence, periodic action/sensor records and later executable-law/field-decomposition evidence. Vortex/Illusion return under case-specific metrics; steady returns for separate context.
-
-**Recommendation:** **omit the Re400 marker from this figure.** It meant a small annotation for a uniform/free-slip condition where mean error improved but phase error degraded. It is scientifically useful as an estimand-divergence warning, but a four-case figure with traces and a quantitative badge is already dense. It would introduce another configuration/Re condition and compete with the progression. Consequence: the opening loses a visible cross-Re limit; compensate with one prose sentence here or place exact values with the performance/envelope owner. The ladder is unchanged.
-
-**Bridge.** End with the unresolved inference: sparse-signature alignment plus one field view establish capability, but independent mean and phase evaluation determines how far the selected periodic wake approaches target.
-
-## 4. Concrete large-figure storyboard
-
-### Format and macro-grid
-
-- **Provisional label:** first results figure, likely Fig. 3; final numbering follows Section-2 display production.
-- **Size:** full two-column width, about **178 mm × 190–210 mm** before caption; 0.8–1.0 journal page. Never single-column.
-- **Area:** Kármán **58–62%**; steady **11–13%**; Vortex **13–15%**; Illusion **13–15%**.
-- **Rows 1–2:** contiguous Kármán block across full width.
-- **Row 3:** steady (0.9 width unit), Vortex (1.05), Illusion (1.05), in physical order.
-- Separate blocks by whitespace/rules, not arrows implying numerical continuation. No Re400 or experiment block.
-
-### Kármán block, provisional (a–f)
-
-**Field row (34–38% total figure height):**
-- (a) target/reference phase-0 vorticity;
-- (b) controlled phase-0 vorticity;
-- (c) uncontrolled phase-0 vorticity.
-
-Equal widths, same crop/registration and one common symmetric scale. Print role headings above panels and physical configuration/$Re_D$ once in the block header.
-
-**Evidence strip (18–22% total height):**
-- (d) three controlled action traces over about three target cycles; no target action;
-- (e) one sensor phase portrait, stable order target → controlled → uncontrolled; prefer one legible portrait over six tiny ones;
-- (f) compact text/mini-dumbbell badge: `mean L2 0.086 | 0.475`, `phase L2 0.113 | 0.631`, labelled `controlled | uncontrolled`, with `≈82% lower`. Safe default: keep DTW in prose/caption so field evidence remains visually primary.
-
-### Subordinate blocks
-
-**(g) Steady.** Three-column microtriplet of late total-velocity streamlines: `uniform reference → accepted controlled endpoint → stationary/uncontrolled`. Label `late/settled`. Do not add profile, reverse branch, spin sweep or theory.
-
-**(h) Vortex.** Three-column event-vorticity triplet: `target/reference → controlled → uncontrolled`, centred Lamb vortex, one literal offset (default `o=0`, audit before production). Optional thin action sparkline. No event-L2 badge.
-
-**(i) Illusion.** Three-column phase-0 vorticity triplet: `non-zero target → controlled → uncontrolled`, target-radius ratio 0.75, seed 43. Subtitle `PPO capability`. No SR field/curve or efficacy bar.
-
-### Visual grammar
-
-1. Invariant role order: target/reference left, controlled centre, uncontrolled right.
-2. Field colour encodes physics, not role. Use labels/borders: target black, controlled blue, uncontrolled dark grey/orange.
-3. Physical headers only: `steady reference`, `periodic Kármán cloak`, `incoming Lamb vortex`, `0.75-radius Illusion target`. Internal IDs stay in provenance.
-4. Temporal badges: `late/settled`, `periodic phase 0`, `event offset o=...`, `periodic phase 0`.
-5. Common normalized crop within each triplet where geometry permits; do not fake identical registration across configurations.
-6. One role legend, one portrait legend and one colourbar per compatible family—not per micro-panel.
-7. Minimum final typography: headers 8–9 pt, roles 7–8 pt, axes/colourbars 6.5–7 pt. Drop optional sparkline/DTW before shrinking text.
-
-### Colour-scale policy
-
-Use one common symmetric vorticity scale within every target–controlled–uncontrolled triplet. Across cases/configurations, use case-specific nondimensional limits unless production audit confirms identical normalization and a common scale that preserves structure. A universal scale can hide low-amplitude structure and imply commensurability. Kármán/Illusion may share only if units and normalization are identical and neither saturates. Steady streamlines use their own speed legend. Thus: **common scales within declared comparisons; case-specific scales across non-equivalent comparisons**.
-
-### Mean, phase and event decoding
-
-- **Mean:** average over declared complete cycles/window; persistent organization. Here represented by $E_{mean}$, not another map.
-- **Phase 0:** one independently aligned periodic snapshot; not mean, repeated-cycle ensemble or uncertainty.
-- **Event-relative:** one offset from a canonical transient event; never periodic phase.
-- **Late/settled:** endpoint/late field under declared criterion; not phase or mean unless explicitly averaged.
-
-Pairing phase-0 Kármán visuals with mean and phase scalar summaries lets the eye see one periodic state without asking that snapshot to carry the whole field claim.
-
-## 5. Output disposition
-
-| Output | Headline figure | Later owner / reason |
-|---|---|---|
-| Action traces | Include once for Kármán; Vortex sparkline optional | SR owns full law/deletion; cross-case owns Vortex detail |
-| Raw force/sensor time series | Omit | Performance/supplement; too dense |
-| Force phase portraits | Omit | Sensor portrait is closer to wake-signature objective; both duplicate grammar |
-| Sensor phase portraits | Include once for Kármán | Full six-channel evidence later/supplement |
-| Mean fields | No map; Kármán mean-L2 badge only | Performance/field owner; adding mean triplets doubles fields |
-| Phase-0 vorticity | Include Kármán and Illusion | Eight-phase sequences later/supplement |
-| Event vorticity | Include one Vortex offset | Multi-offset sequence cross-case/supplement |
-| Streamlines | Include only steady | Legible endpoint distinction; detail later |
-| Relative-error maps | Omit | Performance owner; need mask/scale explanation |
-| Training reward curves | Omit | Retention/performance or supplement; not physical capability |
-| DTW | One Kármán prose/caption callout | Exact formula/window later; no pooled bars |
-| Spatial L2 | Kármán mean/phase badge | Detailed values/ROI/window next section; no common cross-case row |
-| Experiment | Exclude | Author-owned late qualitative section |
-| Re400 divergence | Omit; prose or later inset | Avoid fifth condition/configuration clutter |
-
-## 6. Caption skeleton
-
-> **[Likely Fig. 3; final number depends on preceding displays.] Capability and physical progression under distinct comparison definitions.** (a–c) Periodic Kármán cloak in the parabolic-inflow/no-slip-wall configuration at manuscript-defined $Re_D$: target/reference, controlled and uncontrolled phase-0 vorticity, in that order, with common symmetric scale and matched crop. (d) Controlled cylinder rotations over [window]; the target has no action trajectory. (e) Sparse downstream sensor phase portrait, target, controlled and uncontrolled. (f) Registered field-error headline: complete-cycle mean $E_{mean}$ and separately phased $E_{phase}$, controlled versus uncontrolled; DTW, if stated, is higher-is-better sparse-signal similarity, not a field norm. (g) Steady seed in the uniform-inflow/free-slip-wall configuration: uniform reference, accepted controlled late/settled endpoint and stationary/uncontrolled pinball, shown as streamlines. (h) Centred Lamb-vortex target, controlled and uncontrolled vorticity at event offset $o=[...]$; the offset is not phase and no event L2 is asserted. (i) 0.75 target-radius Illusion, seed 43: non-zero target, controlled and uncontrolled phase-0 vorticity; PPO capability only, with no positive Illusion-SR claim. Scales are common within directly compared role triplets and case-specific across non-equivalent cases unless audited normalization permits sharing. No pooled efficacy, transfer/generalization or experiment is implied.
-
-Caption must retain physical configuration/$Re_D$, target meaning, role order, variable/scale, temporal coordinate, Kármán mean/phase distinction, DTW orientation if shown, absent Vortex event L2, Illusion PPO-only boundary and no pooling. Keep internal IDs, policy names, full ROI/mask/cycle details and package paths out of the reader caption.
-
-## 7. Ownership, interfaces and deletions
-
-**Imports:** Section 2 supplies configurations, $Re_D$, role/action/sensor definitions, DTW/L2 and temporal semantics. Kármán performance supplies one rounded headline comparison. Cross-case supplies Vortex offset and Illusion evidence status. Steady supplies chronology and one endpoint view.
-
-**Exports:** bounded breadth, Kármán as sole deep case, and the unresolved independent-field question. No mechanism, transferable law, pooled score or experiment.
-
-**Deletion ownership:**
-- This section deletes full Kármán ROI/window/mask/cycle/retention detail; performance owns it.
-- Performance refers back without repeating progression.
-- Cross-case owns Vortex matrix/DTW, Illusion negative-SR numbers and Erase; delete them here.
-- Steady owns sign, spin sweep, reverse branch, profiles, theory and interpretation; delete them here.
-- Globally omit from this figure reward curves, force portraits, mean/error-map triplets, Re400 and experiment.
-
-## 8. Claim ceiling and near-collision
-
-**Green:** four named capability blocks under distinct comparisons; Kármán controlled error lower than uncontrolled in declared mean and phase L2; Kármán controlled DTW similarity higher under its own contract; Kármán selected because evidence types coexist.
-
-**Amber:** breadth across named dynamics/objectives, not generality; steady is context; Vortex supports a named comparable-scale transient reading; Illusion shows PPO objective retargeting.
-
-**Red:** pooled efficacy/ranking; transfer/generalization/robustness/universality; positive Illusion SR; causal CCD/force-to-field mechanism; DTW as delay/field equivalence; visual similarity as full-state proof; experiment-as-validation.
-
-**Near-collision:** Kármán mean and phase L2 are related diagnostics, not pooled. Performance L2 and corrected four-role CCD means are different estimands. Steady profiles, periodic L2, event views and Illusion views are different estimands. DTW and L2 are related diagnostics, not replication, agreement or triangulation.
-
-## 9. Readiness and author decisions
-
-| Component | Status | Dependency/fallback |
-|---|---|---|
-| Composite | `dependency-gated` | Bind source/crop/scale/render provenance; fallback to source-bound panes |
-| Kármán triplet/trace/portrait | `dependency-gated` | Bind raw fields, phase, indices, action sign/order; portrait may move later |
-| Kármán L2 badge | `required` for recommendation | Values text-ready; fallback is P4 sentence |
-| Steady triplet | `dependency-gated` | Bind uniform/accepted/stationary arrays; fallback prose/two panes |
-| Vortex triplet | visual `dependency-gated`; event L2 `blocked` | Confirm roles/offset; no number |
-| Illusion triplet | `dependency-gated` | Bind target/controlled/uncontrolled, seed and phase; fallback target/controlled pair |
-| Re400 | `optional`, recommend omit | Prose/later inset |
-| Experiment | excluded by author | Later section only |
-
-No component is called publication-ready.
-
-**Decisions needing discussion:**
-1. Approve one near-full-page figure with Kármán about 60% (recommended) versus a two-page display.
-2. Choose steady streamlines (recommended for small-panel legibility) versus disturbance magnitude; consequence is variable non-uniformity that the caption bounds.
-3. Confirm centred Lamb vortex and exact event offset; default `o=0` unless an adjacent offset is more legible.
-4. Choose one Kármán sensor portrait (recommended) versus a 2×3 six-channel microgrid.
-5. Keep DTW out of the badge and in prose/caption (recommended), preserving L2 primacy.
-6. Omit Re400 (recommended); consequence is no visible cross-Re failure marker in the opening.
-7. Resolve final number after Section-2 figure production; working label likely Fig. 3.
-
-## 10. Compact evidence ledger and disposition
-
-| State | Inputs | Boundary |
-|---|---|---|
-| `read` | Round-2 freeze/style; required Round-3 capability, contracts, performance, cross-case, steady and final audit; Round-4 controls, Style 03 and Section 2 | Full-report architecture/evidence reads; not raw-artifact verification |
-| `read` | `DATA_DICTIONARY.md`, reproduction manifest, SR reproduction/plot-package READMEs, steady figure README, Round-1 case-metric/Confirmation navigation | Role/order/schema/material availability and visual contracts; no new result |
-| `read` | `docs/My_Confirmation/Thesis_template.pdf` through available PDF text | Context/material navigation only; no current source-array contract or number inferred |
-| `mapped` | External phase/event/late role payloads and rendered reproductions | Candidate production sources, not panel approval |
-| `not-covered` | New CFD/training/evaluation, event-L2 code, rendering, pixel-level PDF audit | Outside architecture; no inference |
-| `external-inaccessible` | External Optane payloads/model-normalizer bundles where unavailable | Defers publication-source audit; does not block discussion text |
-
-The old “Fig. 1” numbering assumption is superseded because Section 2 now owns preceding displays; scientific role is unchanged. The eight-paragraph plan and exact storyboard repair the earlier thin allocation and unspecified figure. Exact crops, scales, hashes, selected offset and trace indices remain production dependencies. Quantitative Vortex event L2 remains blocked; no recommended panel needs it.
-
-**Disposition:** `discuss`, not frozen. Safe recommendation: approve the one-page Kármán-dominant composition; include one Kármán action/sensor group and only Kármán mean/phase L2 as the quantitative badge; use steady streamlines and Vortex/Illusion vorticity microtriplets; omit Re400, reward curves, error maps and experiment.
+Author accepted the two-figure safe default for R5: S3-1 retains the steady profile figure and S3-2 is the Kármán-dominant wake composition with one source-bound Vortex and one 0.75-radius Illusion preview; detailed sequences/triplets remain with Section 7. This closes only the figure-composition author choice. Exact panel selection, source/provenance, crop/scale, caption, artwork, rendering and publication readiness remain gated.

docs/JFM_WYQ/ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/SECTION_04_KARMAN_RESULTS.md

@@ -0,0 +1,131 @@
+# Section 4 — Kármán-wake cloaking
+
+**Status:** `frozen` text contract; Round-5 eligible under recorded artifact gates. Field redraw and caption binding remain dependency-gated, and no figure has been generated or approved. This is an author-facing argument and production design, not final prose or panel approval.
+
+## Physical question and concise answer
+
+**Question.** Across the tested periodic Kármán conditions, how repeatably is high-performance control learned, and in the deeply documented reference wake does the sparse-signal objective coincide with a closer downstream field?
+
+**Answer.** The retained uniform-inflow/free-slip-wall series covers $Re_D=30,50,100,200$ and disturbance-radius ratios 0.75, 1.5 and 2.0. At $Re_D=50$, all five stochastic learning trajectories rise from low reward toward high-performing checkpoints, with best rewards 0.916–0.941, showing repeatable high-performance policy discovery across the five tested realizations. In the separate reference periodic Kármán cloak case in the parabolic-inflow/no-slip-wall channel configuration, controlled complete-cycle mean and eight-slot phase velocity errors are about 82% lower than physical zero, while sensor trajectories, DTW, spectrum and applied cylinder rotations show the accompanying periodic organization. Reward records learning under the online objective; registered spatial L2 supplies the independent field comparison.
+
+## Argument and figure cadence
+
+### 4.1 Learning across Kármán conditions
+
+#### 1. Begin with the tested range
+
+Lead with the tested-condition inference, then use S4-1 to map retained reward and six-sensor DTW similarity over the uniform-inflow/free-slip-wall conditions, using points rather than fitted trends. The Reynolds series is $Re_D=30,50,100,200$; the disturbance-radius series is 0.75, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0, with the 1.0 reference supplied by the $Re_D=50$ case. Only the reference condition has five training realizations; every other condition is a single retained demonstration. The 0.75 and 2.0 disturbance cases used learning rate $10^{-4}$ rather than the common $3\times10^{-4}$, so their differences cannot be read as a pure geometry effect. These facts belong in labels and caption, without displacing the positive range result.
+
+#### 2. Let the five learning curves carry repeatability
+
+Repeated high-performance discovery across the five tested stochastic realizations is the comparator-led inference, not a claim based on one selected success. All five $Re_D=50$ reward trajectories rise from low initial values into the high-reward region and attain authoritative best rewards of 0.9266, 0.9302, 0.9160, 0.9222 and 0.9412 at iterations 471, 315, 360, 465 and 447. Interpret the complete 500-iteration histories and their high-performing checkpoints together; do not recast the result through late-window summaries. Figure production details belong to S4-1.
+
+#### 3. Separate the learning objective from field evidence once
+
+Reward combines force and sparse downstream-signal terms. The steadily improving curves show that high-performing policies were repeatedly found under that online objective, but they do not measure the registered velocity field. This distinction is stated here once and turns the argument to the reference wake, rather than becoming a repeated disclaimer.
+
+### 4.2 Fields and trajectories in the reference wake
+
+#### 4. Define the comparison and lead with the flow
+
+Ask first whether the frozen-PPO controlled field is closer to the declared target than physical zero under the independent field estimand. The target, controlled and physical-zero roles belong to the reference periodic Kármán cloak case in the parabolic-inflow/no-slip-wall channel configuration. The controlled field follows the target street while physical zero substantially distorts it. These roles are independent acquisitions within this physical configuration; the internal source label `karman_re100` remains provenance only, historical `U0` may mean centreline or bulk/mean speed, and no reader-facing $Re_D$ is assigned until source-specific conversion closes. Crop, scale and panel treatment belong to S4-2.
+
+#### 5. Quantify persistent and phase-resolved field proximity
+
+The complete-cycle mean velocity error is 0.085771 for controlled and 0.475206 for physical zero, a relative reduction of 0.819508. The separately constructed eight-slot phase diagnostic gives 0.112680 and 0.630878, a reduction of 0.821392. Display the two pairs separately so mean and phase are not mistaken for repeated measurements or uncertainty estimates. Both use the registered $20D\times10D$ downstream region; it is geometry-guarded because a solver-exact common-fluid mask was not persisted. The quantitative statement is therefore that the controlled field is closer to the target under both declared estimands in this region, not that every flow state is identical.
+
+#### 6. Connect sparse observations, frequency content and applied motion
+
+Ask whether the sparse observations and applied motion exhibit periodic organization consistent with the independent field comparison. Over samples 96–145 ($t_D=38.4$–$58.0$, about three target cycles), the centre-sensor trajectory, its frequency content and the three applied PPO rotations provide complementary signal/action evidence. Target has no action trajectory, and no zero-action surrogate is constructed. Target-normalized six-channel DTW similarity is 0.932899 for controlled and 0.625127 for physical zero; native DTW remains supplementary. The current sources do not license the old Confirmation claim that harmonics are essential under a same-protocol test. Production choices belong to S4-2.
+
+#### 7. Hand the achieved result to action-law compression
+
+The condition map and five learning trajectories show where high-performance policies were found and that discovery repeats across the five tested realizations at the reference uniform/free-slip condition. The separate deep comparison shows that, in the parabolic/no-slip reference wake, the learned trajectory is accompanied by much smaller registered field errors and periodic signal organization. What remains unresolved is not whether a high reward was reached, but whether the applied periodic action requires the full neural policy or can be represented by a compact executable law.
+
+## Why two figures are sufficient
+
+1. **S4-1 — Kármán conditions and repeated learning** (`FIGURE_PLANS/SECTION_04_FIGURE_01_KARMAN_CONDITIONS_AND_LEARNING.md`). It combines the retained Reynolds/disturbance map with all five learning trajectories. This is one scientific question: where was control learned, and how repeatably at the only five-realization condition?
+2. **S4-2 — Field matching and periodic control in the reference wake** (`FIGURE_PLANS/SECTION_04_FIGURE_02_REFERENCE_FIELD_SIGNAL_ACTION.md`). It combines role fields, mean/phase L2, one sensor portrait, a compact spectrum, DTW and applied PPO rotations. This is one deep-case question: what field and trajectory accompany the learned result?
+
+A third main figure is not recommended. If S4-1 cannot remain legible at 178 mm, move the disturbance-size mini-axis to the supplement before splitting the five learning curves. If S4-2 is too tall, move the spectrum first, then DTW as prose; retain the field triplet, L2, action traces and one portrait.
+
+## Result ownership and section interfaces
+
+Section 4 owns the retained periodic Kármán condition range, the positive five-realization learning result, the exact reference-case PPO mean/phase L2 values, complementary DTW, representative applied PPO rotations, one sensor portrait and the optional compact spectrum. Section 3 carries only the rounded visual preview. Section 5 owns the symbolic law, imposed reflection map, SR deployment and term deletion. Section 6 owns its different four-role mean-field errors, constant-reference accounting, residual and action-correlated correction-field modes. No SR or CCD panel enters Section 4, and the numerically close Section-4 and Section-6 errors are never described as agreement or replication.
+
+## Local inference limits
+
+- The five curves show repeated discovery in the tested realizations; they do not provide broad hyperparameter, Reynolds-number or geometry robustness, statistical uncertainty, asymptotic convergence or stability.
+- Non-reference condition points have $n=1$; the two outer disturbance-size cases also change learning rate.
+- Reward, DTW and spatial L2 are different quantities. DTW is a higher-is-better signal similarity, not spatial error or physical delay.
+- The phase diagnostic uses one nearest saved snapshot per independently phased slot, not a repeated-cycle ensemble.
+- The field ROI has a geometry guard but no persisted solver-exact common mask.
+- The representative action/sensor/spectrum window describes one controlled trajectory. It does not prove harmonic necessity, mechanism, optimality or a universal control law.
+
+## Compact source, production and reading appendix
+
+### Existing material and production decision
+
+- **Condition outcomes — redraw from tables; reuse plots only as design references.** `src/drl_pinball/train/results/latest/tables/latest_eval_summary.csv`, `latest_results_summary.json`, `latest/HOW_TO_READ.md`, and `train/plot_latest_results.py`. Existing `fig07_eval_cross_scene_metrics`, `fig12_vorticity_cross_re` and `fig13_vorticity_disturbance` designs are source views if present in a local generated package; the manuscript figure should redraw selected reward/DTW points and not copy the nine-axis dashboard.
+- **Five learning curves — reuse existing exported trajectories and regenerate a focused panel.** `train/results/training_csv/training_iterations.csv` plus its manifest, `train/results/figures/scratch_training_summary.csv`, `train/output/kar_re100_seed41–45/meta.json`, and the `plot_multiseed` logic in `plot_latest_results.py`/`plot_scratch_results.py`. No training is needed. Use the complete exported trajectories and authoritative best checkpoints; leave late-window diagnostic products outside the main narrative.
+- **Reference fields and L2 — crop/recombine or redraw from roles.** `data/reproduction/legacy/karman_re100/{target,controlled,zero}/{metadata.json,phase_fields.npz,timeseries.csv,dtw_summary.json}`; `eval/wake_l2.py`; current diagnostic `data/reproduction_plots/legacy/karman_re100.png`; `plot_reproduction_summary.py` and `plot_flow_fields.py`. Exact scalar values are ready; field production still needs source/hash/scale/crop audit.
+- **Actions and sensors — reuse exact CSV window, redraw.** `src/SR_analysis/results/runs/article2-timeseries-csv-20260720/karman_re100/{target_wide.csv,ppo_wide.csv,ppo_manifest.json}` and `article2-plotting-package-20260721/{README.md,phase_alignment.json}`. Use target and PPO sensor records and PPO applied action columns only. The package explicitly fixes indices 96–145 and records that target actions do not exist.
+- **Spectrum — recompute offline from the same declared window or crop an exact source only after window audit.** Confirmation `Graphs/freq_cloak_vortex.pdf` is narrative precedent, not numerical authority. The production script should use the same centre-sensor signal/window shown in the portrait; otherwise omit the spectrum.
+- **Confirmation figures — visual precedent only.** `Graphs/vort_cloak_vortex.pdf`, `error_cloak_vortex.pdf`, `sensor_cloak_vortex.pdf`, `freq_cloak_vortex.pdf`, `action_cloak_vortex.pdf`, `train_cloak.pdf`, and `re_cloak_vortex.pdf` show the prior result ordering and useful role layouts. Their old percentages, inherited Reynolds labels and `harmonics essential` narrative are not imported as current claims.
+
+### Literature identities and read states
+
+External papers establish presentation practice only. Metadata and DOI were checked in Undermind on 2026-08-11; all seven records below were read at `full-PDF` level with paragraph-specific questions, without numerical reproduction or phrase copying.
+
+1. Jean Rabault, Miroslav Kuchta, Atle Jensen, Ulysse Réglade & Nicolas Cerardi, “Artificial neural networks trained through deep reinforcement learning discover control strategies for active flow control,” *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **865** (2019), 281–302, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2019.62`.
+2. Romain Paris, Samir Beneddine & Julien Dandois, “Robust flow control and optimal sensor placement using deep reinforcement learning,” *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **913** (2021), A25, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2020.1170`.
+3. Chao Xia, Jiaqi Zhang, Eric C. Kerrigan & Georgios Rigas, “Active flow control for bluff body drag reduction using reinforcement learning with partial measurements,” *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **981** (2024), A17, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2024.69`.
+4. Qiulei Wang, Dong Yan, Guodong Hu, Gang Chen, Jean Rabault & Bernd R. Noack, “Dynamic feature-based deep reinforcement learning for flow control of circular cylinder with sparse surface pressure sensing,” *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **988** (2024), A4, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2024.333`.
+5. Xuerui Mao, Hugh M. Blackburn & Spencer J. Sherwin, “Nonlinear optimal suppression of vortex shedding from a circular cylinder,” *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **775** (2015), 241–265, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2015.304`.
+6. Guy Y. Cornejo Maceda, Yiqing Li, François Lusseyran, Marek Morzyński & Bernd R. Noack, “Stabilization of the fluidic pinball with gradient-enriched machine learning control,” *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **917** (2021), A42, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2021.301`.
+7. Ji-chao Li & Mengqi Zhang, “Reinforcement-learning-based control of confined cylinder wakes with stability analyses,” *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **932** (2022), A44, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2021.1045`.
+
+### Observed practice versus Section-4 recommendation
+
+Across this sample, close JFM papers commonly establish a named baseline or reference before interpretation, bind parametric claims to the tested envelope, distinguish aggregated learning histories from representative deployments, and progress from a principal performance comparison to fields and then subordinate signal/action diagnostics. Captions carry conditions, encodings, windows and realization summaries; body text carries inference and physical consequence. The papers do not share a universal reward-first order, and several use metrics unlike this study’s field estimands. **Recommendation for this section:** retain the frozen sequence `tested range → five complete learning trajectories → reward/field separation → target/controlled/physical-zero fields → separate mean and phase L2 → subordinate DTW/sensor/action evidence → compact-law question`. Use present tense for displayed results and enduring comparisons; use past tense for completed training, acquisition and processing choices.
+
+### Paragraph-level style enrichment
+
+The support sets below give each paragraph job 3–5 close papers, with deliberate reuse. They support rhetoric only. Round-5 citations should follow external context, not DynamisLab values or realization claims.
+
+1. **Tested-condition range — support: Paris et al. (2021), Wang et al. (2024), Li & Zhang (2022), Cornejo Maceda et al. (2021).** Observed: parametric results are introduced with explicit tested envelopes and local changes in protocol; points or cases do not automatically imply a fitted law. Recommendation: state the Reynolds and disturbance-radius sets before interpretation, then put `n=1` and the changed learning rate beside the affected points/caption. **Green:** `across the tested conditions`, `retained demonstrations`, `the points show`. **Amber:** `range`, only with exact endpoints and sampling. **Red:** `trend`, `scaling`, `robust across Reynolds number/geometry`, or treating the outer-radius difference as geometric when learning rate also changes. The boundary sentence should not eclipse the positive fact that high-performing retained cases exist across the declared set.
+
+2. **Five-realization discovery — support: Rabault et al. (2019), Paris et al. (2021), Wang et al. (2024), Xia et al. (2024).** Observed: papers that support repeatability expose the realization count and either all histories or an explicit aggregate; representative snapshots are identified separately. Recommendation: show all five complete trajectories and name them `five tested stochastic realizations`; do not convert them into a mean band or use one best seed as the result. **Green:** `repeated high-performance discovery across the five tested realizations`, `all five trajectories attain`. **Amber:** `repeatable`, only with `within these five realizations` local or immediately preceding. **Red:** `robust`, `statistically significant`, `converged`, `reproducible`, or any uncertainty claim. Exact best rewards/checkpoints may remain in body because they define the range and prevent selected-success narration; iteration-by-iteration detail stays in caption/data.
+
+3. **Online reward versus independent field question — support: Rabault et al. (2019), Paris et al. (2021), Xia et al. (2024), Li & Zhang (2022).** Observed: reward or force objectives establish optimization success, while flow fields and stability/physical diagnostics answer a distinct question. Recommendation: state the separation once, immediately after the learning curves, and use it as the hinge into the reference field comparison. **Green:** `high-performing under the online objective`, `does not measure the registered velocity field`, `independent field comparison`. **Amber:** `performance`, only with the metric named. **Red:** `reward validates field matching`, `physical accuracy from reward`, or repeating the disclaimer in every later paragraph. No external citation should trail the internal reward values.
+
+4. **Exact target–controlled–physical-zero field comparison — support: Mao et al. (2015), Xia et al. (2024), Rabault et al. (2019), Li & Zhang (2022), Cornejo Maceda et al. (2021).** Observed: controlled fields are interpreted only after the baseline/reference roles and displayed variable are defined; body prose states the physical difference while captions decode conditions and snapshots. Recommendation: ask the field question before giving scalar errors and preserve target → controlled → physical-zero order. **Green:** `closer to the declared target than physical zero`, `follows the displayed street more closely`. **Amber:** `matches` or `cloaks`, only with `under the declared field estimand` nearby. **Red:** `reproduces`, `identical`, `validation`, or a reader-facing inherited Reynolds label before the source-specific conversion gate closes. Put independent-acquisition and Reynolds-label boundaries in this paragraph/caption, not in a remote provenance note.
+
+5. **Separate mean and phase L2 — support: Mao et al. (2015), Li & Zhang (2022), Cornejo Maceda et al. (2021), Paris et al. (2021).** Observed: temporal/global and spatial or stability measures are shown as different representations, with exact values promoted only when they change the inference. Recommendation: present complete-cycle mean and eight-slot phase L2 as two named estimands in separate rows or clauses; never graph them as replicate points or an uncertainty pair. **Green:** `under both declared estimands`, `mean error`, `phase error`, `relative reduction`. **Amber:** `consistent`, only in the weak sense that both comparisons have the same ordering, and preferably avoid it. **Red:** `replicated`, `confirmed`, `agreement`, `uncertainty`, or `about 82%` without naming both estimands. Attach the geometry-guard/no-common-mask caveat directly to the ROI claim; attach the nearest-snapshot caveat directly to phase construction.
+
+6. **Subordinate DTW, sensor, spectrum and action evidence — support: Rabault et al. (2019), Paris et al. (2021), Xia et al. (2024), Wang et al. (2024).** Observed: signal and actuation diagnostics follow the principal result and explain the realized trajectory; captions carry windows, channels, normalization and line encodings. Recommendation: lead this paragraph with the question of accompanying periodic organization, keep target-normalized DTW explicitly complementary, and let one centre-sensor portrait plus PPO actions carry the body inference. **Green:** `complementary signal/action evidence`, `periodic organization`, `applied PPO rotations`. **Amber:** `aligns` or `tracks`, only with the signal and metric named. **Red:** `field validation`, `mechanism`, `harmonic necessity`, `target action`, or a zero-action surrogate. Move the spectrum to supplement if its window is not exactly shared with the portrait; DTW is the next item to demote if figure height fails.
+
+7. **Compact boundary and law bridge — support: Cornejo Maceda et al. (2021), Mao et al. (2015), Li & Zhang (2022), Xia et al. (2024).** Observed: strong transitions convert an achieved result into the unresolved question that motivates a deeper control or mechanism analysis. Recommendation: summarize the two evidence chains without merging their configurations, then ask whether the applied periodic action needs the full neural policy or admits a compact executable representation. **Green:** `in the separate reference wake`, `accompanied by`, `can the applied action be represented`. **Amber:** `strategy`, only for the observed policy behavior, not a mechanism. **Red:** `therefore the law is`, `same case across configurations`, `mechanism established`, or a bridge that merely announces Section 5.
+
+### Citation, caption and caveat placement
+
+- Cite external literature only for prior methods or genuinely comparative context. Internal ranges, seed counts, rewards, L2, DTW, windows and role identities bind to project authorities and should not borrow credibility from an adjacent literature citation.
+- S4-1 caption carries exact tested points, `n=5` only at the reference uniform/free-slip condition, `n=1` elsewhere, and the two changed-learning-rate points. The body carries the bounded range inference and the five-realization result.
+- S4-2 caption carries configuration, target/controlled/physical-zero roles, displayed variable/phase, ROI/mask guard, mean/phase construction, sensor/action window and DTW orientation. The body carries field ordering, metric hierarchy, local limits and the law question.
+- Place each dangerous caveat locally: protocol confounding with the outer-radius points; realization ceiling with the five curves; reward/field separation at the hinge; mask and phase construction with L2; absent target actions and no harmonic-necessity claim with signal/action evidence.
+
+### Caption practice and anti-patterns
+
+Captions carry configuration, condition, realization count, roles, variable, phase/window, normalization, crop/mask and metric orientation. Body text states why the comparison matters. Avoid a training diary, mean-only five-run band, late-retention graphics, reward-first self-validation, dual-axis reward/DTW plots, fitted Reynolds laws, unannounced comparator changes, eight-phase montages, target actions, action spectra used to assert harmonic necessity, SR/CCD imports, or package/path language in the reader-facing argument.
+
+### Readiness
+
+`read`: current Round-4 Sections 1–8 and controls; Round-2 freeze/style; Round-3 Sections 2–8 and final audit; Confirmation Result chapter and named graphics; current training/evaluation tables, five-run CSV/metadata, role manifest, plotting scripts, wake-L2 evaluator, SR PPO time-series package and former Style-04 memo. `external full-PDF, checked 2026-08-11`: seven JFM papers listed above, each queried at paragraph level for comparator order, tested-range and realization language, reward/field separation, metric hierarchy, result/caption division, caveats, tense and transitions; this is a style read, not independent verification of DynamisLab evidence. `mapped`: symlink-backed raw field roles through their metadata/manifests and locally generated figure families that may not exist in every checkout. `not-covered`: new CFD/training, new artifact generation, or publication-size rendering. Nonportable field payloads remain a production dependency; scalar and section architecture are not blocked.
+
+## Coordinator production defaults and recommendations
+
+1. Retain both Reynolds and disturbance-size mini-axes in S4-1 if readable; otherwise move disturbance size to the supplement. Keep the five curves.
+2. Use phase vorticity for the S4-2 field triplet. Add mean velocity-error maps only if a final redraw shows distinct argumentative value; default omit.
+3. Keep one centre-sensor portrait. Retain the compact spectrum only if it uses the exact displayed signal/window; otherwise move it to the supplement.
+
+These are coordinator defaults/recommendations, not unresolved scientific author choices. Final reconciliation froze the text contract; production remains under the recorded artifact gates.

docs/JFM_WYQ/ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/SECTION_05_KARMAN_SR_LAW.md

@@ -0,0 +1,200 @@
+# Round 4 integrated architecture — A compact control law for Kármán cloaking
+
+## 1. Status and scope
+
+**Status:** `frozen` text contract; Round-5 eligible under recorded artifact gates after the final narrow Figure-Plan reconciliation; **not final manuscript prose**, a new scientific audit, or panel/artifact approval. No figure has been generated or approved. **Body-text share:** approximately 17%, implemented as five compact paragraphs.
+
+**Scope.** Section 5 compresses the Kármán-cloaking PPO action into one executable symbolic surrogate, discloses its imposed reflection-equivariant deployment structure, lets closed-loop execution arbitrate it, and ranks tested parent-relative term deletions. It preserves the current parabolic-inflow/no-slip-wall evidence contract and does not reopen research, infer mechanism, or promote diagnostic drafts to publication readiness.
+
+**Reader-facing title:** **A compact control law for Kármán cloaking**.
+
+## 2. Reader question and bounded answer
+
+**Question.** Can the learned Kármán-cloaking action be compressed into a compact executable law, and what action-side structure survives closed-loop and deletion tests?
+
+**Bounded answer.** In the reference periodic Kármán cloak case in the parabolic-inflow/no-slip-wall channel configuration (internal source label `karman_re100` in provenance only), an imposed reflection-equivariant symbolic surrogate executes in closed loop. The law is organized by dominant persistent rear counter-rotation, smaller rear-lift feedback and a weak tested front correction. Parent-relative deletion under one fixed 40-control-step native-DTW similarity contract ranks those tested contributions; it does not establish necessity, uniqueness, mechanism, robustness, universality or positive Illusion transfer.
+
+## 3. Accepted author feedback implemented
+
+- Adopt the concise reader-facing title above; retain the long scientific question only as an internal planning object.
+- Keep recovery/deployment logic to one compact paragraph. Search stages, causal-pairing details, topology selection, refits, gates, hashes and implementation diagnostics move to the supplement.
+- Explain $G$ as an **imposed design constraint** for the symmetric pinball/cloaking objective. It organizes the surrogate by tying mirrored observations to mirrored actions and reducing separate action heads. The PPO policy was neither trained nor constrained to obey this equivariance; $G$ neither proves PPO symmetry nor establishes plant symmetry.
+- Use no repeated geometry/action schematic and no decorative formula decomposition. Section 2 owns geometry and action signs; $G$ and the law are equation-plus-prose objects.
+- Use the main display for closed-loop SR behavior/direct supported flow result and parent-relative deletion. Same-protocol PPO/SR/Zero is used only where exact standardized roles are bound; no comparison is invented.
+
+## 4. Five-paragraph architecture
+
+1. **Question and estimand.** Move from Section 4's independent PPO field matching to action compression: SR is an executable observation-to-action surrogate under the same physical configuration, not a flow-field model or causal mechanism. Offline action fit is diagnostic; closed-loop behavior is the arbiter.
+2. **Recovery logic and imposed reflection map.** State only that causally aligned PPO trajectories were used to discover/refit a compact law and then deploy it in CFD. Define reflection across the channel centreline: upper/lower sensor locations exchange; transverse velocity and lift change sign; drag is even; upper/lower cylinder forces exchange with the corresponding parity; actions transform as $G_\alpha(\alpha_F,\alpha_U,\alpha_L)=(-\alpha_F,-\alpha_L,-\alpha_U)$. This is useful because the objective and pinball arrangement admit a natural mirrored organization: front action is forced odd and the two rear heads share one generator, reducing and structuring the surrogate. State that equivariance was imposed on SR after PPO data collection, not learned or enforced in PPO training, and does not prove exact plant symmetry.
+3. **Canonical executable law and physical translation.** Display the canonical law once, define $C_{d,\mathrm{rear},a}=(C_{d,U}-C_{d,L})/2$ and $C_{l,\mathrm{rear},s}=(C_{l,U}+C_{l,L})/2$, and translate the historical SR output $\alpha=\omega/U_0$: opposite rear-cylinder rotation has a persistent magnitude set by $3.431209$, modulated by rear-mean lift; the front receives a smaller drag-asymmetry correction. The executable authority states the historical output exactly as $\alpha=\omega/U_0$ and Stage 3 applies $\omega=\alpha U_0$ as the solver angular-velocity command. Therefore $\alpha$ has inverse-length units in dimensional notation (inverse-lattice-length in the historical lattice convention), despite stale metadata calling it dimensionless. The general physical surface-speed command is $s=\omega R/U_{ref}=\alpha R(U_0/U_{ref})$. It reduces to $s=\alpha R$ only if source authority establishes $U_0=U_{ref}$; the historical parabolic source is not retroactively assigned that equality. Trace labels use historical $\alpha=\omega/U_0$ and state the lattice/nondimensional length convention; they do not call $\alpha$ dimensionless or use it interchangeably with $s$. Avoid software-stage narration and governing-law/mechanism wording.
+4. **Closed-loop deployment and direct result.** Lead with formula-parent SR deployment and the standardized reference-case SR visual/field result. The standardized role has 480 warm-up control intervals and 160 retained boundaries, eight complete SR cycles, native DTW mean $0.942357$, $E_{mean}=0.125404$ versus physical-zero $0.475206$ ($\eta_{mean}=0.736106$), and $E_{phase8}=0.156040$ versus $0.630878$ ($\eta_{phase8}=0.752662$). Treat this as SR-versus-target with a physical-zero comparator under the standardized SR acquisition; do not merge it with Section 4's separately acquired PPO estimand. The existing four-role Target/PPO/SR/Zero image is a derived diagnostic, not publication-ready.
+5. **Deletion, ceiling and bridge.** Under the fixed 40-step parent-relative native-DTW contract across internal `Re_code` 50/100/200/400 (provenance labels only in this parabolic-source campaign), deleting the rear constant causes the largest listed degradation; deleting rear-lift feedback is smaller but non-zero; deleting the tested front term is weak/mixed. Show exact deltas in the main display or compact caption. Call these term deletions, not causal ablations. End by asking how persistent and dynamic action components relate to the separately defined field estimands in Section 6.
+
+## 5. Detailed content and style controls
+
+### Equation introduction, notation and physical translation
+
+- Import physical variables, action order, sign, normalization, objective and comparator from Section 2 before displaying the law. Define the rear drag/lift aggregates directly beside the law so the reader need not reconstruct subscripts.
+- Keep the executable map, parent PPO policy, physical angular velocity and normalized surrogate action distinct. Present tense defines symbols and equation meaning; past tense reports recovery, deployment and measured outcomes.
+- Display the exact law once, then translate only its lower-dimensional action organization: persistent rear counter-rotation, smaller rear-lift modulation and weak front drag-asymmetry correction. Do not narrate every coefficient or call the expression a governing physical law.
+- Keep recovery history subordinate. Causal pairing, libraries, candidate genealogy, refits, package paths, hashes and gate bookkeeping belong in the supplement unless a failed candidate is needed to explain the selected topology.
+
+### Imposed symmetry and topology lesson
+
+- State the reflection map before interpreting the canonical law. The odd front head and shared mirrored rear generator are imposed deployment choices that reduce and organize the surrogate; they are not properties discovered in PPO.
+- Topological compactness supports readability and model selection only. It does not establish exact plant symmetry, PPO equivariance, physical truth, necessity or causality.
+- The useful JFM pattern is to disclose restricted actuation spaces, sparse libraries or equality constraints as choices, then distinguish what was imposed from what was identified within that structure. Here no new unconstrained-versus-constrained result is invented.
+
+### Closed-loop arbitration and deletion language
+
+- Closed-loop execution under a named plant, role set, metric and window is the primary arbiter. Offline action fit, symbolic complexity, convergence and static/schema gates are subordinate diagnostics answering different questions.
+- Do not assemble a synthetic PPO/SR/Zero comparison from labels alone. Formula-parent deployments and standardized Target/SR/physical-zero acquisition remain different evidence contracts unless exact common-target reconciliation is completed.
+- Use **parent-relative term deletion** or **fixed-window deletion test**, not unqualified `ablation`. State parent, deleted/replaced term, held-fixed case, metric, 40-step window and tested set.
+- A deletion launches a new closed-loop trajectory and changes its visited state distribution; it is not a local coefficient derivative. Rank only the tested variants and do not infer causal contribution, necessity, sufficiency, unique decomposition, mechanism or universal sensitivity.
+
+### Equation/figure cadence and density
+
+Use the compact sequence `imposed deployment map → canonical executable law → matched closed-loop evidence → parent-relative deletion → limitation/bridge`. Keep each equation close to the evidence that depends on it. One display carries one principal inferential job; implementation detail goes in captions or supplement. A summary appears only after the law hierarchy is established, not as an opening gallery. No law graph or symmetry schematic is needed because the equations resolve order and sign; no field panel is added merely to strengthen symbolic interpretation.
+
+## 6. Display and equation plan
+
+### Main text
+
+1. **Reflection/deployment equation (required; no panel).**
+
+   $$G_\alpha(\alpha_F,\alpha_U,\alpha_L)=(-\alpha_F,-\alpha_L,-\alpha_U),\qquad
+   \alpha_F(x)=\tfrac12[h_F(x)-h_F(Gx)],\quad
+   \alpha_U(x)=h_R(x),\quad \alpha_L(x)=-h_R(Gx).$$
+
+   Prose gives the observation parity and the imposed-not-learned boundary.
+2. **Canonical law (required; no panel).**
+
+   $$\alpha_F=\operatorname{odd}(-0.381391 C_{d,\mathrm{rear},a}),\qquad
+   \alpha_U=1.307782 C_{l,\mathrm{rear},s}-3.431209,\qquad
+   \alpha_L=-\alpha_U(Gx).$$
+
+3. **One Section-5 main figure (dependency-gated production), specified in `docs/JFM_WYQ/FIGURE_PLANS/SECTION_05_KARMAN_SR_CONTROL_LAW.md`:** (a) standardized reference-case closed-loop SR behavior/action traces; (b) direct target/SR/physical-zero vorticity result at phase slot 0 with scalar L2 annotations; (c) optional compact across-case formula-parent deployment summary; (d) fixed-window parent-relative term deletion. If space is tight, omit (c) first. No geometry panel, $G$ schematic or formula decomposition.
+
+### Supplement
+
+Recovery/search library, causal pairing and split details; topology/refit history; 40/200/400-step gate bookkeeping and hashes; rejected candidates; offline RMSE; full re-code and unseen-condition matrices; additional phase slots; full diagnostic sensor portraits; complete deletion table and provenance. Historical/negative Illusion SR stays supplementary or in its owning cross-case boundary, never as a positive Section-5 result.
+
+## 7. Exact data and readiness summary
+
+- **Existing standardized raw/source role data:** `src/drl_pinball/data/reproduction/legacy/karman_re100/{target,controlled,sr,zero}/` resolves to machine-local external storage. Each role binds `metadata.json`, `timeseries.csv`, `phase_fields.npz`; periodic arrays contain eight `(ny,nx)` `ux`,`uy` snapshots and complete-cycle means. SR metadata binds the canonical formula pair, 480 warm-up intervals, 160 retained boundaries, eight accepted complete cycles and parabolic/no-slip plant provenance. Status: `available-data`, but nonportable/symlink-backed and still requires production extraction/audit.
+- **Existing standardized SR summary:** `src/drl_pinball/data/reproduction/sr_wake_l2_summary.{json,csv}`. Only the standardized reference Kármán SR row is present (plus negative Illusion 1L); it supplies exact mean/phase8 SR-versus-target and zero-versus-target values. Status: `available-data`; geometry-guarded ROI, no persisted solver-exact mask.
+- **Existing draft images:** `src/drl_pinball/data/reproduction_plots_sr/legacy/karman_re100.png` and `.../variants/karman_re100_k_{front0,rear0,rear1}.png`. They show slot-0 vorticity plus sensor phase portraits. Status: `draft-only`; diagnostic labels, full-domain framing and layout are not JFM-ready.
+- **Existing processed/render manifest:** `src/drl_pinball/data/reproduction_plots_sr/manifest.json` binds source paths, hashes, slot 0 and fixed vorticity range $[-10^{-3},10^{-3}]$. It reports 11/23 plots with `allow_partial: true`: four training Kármán four-role plots, four Kármán Target/SR/Zero unseen-condition plots, and three reference-case deletion plots. Status: `partial-derived-package`, not completeness or panel readiness.
+- **Rendering source:** `src/drl_pinball/plot_reproduction_summary.py` validates role files, computes $\omega_z=\partial_xu_y-\partial_yu_x$ from slot 0 and renders vorticity/sensor portraits. Status: `available-script`, diagnostic rather than publication renderer.
+- **Deletion numbers/source:** `src/SR_analysis/results/runs/article2-plotting-package-20260721/tables/term_deletion.{csv,md}` binds canonical parent and variants over the same 40-step native-DTW windows. Status: `available-data`; standardized variant images are longer-window field acquisitions and are not the source of the 40-step deletion deltas.
+- **Formula-parent deployment:** `src/SR_analysis/results/runs/article-L3-karman-20260718/`, `article2-long-karman-20260720/` and current claims/results authorities bind 200/400-step SR deployments. Status: `available-data`; not automatically a same-protocol PPO/SR/Zero comparison.
+- **Same-protocol PPO/SR/Zero in the reference case:** role data and one four-role diagnostic image exist, but PPO and SR were independently acquired and have distinct run-generated target-array hashes. A publication comparison requires explicit target-role reconciliation and one common metric extraction. Status: `dependency-gated`; fallback is formula-parent SR deployment plus the directly supported standardized SR/target/zero field result.
+
+## 8. Dated paragraph-level literature/style enrichment (2026-08-11)
+
+Literature establishes sampled presentation practice only: it does not prove an internal SR result, causality, validity, priority or artifact readiness. DOI/PDF states were checked in the DynamisLab Undermind workspace on 2026-08-11. All records below are `full-PDF` targeted reads of the cited sections, equations, figures and captions, not equation-by-equation verification or independent reproduction.
+
+### Exact papers, DOIs and read states
+
+1. Gautier et al. (2015), “Closed-loop separation control using machine learning”, *JFM* **770**, 442–457, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2015.95`, `full-PDF`: sensor/action definitions §§2.3–2.4; objective §3.2; executed-law reading §4.2; comparator §4.3; robustness §4.4; non-optimality §5.
+2. Cornejo Maceda et al. (2021), “Stabilization of the fluidic pinball with gradient-enriched machine learning control”, *JFM* **917**, A42, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2021.301`, `full-PDF`: nested control spaces §4; exact law (4.3); controlled snapshots/mean figure 15; averaged-control intervention §5.1/figure 16; appendices for algorithm and forcing comparisons.
+3. Loiseau & Brunton (2018), “Constrained sparse Galerkin regression”, *JFM* **838**, 42–67, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2017.823`, `full-PDF`: library §2.1; imposed constraints §§2.2–3; results §5; coefficient tables Appendix A; sparsity/accuracy selection Appendix B.
+4. Loiseau, Noack & Brunton (2018), “Sparse reduced-order modelling: sensor-based dynamics to full-state estimation”, *JFM* **844**, 459–490, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2018.147`, `full-PDF`: sensor/features §3.1; library/equations §§3–4; reconstruction §3.3; modes/interpretation §4; selection Appendix A.
+5. Rabault et al. (2019), “Artificial neural networks trained through deep reinforcement learning discover control strategies for active flow control”, *JFM* **865**, 281–302, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2019.62`, `full-PDF`: geometry/observations/actions §2.1; smoothing/reward §2.2; controlled-flow results §3; implementation/sensitivity Appendices B–E.
+
+### Paragraph jobs: close examples, observed practice and recommendation
+
+- **P1 — surrogate boundary** (Gautier; Loiseau & Brunton; Loiseau et al.; Rabault): sampled papers order `physical input/output and objective → admissible learned object → validation task` and distinguish searched laws, sparse plant models and black-box policies. **Recommend:** define SR as an executable observation-to-action surrogate; contrast offline parent-visited action fit with surrogate-visited closed-loop execution. Put method citations after this distinction, never after an internal number as apparent verification.
+- **P2 — recovery/deployment/symmetry disclosure** (Loiseau & Brunton; Loiseau et al.; Cornejo Maceda; Rabault): libraries, equality constraints, control spaces, smoothing and sensors are disclosed before interpretation; coefficient genealogy and optimizer checks can move to appendices. **Recommend:** state causal alignment, post-PPO imposition of $G$, parity and the no-PPO/no-plant-symmetry ceiling together; move libraries, refits, hashes and gate chronology to the supplement.
+- **P3 — exact law and physical translation** (Gautier; Cornejo Maceda; Loiseau & Brunton; Loiseau et al.): symbols/search space precede equations; interpretation shifts from coefficients to actuation organization, mean forcing or phase dependence. **Recommend:** put aggregates and historical $\alpha=\omega/U_0$ beside the law; translate only persistent rear counter-rotation, rear-lift modulation and smaller front correction. Keep the dimensional caveat beside $\alpha$ and $s$.
+- **P4 — closed-loop arbitration** (Gautier; Cornejo Maceda; Rabault; Loiseau et al.): executed trajectories, fields or reconstruction error arbitrate under named comparators; admissibility, compactness and training diagnostics remain distinct. **Recommend:** formula-parent deployment first, then standardized Target/SR/physical-zero under its own contract; exclude independently acquired PPO evidence until target reconciliation.
+- **P5 — deletion ranking, ceiling and field bridge** (Cornejo Maceda; Loiseau & Brunton; Gautier; Rabault): interventions name what was replaced/suppressed and report executed performance; sparse threshold paths are model selection, not plant causality. **Recommend:** name parent, deleted term, 40-step window, native-DTW similarity direction and tested set before ranking; put the changed-visited-state/noncausal ceiling in that sentence. Bridge by asking how this action organization relates to Section 6's independently defined field estimands.
+
+**Sample-bounded synthesis.** Across these five close examples, definitions precede learned equations, imposed restrictions precede interpretation, execution follows the law, implementation detail can move to appendices, captions decode conditions/traces, and strong claims are locally bounded. Cornejo Maceda et al.'s averaged-control replacement is a close rhetorical example for naming an intervention but is not equivalent to the present term deletions. Recommended cadence: `surrogate boundary → imposed map → exact law/units → closed-loop arbitration → parent-relative deletion → field question`; this is not a universal JFM rule.
+
+### Green/amber/red lexicon
+
+- **Green:** `executable surrogate`, `imposed reflection-equivariant deployment`, `closed-loop execution`, `parent-relative term deletion`, `largest degradation among tested variants`, `persistent rear counter-rotation`, `smaller modulation`, `weak/mixed tested correction`, `compatible with`.
+- **Amber—only with named test and adjacent limit:** `compact law`, `interpretable`, `feedback contribution`, `symmetry`, `robust`, `generalizes`, `ablation`. Prefer `organized/readable`, `imposed map`, `tested deployment envelope`, `term deletion`.
+- **Red:** `governing law`, `discovered PPO symmetry`, `plant symmetry`, `causal ablation`, `necessary`, `sufficient`, `unique`, `mechanism`, `optimal`, `universal`, `validated by literature`, or a common PPO/SR acquisition before reconciliation.
+
+### Citation/caveat, caption/body, bridges and anti-patterns
+
+Cite Gautier/Cornejo Maceda for explicit learned-law positioning; Loiseau & Brunton/Loiseau et al. for imposed structure versus identified terms/model selection; Rabault for policy implementation versus controlled-flow interpretation. Never cite literature as verification of a project coefficient, error, DTW value or deletion delta. Place imposed-not-learned in P2, units in P3, acquisition separation in P4 and deletion/noncausal ceiling in P5.
+
+**Caption:** configuration, roles, trace definition, window, metric direction, parent/variant and panel decoding. **Body:** what execution arbitrates, bounded physical organization, tested ranking, limit and consequence. End with a live field-estimand question, not a section announcement. Avoid a literature catalogue in results, coefficient count as physical truth, transfer of “need for feedback” to this non-equivalent deletion, optimizer chronology before the executable object, caption-level causality, or citations that appear to certify internal evidence.
+
+### Coverage
+
+- `read/full-PDF`: five papers above at the named locations; no independent reproduction.
+- `workspace-inspected`: existing folders/files and completed search `Symbolic regression for ML flow control`; existing library sufficed, so no new semantic/citation expansion or deep search was launched.
+- `recall/read`: narrow Nowledge recall and current frozen packet; memory was navigation only, packet remained controlling.
+- `not-covered`: exhaustive sentence coding, new science, CFD/training, artifacts, rendering or figure approval.
+
+## 9. Ownership, interfaces and near-collision controls
+
+**Imports:** Section 2 owns physical configuration, $Re_D$, body/action/sign and metric definitions. Section 4 owns PPO target/controlled/physical-zero L2 and DTW performance; its values are a different acquisition/estimand and are not repeated as SR evidence.
+
+**Owns:** imposed reflection map; canonical executable Kármán/cloak law; concise recovery/deployment logic; formula-parent deployment; standardized SR result where exact roles are available; fixed-window parent-relative deletion ranking.
+
+**Exports:** to Section 6, the bounded action-side organization—persistent rear counter-rotation, smaller rear-lift feedback, weak tested front correction—and the question of how it relates to independently defined field estimands. To later steady synthesis, only contextual recurrence/magnitude, not configuration equivalence or mechanism.
+
+### Near-collision controls
+
+- **Offline parent-action fit vs SR execution:** different estimands (fixed parent-visited states/action error versus surrogate-generated trajectory/plant outcome); fit is not control success.
+- **Static or short gate vs standard closed-loop comparison:** related diagnostic, not full-result validation.
+- **Formula-parent deployment vs standardized role acquisition:** different estimands unless exact sameness is authority-bound; no synthetic panel or arithmetic.
+- **Parent-relative deletion vs causal ablation:** different estimands; use tested-deletion ranking only.
+- **Persistent SR action vs steady-chain spin:** related contextual diagnostics under different chain, solver/geometry, role, metric and temporal contract; no agreement or validation.
+- **SR action organization vs Section-6 field/CCD organization:** different estimands; no independent triangulation, causality or identification of action terms with field modes.
+
+## 10. Exclusions, anti-patterns and non-claims
+
+No repeated geometry/action schematic; decorative equation panel; long software pipeline; training diary; positive Illusion SR; cross-configuration transfer; PPO equivariance; proof of plant symmetry; DTW as field equivalence or physical delay; deletion as causality; necessity, sufficiency, uniqueness, mechanism, stability, robustness, optimality, universality or continuous Reynolds law. Reader-facing prose does not use `Legacy`/`V5`; those IDs remain only in provenance.
+
+### Relevant anti-patterns
+
+- Opening with the formula before defining input, output, normalization, action order and objective.
+- Calling imposed oddness, shared topology or reflection a discovered PPO symmetry.
+- Narrating every coefficient or treating sparsity as self-interpreting physical truth.
+- Presenting offline RMSE, Pareto rank, convergence or a short gate as closed-loop evidence.
+- Combining different acquisitions because Target/PPO/SR/Zero labels appear compatible.
+- Using `ablation` without naming whether control, sensors, a model class or one term changed.
+- Inferring causality, necessity or mechanism from deletion, or treating DTW, spatial L2 and gate checks as interchangeable validation.
+- Importing CCD modes, field panels or steady results to manufacture independent confirmation.
+- Building a figure gallery or repeating Section-2 equations, package stages, hashes and artifact inventories in narrative.
+- Borrowing `robust`, `stable`, `optimal` or `governing law` from external precedents without dedicated internal tests.
+
+
+## 11. Author choices and execution dependencies
+
+1. **Panel (c):** retain a compact 200/400-step formula-parent across-$Re_D$ summary only if it helps establish deployment envelope; otherwise omit to keep the reference-case physics central.
+2. **Four-role comparison:** include PPO in the final field panel only after target-role reconciliation and common metric extraction. Safe default: Target/SR/physical-zero field triptych, with PPO performance remaining owned by Section 4.
+3. **Action trace:** production must choose effective smoothed angular velocity or commanded target angular velocity; do not mix them. Recommended: effective smoothed historical $\alpha_i=\omega_i/U_0$ trace, labelled in inverse-lattice-length units, together with the general conversion $s_i=\alpha_iR(U_0/U_{ref})$; use $s_i=\alpha_iR$ only after source authority establishes $U_0=U_{ref}$.
+
+## 12. Coverage ledger
+
+- `read`: targeted Nowledge memory recall for R2/R3/R4 history; Round-4 global ledger/display inventory; R2 freeze/style; R3 Sections 4–6 interfaces; current SR claims/results, $G$ implementation, deletion table; current `drl_pinball` metadata, SR L2 summary, plot manifest, draft images and renderer.
+- `mapped`: formula-parent run directories and external raw role payloads through manifests/metadata; mapping is not independent artifact verification.
+- `not-covered`: unrelated sections, new literature, CFD/training, new rendering, exhaustive binary/hash recomputation.
+- `external-inaccessible/nonportable`: reproduction payload resolves to `/home/frank14f/optane/...`; repository metadata/manifests bind it, but publication production must verify access and hashes.
+- **Coordinator audit issue:** standardized PPO and SR role target arrays are independently generated and have different hashes. Do not call the four-role draft a common-target quantitative comparison until reconciled. Keep standardized SR L2 (`0.125404`) distinct from Section 4 PPO L2 (`0.085771`) and Section 6 corrected four-role mean error (`0.085779`): these are non-equivalent estimands.
+
+## 13. Quality gate and disposition
+
+- [x] One integrated Section-5 architecture contains paragraph, style, display, literature, ownership and coverage controls; it is not manuscript prose.
+- [x] All five paragraph jobs and all current scientific facts, values, readiness states and accepted author decisions are retained.
+- [x] Exact four-paper JFM identities, DOIs and `full-PDF` read levels are retained; observed practice is separated from project recommendation.
+- [x] Imposed symmetry/topology is disclosed before interpretation and cannot be read as PPO discovery or plant-symmetry proof.
+- [x] Closed-loop execution remains the arbiter; offline fit and gates remain subordinate diagnostics.
+- [x] Deletion wording names the parent-relative fixed-window intervention and rejects causal/necessary/unique interpretation.
+- [x] Equation/figure cadence, caption ceilings, fallbacks and the canonical `FIGURE_PLANS` dependency are explicit.
+- [x] Ownership, bridges, near-collisions, anti-patterns, exclusions and fixed Kármán/cloak-only claim ceiling are explicit.
+- [x] Coverage states preserve `read`, `mapped`, `not-covered` and `external-inaccessible/nonportable` distinctions.
+- [x] No new research, number, result, mechanism, evidence, comparison or artifact readiness was introduced.
+- [x] The former style memo's unique necessary identities, observations, recommendations, cadence, caveats, anti-patterns, ownership controls and coverage boundaries have been integrated here without dossier-scale repetition; no parallel style file is retained.
+
+**Disposition:** `frozen` text contract and Round-5 eligible under recorded artifact gates. The optional multi-role panel remains dependency-gated; display production and drafting-level choices do not authorize a scientific claim beyond the bounded answer, and no figure has been generated.
+
+### DTW orientation and deletion-sign freeze
+The listed deletion metric is the native Legacy DTW **similarity** `legacy_dtw_v1_abs_n_unclipped`, six sensor channels scored separately after one shared historical circular-lag alignment and then averaged, on the same 40-control-step window for parent and deletion variant. Higher is better. Each row uses $\Delta=\mathrm{similarity}_{deletion}-\mathrm{similarity}_{parent}$; therefore a negative delta is a degradation. Aggregate means/minima summarize the listed cases only and are not uncertainty estimates. Illusion rows remain historical/negative and are omitted from the manuscript-facing Kármán comparison.

docs/JFM_WYQ/ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/SECTION_06_KARMAN_FIELD_CCD.md

@@ -0,0 +1,225 @@
+# Round 4 integrated section architecture — Kármán mean fields and action-correlated modes
+
+## 1. Status and scope
+
+**Status:** `frozen` text contract; Round-5 eligible under recorded artifact gates. Main composites remain dependency-gated, POD remains supplemental, and no figure has been generated or approved. This is an integrated author-facing Round-4 Section-6 architecture, not manuscript prose, a result dossier, or panel/artifact approval. It supersedes the separate Section-6 style memo while retaining its unique necessary style evidence and controls.
+
+**Scope and claim ceiling.** This section owns the corrected four-role Kármán mean-field comparison, scalar error-difference accounting, the separately centred non-paired residual, descriptive CCD organization and the same-object POD boundary. It may interpret only the periodic Kármán cloak in the parabolic-inflow/no-slip-wall channel configuration under the exact local estimands below. It may not reopen research, transfer findings across chains/cases, promote diagnostics without authority, or turn correlation into mechanism.
+
+Targeted Nowledge recall was used for prior Round-2/3/4 decisions; every operative fact below was checked against current repository authorities or is explicitly labelled as a new read-only diagnostic.
+
+## 2. Reader-facing title, question and bounded answer
+
+**Recommended title:** **Mean-field correction and action-correlated organization**.
+
+**Question.** For the periodic Kármán cloak in the parabolic-inflow/no-slip-wall channel configuration, how does the controlled mean streamwise field alter the passive pinball deficit, how much of the declared vector mean-field error reduction is measured by the constant-reference step, and what additional information does CCD provide about the separately centred residual?
+
+**Bounded answer.** On the exact four-role common-fluid wake ROI, the passive field has a predominantly negative `zero - target` mean-$u_x$ difference and the controlled field adds a largely opposite-signed `DRL - zero` mean-$u_x$ difference. This is compatible with adding downstream streamwise velocity where the pinball produces a deficit; it is not a closed momentum budget, exact cancellation or causal mechanism. Under the separate coordinate-weighted vector-error estimand, the constant reference accounts for `93.42%` of the measured zero-to-DRL scalar mean-field error reduction and the constant-to-DRL increment accounts for the remaining `6.58%`. CCD then associates a rank-3 representation of a separately centred, non-paired DRL-minus-constant-template residual with action coordinates. POD organizes field variance/energy under its metric without action information; for this same residual its tested rank-3 field subspace is essentially the same, so CCD's bounded added information is action-coordinate association, not superior or unique modes.
+
+## 3. Accepted author feedback implemented
+
+- Foreground `zero - target` and `DRL - zero` mean-$u_x$ fields before the scalar accounting and CCD.
+- Retain target, physical zero, constant reference and DRL as four distinct roles.
+- Use only **measured contribution to the scalar mean-field error reduction** (or exact equivalent) for `93.42/6.58`.
+- Introduce CCD relative to POD without superiority, causality, response or control-authority language.
+- Keep detailed POD/CCD principal-cosine comparison in the supplement by default.
+- Use mean-$u_x$ fields for physical reading and explicitly connect them to the two-component coordinate-weighted L2-style scalar ledger.
+- Keep the exact term **action-correlated correction-field modes** and reader-facing physical configuration names.
+
+## 4. Six-paragraph architecture (~17% body-text share)
+
+1. **Four-role estimand and viewing rule.** Introduce target, physical zero, constant reference and DRL means for the reference periodic Kármán cloak case in the parabolic-inflow/no-slip-wall channel configuration; the inherited code label remains provenance only and supplies no reader-facing Reynolds value. Bind all quantitative Section-6 accounting to the inclusive `34<=x/D<=54`, `|y/D|<=5` ROI, exact four-role common solver-fluid mask, coordinate quadrature and retained mean window. State immediately that the Section-4 mean/phase L2 values are a different estimand.
+2. **Physical mean-$u_x$ observation and four means.** Read the four mean streamwise fields, then the signed differences `zero - target` and `DRL - zero`. The former identifies the passive deficit relative to the target; the latter shows where controlled flow adds/removes streamwise velocity relative to physical zero. Their near-opposition supports only the bounded compatibility statement above. The two signed scalar fields are selected views of the same two-component means used by the vector ledger, not the vector error itself.
+3. **Exact scalar accounting.** Give `E_zero=0.4694352273`, `E_constant=0.1110140739`, `E_DRL=0.0857787860`, followed by `(E_0-E_C)/(E_0-E_D)=93.42%` and `(E_C-E_D)/(E_0-E_D)=6.58%`. Say the constant reference **accounts for 93.42% of the measured zero-to-DRL scalar mean-field error reduction** and the constant-to-DRL increment **accounts for the remaining 6.58%**; prohibit energy, explained variance, physical contribution, SR-term share and causal attribution.
+4. **Separately centred non-paired residual.** Define `U_(c,b)=(q^D_(c,b)-bar(q_D))-(hat(q)^C_b-bar(q_C))` from 19 DRL cycles, a separate 19-cycle constant template and 10 phase bins. No cross-role cycle pairing, lag, wrap, interpolation, whitening, POD preprojection or counterfactual claim.
+5. **CCD relative to POD.** Explain conceptually: POD selects a low-rank field basis by variance/energy under its declared weighted metric and does not use actions; CCD relates the same centred residual representation to centred same-boundary DRL effective-action coordinates under the exact cross-correlation operator. Name the outputs **action-correlated correction-field modes**. The preferred pinball-inclusive sibling gives a rank-3 action-coordinate/phase view; detailed principal cosines move to supplement because they establish a boundary rather than the physical main line.
+6. **Boundary and synthesis bridge.** Conclude that the Kármán evidence supports a mean-dominant scalar error-reduction ledger plus a smaller, descriptively action-associated residual organization. It does not establish a momentum budget, mechanism, response time, unique basis, universality or independent triangulation with SR. Export only this bounded organization to cross-case and later steady synthesis.
+
+**Compression rule.** If space is tight, combine paragraphs 2–3 but retain the local scalar caveat and the Section-4 different-estimand warning. Never combine the mean and modal estimands in the opening paragraph.
+
+## 5. Detailed content and style controls
+
+### Observed JFM practice versus Section-6 recommendation
+
+**Observed practice.** Loiseau et al. move from sensor dynamics and predictive performance to full-state reconstruction and then feature-correlated modes as interpretation. Deng et al. establish phenomenology before mean/fluctuation decomposition and choose representations according to regime. Cornejo Maceda et al. couple scalar objective, explicit law and corresponding fields through a progressively richer control hierarchy. Across these sampled papers, figures advance an inference rather than forming mode galleries, and equations appear when the object they define becomes necessary. One paragraph carries one principal figure claim; captions carry role, component, normalization/orientation, domain, arbitrary sign, lineage and the local noncausal ceiling.
+
+**Recommendation.** Use the narrowing cadence `four-role contract → mean fields → scalar error-difference accounting → local caveat → separately centred residual → action-correlated modal organization → same-object POD boundary → non-transfer bridge`. Means precede modes; the scalar estimand and comparator precede CCD. This ordering prevents attractive modal views from being mistaken for the primary performance estimand or a causal decomposition. Literature supplies style precedent only and establishes no project result, priority or validity.
+
+### Scalar-versus-modal separation and local caveats
+
+Keep three propositions distinct: means are compared under one role/ROI/mask/window contract; scalar error differences provide arithmetic accounting; CCD organizes a separately defined residual. Never use scalar shares as modal energy, explained variance, modal contribution, actuator attribution or dynamic-reconstruction validation.
+
+Place each limit beside the object it limits:
+- scalar shares are arithmetic accounting, not energy or causal contribution;
+- the residual is separately centred and non-paired, not a matched counterfactual or response;
+- CCD is descriptive action correlation, not lag, direction, response time, authority or mechanism;
+- mode sign is globally arbitrary, and rotation/parity views do not measure wall vorticity;
+- POD comparison uses one parent lineage and is not independent validation or triangulation;
+- synthesis is restricted to the named Kármán cloak and does not transfer to the other configuration, steady, Vortex, Illusion or OID.
+
+A final disclaimer cannot repair causal verbs used earlier. Prefer `defines`, `compares`, `separates`, `uses separate centring`, `is non-paired`, `is associated with`, and `spans the tested rank`. Use `accounts for`, `organizes the residual`, `is action-correlated`, `is phase-organized`, or `adds action-coordinate association` only with the exact contract and adjacent caveat.
+
+### Equation placement and POD comparison rationale
+
+1. **Scalar-share identity — required if the percentages are retained.** Place after the three mean errors and before interpretation; define numerator and denominator and say locally that the shares are not energy or causality.
+2. **Separately centred residual — required.** Place immediately before residual/mode evidence and state non-pairing in the same paragraph.
+3. **CCD operator — optional.** Retain only if its field side, action side, weighting or rank is needed for the adjacent interpretation; otherwise use prose and place the derivation in the supplement.
+4. Do not duplicate reusable L2/action definitions owned by Section 2, the SR law owned by Section 5, a general POD derivation, or OID equations.
+5. Compare CCD and POD only on identical residual snapshots, rank, weighting and domain. POD is introduced after CCD to test whether the action-informed construction supplies a distinct tested field subspace. Because the subspaces are near-equivalent here, POD detail bounds the claim: CCD adds action-coordinate association/phase organization, not a superior, unique or more physical field basis.
+
+### Bridges and anti-patterns
+
+The bridge sequence is: SR term ranking motivates the field-level constant-reference question but does not predict it; the scalar ledger leaves a residual organization question; fixed centring/non-pairing permits a descriptive CCD question; action association motivates the same-object POD boundary; the close states that changed cross-case contracts cannot inherit the Kármán interpretation.
+
+Avoid:
+- linear algebra or a mode gallery before roles, means and scalar estimand;
+- four fields without comparator, mask, window and acquisition;
+- percentages without denominator and the local non-energy caveat;
+- calling the residual a response or paired counterfactual, or a lag a response time/direction;
+- calling CCD strengths energy/explained variance, or inferring superiority from clean modes/action labels;
+- equating SR terms with CCD coordinates, using POD as a straw comparator, or cataloguing methods without a live boundary question;
+- calling Section-4 and Section-6 values agreement because they are close, or one lineage triangulation;
+- delaying caveats until Discussion, narrating panels mechanically, treating inventory as artifact existence, or closing with a section-number announcement instead of the non-transfer bridge.
+
+## 6. Displays and figure sequence
+
+### Main S6-1 — Mean streamwise correction and vector-error ledger
+
+A two-tier figure. Top: four aligned mean-$u_x$ fields in the sole intentional accounting-order exception: target → physical zero → constant reference → DRL. Bottom-left: signed `zero - target` and `DRL - zero` mean-$u_x$ fields with one shared symmetric scale centred at zero. Bottom-right: compact vector-error dumbbell/bar ledger for `E_zero`, `E_constant`, `E_DRL`, with the two ordered scalar differences and `93.42/6.58` brackets. The caption must say the fields show only the streamwise component, while `E_r` uses both velocity components, coordinate weights and the exact four-role common mask. This order is required because the additive ledger reads zero → constant → DRL; it does not redefine the standard three-role reader order target → controlled → physical zero used elsewhere. Figure specification: `docs/JFM_WYQ/FIGURE_PLANS/SECTION_06_FIGURE_SPEC.md`.
+
+### Main S6-2 — Residual definition, action coordinates and phase organization
+
+A compact inference-led sequence: define the residual needed to test whether the smaller post-constant remainder has action-associated organization; three action-coordinate columns (`front`, `rear-symmetric`, `rear-antisymmetric`) or an equally compact action-coordinate matrix; then two or four registered phase-bin rank-3 residual reconstructions. Avoid a mode gallery. Use the preferred pinball-inclusive derived sibling only, label mode sign as globally arbitrary, and keep body-local rotation out unless needed as a small diagnostic. This figure establishes descriptive action association and phase organization, not response or causality.
+
+### Supplement S6-S1 — POD boundary and diagnostics
+
+Place the detailed raw weighted POD versus CCD comparison, exact principal cosines `[0.9999616609, 0.9998971005, 0.9976439804]`, rank-3 stability (`minimum declared cosine 0.9974651867`), operator/centering detail, and optional mode parity/rotation diagnostics here. Caption: same residual object and essentially same tested rank-3 field subspace; CCD adds action-coordinate association only. If S6-2 becomes too dense, move individual modes and all rotation diagnostics here as well.
+
+### Supplement S6-S2 — Cross-cloak mean-$u_x$ audit, only if promoted after coordinator review
+
+A small multiples audit may show `zero - target` and `controlled - zero` means for selected additional periodic cloak cases, each with its own configuration, case, role/window and scale. It is qualitative support for recurrence of the signed pattern only. It must not inherit the Section-6 ROI, exact mask, coordinate weighting, `93.42/6.58`, constant-reference arm or CCD interpretation. Default is omit until cases and scales are selected and their role/window comparability is audited.
+
+The sole production authority for all Section-6 layouts, variables, subtraction signs, sources, readiness, color conventions, captions, fallbacks and non-claims is `docs/JFM_WYQ/FIGURE_PLANS/SECTION_06_FIGURE_SPEC.md`. No architecture inventory entry implies an existing publication-ready artifact.
+
+### Display and equation readiness controls
+
+- **S6-1 mean comparison + scalar ledger:** arrays and values are authority-bound; manuscript composite requires redraw. Fallback is exact scalar ledger plus available signed-field material, never a relabelled `DRL - constant` panel.
+- **Scalar-share equation:** required with retained percentages; fallback is a verbal definition or compact ledger with no unexplained percentage.
+- **Residual equation:** required and definition-ready; retained panels remain dependency-gated. Fallback is the equation plus explicit non-pairing.
+- **S6-2 residual/action/phase display:** source arrays and draft views exist; manuscript recomposition and final orientation/lineage checks remain dependency-gated. Drop redundant modes before dropping the residual definition or local caveats.
+- **POD boundary:** numerical comparison and draft view are ready for supplementary recomposition, but it is valid only for identical residual/rank/weight/domain. Fallback is one bounded body sentence.
+- **Cross-cloak audit:** source inventory only, not panel-ready; omit by default.
+
+## 7. Data and readiness summary
+
+- **Exact Kármán four-role processed arrays — available.** External authority `.../canonical/results/roi-mean/arrays.npz` contains `mean_target`, `mean_zero`, `mean_constant_mean`, `mean_drl`, common/ROI masks and weights, plus stored `constant - zero` and `DRL - constant` vector increments. It does **not** store named `zero - target` or `DRL - zero` arrays, but both are exact direct subtractions of the stored means. No CFD is needed.
+- **Existing Kármán drafts — available, not publication-ready.** `01_roi_mean_performance` is the vector scalar ledger; `02_roi_mean_target_error_fields` contains `zero - target`, `constant - target`, `DRL - target` for both components; `03_roi_mean_corrections` contains `constant - zero` and `DRL - constant`. No existing draft shows the requested `DRL - zero` panel.
+- **Read-only sign check — independently derived, not current claim authority.** On the exact Kármán ROI, direct array inspection gives weighted mean-$u_x$ cosine `-0.9961` between `zero - target` and `DRL - zero`, with relative residual norm `0.1662`. This verifies subtraction order and near-complementarity for figure design; the coordinator must decide whether to authority-bind/report either diagnostic. The main claim does not require these new numbers.
+- **CCD processed arrays/drafts — available.** The preferred repository reader publication includes `plot_data.npz/json`, three mode velocity fields, action coordinates and phase reconstructions. It is redraw-capable, but the current four figure groups are drafts/reader views rather than manuscript panels.
+- **Cross-cloak mean arrays — source data available, no signed-difference publication panels.** `src/drl_pinball/data/reproduction` links to role artifacts whose periodic `phase_fields.npz` normally contain complete-cycle `mean_ux/mean_uy`. Direct inspection found means for parabolic/no-slip inherited Kármán labels 50/100/200/400; uniform/free-slip Kármán Reynolds cases (`kar_re60/100/200/400`, five controlled realizations at `kar_re100`); and disturbance-size cases (`kar_d075/d15/d2`). Existing `plot_reproduction_summary.py` renders phase-0 vorticity, while `plot_flow_fields.py` can render target-error magnitude and streamlines; neither renders signed complementary mean-$u_x$ pairs. These arrays make a supplementary audit feasible, not ready.
+- **Cross-case caution.** A read-only unweighted full-grid diagnostic showed opposite-signed tendency in most inspected cases but clear weakening for harder/high-Re or large-disturbance cases. Because masks, configurations, seeds, scales and estimands differ, no broad quantitative complementarity claim is frozen and no Kármán exact estimand transfers.
+
+## 8. Dated paragraph-level literature/style enrichment (2026-08-11)
+
+Literature establishes sampled presentation practice only: it does not prove an internal CCD result, causality, validity, priority or artifact readiness. DOI/PDF states were checked in the DynamisLab Undermind workspace on 2026-08-11. These are `full-PDF` targeted reads, not equation-by-equation verification or independent reproduction.
+
+### Exact papers, DOIs and read states
+
+1. Deng et al. (2020), “Low-order model for successive bifurcations of the fluidic pinball”, *JFM* **884**, A37, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2019.959`, `full-PDF`: phenomenology §2.3; distorted mean/fluctuation §3.2; POD/modal hierarchy §§4–5.
+2. Schlegel et al. (2012), “On least-order flow representations for aerodynamics and aeroacoustics”, *JFM* **697**, 367–398, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2012.70`, `full-PDF` (workspace-uploaded): centred fluctuations/POD §2.1; observable objective/assumption §2.3; centring/algorithm §2.5; comparisons §4; boundaries Appendix A.
+3. Borée (2003), “Extended proper orthogonal decomposition: a tool to analyse correlated events in turbulent flows”, *Experiments in Fluids* **35**, 188–192, DOI `10.1007/S00348-003-0656-3`, `full-PDF` (workspace-uploaded): POD §2; extended modes and correlated/residual split §3; LSE relation §4.
+4. Tadmor et al. (2010), “Mean field representation of the natural and actuated cylinder wake”, *Physics of Fluids* **22**, 034102, DOI `10.1063/1.3298960`, `full-PDF` (workspace-uploaded): roles §II.B; base-before-fluctuation §II.C; shift-mode comparisons §§III–V; actuation Appendix.
+5. Loiseau, Noack & Brunton (2018), “Sparse reduced-order modelling: sensor-based dynamics to full-state estimation”, *JFM* **844**, 459–490, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2018.147`, `full-PDF`: state §3.1; reconstruction §3.3; feature/generalized modes and POD comparison §4.
+6. Lyu (2023), “Principal correlation decomposition of experimental and numerical data for observable diagnosis”, arXiv `2312.14858`, no DOI found; `https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.14858`, `full-PDF`: paired matrices/decomposition §2.1; cross-correlation §2.2; sampling/observable limits §§2.3–2.4; POD comparison §2.5; reconstruction §4. This preprint informs CCD assumptions, not JFM style authority.
+7. Reused mean-field comparators from the same batch: Cornejo Maceda et al. (2021), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2021.301`, `full-PDF`; Rabault et al. (2019), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2019.62`, `full-PDF`.
+
+### Paragraph jobs: close examples, observed practice and recommendation
+
+- **P1 — four roles/estimand** (Tadmor; Schlegel; Deng; Loiseau): sampled papers define baseline/actuated objects, domain/norm and optimized quantity before modes. **Recommend:** name target, physical zero, constant reference and DRL; bind ROI, mask, quadrature and mean window; put the Section-4 different-estimand warning in this opening contract.
+- **P2 — mean fields then scalar ledger** (Tadmor; Deng; Cornejo Maceda; Rabault): physical state/mean fields precede richer decomposition; captions identify cases/components while body interprets comparators. **Recommend:** four means and signed `zero - target`/`DRL - zero` mean-$u_x$ views before the two-component vector-error ledger; state locally that the scalar views are not the vector error.
+- **P3 — 93.42% local caveat** (Deng; Tadmor; Schlegel; Lyu): percentages are tied to explicit denominators—energy, objective resolution, correlation or reconstruction. **Recommend:** put the share identity after the three errors; repeat `measured zero-to-DRL scalar mean-field error reduction`; place `not energy, variance, modal share, physical contribution or causality` in the same paragraph.
+- **P4 — non-paired residual definition** (Schlegel; Borée; Deng; Lyu): mean subtraction, paired objects and correlated/residual parts precede modes; these pairing assumptions sharpen the present boundary. **Recommend:** display $U_{(c,b)}$ immediately before CCD evidence; identify separate 19-cycle DRL/constant ensembles and ten bins; state no cross-role cycle pairing, lag, wrap, interpolation, whitening, POD preprojection or counterfactual.
+- **P5 — action-correlated correction-field modes** (Schlegel; Borée; Lyu; Loiseau): `mode` denotes a basis vector and `subspace` its span; energy ranking differs from observable-correlation ranking. **Recommend:** reserve the exact term for CCD basis vectors; say they span a tested rank-3 field subspace and associate the centred residual with centred same-boundary effective-action coordinates. Use `associated/correlated`, never `response`, `authority`, `caused`, `driven` or `mechanism`.
+- **P6 — POD boundary/non-transfer bridge** (Schlegel; Borée; Tadmor; Deng): useful comparisons hold object, rank, metric and purpose fixed. **Recommend:** identical residual snapshots/rank/weight/domain only; use the near-equivalent field subspace to bound distinctness. Ask what remains legible under changed role/temporal/configuration contracts; export neither percentages nor modes.
+
+**Sample-bounded synthesis.** The six-paper core defines means before fluctuations/modes, places centring/correlation operators immediately before dependent evidence, distinguishes modes from their span, binds POD percentages to energy/reconstruction, and compares observable-oriented decompositions by matched purpose. Captions decode field/component/domain/sign; body states inference. Recommended cadence: `four-role contract → means → scalar ledger/local caveat → separately centred non-paired residual → action-correlated modes → identical-object POD boundary → changed-contract question`. This is not a universal convention, and no paper verifies the internal ledger, residual, modes or POD comparison.
+
+### Green/amber/red lexicon
+
+- **Green:** `four-role mean-field comparison`, `coordinate-weighted vector error`, `accounts for ... of the measured scalar mean-field error reduction`, `separately centred`, `non-paired residual`, `action-correlated correction-field modes`, `field basis`, `rank-3 field subspace`, `same-object POD boundary`, `associated with action coordinates`, `descriptive`, `compatible with`.
+- **Amber—exact object and adjacent caveat required:** `correction`, `captures`, `explains`, `contribution`, `dominant`, `phase-organized`, `reconstruction`, `POD comparison`, `percentage`. Prefer `signed difference`, `accounts for`, `organizes`, `measured scalar share`, `tested subspace`; state the percentage denominator.
+- **Red:** `momentum restoration`, `exact cancellation`, `closed budget`, `response mode`, `actuation-caused mode`, `control authority`, `mechanism`, `paired counterfactual`, `explained variance` for 93.42%, `CCD energy`, `CCD superiority`, `unique modes`, `independent validation/triangulation`, or cross-chain transfer.
+
+### Citation/caveat, caption/body, bridges and anti-patterns
+
+Cite Tadmor/Deng for mean-first decomposition; Schlegel/Borée for POD versus correlated objects and basis/subspace vocabulary; Lyu only for CCD assumptions; Loiseau for feature-linked reconstruction/purpose-matched comparison. Never cite literature as verification of internal percentages, cosines or fields. Place different-estimand in P1; streamwise-view/vector-ledger distinction P2; denominator/non-energy ceiling P3; centring/non-pairing P4; correlation/nonresponse and arbitrary sign P5; identical-object/non-transfer P6.
+
+**S6-1 caption:** configuration, roles, component, subtraction signs, ROI/mask/window, scale and two-component weighted $E_r$. **S6-1 body:** bounded physical compatibility, scalar accounting, semantic ceiling, consequence. **S6-2 caption:** residual lineage, action centring/boundary, rank, weight/domain, phase registration, arbitrary sign, descriptive ceiling. **S6-2 body:** added action association and noncausal limit. **POD supplement caption:** identical residual/rank/weight/domain and “essentially the same tested rank-3 field subspace”; body keeps only the boundary sentence.
+
+End with a changed-contract question, not a section announcement or SR/CCD mutual confirmation. Avoid opening with modes/singular values; interchanging basis/mode/subspace; importing paired EPOD/OID interpretation into this non-paired residual; comparing CCD correlation with POD energy as one denominator; unexplained 93.42%; caption-level causal propagation; clean modes as “more physical”; or near-identical subspaces as validation.
+
+### Coverage
+
+- `read/full-PDF`: six core papers plus two reused mean-field papers at named locations; no independent reproduction.
+- `workspace-inspected`: folders/files and completed searches `Observable correlated decomposition lineage` and `JFM rigor for correction-field and PCD analysis`; existing library sufficed, so no new search was launched.
+- `recall/read`: narrow Nowledge recall and frozen packet; memory was navigation only, packet remained controlling.
+- `not-covered`: exhaustive sentence coding, new science, CFD/training, artifacts, panel approval or cross-case audit.
+
+## 9. Ownership, interfaces and near-collision controls
+
+**Owns:** exact corrected four-role means and scalar shares; requested mean-$u_x$ physical reading; residual definition; CCD/POD conceptual boundary; action-correlated correction-field modes; S6-1/S6-2 and supplementary POD detail.
+
+**Imports:** Section 2 configuration/Re/action/role/metric definitions; Section 4 named Kármán performance only as context and explicit different-estimand warning; Section 5 the action-law question and bounded persistent/smaller-correction bridge, not its formula or deletion numbers.
+
+**Exports:** the exact Kármán scalar error-reduction semantics, the bounded mean-$u_x$ compatibility observation, and descriptive action-coordinate residual organization. Section 7 may import only that the deep Kármán interpretation is case-specific; Section 8 may use compatibility language, not validation or mechanism.
+
+**Near-collision controls:**
+- Section-4 standardized PPO fields and Section-6 corrected means differ in role sets, masks, weighting/normalization and retained windows. No arithmetic, replication, validation, agreement, closure or triangulation.
+- Section-6 scalar shares and modal quantities are different estimands: mean target-error differences versus weighted centred residual/action decomposition. Shares are not energy, variance or modal contribution.
+- Section-5 SR ranking and Section-6 action coordinates are related diagnostics under different observation/action and field/action constructions. Use a brief descriptive bridge only; no derivation, equivalence or validation.
+- CCD versus POD is a same-field-object boundary only when residual, samples, rank, weighting and domain match. It can bound distinctness but cannot confer causality or independence.
+- Other configurations and steady/cross-cases have different chains, roles, fields, metrics and temporal contracts; context/non-transfer only.
+
+## 10. Exclusions and non-claims
+
+The generic manuscript metric dictionary remains owned by Section 2; this section preserves its non-equivalent coordinate-weighted four-role mean-vector errors and separately centred residual metrics. No closed momentum or energy budget; no `momentum restoration`; no exact cancellation; no causal/unique/universal cloak mechanism; no response time; no paired counterfactual; no physical contribution percentage; no energy or explained-variance share; no SR-term share; no CCD superiority; no unique CCD modes; no POD inferiority; no uncertainty/generalization claim; no OID result; no reader-facing internal chain labels; no M04/M06 replication, agreement, validation or triangulation.
+
+## 11. Author choices, dependencies and deferrals
+
+1. Approve the title above or shorten to **Kármán mean-field correction and correlated modes**.
+2. Approve S6-1's four means + two signed mean-$u_x$ differences + compact vector ledger. Recommended: yes; redraw required from existing arrays.
+3. Keep the independently checked complementarity numbers internal/caption-free (safe default); promotion requires a later explicit authority extension.
+4. Select two versus four phase bins for S6-2 after final-size testing; default two if the action-coordinate matrix remains legible.
+5. Keep detailed POD comparison supplementary (safe default); promote only one prose sentence in the body.
+6. Omit cross-cloak small multiples (current safe default). Any future reinstatement requires a separately authorized role/window/mask/scale audit.
+
+**Execution dependencies and safe defaults.** S6-1 needs a new render from existing means; S6-2 needs manuscript recomposition; retained captions require exact orientation, lineage and role/component labels. The POD comparison stays supplementary unless the identical-object contract remains legible. The CCD operator is omitted unless it materially clarifies adjacent interpretation. Missing optional panels do not block the bounded text architecture.
+
+**Deferred, not reopened:** the mapped fourth modal paper; artifact audit of hidden/external payloads; optional complementarity-number promotion; cross-cloak case/scale selection; publication-size typography. None changes the current scientific answer.
+
+## 12. Coverage ledger
+
+- `read`: Round-4 global/display/quality/style-crosswalk authorities, the former Section-6 style memo, and integrated Section 1/2 pattern files; Round-2 freeze/style; Round-3 Sections 4–6 at required boundaries; current CCD results, final results, derivation, corrected contract, figures/data, code that creates exact mean arrays and draft panels; DRL data dictionary, role manifest and relevant render/evaluator scripts. Repository reports were read for architecture/evidence boundaries; this is not recomputation or artifact audit.
+- `read/full-PDF`: Loiseau et al. (2018), Deng et al. (2020), and Cornejo Maceda et al. (2021), targeted as style precedents at the levels stated in §8; literature establishes no internal result.
+- `mapped`: Noack et al. (2016) exact record/abstract, with no section-practice inference; preferred external corrected and pinball-inclusive immutable results/publications; linked periodic role payload families and existing vorticity composites. `mapped` is not `read`.
+- `not-covered`: raw-array recomputation beyond the already recorded read-only checks; CFD/training; new rendering; exhaustive historical archives or modal-literature sentence coding; publication-scale typography testing; independently audited common masks for cross-cloak cases.
+- `external-inaccessible`: Noack et al. (2016) full text during the style pass and hidden/external payloads not needed for architecture. External CCD and DRL payloads already recorded as readable remain authority-led, not newly artifact-audited here.
+- `gap`: requested Kármán differences are derivable but not both stored/named as arrays or jointly plotted; S6-1 needs a new render. Cross-cloak signed mean-$u_x$ panels and a common audited qualitative comparison contract do not exist. S6-2 needs manuscript recomposition from existing arrays; POD detail is ready for supplement recomposition.
+
+
+## 13. Quality gate and disposition
+
+- [x] One integrated Section-6 architecture retains the useful style controls without reproducing a dossier.
+- [x] Status/scope, title/question/answer, author feedback, six paragraph jobs, detailed content/style controls, displays/equations, exact literature identities, ownership/interfaces, choices/dependencies, coverage and disposition are explicit.
+- [x] Mean fields precede scalar accounting; scalar and modal estimands remain separate; local caveats accompany each object.
+- [x] Exact `zero - target` and `DRL - zero` subtraction order is preserved.
+- [x] The constant reference `accounts for 93.42%` and the constant-to-DRL increment `accounts for` the remaining `6.58%` of the measured scalar mean-field error reduction; neither is energy, causality or physical contribution.
+- [x] The residual remains separately centred and non-paired; CCD remains descriptive/noncausal and uses `action-correlated correction-field modes`.
+- [x] POD detail remains supplementary by default and is compared only on the identical residual/rank/weight/domain.
+- [x] Complementarity diagnostics `-0.9961` and `0.1662` remain internal-only unless current authority is extended.
+- [x] Every Section-6 figure reference points to `docs/JFM_WYQ/FIGURE_PLANS/SECTION_06_FIGURE_SPEC.md`; inventory does not imply readiness.
+- [x] Exact selected JFM identities, DOIs, read levels, observed practice and recommendation are retained.
+- [x] Ownership, near-collision rules, anti-patterns, readiness/fallbacks and coverage states are explicit.
+- [x] The former style memo's unique necessary content has been integrated here; no parallel style file is retained.
+
+**Disposition:** `frozen` text contract and Round-5 eligible under recorded artifact gates. Current author decisions and scientific boundaries are preserved; optional title/display production choices remain open without reopening the text architecture, and no figure has been generated.

docs/JFM_WYQ/ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/SECTION_07_CROSS_CASE_EXTENSIONS.md

@@ -0,0 +1,134 @@
+# Round 4 integrated section architecture — cross-case extensions
+
+## 1. Status, title and scope
+
+**Status:** `frozen` text contract; Round-5 eligible for text under the recorded gates. Quantitative Vortex/Erase displays remain blocked, role-field visuals remain dependency-gated, and no figure has been generated or approved. This is an integration-corrected author-facing Round-4 Section-7 architecture, not manuscript prose or publication-panel approval. It combines the former Section/Style functions in one file and implements the accepted 2026-08-10 author feedback.
+
+**Recommended title:** **Extensions under changed temporal and target contracts**.
+
+**Question.** What role-field material is available when the periodic Kármán cloak is replaced by an incoming-vortex event, and when background matching is replaced by a declared non-zero illusion target or an erased-flow target?
+
+**Bounded answer.** The named PPO acquisitions exercise force-plus-sparse-observation state feedback under changed temporal and target definitions. For Vortex and Erase, current target, controlled and physical-zero role fields support bounded visual/role-field material only. Quantitative event or Erase efficacy is blocked until a versioned evaluator binds the exact target, roles, ROI/mask, normalization, window and provenance. Illusion retains a named positive PPO non-zero-target capability. None transfers the Kármán SR/CCD interpretation, supplies one cross-case score, or establishes observability, memorylessness, robustness or mechanism.
+
+Targeted Nowledge `memory_search` was used for prior Section-7 decisions. Current repository authorities, scripts, manifests, linked payloads and draft renders were then checked; current evidence supersedes the older Round-3 conservative artifact statements.
+
+## 2. Accepted feedback implemented
+
+- Keep a changed-contract argument, not a case gallery.
+- Use two displays only: the Vortex event response and the Illusion-plus-Erase target extension. Detailed production instructions live solely in the two Figure Plans referenced below.
+- Prefer the central Taylor-vortex scene at event offset `+10` for the main result; offsets are event-relative acquisition indices, never periodic phase.
+- Read Vortex through role identity and morphology only; reactive/local-information interpretations remain hypotheses, with a strict arbitrary-flow nonclaim.
+- Connect actions to the current observation-state interface only: state-feedback/Markov execution motivates reactive/local-information potential, but does not prove physical-flow memorylessness, complete observability or a small spatial support for cloaking.
+- Restore Erase as a brief bounded result/design from its actual target, controlled and physical-zero field roles. Separate the historical rolling-reward caveat from the independent field comparison.
+- Use physical configuration names in manuscript-facing prose; internal chain labels occur only in provenance.
+
+## 3. Five paragraph jobs (~10% body-text share)
+
+1. **Change the contract, not the case label.** Begin from the periodic Kármán reference but import none of its numerical results or control-skeleton interpretation. Separate three changes: periodic phase becomes event-relative time for Vortex; the desired signature becomes non-zero for Illusion; and Erase uses a clean-flow target in the presence of an upstream disturbance. State that action and observation interfaces are related execution devices, while role acquisitions, clocks and estimands remain local.
+2. **Vortex potential through state feedback.** Explain that each action is evaluated from the current observation-state interface and that the central Taylor-vortex rollout contains event-relative actuation around the incoming event. **Available role material:** named target, controlled and physical-zero event fields exist for the tested Taylor scene and offsets. **Hypothesis only:** these fields motivate possible reactive/local-information control of comparable-scale nonperiodic or arbitrary-inflow-like disturbances. **Not demonstrated:** arbitrary family/amplitude/offset control, physical-flow Markovianity, observability, a memoryless plant, or dependence on only a small wake region.
+3. **Vortex field result at `+10`.** Lead with the target/controlled/physical-zero field triplet at central incidence and offset `+10`, where existing draft vorticity, streamlines and target-error images are available. State that no versioned event evaluator output currently binds target, roles, ROI/mask, normalization, window and provenance. Therefore print no scalar, reduction, confirmation or controlled-below-zero efficacy statement. Retain the triplet as bounded visual/role-field material and classify quantitative event efficacy as blocked.
+4. **Illusion PPO retargeting.** Define Illusion locally as matching a declared non-zero target signature, with target, controlled and physical-zero roles separated. Use the retained `0.75` target-size PPO demonstration as the principal example. Its role fields, phase/error draft material and evaluation/training summaries support a named PPO capability statement; exact scalar prose remains conditional on binding the selected acquisition and metric output.
+
+5. **Erase role material, synthesis and strict non-transfer.** The Erase acquisition contains named clean-target, controlled and physical-zero role fields plus draft views. The historical reward used a same-rollout evolving target construction and is not an independent clean-field efficacy metric. No current versioned evaluator binds the exact target, roles, ROI/mask, normalization, window and provenance, so quantitative Erase efficacy remains blocked and no scalar, reduction, confirmation or controlled-below-zero claim is retained. Close by separating **available role-field material** from **hypotheses** about changed-target control, then prohibit transfer, robustness, universality, common efficacy and Kármán mechanism claims.
+
+## 4. Figure references
+
+- **S7-1 — Vortex event response:** central Taylor-vortex target/controlled/physical-zero evidence at offset `+10`, with compact event/action context and an explicit quantitative-efficacy-blocked label. Production authority: `docs/JFM_WYQ/FIGURE_PLANS/SECTION_07_FIGURE_01_VORTEX_EVENT_RESPONSE.md`.
+- **S7-2 — Non-zero-target and erase extensions:** retained `0.75` Illusion PPO target/controlled/zero evidence plus bounded Erase target/controlled/physical-zero role material; no efficacy annotation. Production authority: `docs/JFM_WYQ/FIGURE_PLANS/SECTION_07_FIGURE_02_ILLUSION_ERASE_EXTENSIONS.md`.
+
+The author supplies/redraws any geometry or event schematic. Existing outputs are source/draft material, not publication-ready panels.
+
+## 5. Actual data and readiness
+
+### Vortex
+
+- `src/drl_pinball/data/reproduction/legacy/vortex_taylor_y000/{target,controlled,zero}/event_fields.npz` exists for all three roles with `ux`, `uy`, `field_indices`, `relative_offsets=[-10,-5,0,5,10]` and `selected_event_score`.
+- `src/drl_pinball/data/reproduction_flow_plots/all/legacy/vortex_taylor/vortex_taylor_y000/` contains vorticity and streamline renders for every role/offset and target-error renders for controlled and zero. The offset-`+10` triplet is directly available as draft material.
+- `src/drl_pinball/eval/wake_l2.py` explicitly excludes Legacy Vortex and has no event-field loader/output. No stored event-L2 summary was found.
+- Existing snapshots may support a future evaluator, but they are not quantitative field-efficacy authority. A versioned output must bind all quantitative fields before any efficacy statement; no CFD rerun is implied by this planning note.
+
+### Illusion
+
+- Retained PPO source roles exist under both current and historical provenance trees. The selected manuscript example is the uniform-inflow/free-slip-wall `0.75` target-size PPO run (retained seed 43); do not merge it numerically with historical parabolic/no-slip files.
+- Current role navigation is bound by `data/reproduction_plots/manifest.json`; detailed flow-field drafts and error/mean-error materials exist under `data/reproduction_flow_plots/all/` for corresponding retained roles.
+- A final scalar annotation requires choosing one acquisition and binding its existing wake-L2/evaluation summary, role window, mask/geometry guard and phase semantics. The figure remains redraw-ready without an unsourced scalar.
+
+### Erase
+
+- `data/reproduction/legacy/erase/target` contains `late_field.npz`, metadata, timeseries and a clean-target summary. `controlled` and `zero` each contain eight `phase_fields.npz` snapshots, phase-cycle payloads, timeseries, metadata and `erase_summary.json`.
+- `data/reproduction_flow_plots/all/legacy/erase/erase/` contains target late-field vorticity/streamlines and controlled/zero slot-0 vorticity, streamlines and target-error images.
+- Stored signal summaries exist, but they are not field-efficacy authority and are omitted from the section and figure.
+- No stored versioned field-efficacy output binds an exact Erase target/role/ROI-mask/normalization/window/provenance contract. Quantification remains blocked; the role fields remain bounded visual material.
+
+## 6. Imports, exports and exclusions
+
+**Imports.** Section 2 supplies configuration, action/observation, role and metric definitions. Sections 4–6 supply only the periodic Kármán reference and the statement that its deep interpretation is local. Section 6 exports a non-transfer boundary, not a mechanism for these cases.
+
+**Exports.** Section 8 may import only that changing temporal and target contracts exercises named PPO capabilities while leaving transient transfer and objective-transfer questions open. Discussion may compress this into demonstrated cross-task capability plus asymmetric evidence depth.
+
+**Exclusions/nonclaims.** no pooled cross-case score; no Kármán SR/CCD transfer; no arbitrary-flow universality; no unseen-family/amplitude/offset generalization; no robustness, optimality, stability or causal force-to-field claim; no physical-flow memorylessness or full observability; no claim that a small spatial region is sufficient; no reward/field equivalence; no Legacy/current numerical continuation; no publication-ready figure claim.
+
+## 7. Exact production choices
+
+1. Select `vortex_taylor_y000`, offset `+10`, for S7-1; retain other offsets/vertical incidences as supplementary source inventory only.
+2. Omit all Vortex scalars now. A later versioned evaluator must close the complete quantitative contract before reconsideration.
+3. Select the retained `0.75` non-zero-target PPO demonstration for the Illusion half of S7-2; scalar annotation is optional and acquisition-bound.
+4. Retain Erase only as target, controlled and physical-zero role-field material; omit scalars and efficacy wording. Do not use native historical reward as field efficacy.
+5. Use case-local scales where physics differs; a common scale is allowed only within a role triplet for the same variable/metric. Adjacency never implies a common estimand.
+6. Keep all layouts, crops, scales, metric semantics, rendering work, caption language and readiness decisions in the Figure Plans.
+
+## 8. Compact read/gap ledger
+
+- `read`: Round-4 global/display controls, former Section-7 style memo, Round-3 Section 7 and final audit, current Section-6 interface; current Vortex/Erase acquisition authorities, manifests, evaluators/renderers, metadata/summaries and linked field schemas.
+- `memory-recalled`: Round-2/3 Section-7 changed-contract, event-relative and strict non-transfer decisions; repository evidence controlled every operative update.
+- `read`: existence/schema records for central Taylor Vortex and Erase role payloads and relevant draft-render manifest entries; this is not quantitative field-efficacy authority or verification.
+- `mapped`: selected Illusion retained-run summaries and complete current flow-plot family; final scalar binding remains production work.
+- `gap`: no versioned Vortex or Erase evaluator binds exact target, roles, ROI/mask, normalization, window and provenance; quantitative efficacy remains blocked.
+- `not-covered`: new CFD, training, policy evaluation, exhaustive case matrix, publication rendering, or transfer tests.
+
+**Disposition:** `frozen` text contract and Round-5 text eligible after final reconciliation. Vortex/Erase quantitative displays remain blocked, role-field visuals remain dependency-gated, and no figure has been generated.
+
+## 9. Paragraph-level JFM literature/style enrichment — 2026-08-11
+
+**Scope and authority.** This dated style area enriches the frozen five-paragraph text contract; it does not reopen its science, statuses, displays, controller interpretation or quantitative gates. The observations below come from targeted full-PDF paragraph reads. They are rhetorical evidence only: project roles, clocks, estimands and blockers remain controlled by the packet and current repository authorities.
+
+### Exact literature identities and read states
+
+- Deng et al., *Galerkin force model for transient and post-transient dynamics of the fluidic pinball*, **JFM 918, A4** (2021), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2021.299` — `full-PDF read`; used for explicit transient/post-transient separation, local regime clocks and model-failure placement.
+- Deng et al., *Cluster-based hierarchical network model of the fluidic pinball – cartographing transient and post-transient, multi-frequency, multi-attractor behaviour*, **JFM 934, A24** (2022), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2021.1105` — `full-PDF read`; used for regime-local comparison and for showing a failed flat route before the hierarchical remedy.
+- Pino et al., *Comparative analysis of machine learning methods for active flow control*, **JFM 951, A39** (2023), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2023.76` — `full-PDF read`; used for renewing objective, baseline and metric in every test case and refusing a universal algorithm ranking.
+- Cornejo Maceda et al., *Stabilization of the fluidic pinball with gradient-enriched machine learning control*, **JFM 917, A42** (2021), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2021.301` — `full-PDF read`; used for separating visually similar mean states from residual dynamics and for keeping distinct actuation branches local.
+- Beckers & Eldredge, *Deep reinforcement learning of airfoil pitch control in a highly disturbed environment using partial observations*, **Physical Review Fluids 9, 093902** (2024), DOI `10.1103/physrevfluids.9.093902` — `full-PDF read`, non-JFM close comparator; used for event/pulse disturbance language, explicit held-out disturbance tests and the distinction between partial observations and restored Markovian information.
+
+### Observed practice and manuscript recommendation by paragraph job
+
+1. **Changed-contract framing.** **Observed:** Pino et al. reset the uncontrolled baseline, objective and reward/metric for each problem before comparing methods; Deng et al. define transient and post-transient regimes before modelling either. **Recommend:** open with the periodic Kármán comparator, then change one contract coordinate at a time: clock, target and role definition. Cite Pino et al. after the sentence explaining why each extension needs a local comparator, not after the project result. Keep `event-relative`, `non-zero target` and `clean-flow target` in the opening paragraph; do not delay these distinctions to captions.
+
+2. **Vortex event role fields and bounded reactive potential.** **Observed:** Beckers & Eldredge name pulsed disturbances and test unseen pulse combinations explicitly; their memory result is phrased as helping to *partially* restore a Markovian property, not proving the plant Markovian. Deng et al. distinguish the path to an attractor from its post-transient state. **Recommend:** define the incoming event, central incidence and offset convention before interpreting action timing. Attach Beckers & Eldredge to the general precedent that sparse-feedback control under disturbances needs explicit disturbance and information tests. Put the project caveat in the same paragraph: present-state execution **motivates** reactive/local-information potential, whereas arbitrary disturbance control, observability and physical-flow memorylessness remain untested.
+
+3. **Vortex `+10` field result and blocked efficacy.** **Observed:** Deng et al. place the failure of a lower-order transient model immediately beside the comparison that reveals it; captions identify trajectories/regimes while body text states what the mismatch requires. **Recommend:** body order is role triplet → event-relative offset → morphology-only inference → missing evaluator contract → consequence. The no-efficacy sentence must directly follow the attractive `+10` visualization reference. Caption decodes target/controlled/physical-zero, incidence, offset, variable and case-local scale; body states only role identity, morphology, the quantitative block and its consequence. Do not let `response`, `attenuation`, `recovery` or `improvement` appear in the Vortex caption.
+
+4. **Illusion positive PPO / negative SR boundary.** **Observed:** Pino et al. retain successful and unsuccessful algorithm routes within the local problem and use qualifications such as `for this specific problem`; they explicitly reject a general ranking across cases. Cornejo Maceda et al. distinguish a mean field that resembles a target from residual dynamics hidden by that mean. **Recommend:** renew target/controlled/physical-zero roles before naming the retained `0.75` PPO capability. Place the historical negative SR route in the same paragraph, after the positive PPO statement, as a method-specific boundary rather than a contradiction of PPO. A citation can follow the sentence explaining why success of one controller class does not transfer to another; it must not be used to support the internal PPO result.
+
+5. **Erase role fields and strict non-transfer synthesis.** **Observed:** the close papers make negative routes local and conclude with case-specific scope rather than averaging unlike tests. Deng et al.'s hierarchical treatment also keeps global-regime identity separate from local dynamics. **Recommend:** state clean-target, controlled and physical-zero roles before the historical rolling-reward caveat; then put the absent evaluator binding beside the no-efficacy consequence. Close with a two-level synthesis: available changed-target role material, followed by explicitly untested transfer. The bridge should ask what physical context survives across non-equivalent control settings; it should not announce Section 8 or imply a common efficacy axis.
+
+### Wording ladder and local placement
+
+- **Green — licensed by this packet:** `under a changed temporal contract`; `event-relative role fields`; `the fields motivate a reactive/local-information hypothesis`; `a named non-zero-target PPO capability`; `available role-field material`; `case-local`; `compatible with`; `has not been evaluated`; `quantitative efficacy remains blocked`.
+- **Amber — use only with the qualifier adjacent:** `response` only as event organization, never efficacy; `retargeting` only after the declared target is defined; `comparable-scale disturbance` only for the tested scene; `partial-observation state feedback` only as the execution interface; `suggests` or `motivates` only when followed by the exact missing test.
+- **Red — delete from S7 body and captions:** `generalizes`, `transfers`, `robust`, `memoryless`, `observable`, `local control is sufficient`, `suppresses the incoming vortex`, `restores the target`, `erase succeeds`, `controlled below zero`, `common performance`, `same mechanism`, or any Kármán SR/CCD explanation applied to these cases.
+
+### Citation, caveat, caption and bridge controls
+
+- Use one compact citation cluster at the changed-contract claim and at most one local comparator citation in each Vortex/Illusion paragraph. Never append an external citation to an internal field/result sentence in a way that makes the paper appear to verify DynamisLab evidence.
+- Place the Vortex and Erase evaluator caveat immediately after each role-field observation, not in a terminal limitations paragraph. Place the negative Illusion SR route directly after the positive PPO capability.
+- Captions own configuration, roles, event offset/target identity, variables, scales and `visual/role-field only` status. Body owns the inferential ceiling, blocked route and cross-case consequence. Captions must not narrate efficacy.
+- Preferred S7→S8 bridge job: ask whether a separately acquired steady endpoint can provide physical context without transferring the periodic Kármán interpretation or any cross-case metric.
+
+### Anti-patterns and coverage
+
+- Avoid a three-case gallery, package chronology, repeated role inventories, one generic `baseline`, detached caveat paragraphs, a literature catalogue, or a final sentence claiming breadth from adjacency alone.
+- `read`: the five full PDFs listed above, with paragraph-, section- and figure-specific questions; DOI and PDF states confirmed in the DynamisLab Undermind workspace on 2026-08-11.
+- `observed practice`: comparator renewal, event/regime naming, local negative routes, conditional vocabulary, and caption/body division in those PDFs.
+- `recommended practice`: the S7 paragraph order, wording ladder, citation/caveat locations and bridge above; recommendation is synthesis, not a universal JFM rule.
+- `not covered`: no new Vortex/Erase evaluator, scalar, artifact audit, transfer test, controller analysis, figure approval or manuscript prose.

docs/JFM_WYQ/ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/SECTION_08_STEADY_THEORY.md

@@ -0,0 +1,130 @@
+# Section 8 — Steady control as physical context and a theory boundary
+
+**Status:** R5 author-choice gate closed at the recommended equation/composition; integrated combined SECTION+STYLE packet and R5 drafting authority. This is not manuscript prose, equation-source re-verification or figure/artifact approval.  
+**Target share:** about 6%; five argumentative paragraphs.  
+**Question:** What can the separately defined steady result add to the physical interpretation of the Kármán control skeleton, and where does that contextual link fail?  
+**Bounded answer:** In the uniform-inflow/free-slip-wall configuration at $Re_D=50$, the accepted prescribed-rear-wall-motion case is a settling-qualified low-deficit endpoint and exhibits reorganized viscous near-wake fields. This is compatible with the recurrent persistent rear-rotation component established in Sections 5–6, but it is neither its continuation nor its validation. Potential flow gives a useful outer organization when circulations are prescribed, yet leaves those circulations independent of wall spin and selects the opposite sign from the descriptive finite-Re projection. The surviving physical explanation is therefore a testable viscous hypothesis—wall motion changes vorticity and shear-layer production, inter-cylinder transport, separation/recirculation and downstream mean transport—not a closed mechanism.
+
+## Accepted author direction implemented
+
+- Keep the accepted five-part late-return logic and use the section as the manuscript-wide physical/contextual connector, not a second climax or detached theory chapter.
+- Replace the old label-led `gap-facing/base-bleed/gap-jet-family` account with a kinematics-first physical reading. `Gap jet` may describe an observed transport feature only after its direction and field evidence are stated; it does not explain itself. No boat-tail analogy.
+- Use no action-direction schematic in the main figure. Rotation and circulation are made legible by streamline direction/arrow treatment and concise panel labels.
+- Display a compact multi-cylinder outer-solution form, define prescribed circulations and their boundary role, then retain the one-circle incompatibility as the shortest no-slip boundary.
+- Integrate actual CFD endpoint evidence, outer-theory streamlines and the sign failure in one composition. Existing fields and plots are source material, not publication-ready artwork. Detailed production design is owned by `docs/JFM_WYQ/FIGURE_PLANS/SECTION_08_STEADY_CONTEXT_AND_THEORY.md`.
+
+## Five paragraph jobs
+
+1. **Contextual return and narrow question.** Recall in one sentence that steady control was the historical discovery seed. Import from Section 5 only the ranked observation that persistent rear counter-rotation is the dominant tested SR term, and from Section 6 only the bounded organization `persistent/constant reference + smaller dynamic correction`. State immediately that those results belong to the parabolic-inflow/no-slip-wall configuration, whereas this section concerns the separate uniform-inflow/free-slip-wall configuration. The paragraph asks whether the steady branch supplies physical context; it must not imply continuation, amplitude agreement, replication or validation.
+
+2. **Finite-Re endpoint before interpretation.** Define the local actuation only as needed: body order `(front, rear_y_plus, rear_y_minus)`, accepted action $[0,+\Omega,-\Omega]$, and $s=\Omega R/U_\infty$. State the settling-qualified $s=3.55$ endpoint and the direct full-cross-section two-component value $E_{\infty,\mathrm{vector}}(q_{ctl},q_{in})=0.0231672176752314$ at $x/D=10$. Use stationary and reverse states visually to establish that the accepted field is a distinct low-deficit endpoint; stationary is an unsteady reference, and reverse $s=5.2$ is not amplitude matched. Call $s=3.55$ an endpoint, never an optimum, stable branch or universal law.
+
+3. **Physical reading from wall motion to observed fields.** Begin with the no-slip cylinder-wall kinematics $(U_w,V_w)=(-\omega r_y,\omega r_x)$. On the accepted branch, both rear gap-facing cardinals move downstream and both outer cardinals move upstream. That motion directly prescribes tangential wall velocity. The accepted endpoint then shows a reorganized inter-cylinder transport pattern, shear/vorticity distribution, separation/recirculation region and near-wake mean flow relative to stationary/reverse source fields. The compatible but unclosed hypothesis is: imposed wall motion $\rightarrow$ altered wall shear/vorticity production and shear-layer development $\rightarrow$ reorganized inter-cylinder jets and near-body separation/recirculation $\rightarrow$ changed near-wake mean transport $\rightarrow$ low downstream deficit. Only prescribed tangential wall velocity is kinematic fact and the fields are endpoint observations; the arrows between them remain a hypothesis because there is no amplitude-matched intervention, complete same-control-volume momentum/mechanical-energy budget, established force ownership or stability analysis. Do not let `gap jet`, `base bleed`, or a borrowed branch name replace this explanation.
+
+4. **Outer solution, visual organization and failed closure.** Introduce the irrotational impermeability family
+
+$$
+\boldsymbol{u}(\boldsymbol{x})=\boldsymbol{u}_{N}(\boldsymbol{x})+\sum_{j=1}^{3}\Gamma_j\boldsymbol{h}_j(\boldsymbol{x}),
+\qquad \nabla\!\cdot\boldsymbol{h}_j=\nabla\!\times\boldsymbol{h}_j=0,
+\quad \boldsymbol{h}_j\!\cdot\boldsymbol{n}=0,
+\quad \oint_{B_k}\boldsymbol{h}_j\!\cdot d\boldsymbol{\ell}=\delta_{jk}.
+$$
+
+Here $\boldsymbol{u}_N$ is the zero-period Neumann solution and each geometric counter-clockwise circulation $\Gamma_j$ is prescribed independently; the circulations span the finite-dimensional harmonic freedom left by impermeability and are not selected by cylinder spin. The theory streamlines for zero circulation, favorable rear-opposite circulation and the finite-Re-fitted circulation should make that outer organization visible. The concise boundary is
+
+$$
+u_\theta(R,\theta)=-2U_\infty\sin\theta+\frac{\Gamma}{2\pi R}\neq R\Omega\quad\text{for all }\theta\text{ when }U_\infty\ne0,$$
+
+so the outer family is not a rotating no-slip solution. Close the paragraph with the decisive sign failure: the strip outer objective selects $g_{opt}=+6.147944$, while the descriptive projection of the accepted finite-Re endpoint gives $g=-12.200554$. The prescribed-circulation mathematics and bounded strip streamline visualization survive; the wall-spin-to-circulation cancellation explanation does not. Do not call the plotted MFS field finite-Re physics or a validated mechanism.
+
+5. **Synthesis and bridge.** Join only compatible, non-equivalent observations: Sections 5–6 identify a dominant persistent/constant rear-rotation reference plus a smaller dynamic correction under their own configuration and estimands; this section adds an independently acquired steady endpoint, a kinematics-first viscous hypothesis, and a failed inviscid closure. The shared interpretation is organizational rather than causal. Retain the theory-specific missing evidence only: amplitude-matched branch/intervention data, held-out endpoint and convergence qualification, wall-vorticity/separation diagnostics, and a closed same-control-volume momentum/mechanical-energy budget. Detailed synchronized experimental test design belongs to Section 9. Bridge calmly to the author-owned qualitative open-loop experiment and short conclusion; the experiment cannot repair mechanism or quantitative validation.
+
+## Selected equations and jobs
+
+1. **Imported/local wall definition:** $(U_w,V_w)=(-\omega r_y,\omega r_x)$ and $s=\Omega R/U_\infty$. Job: anchor the physical reading in actual surface motion. Keep inline unless Section 2 already makes the wall law fully reusable.
+2. **Steady endpoint metric:** quote the already defined full-cross-section $E_{\infty,\mathrm{vector}}$ and its $x/D=10$ value; do not spend a display re-deriving a reusable metric.
+3. **Required main display:** $\boldsymbol{u}=\boldsymbol{u}_N+\sum_j\Gamma_j\boldsymbol{h}_j$ with period normalization. Job: show the shortest useful multi-cylinder outer-solution form and explain prescribed circulations as boundary-compatible harmonic freedom.
+4. **Concise boundary:** one-circle tangential trace/no-slip incompatibility. Job: prevent streamline resemblance from being read as wall-spin closure. It may be inline or a compact second line adjacent to the main display.
+5. **Required numerical contrast:** $g_{opt}=+6.147944$ versus $g=-12.200554$. Job: fail the proposed finite-Re identification by sign. Full MFS, image-layer, multipole, strip-modal and control-volume derivations remain supplementary.
+
+## Figure reference and actual readiness
+
+Use one main-text figure, specified only in `docs/JFM_WYQ/FIGURE_PLANS/SECTION_08_STEADY_CONTEXT_AND_THEORY.md`. It combines CFD endpoint evidence, three outer-theory streamline states and a compact sign/closure panel; there is no action schematic. Current authenticated endpoint arrays, redraw CSVs, and raw/plate streamline and vorticity assets exist. They are `redraw-ready source material`, not publication-ready panels. The 40-image-layer strip field is `bounded outer-reference ready`: current authority records exact-circle/failure controls, bounded independently discretized unbounded MFS–Laurent agreement, and bounded finite-image consistency, but not exact strip convergence, rotating no-slip transfer or finite-Re mechanism validation.
+
+## Interfaces, exclusions and ownership
+
+**Imports:** Section 2 owns configuration/Re/action/metric definitions; Section 5 supplies only persistent-term ranking; Section 6 supplies only the descriptive persistent/constant-plus-smaller-correction organization and its noncausal ceiling; Section 7 supplies the non-transfer boundary.  
+**Owns:** uniform-inflow/free-slip-wall endpoint and sign, kinematics-first physical hypothesis, outer-solution boundary, sign failure and the late contextual synthesis.  
+**Exports:** one compatible-context statement, the failed circulation-closure boundary, theory-specific missing evidence and a qualitative experiment/conclusion bridge.
+
+**Exclude from main text:** repeated SR formula/deletion values; CCD percentages or mode construction; cross-configuration arithmetic; full endpoint sweep; action schematic; boat-tail analogy; MFS validation plots; error/vorticity galleries; NS budget panels; power/gap-flux bars; full MFS, image, multipole and CV derivations; causal, force-ownership, stability, optimum, robustness, momentum-restoration, universal-law or quantitative-experiment claims.
+
+## Exact author and production choices
+
+1. **Reader-facing title — retained recommendation:** `Steady control as physical context and a theory boundary`.
+2. **Main equation — author accepted for R5:** use the Hodge/period outer-solution display above, with the one-circle trace as its adjacent concise boundary. This supersedes the earlier one-circle-only main-text recommendation because the author explicitly requires the solution form.
+3. **Main figure — author accepted for R5:** one integrated composition; no action schematic; CFD evidence plus $g=0$, $g_{opt}$ and fitted-$g$ theory streamlines plus sign/closure box.
+4. **CFD evidence choice — production decision:** use accepted vorticity/streamlines plus a compact $x/D=10$ profile comparison against $q_{in}$; keep stationary/reverse as smaller comparators. If legibility forces compression, drop stationary field first but retain its profile/reference label.
+5. **Theory status label — required wording:** `prescribed-circulation outer reference (bounded finite-image consistency)`. Do not label it `validated MFS mechanism` or simply `potential prediction`.
+6. **Publication rendering — required:** redraw from authenticated arrays/CSVs with shared coordinates and explicit family/status labels; do not assemble the existing titled plates as the final figure.
+
+## Compact evidence ledger
+
+| State | Material | Operative use / boundary |
+|---|---|---|
+| `read` | Round-4 global ledger, display/equation inventory and prior style memo; Round-3 Section 8 synthesis and final audit; current steady README/RESULTS/DERIVATION/LITERATURE; endpoint manifest; v3b/display reports; strip and finite-Re analyses | Argument, values, mathematical status and claim ceiling verified against current authorities; reading is not new CFD or independent reproduction |
+| `read` | Current figure README/manifest, `field_metrics.csv`, profile/near-wake/gap CSVs, and actual streamline/vorticity/profile images | Exact source identities, coordinates, crops, arrays and redraw routes verified; images remain drafts/data |
+| `mapped` | Sections 5–6 current interface decisions from targeted Nowledge recall and controlling ownership ledger | Imports only; no values pooled and no old file presumed authoritative over current controls |
+| `not-covered` | New CFD/MFS generation, new budgets, stability, full raw-array recomputation, literature expansion | Outside Round 4; no claim inferred |
+| `external-inaccessible` | None needed for the selected source-material plan; authenticated external endpoint paths are hash-bound through manifests | Raw external paths remain production dependencies, not a text blocker |
+
+## Paragraph-level JFM literature/style enrichment — 2026-08-11
+
+**Scope and authority.** This dated style area enriches the five-paragraph `discuss` packet without selecting the main equation or figure composition reserved for Frank. It changes no endpoint, sign, theory status, mechanism ceiling, figure readiness or experiment interface. External literature supplies paragraph-scale rhetorical and comparator practice only.
+
+### Exact literature identities and read states
+
+- Cornejo Maceda et al., *Stabilization of the fluidic pinball with gradient-enriched machine learning control*, **JFM 917, A42** (2021), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2021.301` — `full-PDF read`; steady branch comparator, visually attractive mean fields with residual-dynamics caveat, and local-optimum language.
+- Chan et al., *Vortex suppression and drag reduction in the wake of counter-rotating cylinders*, **JFM 679, 343–382** (2011), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2011.134` — `full-PDF read`; explicit rotation direction before interpretation, non-equivalent normal/reverse branches, and local three-dimensional/optical limits.
+- Li & Zhang, *Reinforcement-learning-based control of confined cylinder wakes with stability analyses*, **JFM 932, A9** (2022), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2021.1045` — `full-PDF read`; separation of controlled performance from dedicated stability evidence and local failure at stronger instability or sparse sensing.
+- Marra, Meilán-Vila & Discetti, *Self-tuning model predictive control for wake flows*, **JFM 983, A26** (2024), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2024.47` — `full-PDF read`; objective-local control mechanisms and distinct front/rear actuation roles.
+- Ueda et al., *On the low-Reynolds-number flow about two rotating circular cylinders*, **JFM 495, 255–281** (2003), DOI `10.1017/S002211200300627X` — `full-PDF read`; no-slip rotation in a viscous asymptotic theory and explicit validity/failure boundaries.
+- Crowdy, *Analytical solutions for uniform potential flow past multiple cylinders*, **European Journal of Mechanics B/Fluids 25, 459–470** (2006), DOI `10.1016/j.euromechflu.2005.11.005` — `full-PDF read`, non-JFM mathematical comparator; exact irrotational scope, zero-circulation choice and streamline visualization discipline.
+- Sun & Ng, *Hydrodynamic interactions among multiple circular cylinders in an inviscid flow*, **JFM 712, 505–530** (2012), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2012.434` — `full-PDF read`; impenetrability-based multiple-cylinder solution, prescribed zero circulation and front-loaded assumptions.
+
+### Observed practice and manuscript recommendation by paragraph job
+
+1. **Late contextual return.** **Observed:** Cornejo Maceda et al. first establish the symmetric steady scan as a local branch map, then distinguish those states from later feedback results; Marra et al. associate boat-tailing and stagnation-point control with different objectives and actuators rather than collapsing them into one mechanism. **Recommend:** return to the steady seed in one sentence, immediately state the configuration break, and pose the narrow context question. Cite these pinball papers after the external comparator sentence, not after the imported SR/CCD observation. Avoid restarting the article's chronology or presenting a second control climax.
+
+2. **Separate steady endpoint.** **Observed:** Chan et al. define the two rotation directions and nondimensional rotation before comparing wake topology; their normal and reverse directions can both become steady but have different thresholds and structures. Cornejo Maceda et al. show that an apparently stabilized mean can hide residual shear-layer dynamics and use local-minimum language where the search does not prove globality. **Recommend:** define body order, wall-rotation sign and endpoint comparator before the deficit value. Order the evidence accepted endpoint → stationary unsteady reference → reverse non-amplitude-matched reference. Put `settling-qualified`, `endpoint` and the no-optimum/no-stability ceiling in the result paragraph itself. A caption identifies states, action signs, $s$, plane and metric; body explains why the accepted state is distinct.
+
+3. **Kinematic wall velocity versus viscous hypothesis.** **Observed:** Chan et al. establish no-slip and rotation direction before discussing virtual-body or separated-wake morphology. Ueda et al. connect prescribed rotation to viscous flow through the no-slip wall condition, but confine analytical conclusions to a stated low-$Re$ asymptotic domain. Li & Zhang reserve stabilization language for cases supported by a base-flow/stability test and report failures locally at stronger instability or insufficient sensing. **Recommend:** first state only the exact tangential wall motion and cardinal-point directions. Then enumerate observed endpoint fields. Introduce each arrow in the wall-shear/vorticity → shear-layer/inter-cylinder transport → separation/recirculation → downstream-transport chain as `may`, `could`, `is consistent with` or `motivates`; follow the chain immediately with the missing amplitude-matched intervention and closed-budget tests. Literature can motivate diagnostics, not certify the project mechanism.
+
+4. **Prescribed-circulation outer reference plus adjacent sign/closure failure.** **Observed:** Crowdy defines steady irrotational uniform flow, impermeable streamline boundaries and a chosen zero-circulation condition before showing streamlines. Sun & Ng likewise front-load impenetrability and no-vortex assumptions before deriving interaction results. Ueda et al. place the Jeffery-paradox and higher-order inertial limitations beside the analytical route. Across these papers, attractive mathematical figures do not silently acquire viscous no-slip status. **Recommend:** if Frank retains the multi-cylinder display, define $\boldsymbol u_N$, the harmonic circulation basis and prescribed periods before any streamline interpretation. In the same paragraph and visual composition, place (i) rotation invisibility to impermeability, (ii) one-circle no-slip incompatibility and (iii) the project sign failure. The surviving statement is geometrical/outer organization; the rejected statement is wall-spin-to-circulation closure. Do not place the failure in a later paragraph or caption footnote.
+
+5. **Compatible, non-equivalent synthesis and experiment bridge.** **Observed:** the closest JFM papers retain distinct branch/objective identities and use dedicated stability or asymptotic tests before stronger explanation. Negative routes narrow the valid envelope rather than being hidden after a visually successful case. **Recommend:** synthesize three non-equivalent items in order: Kármán persistent-plus-correction organization under its configuration; separate steady endpoint and viscous hypothesis; outer-reference utility constrained by failed closure/sign. State explicitly that compatibility is organizational, not continuation, validation or mechanism proof. End by asking what qualitative, open-loop observation can test or illustrate without repairing the missing intervention/budget evidence; do not preview an experimental result.
+
+### Wording ladder and local placement
+
+- **Green — licensed by this packet:** `separately acquired steady endpoint`; `settling-qualified`; `directly prescribed tangential wall velocity`; `the endpoint exhibits`; `is compatible with`; `motivates a viscous hypothesis`; `prescribed-circulation outer reference`; `geometrical organization`; `fails to close`; `opposite sign`; `compatible but non-equivalent`; `organizational rather than causal`.
+- **Amber — use only with an adjacent condition/test:** `steady branch` only for the observed/acquired endpoint, not a continued family; `stabilized` only with a dedicated perturbation or eigenvalue test; `gap jet` only after direction and field evidence; `separation change`, `vorticity production` and `transport pathway` as observations/hypotheses, not causal ownership; `outer approximation` only with its boundary conditions and finite-image status; `suggests` only when followed by the missing evidence.
+- **Red — delete from S8 body and captions:** `mechanism demonstrated`, `potential prediction`, `validated MFS mechanism`, `circulation selected by spin`, `inviscid cloak`, `momentum restored`, `base-bleed mechanism`, `boat-tail mechanism` for the accepted project branch, `optimal`, `stable branch`, `same control law`, `agreement`, `replication`, `continuation`, `validation across configurations`, or any quantitative experimental repair.
+
+### Citation, caveat, caption and bridge controls
+
+- Use a compact rotating-cylinder/pinball citation cluster after the external statement that opposite rotation directions can yield distinct steady organizations. Cite analytical papers immediately after defining the mathematical problem they actually solve; never attach them to the finite-$Re$ endpoint claim.
+- Put the no-intervention/no-budget caveat directly after the viscous chain. Put the no-slip incompatibility and sign failure in the same paragraph as the outer streamlines. This adjacency is the central style safeguard against theory being read as mechanism proof.
+- CFD caption: configuration, body order/action signs, endpoint/reference statuses, $s$, field/profile coordinates and metric. Theory caption: `prescribed-circulation outer reference`, circulation signs, boundary conditions, numerical-consistency status and explicit non-no-slip ceiling. Body: physical inference, failure and consequence. Neither caption should choose the unresolved equation/composition.
+- Preferred S8→S9 bridge job: ask what an author-owned qualitative open-loop comparison can make visible while remaining unable to establish forces, field matching, stability or mechanism. Preserve omission fallback if provenance does not close.
+
+### Anti-patterns and coverage
+
+- Avoid a detached theory subsection, streamline-led mechanism claims, a historical theory derivation, equation inventory in body prose, a single `steady` label for non-equivalent branches, action-direction decoding deferred to a caption, and a terminal limitations dump separated from the attractive figure.
+- `read`: the seven full PDFs listed above, with paragraph-, section-, equation- and figure-specific questions; DOI and PDF states confirmed in the DynamisLab Undermind workspace on 2026-08-11.
+- `observed practice`: branch-local comparators, condition-first interpretation, dedicated stability evidence, front-loaded mathematical assumptions, adjacent analytical failures and caption/body division.
+- `recommended practice`: the five paragraph orders, wording ladder, citation/caveat locations and bridge above; recommendation is a cross-paper synthesis, not a universal JFM rule.
+- `not covered`: no S8 equation/composition decision, new CFD/MFS calculation, endpoint promotion, mechanism/stability proof, figure generation, experiment observation or polished manuscript prose.
+
+## Round-5 author decision — 2026-08-11
+
+Frank accepted the multi-cylinder Hodge/period outer-solution main display with prescribed circulations, the adjacent one-circle rotating-no-slip incompatibility, and one integrated CFD + prescribed-circulation outer-reference + sign/closure-failure figure. This closes the equation/composition author-choice gate only. It does not approve equation artwork, exact source assets, provenance, caption, crop/scale, redraw, rendering, publication readiness, finite-$Re$ transfer or mechanism validation.

docs/JFM_WYQ/ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/SECTION_09_EXPERIMENT.md

@@ -0,0 +1,143 @@
+# Section 9 — Qualitative open-loop experiment
+
+## Status, authorship and scope
+
+**Status:** `author-interface`; R5 permits explicit author-field placeholder TeX only. This is not agent-authored manuscript prose, not a promoted experimental result, and not a section freeze. **Author:** Frank owns the substantive account, especially apparatus design, trial observations and final wording. **Provisional reader title:** **Qualitative open-loop experiment**. **Placement:** short main-text subsection near the end, following Section 8 and before the conclusion.
+
+**Purpose and evidence ceiling.** Reserve a compact interface for physical deployment and selected qualitative morphology observations. The present author-described materials are one apparatus schematic, one steady single-frame experimental/CFD pair, and several Illusion single-frame experimental/CFD pairs. Until exact files, trial identities, conditions, processing and permissions are supplied and audited, all remain `author-supply/provenance-gated`. A retained single frame may support only a named visible morphology observation. It cannot establish shedding frequency or any other temporal change, velocity, PIV, force, field matching, CFD validation, registration, quantitative agreement, robustness or repeatability. No experiment equation or quantitative results table is warranted.
+
+Section 8 exports only a boundary: synchronized quantitative experiment would be needed to cross the CFD evidence boundary. This section cannot repair the mechanism, closure or validation limits stated there.
+
+## Frank's author slots
+
+Supply only recoverable facts; mark unavailable fields explicitly rather than estimating them.
+
+- **Apparatus design:** [AUTHOR: functional schematic narrative; why the isolated test section, carriage, actuation and imaging path were designed this way].
+- **Facility and geometry:** [facility/test-section dimensions and boundaries; water state/preparation; cylinder diameter, spacing, span, blockage and coordinates; carriage travel and towing direction/speed; experiment-specific $Re_D$ definition if supported].
+- **Open-loop execution:** [software entry point actually used; command source; action units, body order/sign, physical conversion, ramp/start/stop timing; commanded versus measured motion; what was synchronized].
+- **Trial/case identities:** [steady reference/controlled trial IDs; selected Illusion trial IDs and named conditions; dates/setup version; repeat count; exclusion and frame-selection rule].
+- **Image provenance and observations:** [raw filename/hash, camera/view, scale, exposure, frame index/time, dye injection, crop/enhancement, permission; one exact morphology-only sentence per retained pair].
+- **Known limits/confounds:** [background/blank state, settling and repeat information; any calibration or synchronization absent]. Keep the full hardware/calibration inventory supplementary unless it changes how a shown image must be read.
+
+## Two–three paragraph job scaffold — Frank to write
+
+1. **Purpose, apparatus and execution boundary.** [In one paragraph, state why physical deployment is included; describe the apparatus by evidentiary function—facility/carriage, rotating pinball, command path and image acquisition—and identify open-loop execution. Do not turn this into a construction diary or import CFD performance values.]
+2. **Selected named morphology observations.** [For the steady pair and only the selected Illusion pair(s), identify condition, trial, frame and processing before describing visible streakline/wake morphology. Keep experimental and CFD views as corresponding named-condition images, not registered pairs. Do **not** state or imply that shedding frequency changed: a single frame contains no temporal estimator.]
+3. **Immediate ceiling and next test.** [State that these are qualitative open-loop, single-frame observations. Name the synchronized, calibrated, repeated force/PIV or declared image-sequence estimator needed for quantitative or temporal claims, then bridge to the short conclusion.]
+
+Paragraphs 1 and 3 may be compressed around one observation paragraph. No invented connective prose is supplied here.
+
+## Exact user-home CelerisLab inventory
+
+Inspection was read-only; no CFD, hardware, rendering or data generation was executed.
+
+| Exact path | What exists / actual capability | What it can inform | What it cannot establish |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| `/home/frank14f/CelerisLab/README.md` | Python CUDA-LBM API with runtime `sim.set_body(..., omega=...)`, action upload on `sim.run(...)`, and force/torque/sensor readback. | Generic CFD control-loop and body-action software path. | The physical apparatus execution path, a Raspberry Pi/motor deployment, or acquired/calibrated experiment telemetry. |
+| `/home/frank14f/CelerisLab/tests/postproc/experiment.ipynb` | Executed CFD notebook containing experiment-coordinate action sign conversion, three-body action ordering, analytic action generation, direct action upload, particle-streakline and vorticity rendering; embedded output is computational. | Candidate CFD counterpart workflow and sign/body-order questions Frank must reconcile. | Hardware control, physical trial provenance, or an experimental image. Notebook content/output is not a deployment script. |
+| `/home/frank14f/CelerisLab/tests/specs/exp_ctrl_matrix.md` | Recorded no-control, steady/`stealth`, and several `deceit` analytic signal-feature sets (means, cosine frequencies, amplitudes and phases). | Candidate identities for CFD named-condition counterparts after author mapping. | That these exact commands were played on the apparatus, or that repository slugs equal manuscript Illusion identities. |
+| `/home/frank14f/CelerisLab/tests/postproc/run_exp_ctrl_matrix_vorticity.py` | CFD batch runner: constructs the three-cylinder geometry, analytically evaluates the control matrix, applies a 5-s ramp, converts surface-speed commands to lattice angular velocity, swaps rear-body action mapping, runs simulation, and writes vorticity/checkpoint summaries. | Potential CFD counterpart generation path and explicit action playback logic in simulation. | Physical deployment/execution, policy playback, experiment matching, or a publication-ready counterpart. Do not run without authorization. |
+| `/home/frank14f/CelerisLab/tests/postproc/run_exp_ctrl_matrix_streakline.py` | CFD batch runner using the same analytic actions; continuously releases particles from step 20,000, samples velocity every 50 steps, renders at steps 40k/60k/80k/100k, and clears particles between early windows. | Potential single-frame CFD streakline counterpart generation and its sampling/render contract. | Dye physics, a registered experimental pair, temporal frequency measurement, or validation. Do not run without authorization. |
+| `/home/frank14f/CelerisLab/src/CelerisLab/common/streakline/{_streakline.py,_config.py,_integrate.py,_render.py}` | Passive particle streakline library: point/line/strip release; injection between sampled velocity frames; bilinear space and linear time interpolation; RK4 substeps; optional random-walk diffusion; domain/solid filtering; age-weighted density binning and Gaussian blur. | How a CFD streakline-like image is numerically produced and which processing fields must appear in a caption. | A calibrated dye concentration model, quantitative image estimator, experiment processing, or morphology agreement. |
+| `/home/frank14f/CelerisLab/docs/validation_specs/streakline_notes.md` | Design note distinguishing streaklines from streamlines/path-history plots and describing online/offline concepts and rendering choices. Some implementation-path examples use older filenames and must be checked against current package paths. | Terminology and disclosure of release, integration, diffusion and rendering choices. | Validation of the current experimental images or proof that offline replay/current output exists. |
+| `/home/frank14f/CelerisLab/tests/postproc/run_kan99b_streakline.py` | Online single-cylinder CFD streakline demonstration with configurable release/integration settings. | General test/example of the library. | A three-cylinder experiment counterpart or physical evidence. |
+| `/home/frank14f/CelerisLab/src/CelerisLab/body/action_smoother.py` | Generic linear/exponential action scaling utility. | Possible software concept for ramp disclosure. | Evidence that this utility was used in experiment or in the control-matrix scripts (which implement their own cosine ramp). |
+| `/home/frank14f/CelerisLab/tests/output/exp_ctrl_matrix_streak_nx1500/manifest.json` | Manifest records C0–C6 computational streakline PNG paths and four render steps per case; the referenced PNGs were not present in the inspected tree, while summaries/manifest remain. | Historical generated-output provenance and candidate regeneration route. | Located/audited image assets, experiment counterparts, or figure readiness. |
+| `/home/frank14f/CelerisLab/tests/output/exp_ctrl_matrix_vort_nx1500/manifest.json` | Manifest records C0–C6 computational vorticity PNG/checkpoint paths; the referenced PNG/HDF5 files were not present in the inspected tree, while summaries/manifest remain. | Historical CFD counterpart provenance. | Available publication assets or any experimental comparison. |
+| `/home/frank14f/CelerisLab/tests/output/stealth_steady_sweep_nx1500/manifest.json` | Manifest records a computational steady action sweep and streakline/vorticity/checkpoint paths; referenced assets were not present in the inspected tree. | Candidate steady CFD context after exact author mapping. | The author-described steady pair, experimental provenance, or agreement. |
+
+**Execution/deployment finding.** No Raspberry Pi, GPIO, serial, motor-driver, carriage/towing, or hardware-deployment script was located in the inspected `/home/frank14f/CelerisLab` tree or targeted user-home filename/content searches. The located execution code is CFD-side analytic action playback. Therefore the physical software execution path remains an author slot; code capability must not be reported as evidence that a given physical trial was executed.
+
+## Current material and figure interface
+
+- **Apparatus schematic:** author-described as existing; exact file not located. Role: configuration context only.
+- **Steady experimental/CFD single-frame pair:** author-described as existing; exact files not located/audited. Role ceiling: named visual morphology after provenance.
+- **Several Illusion experimental/CFD single-frame pairs:** author-described as existing; exact files not located/audited. Select only the pair(s) needed for the argument; all need case/trial/frame binding. Role ceiling: named visual morphology only.
+- **CFD manifests:** computational output records exist at the exact CelerisLab paths above, but referenced image assets were absent from the inspected tree. They are not automatically the author's corresponding CFD images.
+
+Detailed textual production plan: [`../FIGURE_PLANS/SECTION_09_EXPERIMENT.md`](../FIGURE_PLANS/SECTION_09_EXPERIMENT.md).
+
+## Integrated JFM style identities and reporting principles
+
+Literature supplies presentation practice only; it establishes no DynamisLab apparatus, observation or readiness. The former Style 09 selected these exact identities and read levels:
+
+1. Soumarup Bhattacharyya, Izhar Hussain Khan, Shivam Verma, Sanjay Kumar & Kamal Poddar, “Experimental investigation of three-dimensional modes in the wake of a rotationally oscillating cylinder”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **950**, A10 (2022), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2022.792`, `full-PDF`.
+2. Izhar Hussain Khan, Puja Sunil, Soumarup Bhattacharyya, Rahul Yadav, Kamal Poddar & Sanjay Kumar, “Flow past two rotationally oscillating cylinders”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **969**, A16 (2023), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2023.549`, `full-PDF`.
+3. Lukasz Klotz, Karol Bukowski & Konrad Gumowski, “Influence of porous material on the flow behind a backward-facing step: experimental study”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **998**, A31 (2024), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2024.639`, `full-PDF`.
+4. Yu Zhou, Dewei Fan, Bingfu Zhang, Ruiying Li & Bernd R. Noack, “Artificial intelligence control of a turbulent jet”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **897**, A27 (2020), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2020.392`, `full-PDF`.
+
+Use the compact sequence `purpose/boundary → apparatus, actuation and acquisition → named visual comparison → local measurement limit → next quantitative test`. Organize apparatus by evidentiary function. Give visualization its own contract (tracer, illumination, camera/view, field of view, frame selection and processing). State comparator and held conditions before morphology. Disclose when experimental and CFD views are separate realizations. Captions carry condition, view, frame, scale/calibration status and processing. Stronger temporal, field or force statements require a separate calibrated estimator. Main text selects representative comparisons rather than every condition; omit media if provenance fails.
+
+## Ownership, imports, exports and omissions
+
+**Imports:** Section 2 definitions only where Frank can bind experiment-specific geometry/action units; Section 7 supplies named Illusion terminology but no metric or positive SR claim; Section 8 supplies only the quantitative-boundary bridge. Computational results do not validate the apparatus.
+
+**Owns:** Frank's apparatus account, physical open-loop execution, trial/media provenance, exact morphology observations, local confounds, figure selection and the next experimental threshold.
+
+**Exports:** no result at present. If Frank later supplies a provenance-passing qualitative observation, the coordinator may decide after a new targeted provenance audit and explicit coordinator reopening decision whether one bounded qualitative sentence enters Section 10 D3 or C1; it may contain no number, agreement or validation wording. Otherwise omit experimental observation from Section 10.
+
+**Omit/prohibit:** shedding-frequency change from single frames; time-resolved-video claims; quantitative image estimator; CFD values; L2/DTW; PIV/velocity/vorticity inference from dye; force reduction; registered overlays; agreement/validation language; closed-loop experimental control; policy validation; mechanism, stability, optimum, robustness or generality. Keep brands, complete hardware/calibration tables and recoverability details supplementary unless needed to read a retained panel.
+
+## Compact provenance slots and quality gate
+
+For every retained experimental or CFD image bind: `[raw exact path/hash] [trial/case and role] [condition/action/body order/sign] [frame index/time or CFD step] [camera/view/FOV/scale] [dye/release protocol] [crop/enhancement/render processing] [selection/repeats] [permission] [missing fields]`.
+
+**Pass only if:**
+- Frank has written the apparatus/execution and observation text;
+- every shown image has exact source, condition, trial/case, frame/step, processing and permission;
+- each observation names visible morphology only and its comparator is local;
+- no sentence infers frequency or temporal behavior from one frame;
+- CFD and experiment are labelled separate, unregistered named-condition views;
+- open-loop and no-force/PIV/no-quantitative-estimator limits sit beside the observation;
+- absent provenance triggers pair omission, not reconstruction or digitization.
+
+## Coverage ledger
+
+| State | Material | Use/boundary |
+|---|---|---|
+| `read` | Round-4 global ledger, display inventory, former Style 09; Round-3 Section 9 interface; Round-4 Section 8 bridge | Architecture, ownership, former style identities and ceilings; read is not independent experiment verification. |
+| `read` | Exact CelerisLab code/docs/manifests listed above | Software capability and historical computational-output inventory; no execution or artifact regeneration. |
+| `mapped` | Author-described apparatus schematic and experimental/CFD pairs | Current-material slots only; exact files not located or audited. |
+| `not-covered` | New CFD/hardware/rendering/data generation; broad project rediscovery; exhaustive home-tree audit | Outside authorization/need; no inference. |
+| `unresolved` | Physical deployment scripts/logs, raw experiment media, apparatus schematic path, trial linkage, conditions, calibration/synchronization, repeats and permissions | Frank must supply or mark unavailable. |
+
+**Prior packet memory use:** targeted Nowledge recall was used for prior decisions, but the current author correction supersedes recalled frequency wording. At that packet stage, former Style 09's already-read literature identities were integrated without a new search. The dated enrichment below records the later library search and full-PDF reads. No thread recall or Working Memory was used.
+
+## Paragraph-level literature/style enrichment — 2026-08-11
+
+**Scope of enrichment.** This is author-facing reporting guidance only. It neither fills Frank's slots nor supplies an apparatus fact, trial condition, observation, experimental claim or promoted result. Three close JFM experimental papers were read at full-PDF level: S. Bhattacharyya *et al.*, “Experimental investigation of three-dimensional modes in the wake of a rotationally oscillating cylinder”, *JFM* **950**, A10 (2022), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2022.792`, `full-PDF`; I. H. Khan *et al.*, “Flow past two rotationally oscillating cylinders”, *JFM* **969**, A16 (2023), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2023.549`, `full-PDF`; and Y. Zhou *et al.*, “Artificial intelligence control of a turbulent jet”, *JFM* **897**, A27 (2020), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2020.392`, `full-PDF`. Literature establishes reporting practice only, not DynamisLab evidence.
+
+### Observed sample-bounded practice
+
+- The experimental narrative runs `purpose/question → facility and model → actuation and sensing/acquisition → processing or estimator → declared comparator → morphology or measured result`. Apparatus detail is grouped by what supplies, moves, actuates, images or measures rather than by construction chronology.
+- Methods use past tense for actions actually performed; figure-led observations and definitions generally use present tense. Visual evidence uses shape/location language (`visible`, `streakline`, `wake outline`, `near-wake`, `downstream`, `broader/narrower`, `deflected`, `separated`) while frequency, velocity, circulation and force language appears only after a named estimator or instrument.
+- Comparator conditions precede interpretation. The experimental papers separate flow visualization from hot-wire, PIV, spectral or load-cell evidence; quantitative diagnostics corroborate claims that visualization alone does not carry.
+- Acquisition and uncertainty information is placed beside the relevant method or result. Captions identify condition, orientation, scale/markers and panel-specific acquisition; body text supplies the inference and its local qualification.
+- The close papers often contain much more hardware specification than this short interface needs. That density is an observed option, not a recommendation here; the manuscript should retain only details needed to recover or correctly read the shown evidence.
+
+### Recommendation by paragraph job
+
+1. **Purpose and deployability.** Open with the narrow reason for including the physical realization, then state `[AUTHOR: what was physically deployed and what open-loop role the trial serves]`. Use `implemented`, `commanded`, `imaged` or `recorded` only after Frank binds each verb to a recoverable source. Do not call the trial a validation, reproduction or closed-loop demonstration.
+2. **Apparatus by evidentiary function.** Order placeholders as `[facility and background state] → [moving/holding geometry] → [rotation command and physical conversion] → [image path]`. Compress brands and construction history. Place each dimension or setting only where it changes the interpretation of a retained image.
+3. **Acquisition and provenance.** Before any morphology slot, require `[trial/case identity] [raw file/hash] [view/FOV/scale] [frame index/time] [dye/release] [exposure] [crop/enhancement] [selection rule/repeats] [permission]`. Use past tense only after these fields are supplied. If they remain unavailable, omit the pair rather than soften the provenance language.
+4. **Local morphology comparator.** Write the comparator first: `[AUTHOR: experimental condition A versus condition B, or experimental named condition versus separate CFD named-condition view]`; then allow one `[AUTHOR: directly visible shape/location observation]`. Keep `corresponding named-condition views` and `separate realizations`; prohibit `registered`, `agrees`, `matches`, `reproduces`, `confirms`, `suppresses shedding` or any frequency-change wording from a retained single frame.
+5. **Measurement ceiling and next threshold.** Put the caveat in the same paragraph as the observation: `[AUTHOR: qualitative, open-loop, single-frame ceiling and local confound]`. Then name only the measurement threshold required to support a stronger class of claim: synchronized calibrated force/PIV for force or field claims, repeated image sequences plus a declared temporal estimator for frequency claims. This is a local threshold, not a programme of promised results.
+
+### Caption/body and bridge controls
+
+- **Caption owns:** exact condition and role; experiment versus CFD identity; unregistered/separate-realization status; trial/case and frame/step; view, scale/calibration status and orientation; dye or numerical release; crop/enhancement/rendering; selection/repeat status; and any missing provenance that changes readability.
+- **Body owns:** why the physical interface matters; one comparator-led morphology statement per retained pair; the immediately adjacent evidence ceiling; and the consequence for what remains unclaimed. Do not narrate every panel or repeat caption metadata.
+- **Incoming bridge from Section 8:** `[INSTRUCTION: move from the CFD evidence boundary to the narrower question of physical command-and-image deployability; do not imply that experiment repairs the theory or validation boundary.]`
+- **Outgoing bridge to Section 10:** `[INSTRUCTION: close on the exact measurement ceiling and declared next evidentiary threshold. Do not export an observation to Section 10 unless the existing targeted provenance audit and explicit coordinator-reopening gate is later passed.]`
+
+### Lexicon and anti-patterns
+
+**Use after author supply:** `qualitative open-loop trial`, `retained frame`, `visible morphology`, `separate named-condition view`, `command path`, `image acquisition`, `frame selection`, `processing disclosed`, `measurement ceiling`, `would require`.
+
+**Avoid:** construction diary; equipment catalogue; CFD performance imported into apparatus prose; an observation before its comparator/provenance; `appears to validate`; single-frame temporal inference; PIV/velocity/vorticity language for dye streaklines; `agreement` for unregistered views; caveats deferred to the paragraph end or section end; generic `proof of feasibility`; promises of future validation.
+
+**Coverage:** `memory-recalled` — three narrow Nowledge searches; `read` — current Section-9 packet and controlling Round-4 ledgers; `full-PDF` — the three exact JFM papers above, each queried for apparatus/acquisition/morphology/caption/caveat practice; `mapped` — author-described experimental materials only, with no independent audit; `not-covered` — experiment media, physical deployment logs, new observations, CFD or artifact generation. The literature observations above are sample-bounded; recommendations are manuscript-specific.
+
+## Round-5 placeholder decision — 2026-08-11
+
+Frank permits a Section-9 TeX output containing clearly marked `AUTHOR FIELD` placeholders only. The placeholder may encode the existing paragraph jobs and requested fields but may not assert apparatus facts, execution details, trial identities, command provenance, media provenance, morphology observations or experimental results. This closes only the R5 output-format choice. Every author-supply, command-map, media/provenance, permission and result-import gate remains open; omission remains the fallback.

docs/JFM_WYQ/ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/SECTION_10_DISCUSSION_CONCLUSION.md

@@ -0,0 +1,230 @@
+# Round 4 integrated architecture — Discussion and conclusion
+
+## 1. Status and scope
+
+**Project/unit:** DynamisLab JFM manuscript, Round 4, Section 10 only.  
+**Status:** `frozen`; integrated author-facing architecture built after rereading the current Sections 1–8. The current author-owned `SECTION_09_EXPERIMENT.md` was read afterward for placeholder/interface status only. This is not manuscript prose, a new scientific audit, or a limitations/outlook design.  
+**Recommended reader-facing title:** **Discussion and conclusions**, with two short subunits: **Discussion** and **Conclusion**.
+
+**Primary role.** This final section summarizes and synthesizes the established manuscript answers. It does not reopen evidence, build a gap ledger, or convert local qualifications into a limitations programme. The current architecture is text-only: no new figure, evidence map, limitations table, equation, number, citation, or panel reference.
+
+**Current exclusions.** Limitations and future work are reserved for Frank and are outside this freeze. Only retained manuscript results enter Section 10. Vortex/Erase data inventories, experiment-provenance problems, theory test wish lists, and other former gap-ledger material are not summary content. Current Section 9 is an author-owned placeholder/interface that was read after the Section-10 synthesis architecture was built; no experimental result or observation is imported, and at most a neutral author-owned transition may be inserted later.
+
+## 2. Summary question and bounded answer
+
+**Question.** What does the paper establish when its breadth of learned rotational control, independent Kármán field evaluation, and action/field interpretation are read together under their distinct physical definitions?
+
+**Bounded answer.** The manuscript's physical progression begins with a prescribed steady endpoint and background recovery. Across the retained PPO tasks, force feedback plus sparse downstream velocity observations enables learned rotational control to approach periodic, event-relative, and declared non-zero-target hydrodynamic references under their own configurations, roles, clocks, and evaluation definitions. The periodic Kármán cloak in the parabolic-inflow/no-slip-wall channel configuration is the sole deep case: independent registered-field comparisons show that the controlled wake is substantially closer to its target than physical zero, and compatible but non-equivalent action-side and field-side analyses organize the result around persistent rear counter-rotation plus smaller corrections. The separate steady endpoint and failed outer closure provide physical context and a boundary on interpretation; they do not validate the periodic result or establish a causal mechanism.
+
+## 3. Current author decisions controlling Section 10
+
+1. Section 10 is primarily summary/synthesis, not a late limitations inventory.
+2. Retain a distinct short Conclusion after the Discussion.
+3. Omit all current limitations and future-work design. Frank may add those later without changing the frozen summary architecture.
+4. Delete the former D3 envelope/limitations, D4 decisive-tests, and C3 strongest-boundary/future-test jobs. Do not replace them with another research programme.
+5. Include only retained manuscript results in synthesis, boundaries, and conclusion.
+6. Do not import cross-case missing-data inventories, experimental provenance issues, theoretical test lists, or other gap ledgers as final-section content.
+7. Use only current Sections 1–8 as the scientific narrative authority. Read current Section 9 for author-owned placeholder/interface status only; it supplies no result or observation to the synthesis. The Round-3 final module is superseded provenance and boundary evidence only.
+8. Add no new display, table, equation, numerical value, citation, or scientific result.
+
+## 4. Compact reader-facing architecture
+
+### 10.1 Discussion — integrated synthesis (three paragraphs)
+
+#### D1 — Breadth to depth: capability first, then the sole deep case
+
+**Job.** Re-establish the paper's inferential order without replaying sections or values.
+
+**Required moves.**
+- Begin with the controlled object and task: three cylinder rotations use force feedback and sparse downstream velocity observations to approach a declared reference.
+- Distinguish the prescribed steady background-recovery endpoint from learned capability. The retained PPO tasks demonstrate periodic Kármán cloaking, an event-relative incoming-vortex response, and changed-target control under distinct configurations and task definitions.
+- State immediately that these results are not pooled and do not share one efficacy score or interpretation contract.
+- Narrow to the periodic Kármán cloak in the parabolic-inflow/no-slip-wall channel configuration as the sole case combining repeated learning evidence, signal histories, independent registered fields, executable policy reduction, and corrected field analysis.
+- Import Section 4's conclusion, not its numbers: all five tested stochastic realizations reach high-performing checkpoints in the selected uniform-inflow/free-slip-wall condition, while the separate parabolic-inflow/no-slip-wall reference case shows a controlled registered field substantially closer to target than physical zero in both complete-cycle mean and phase-resolved comparisons. Reward, DTW, and spatial field error retain their distinct meanings.
+
+**Claim ceiling.** This paragraph establishes named breadth and asymmetric depth. It does not imply pooled robustness, transfer, universal disturbance control, configuration continuation, or that signal matching alone proves field matching.
+
+**Bridge.** Once independent field improvement is established for the deep Kármán case, the synthesis can ask what recurring organization is visible in its actions and fields.
+
+#### D2 — Action and field organization in the deep Kármán case
+
+**Job.** Integrate Sections 5–6 into one bounded control-skeleton reading while preserving their different estimands.
+
+**Required moves.**
+- On the action side, summarize the executable compact law as persistent rear counter-rotation with smaller rear-lift modulation and a weak tested front correction. Closed-loop deployment and parent-relative term deletion support this ranking among the tested terms; do not replay the formula, coefficients, windows, or deletion values.
+- On the field side, summarize the passive mean streamwise deficit and the largely opposite-signed controlled addition relative to physical zero. State only that this is compatible with adding downstream streamwise velocity where the passive pinball produces a deficit; do not call it momentum restoration, cancellation, or a closed budget.
+- State that the constant reference accounts for most of the measured scalar mean-field error reduction, while a smaller remaining residual is organized descriptively through action coordinates.
+- Name **action-correlated correction-field modes** once if needed for terminological continuity, with the adjacent noncausal boundary. POD supplies the same-object modal boundary; it is not an inferior baseline.
+- Conclude that action-side and field-side results are compatible but non-equivalent. They support a bounded control-skeleton organization—persistent rear counter-rotation plus smaller correction—not causal or independent confirmation, a unique decomposition, or a governing law.
+
+**Near-collision control.** Section 4's standardized PPO field evaluation, Section 5's SR deployment, and Section 6's corrected four-role mean accounting remain different acquisitions/estimands. Their numerical proximity or conceptual compatibility cannot be described as replication, agreement, validation, closure, or triangulation.
+
+**Bridge.** The deep-case organization can now be placed beside the changed-task demonstrations and the separate steady endpoint without transferring its interpretation to them.
+
+#### D3 — Changed tasks and steady physical context
+
+**Job.** Close the Discussion positively by locating the deep interpretation within the manuscript's wider physical range.
+
+**Required moves.**
+- Summarize Section 7 at the level now supported by the current architecture: replacing periodic phase with an event-relative incoming-vortex problem demonstrates controlled response under a changed temporal definition, while the retained Illusion PPO case demonstrates retargeting toward a declared non-zero reference. Omit Erase from the established synthesis because its role-field material is not yet quantitatively bound.
+- State that these changed temporal and target tasks demonstrate breadth but do not inherit the Kármán control-skeleton interpretation.
+- Return briefly to Section 8's separate uniform-inflow/free-slip-wall steady endpoint. The accepted prescribed-rear-wall-motion case is a low-deficit mean-flow state and supplies physical context for why a persistent rear-rotation component is plausible as an organizing feature.
+- Keep the relation explicitly compatible and non-equivalent: the steady endpoint is neither continuation nor validation of the periodic result.
+- Close with the theory boundary as an established contextual finding, not a future-work prompt: the prescribed-circulation outer family organizes streamlines, but circulation is not selected by wall spin and the fitted/optimal sign mismatch defeats the proposed inviscid closure. The surviving synthesis is a bounded viscous, kinematics-first context rather than a causal mechanism.
+
+**Section-9 handling.** No Section-9 result is imported. If Frank later supplies a provenance-passing qualitative observation, the coordinator may decide after a new targeted provenance audit and explicit coordinator reopening decision whether one bounded qualitative sentence enters D3 or C1; no number, agreement or validation wording is allowed. Otherwise omit experimental observation. A navigation-only author transition may still be inserted outside this architecture.
+
+### 10.2 Conclusion — exact established answer (two short paragraphs)
+
+#### C1 — Capability and independent evaluation answer
+
+**Job.** Answer the paper question directly, without methods inventory, numbers, citations, or figure references.
+
+**Required content.** The prescribed steady endpoint establishes the historical background-recovery starting point. Across the retained PPO tasks, learned rotational control using forces and sparse downstream observations approaches periodic, event-relative, and declared non-zero-target hydrodynamic references under their own physical definitions. For the periodic Kármán cloak in the parabolic-inflow/no-slip-wall configuration, independent registered-field evaluation establishes that the controlled wake is closer to the target than physical zero; this is the paper's strongest field-level answer.
+
+#### C2 — Bounded interpretation and conceptual close
+
+**Job.** State the strongest integrated interpretation once and close on the paper's governing concept.
+
+**Required content.** In the deep Kármán case, executable action reduction and corrected mean/residual field organization support a bounded control skeleton consisting of persistent rear counter-rotation plus smaller corrections. These analyses are compatible but non-equivalent and remain descriptive rather than causal. Close by returning to hydrodynamic cloak and illusion as approach to a declared background or non-zero reference for specified observations and comparisons—not universal invisibility, configuration-independent transfer, or an unrestricted physical law.
+
+**Optional author-only insertion after C2, outside the frozen summary architecture:** `[AUTHOR PLACEHOLDER — limitations and outlook to be supplied later.]`
+
+## 5. Detailed synthesis and style controls
+
+### Evidence order and paragraph discipline
+
+- Preserve `prescribed steady starting point and learned-task breadth → sole deep-case field evaluation → action/field organization → changed-task breadth and steady context → compressed conclusion`.
+- Give each paragraph one inferential job. Do not produce one sentence per manuscript section or an abstract replay.
+- Use concrete physical subjects: controller, rotations, wake, field, target, physical zero, constant reference, wall motion, circulation. Avoid package names, internal provenance labels, and governance vocabulary in reader-facing prose.
+- State the comparator before the inference. A declared reference and physical-zero role must remain legible wherever field matching is summarized.
+- Use present tense for established interpretation and definitions; past tense only for what was performed. No future tense is needed in the frozen architecture.
+- Put the non-equivalence boundary in D2 beside the integrated action/field claim. Do not defer it to a caveat dump.
+
+### Strength and terminology
+
+**Preferred:** `demonstrates under the stated configuration`, `is closer to the declared target`, `supports`, `is compatible with`, `organizes`, `accounts for most of the measured scalar reduction`, `provides physical context`, `bounded control skeleton`, `action-correlated correction-field modes`.
+
+**Prohibited without new authority:** `causes`, `mechanism`, `restores momentum`, `cancels`, `confirms independently`, `triangulates`, `necessary`, `sufficient`, `unique`, `optimal`, `stable`, `robust`, `general`, `universal`, `transferable`, or any configuration-continuation claim.
+
+Use `parabolic-inflow/no-slip-wall channel configuration` and `uniform-inflow/free-slip-wall channel configuration` when configuration identity materially limits a sentence. Internal chain labels remain provenance-only. Spell `Kármán` exactly. The Conclusion should not repeat configuration detail more than needed to locate the sole deep case.
+
+### Compression and duplication deletion
+
+- Section 2 owns configurations, roles, action definitions, objective, DTW, spatial L2, ROI, masks, windows, and CFD qualification.
+- Section 3 owns the visual progression and first breadth statement.
+- Section 4 owns learning-range detail, exact rewards, L2/DTW values, field panels, and representative trajectories.
+- Section 5 owns the reflection map, symbolic law, coefficients, deployment details, and deletion values.
+- Section 6 owns four-role values, percentages, residual equation, CCD/POD construction, and mode displays.
+- Section 7 owns case-local Vortex/Illusion/Erase roles, event offsets, readiness, blocked quantitative-efficacy status, and strict non-transfer detail.
+- Section 8 owns steady values, wall kinematics, outer equations, sign values, and theory derivation.
+- Section 10 imports only result-level meanings and states the integrated answer once. Delete numerical replay, formulas, panel narration, source paths, acquisition histories, figure-readiness notes, and detailed nonclaim inventories from reader-facing prose.
+
+## 6. Exact selected JFM rhetorical identities and retained rationale
+
+External literature supports final-section organization only. It establishes no DynamisLab result, claim, validity, or artifact readiness. The following identities and read levels are the unique necessary record retained from the superseded style memo:
+
+1. N. Deng, B. R. Noack, M. Morzyński & L. R. Pastur (2020), “Low-order model for successive bifurcations of the fluidic pinball”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **884**, A37. DOI `10.1017/jfm.2019.959`. `full-PDF`; final sections read for rhetorical architecture, not result reproduction.
+2. G. Y. Cornejo Maceda, Y. Li, F. Lusseyran, M. Morzyński & B. R. Noack (2021), “Stabilization of the fluidic pinball with gradient-enriched machine learning control”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **917**, A42. DOI `10.1017/jfm.2021.301`. `full-PDF`; Discussion/Conclusion and closing synthesis displays read rhetorically, not result reproduction.
+3. Ji-chao Li & Mengqi Zhang (2022), “Reinforcement-learning-based control of confined cylinder wakes with stability analyses”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **932**, A44. DOI `10.1017/jfm.2021.1045`. `full-PDF`; final physics/control integration read rhetorically, not result reproduction.
+4. J. Rabault, M. Kuchta, A. Jensen, U. Réglade & N. Cerardi (2019), “Artificial neural networks trained through deep reinforcement learning discover control strategies for active flow control”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **865**, 281–302. DOI `10.1017/jfm.2019.62`. `full-PDF`; interpretation and compact Conclusion read rhetorically, not result reproduction.
+
+**Observed sample-bounded practice retained.** Structural labels vary, but interpretation is completed before the shortest closing unit; final synthesis follows the inferential order earned in the body; and a closing display is optional. For this manuscript, several non-equivalent evidence streams justify a distinct Discussion, while the Conclusion should compress only established answers. The former style memo's recommendations to organize a limitations envelope, decisive tests, a future-facing third conclusion paragraph, a limitations table, or an evidence map are superseded by the current author instruction and are intentionally not retained.
+
+## 7. Imports, ownership, and boundaries
+
+**Imports from current Sections 1–8; Section 9 interface read:**
+- Sections 1–2: declared-reference definitions, force-plus-sparse-observation execution, independent field evaluation, physical configuration names, and the three-level inferential order.
+- Sections 3–4: prescribed steady profile recovery as the physical starting point; retained PPO breadth under local task definitions; repeated high-performance learning in the tested five-realization condition; and independent mean/phase field improvement in the separate deep reference case.
+- Section 5: executable compact-law organization and tested persistent-rear-term ranking.
+- Section 6: passive deficit/opposite-signed controlled addition, constant-reference dominance in measured scalar accounting, smaller action-correlated residual, and strict noncausal/non-equivalent boundary.
+- Section 7: event-relative Vortex role material and positive Illusion PPO capability as bounded breadth, with Vortex/Erase quantitative efficacy blocked and strict non-transfer of Kármán interpretation.
+- Section 8: separate steady low-deficit endpoint, kinematics-first viscous context, prescribed-circulation outer organization, and failed wall-spin closure.
+- Section 9: current author-owned placeholder/interface status only; no experimental result or observation is imported.
+
+**Section 10 owns:** the compact integrated answer, the one-time action/field synthesis, the contextual placement of changed tasks and steady theory, and the two-paragraph conceptual close.
+
+**Out of scope now:** limitations architecture, future programme, experimental synthesis, Section-9 claims, raw-evidence rediscovery, new diagnostics, and any display/equation/citation production.
+
+## 8. Display, equation, citation, and placeholder controls
+
+- **Figure:** none.
+- **Evidence map:** omitted; former proposal superseded.
+- **Limitations table:** omitted; former proposal superseded.
+- **Equation:** none.
+- **New number:** none in reader-facing Section 10.
+- **Citation:** none in reader-facing Section 10. The records in §6 are author-facing style provenance only.
+- **Existing figure references:** omit unless later drafting finds one indispensable; safe default is no figure calls.
+- **Author placeholders:** allowed only after the frozen synthesis architecture and visibly marked as author-owned. They must not be populated by an agent without new instruction.
+
+## 9. Coverage ledger
+
+`read` means the current repository document was inspected for architecture and boundaries; it does not mean independent scientific verification or artifact audit. `mapped` is not `read`.
+
+- `memory-recalled`: three targeted Nowledge searches for manuscript-wide Round-4 decisions, Sections 3–8 interpretation boundaries, and final-section literature/style decisions. Memory guided navigation only; current repository authorities controlled every operative choice.
+- `read`: current Round-4 Sections 1–8 in full; current `SECTION_09_EXPERIMENT.md` for author-owned placeholder/interface status only; former Section-10 style memo; Round-3 `10_LIMITATIONS_CONCLUSION.md` as superseded provenance/boundary; Round-4 global decision and display/equation ledgers; Round-3 module interface ledger; Round-4 style crosswalk.
+- `mapped`: underlying authorities, manifests, and artifacts already owned by Sections 1–8; no broad raw-evidence rediscovery.
+- `not-covered` at freeze: raw fields/models; new CFD/training/SR/CCD/theory analysis; experiment media and their provenance audit; figures and manuscript prose. The dated enrichment below adds rhetorical full-PDF reads only and changes no scientific coverage.
+- `external-inaccessible`: none required for this architecture.
+
+## 10. Quality gate and disposition
+
+- [x] Rebuilt from current Sections 1–8 rather than the Round-3 limitation inventory.
+- [x] Current Section 7 exists and was read; no fallback to Round-3 M07 was needed.
+- [x] Current Section 9 was read as author-placeholder/interface only; no experimental result or observation enters the summary.
+- [x] Discussion has three compact synthesis jobs: breadth-to-depth, deep-case action/field organization, and changed-task/steady context.
+- [x] Conclusion has two short jobs and summarizes only established answers.
+- [x] Only retained manuscript results enter every Section-10 unit.
+- [x] No limitations architecture, future programme, strongest-boundary/future-test close, or substitute outlook was created.
+- [x] No Vortex/Erase missing-data inventory, experiment-provenance ledger, theory wish list, or other gap inventory enters the summary.
+- [x] Section 4/5/6 estimands remain non-equivalent; no replication, validation, agreement, closure, or triangulation wording.
+- [x] Cross-case breadth does not inherit Kármán interpretation; steady/theory remains context and boundary, not validation.
+- [x] No new figure, evidence map, limitations table, equation, number, citation, result, or artifact claim.
+- [x] Exact selected JFM identities, DOIs, read levels, and the still-relevant split/evidence-order rationale are integrated.
+- [x] Former limitations/future-work recommendations are explicitly recorded as superseded.
+- [x] Ownership and duplication deletion are explicit; the former style memo may be deleted.
+
+**Disposition:** `frozen`; coordinator second audit passed this text-only Section-10 architecture, which is Round-5 eligible. Pair A/E scientific content remains unchanged. Frank's later limitations/outlook may be added as a separate author-owned unit without reopening the frozen summary sequence unless it changes an established answer.
+
+## 11. Paragraph-level literature/style enrichment — 2026-08-11
+
+**Scope of enrichment.** This dated addition refines rhetoric only; it does not reopen the frozen `3 + 2` architecture or alter any scientific status, ownership, display, equation, control or claim. Four close JFM final sections were read at full-PDF level: N. Deng *et al.*, “Low-order model for successive bifurcations of the fluidic pinball”, *JFM* **884**, A37 (2020), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2019.959`, `full-PDF`; G. Y. Cornejo Maceda *et al.*, “Stabilization of the fluidic pinball with gradient-enriched machine learning control”, *JFM* **917**, A42 (2021), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2021.301`, `full-PDF`; J.-c. Li & M. Zhang, “Reinforcement-learning-based control of confined cylinder wakes with stability analyses”, *JFM* **932**, A44 (2022), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2021.1045`, `full-PDF`; and J. Rabault *et al.*, “Artificial neural networks trained through deep reinforcement learning discover control strategies for active flow control”, *JFM* **865**, 281–302 (2019), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2019.62`, `full-PDF`. These identities remain planning metadata only: reader-facing Section 10 still contains no citations.
+
+### Observed sample-bounded practice
+
+- Final sections compress around inferential or physical themes, not one sentence per preceding section. Control outcome is established before strategy interpretation; richer modelling, stability or flow analysis is then used for a distinct interpretive job.
+- Study actions are commonly past or present-perfect (`was evaluated`, `we have shown`), whereas established definitions and bounded interpretations use present tense (`supports`, `is compatible with`, `organizes`). Prospective tense belongs to outlook; it is unnecessary in this frozen no-outlook close.
+- Multiple evidence streams are often placed in a hierarchy or sequence. The close papers do not provide a universal wording rule for non-equivalence, but their separation of performance, actuation organization and flow/stability analysis supports making each evidentiary role explicit before synthesis.
+- Strong interpretive vocabulary in the sample is frequently supported by dedicated stability, intervention or quantitative analysis. Local qualifications occur next to the affected inference rather than in a terminal caveat list.
+- Closing units are shorter than the preceding synthesis and add no evidence. Some sampled papers end prospectively and some with a conceptual/application return; neither move requires replaying values. For this manuscript, the frozen declared-reference close is the relevant reusable pattern, while the sampled future-work closes are not.
+
+### Five-paragraph rhetorical controls
+
+- **D1 — breadth to depth.** Use one opening sentence for the controlled object and declared-reference task, one compressed breadth sentence, then narrow explicitly to the sole deep Kármán case. Put each comparator before its inference and preserve the evidence order `task definitions → retained breadth → deep-case independent registered-field result`. State non-pooling beside the breadth claim. Delete values, acquisition histories and section labels.
+- **D2 — compatible, non-equivalent synthesis.** Begin from the independently established deep-case result, then place action-side organization before field-side organization. Join them with `is compatible with` or `together support a bounded organization`, immediately followed by `non-equivalent` and `descriptive rather than causal`. Do not use the sampled stronger verbs (`discovers`, `stabilizes`, `confirms`) unless the owning DynamisLab evidence independently licenses them; it currently does not license causal or independent-confirmation wording.
+- **D3 — changed-task breadth plus steady context.** Move outward from the deep case: changed temporal definition, changed declared target, then the separate steady endpoint and theory boundary. Use `demonstrates under its stated task definition` for retained breadth and `provides physical context` for the steady relation. Keep the non-transfer and non-continuation boundaries local. End on the surviving bounded physical context, not on missing tests, a limitations inventory or Section 9.
+- **C1 — exact answer in evidence order.** Answer with `prescribed starting point → retained learned capability → strongest independent field-level result`. Use present tense for what the manuscript establishes and past tense only if a performed evaluation must be named. No methods list, values, citations, figure calls or new qualification should appear here; all needed qualification must already be embedded in the nouns and comparators.
+- **C2 — declared-reference close.** State the bounded control-skeleton interpretation once, place compatibility/non-equivalence and noncausality immediately beside it, and close by defining cloak/illusion through approach to a declared reference for specified observations and comparisons. The last sentence must contain no new result, example, citation, number, test or future promise.
+
+### Compression, lexicon, caveat and citation placement
+
+**Compression test:** each Discussion paragraph must have one governing comparison and one consequence; C1 answers `what was established`, C2 answers `how it is bounded and what concept survives`. Delete manuscript chronology, method inventory, repeated configuration detail, repeated sensor/reward definitions, metric names where no distinction is being made, and serial `first/second/finally` scaffolding.
+
+**Preferred register:** `establishes`, `demonstrates under the stated definition`, `is closer to the declared target`, `supports`, `is compatible with`, `organizes`, `provides physical context`, `bounded`, `distinct`, `non-equivalent`, `descriptive rather than causal`.
+
+**Reject:** `proves`, `validates`, `confirms independently`, `triangulates`, `causes`, `reveals the mechanism`, `restores`, `cancels`, `generalizes`, `transfers`, `unifies`, `universal`, `robust` or `optimal`; also reject ornamental intensifiers and sample-derived promotional language.
+
+**Caveat placement:** D1 carries non-pooling beside breadth; D2 carries estimand non-equivalence and noncausality beside the action/field synthesis; D3 carries non-transfer beside changed tasks and non-continuation beside steady context; C2 carries the declared-reference ceiling inside the close. Do not collect these into a limitations paragraph.
+
+**Citation placement:** none in reader-facing D1–D3 or C1–C2. The four identities above document author-facing rhetorical observation only. No literature citation may be inserted to make an internal result appear stronger or to decorate the final sentence.
+
+### Bridges and anti-patterns
+
+- **D1 → D2:** independent field improvement makes the action/field organization question legitimate.
+- **D2 → D3:** the bounded deep-case organization is placed beside wider tasks without transfer.
+- **D3 → C1:** finish the Discussion on established physical context so the Conclusion can answer rather than qualify.
+- **C1 → C2:** move from the strongest evidence-ordered answer to its single bounded interpretation and conceptual definition.
+
+**Anti-patterns:** abstract replay; one sentence per section; values or panel narration; action and field analyses described as mutual confirmation; steady endpoint described as validation or continuation; experimental placeholder imported as evidence; erased historical routes named in the synthesis; limitations or future-work programme; a third conclusion paragraph; citation-bearing close; new result or stronger verb in the last sentence.
+
+**Coverage:** `memory-recalled` — three narrow Nowledge searches; `read` — current frozen Section-10 packet and controlling Round-4 ledgers; `full-PDF` — the four exact JFM papers above, queried separately for final-section order, tense, compression, evidence relation, caveats, citations and closing moves; `mapped` — underlying Sections 1–8 evidence through their owning frozen packets only; `not-covered` — raw artifacts, new science, Section-9 observations, manuscript prose, displays, equations or tests. Observations are sample-bounded; recommendations are specific to the frozen DynamisLab architecture.

docs/JFM_WYQ/ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/STYLE_03_CAPABILITY_FIGURE.md

@@ -1,262 +0,0 @@
-# Round 4 style research — capability opening and headline figure
-
-**Lane:** section-style research for the capability/progression opening and its headline multi-panel figure.  
-**Status:** `researching` complete; style recommendation ready for coordinator use, not a section freeze, manuscript draft, scientific authority, or panel-readiness declaration.
-
-## 1. Scope, question, and bounded recommendation
-
-### Scope and question
-
-This memo studies how four close *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* papers open a capability/results sequence and use headline figures to move from a declared comparator to evidence, limitation, and deeper analysis. The coded features are breadth versus depth, comparator introduction, panel ordering, captions, failure/limit placement, visual hierarchy, and bridges. External papers provide rhetorical precedent only; they establish no internal result, artifact validity, priority, or scientific claim.
-
-### Bounded recommendation
-
-Use the opening as a selective argument rather than a case gallery: establish the viewing contract and comparator first; give the dominant reference case most visual and textual weight; arrange subordinate panels as a readable progression in changed task conditions; place one consequential limitation beside the capability it bounds; and end by converting breadth into the reason for selecting one deep case. The caption should identify roles and comparison semantics while leaving inference, selection logic, and the bridge to prose.
-
-The recommended rhetorical sequence is:
-
-`question and viewing contract → comparator-bearing headline → bounded progression → local limit → selection of depth`
-
-This is a style contract only. It neither selects source arrays nor licenses any quantitative annotation.
-
-## 2. Coverage ledger
-
-| Status | Source/input | Why in scope | Evidence state and reason |
-|---|---|---|---|
-| `read` | `ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/README.md`, `00_MASTER_AGENT_PROMPT.md`, `00_QUALITY_GATE.md`, `00_GLOBAL_DECISION_LEDGER.md`, `00_DISPLAY_EQUATION_INVENTORY.md` | Round-4 role, status, claim, ownership, display-readiness, and delivery controls | Read directly as repository controls; not independently verified and not artifact-audited |
-| `read` | `ROUND2_TOP_DOWN/05_REVISED_STRUCTURE_FREEZE.md` and `06_SECTION_LEVEL_JFM_STYLE_GUIDE.md` | Controlling architecture plus prior JFM style synthesis | Read directly as full reports; not independently verified and not artifact-audited |
-| `read` | `ROUND3_BOTTOM_UP/02_CAPABILITY_PROGRESSION.md`, `00_QUALITY_GATE.md`, and `11_FINAL_CONSISTENCY_AUDIT.md` | Capability opening, figure contract, later readiness findings, and duplication boundaries | Read directly as full reports; not independently verified and not artifact-audited |
-| `read` | Rabault, Kuchta, Jensen, Réglade & Cerardi (2019), “Artificial neural networks trained through deep reinforcement learning discover control strategies for active flow control,” *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **865**, 281–302 | Close DRL capability opening; performance-to-flow bridge and local limits | `full-PDF`; figure/section-focused reading; DOI and PDF availability checked against the workspace record; no equation-by-equation verification or source-data audit |
-| `read` | Paris, Beneddine & Dandois (2021), “Robust flow control and optimal sensor placement using deep reinforcement learning,” *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **913**, A25 | Reference-case depth followed by physics, robustness, and sensing breadth | `full-PDF`; figure/section-focused reading; DOI and PDF availability checked against the workspace record; no source-data audit |
-| `read` | Xia, Zhang, Kerrigan & Rigas (2024), “Active flow control for bluff body drag reduction using reinforcement learning with partial measurements,” *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **981**, A17 | Capability–failure–repair opening and parametric failure envelope | `full-PDF`; figure/section-focused reading; DOI and PDF availability checked against the workspace record; no source-data audit |
-| `read` | Wang, Yan, Hu, Chen, Rabault & Noack (2024), “Dynamic feature-based deep reinforcement learning for flow control of circular cylinder with sparse surface pressure sensing,” *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **988**, A4 | Baseline comparison, harder-case progression, caption hierarchy, and later physical reading | `full-PDF`; figure/section-focused reading; DOI and PDF availability checked against the workspace record; no source-data audit |
-| `mapped` | Remaining JFM identities in the Round-2 style guide and the workspace `JFM/` and `JFM References/` indexes | Broader context and candidate alternatives | Located through the controlling guide/indexes only; not re-read for this lane and not used as direct evidence here |
-| `not-covered` | Exhaustive sentence coding, all figures in the four papers, unrelated JFM control papers, new literature search, and bibliographic expansion | Not necessary for the bounded comparison of capability openings and headline figures | No practice claim inferred beyond the four-paper sample |
-| `not-covered` | Internal raw fields, arrays, rendering scripts, figure generation, CFD, training, SR, CCD, and experiment analysis | Outside style-research scope | No panel existence, result, or readiness inferred |
-| `external-inaccessible` | None essential to this style lane | All four selected records had readable PDFs in the literature workspace | No external-access blocker; full-PDF reading is still not independent scientific verification or artifact audit |
-
-## 3. Exact literature identities and read levels
-
-1. Jean Rabault, Miroslav Kuchta, Atle Jensen, Ulysse Réglade & Nicolas Cerardi, “Artificial neural networks trained through deep reinforcement learning discover control strategies for active flow control,” *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **865** (2019), 281–302. DOI: `10.1017/jfm.2019.62`. Read level: `full-PDF`, targeted to §§2.1, 3.1–3.2, Figs. 2–5, and appendices carrying comparator/limit evidence.
-2. Romain Paris, Samir Beneddine & Julien Dandois, “Robust flow control and optimal sensor placement using deep reinforcement learning,” *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **913** (2021), A25. DOI: `10.1017/jfm.2020.1170`. Read level: `full-PDF`, targeted to the uncontrolled/reference definitions and §4 results sequence, especially Fig. 9 and the robustness/sensor-limit figures.
-3. Chao Xia, Jiaqi Zhang, Eric C. Kerrigan & Georgios Rigas, “Active flow control for bluff body drag reduction using reinforcement learning with partial measurements,” *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **981** (2024), A17. DOI: `10.1017/jfm.2024.69`. Read level: `full-PDF`, targeted to §§2.4 and 3, especially Figs. 2–5 and the history, sensor, and Reynolds-number limit figures.
-4. Qiulei Wang, Dong Yan, Guodong Hu, Gang Chen, Jean Rabault & Bernd R. Noack, “Dynamic feature-based deep reinforcement learning for flow control of circular cylinder with sparse surface pressure sensing,” *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **988** (2024), A4. DOI: `10.1017/jfm.2024.333`. Read level: `full-PDF`, targeted to §§3.2 and 4, especially Figs. 2, 5–7, 9, 13–14, and 16.
-
-Bibliographic year follows the final JFM volume citation, rather than the earlier year displayed by some discovery records.
-
-## 4. Observed JFM practice
-
-The following statements are observations from this four-paper sample, not universal JFM rules.
-
-### 4.1 Capability openings are comparator-led, but the comparator is often prepared earlier
-
-- **Rabault et al.** prepare the uncontrolled case during numerical qualification, then reuse it visibly in the results. The opening results sequence moves from multi-run learning behaviour (Fig. 2) to controlled-versus-baseline temporal performance (Fig. 3), and only later to flow morphology (Fig. 5). The comparator therefore exists before interpretation begins.
-- **Paris et al.** define both the uncontrolled flow and the unstable base flow before the main result. Fig. 9 places drag above action/lift and includes the reference levels directly, so the reader can interpret the transient and maintained regimes without reconstructing the comparison from prose.
-- **Xia et al.** define three controller/observation configurations schematically before comparing them. The results then preserve the same logical order: full-measurement reference, partial-measurement degradation, and history-enabled repair. Failure is not an appendix; it is the hinge of the argument.
-- **Wang et al.** first contrast vanilla and dynamic-feature architectures, then use the baseline case to compare sparse variants against a stronger reference before extending to harder conditions.
-
-**Observed pattern:** the opening does not ask an unlabelled field image to prove capability. A reference, role set, or controller comparison is named before the principal visual inference.
-
-### 4.2 Breadth follows a reference-case depth anchor
-
-- **Rabault et al.** use breadth first to establish repeatability across trainings, but devote interpretive depth to one controlled trajectory and its wake morphology.
-- **Paris et al.** establish a detailed reference case before moving to physics analysis, Reynolds-number variation, noise, and sensor placement. Breadth is earned through dedicated tests, not implied by the first figure.
-- **Xia et al.** keep the opening comparison narrow and causal in narrative structure—success, degradation, repair—then examine history length, sensor count, Reynolds number, and algorithm choice separately.
-- **Wang et al.** establish the baseline capability before escalating flow difficulty and dimensionality; sensor quantity and position studies supply intermediate depth.
-
-**Observed pattern:** breadth is a sequence of changed questions. It is not a montage treated as a common performance scale. One reference case supplies the visual and argumentative anchor.
-
-### 4.3 Panel order carries the argument
-
-- **Outcome before actuation:** Rabault Fig. 3 and Paris Fig. 9 foreground drag/performance, with action placed in an inset or lower panel. The hierarchy answers “what changed?” before “what action accompanied it?”
-- **Reference before degraded/repaired variant:** Xia preserves full-measurement → partial-static → partial-dynamic ordering across learning, temporal, and field figures. Repetition of the same order reduces decoding cost.
-- **Primary metric before auxiliary evidence:** Wang Fig. 5 orders mean drag, reward, and lift fluctuation, maintaining the distinction between the physical headline, training objective, and secondary fluctuation evidence.
-- **Baseline and controlled fields use matched positions:** Rabault Fig. 5 stacks uncontrolled and controlled views within repeated variable/statistic groupings, enabling direct eye movement rather than cross-page comparison.
-
-**Observed pattern:** panel letters are not neutral labels. The order reproduces the logical comparison, and spatial alignment is used to make the intended pairwise reading immediate.
-
-### 4.4 Captions identify the reading path but do not carry the whole argument
-
-- Captions name variables, cases, panel letters, and statistical conventions. Wang explicitly notes multi-run averaging and shaded variation; Paris identifies top/bottom quantities and insets; Xia maintains controller labels across figures.
-- Captions can include a restrained interpretive cue, as in Rabault’s morphology comparison, but the physical explanation and consequence are developed in the text.
-- The papers do not rely on captions to explain why one case deserves later depth or what broader claim is disallowed. Those are prose jobs.
-
-**Observed pattern:** effective captions are locally self-decoding—what, compared with what, and how displayed—while selection logic, inference, and bridge remain in the body.
-
-### 4.5 Failures and limits are placed where they alter interpretation
-
-- Rabault places exploration-noise and unstable-maintenance limits beside performance; reduced-observation sensitivity is treated separately.
-- Paris reports failure of simple action-pattern reductions in the physical-analysis sequence and shows limits at harder Reynolds numbers and extreme sensor sparsity in the corresponding extension sections.
-- Xia makes partial-observation failure the central comparison, then places excessive-history, single-sensor, and cross-Reynolds degradation beside each parameter study.
-- Wang places vanilla sparse-sensing failure in the baseline comparison and discusses diminishing returns/redundancy in the sensor study.
-
-**Observed pattern:** a limit is most effective when it changes the inference from the adjacent evidence. A remote limitations paragraph does not substitute for a local boundary.
-
-### 4.6 Bridges transform capability into the next question
-
-- Rabault moves from performance to altered recirculation and pressure morphology.
-- Paris moves from the reference result to post-hoc physical analysis, then to robustness and sensing questions.
-- Xia turns partial-observation degradation into the need for temporal history, and later turns parameter sensitivity into an envelope of applicability.
-- Wang turns sparse-sensor comparison into sensor-number and placement questions, then returns to flow fields for physical interpretation.
-
-**Observed pattern:** the bridge does not announce “the next section.” It states what the current display leaves unresolved and therefore what evidence must follow.
-
-## 5. Recommendation for the capability/progression opening
-
-### 5.1 Breadth versus depth
-
-1. Make the figure answer one capability question, not summarize the manuscript.
-2. Give the designated deep case the largest contiguous visual region and the clearest comparator-bearing evidence.
-3. Keep breadth panels subordinate and order them by the intended progression in changed temporal or objective contract.
-4. Do not encode breadth as generality. Each extension should be read as a named case under its own comparison semantics.
-5. Reserve mechanism or control-skeleton interpretation for later evidence. The opening should explain why depth is selected, not pre-announce its result.
-
-**Trade-off:** a broad composition can orient the reader quickly but becomes a gallery if every case receives equal weight. A dominant anchor plus smaller progression panels sacrifices apparent symmetry to gain argumentative hierarchy.
-
-### 5.2 Comparator introduction
-
-- The first paragraph should state the figure’s question and the comparison logic before any panel-specific result.
-- Every retained panel needs a visibly recoverable target/reference and role. Where a quantitative comparator is not ready, label the panel as visual capability rather than allowing proximity or aesthetics to imply measured matching.
-- Reuse definitions from the contracts section briefly; do not rebuild the methods or metric equations in this opening.
-- Never use a common bar, colour scale, or ranking device to imply commensurability across distinct estimands.
-
-**Trade-off:** dense role labels protect interpretation but can overload the image. Put the shortest role/chain identifiers in-panel and the exact comparison semantics in the caption; retain detailed contracts in the preceding section or a compact table.
-
-### 5.3 Panel ordering and visual hierarchy
-
-Recommended reading order:
-
-1. a compact historical seed;
-2. the dominant comparator-bearing headline case;
-3. the temporal-contract extension;
-4. the objective-contract extension;
-5. at most one small, attached limit marker if it materially changes the headline.
-
-Use consistent panel grammar: case/chain identifier, target/reference, controlled role, and temporal coordinate in stable locations. Keep matched views aligned. Use area, position, and annotation density—not decorative colour—to establish hierarchy. Any degradation marker should attach to the claim it limits rather than become an equal fifth gallery panel.
-
-### 5.4 Caption contract
-
-The caption should, in this order:
-
-1. state that the composition shows a progression under distinct contracts, not a common efficacy comparison;
-2. decode each panel’s case/chain, target or reference, controlled/comparator role, and temporal coordinate;
-3. identify whether evidence is quantitative, complementary, visual-only, or unavailable;
-4. state the decisive local limits, including non-equivalent metrics and any historical/negative boundary;
-5. avoid mechanism, generalization, validation, robustness, or cross-chain continuity wording.
-
-Keep the caption descriptive enough to stand beside the figure, but do not place the section’s selection argument, literature comparison, or full caveat ledger there.
-
-### 5.5 Failures and limits
-
-Retain one visible boundary only if it changes how the headline is read and has an exact source. Other blockers belong in local prose, later dedicated sections, or omission fallbacks. A missing quantitative panel should remain absent or explicitly visual-only; it must not be repaired with a suggestive image, filename, or cross-case surrogate.
-
-The opening’s local-limit sentence should perform three jobs: name the affected claim, state the bounded scope, and explain why the deep case is selected without implying that unselected cases failed.
-
-### 5.6 Paragraph jobs and figure-to-text cadence
-
-1. **Viewing contract and placement.** Ask the capability question; name the comparator logic; place the headline figure; state that panels are non-pooled.
-2. **Historical seed.** Establish chronology and visible capability only; defer separate-chain physics and theory.
-3. **Headline case.** Read the dominant comparison and state why its evidence intersection warrants depth; detailed result values remain with the performance owner.
-4. **Progression.** Change one contract at a time and state the evidence level for each subordinate case.
-5. **Boundary and bridge.** Place the strongest local limitation, then convert breadth into the next question: what does independent field evidence establish in the selected deep case?
-
-Use one principal figure claim per paragraph. The prose should read the comparison and consequence, not narrate every panel feature.
-
-## 6. Ownership, interfaces, and bridge
-
-### Result ownership
-
-- **Capability/progression owns:** headline composition, historical/progression logic, short comparator-bearing preview, evidence-level labels, one local boundary, and selection of the sole deep case.
-- **Contracts owns:** reusable plant, chain, action, role, comparator, metric, ROI/window, and compact qualification definitions.
-- **Performance owns:** detailed field and signal results, values, windows, masks, retained-policy status, and limitations of the deep-case evaluation.
-- **Cross-case owns:** detailed transient/objective-extension evidence and failures under their case-specific estimands.
-- **Steady/theory owns:** full separate-chain endpoint, sign, physical context, and theory/failure boundary.
-
-### Imports
-
-Import only the minimum viewing definitions from contracts, the panel/readiness boundaries from the display inventory, and the capability evidence levels from the audited Round-3 module. Literature contributes style precedent only.
-
-### Exports
-
-Export a bounded breadth statement, the identity of the selected deep case, and the unresolved question that justifies independent field evaluation. Export no pooled score, mechanism, cross-case interpretation, or panel-readiness claim.
-
-### Opening dependency and closing bridge
-
-**Opening dependency:** the reader must already know enough of the role, comparator, chain, and metric vocabulary to decode the figure without a methods digression.
-
-**Closing bridge function:** transform “named capability under distinct contracts” into “why the selected case requires and permits deeper independent field evaluation.” The bridge should name the missing inference, not a section number.
-
-### Duplication deletions
-
-- Delete detailed deep-case values and metric-window prose from the capability opening; retain only the headline comparison needed to read the figure.
-- Delete full steady/theory interpretation from the historical seed.
-- Delete detailed transient and objective-extension result prose from the progression preview.
-- Delete the global claim ladder, package histories, and artifact-status inventory from narrative paragraphs.
-- Do not duplicate caption-level role decoding in adjacent prose unless it changes the inference.
-
-## 7. Claim ceiling and near-collision findings
-
-### Green
-
-- The opening may state named capability/progression under explicitly distinct contracts.
-- It may identify one case as the sole deep case because the required evidence types coexist there.
-- It may describe a panel as quantitative, complementary, visual-only, historical/negative, dependency-gated, or blocked when the controlling authority supports that status.
-
-### Amber
-
-- The composition may be described as breadth across named temporal dynamics or objectives only when immediately bounded as non-pooled and non-general.
-- A visual progression may motivate deeper examination; it cannot establish mechanism, transfer, robustness, or full-state equivalence.
-
-### Prohibited red
-
-No pooled efficacy, universal/general capability, robustness, stability, optimality, transfer, mechanism, causality, positive Illusion SR, experiment-as-validation, Legacy/V5 continuation, DTW-as-field-equivalence, or visual-match-as-quantitative-proof wording.
-
-### Near-collision findings
-
-The figure juxtaposes **different estimands**, not repeated measurements of one quantity. Periodic mean/phase fields, transient event-relative views, steady profiles, and target-retargeting visuals differ in acquisition, role set, chain, domain/ROI, mask, weighting/normalization, and window/coordinate. They must not be combined arithmetically or described as replication, validation, agreement, or triangulation. Closely valued results owned by the deep-performance and later field/CCD sections remain different estimands under their distinct role acquisition, masks, weighting, and windows; the capability figure should not place them together.
-
-## 8. Display contract and readiness
-
-| Display | Owner | Argumentative job | Source/roles required | Caption ceiling | Classification and readiness | Fallback |
-|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
-| Headline capability/progression composition | Capability/progression | Establish a selective progression and make the deep-case choice legible | Exact authority for every retained panel; chain/solver/geometry; case/seed/role; comparator; temporal coordinate; metric status; rendering provenance | Named capability under distinct contracts; no pooled efficacy, generality, mechanism, or cross-chain continuity | `dependency-gated`; text contract is usable, but no panel is publication-ready merely from this memo | Retain only source-bound panels; omit unsupported annotations |
-| Dominant comparator-bearing block | Capability/progression, with detailed values owned by performance | Carry the principal visual comparison and justify depth selection | Exact target, controlled, and comparator roles under one bound chain and evaluation contract | Headline comparison only; detailed values, ROI/mask/window, and interpretation remain with performance | `dependency-gated` pending source arrays and rendering audit | Compact source-bound comparison or textual preview |
-| Subordinate progression panels | Capability/progression; detail later owned by cross-case and steady sections | Mark chronology and one-at-a-time contract changes | Exact case/chain/role and evidence-level identity for each panel | Visual/named capability only where quantitative roles are absent | Mixed `dependency-gated`/`blocked` according to the global inventory | Omit blocked quantitative content; preserve bounded prose progression |
-| Optional degradation/limit marker | Capability/progression | Prevent the headline from being read as uniform breadth or generality | Exact authority and same-case comparator for the displayed diagnostic | Named diagnostic only; no failure cause or cross-condition law | `optional`, drop-first | One local limit sentence in prose |
-
-No new table or equation is recommended for this opening. Reusable definitions belong to contracts; detailed quantitative tables belong to the owning result sections. Text readiness remains separate from panel/artifact readiness.
-
-## 9. Anti-patterns
-
-1. **Equal-weight gallery:** all cases receive the same area, encouraging an unsupported common ranking.
-2. **Comparator afterthought:** target, baseline, or role appears only in the caption after the reader has already interpreted the image.
-3. **Caption as manuscript:** the caption carries selection logic, mechanism, caveats, and method detail that the prose should argue.
-4. **Metric wallpaper:** several incompatible scores are printed to make the composition look quantitative.
-5. **Aesthetic equivalence:** similar colours or wake shapes are treated as measured matching.
-6. **Failure quarantine:** degradation is delayed to Discussion even though it changes the headline claim.
-7. **Failure spectacle:** a weak or blocked case is promoted to an equal panel merely to signal honesty, obscuring the principal progression.
-8. **Method-first opening:** architecture, training chronology, or package history precedes the comparator-bearing result.
-9. **Mechanism pre-announcement:** the opening names the later control-skeleton interpretation before executable and field evidence.
-10. **Breadth-to-generality leap:** several named cases become “robust,” “general,” or “arbitrary-flow” capability without dedicated tests.
-11. **Chain continuity by layout:** Legacy and V5 panels share visual grammar without explicit lane labels and are read as one numerical sequence.
-12. **Bridge by section number:** the closing sentence announces the next section instead of identifying the unresolved scientific question.
-
-## 10. Conflicts, deferrals, blockers, and disposition
-
-### Conflicts
-
-No conflict was found between the four-paper style sample and the controlling recommendation that a comparator-bearing reference case precede extensions and interpretation. The literature sample does not resolve internal panel provenance or scientific claim questions and is not used to do so.
-
-### Deferrals and blockers
-
-Panel provenance, raw arrays, masks, exact renderings, and publication production remain outside this lane. Quantitative transient content, unsupported objective-extension roles, and any panel listed as blocked in the global inventory remain blocked; this memo does not lower those gates. Optional missing panels do not block the style contract when omission preserves the argument.
-
-### Author/coordinator decisions
-
-- Decide the final retained panel set under the existing safe default: preserve the dominant progression and omit optional or blocked content first.
-- Decide whether one source-bound degradation marker materially improves the opening; safe default is prose-only limitation if the marker crowds the hierarchy.
-- Preserve the existing exclusion of experiment from the headline composition.
-
-### Disposition
-
-`discuss`: the style research is complete and passes the Round-4 style-memo criteria, but panel selection remains a coordinator/author decision and panel readiness remains dependency-gated. This first-pass memo does not self-freeze the capability section.

docs/JFM_WYQ/ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/STYLE_04_KARMAN_PERFORMANCE.md

@@ -1,230 +0,0 @@
-# Round 4 style research — Kármán performance
-
-**Lane:** section-style research only; not manuscript prose, internal-result authority, panel production, or a section freeze.  
-**First-pass disposition:** `revise` pending coordinator second audit.
-
-## 1. Scope, question and bounded recommendation
-
-**Question.** How do the closest JFM reference-case performance sections order results, establish baselines and comparators, separate field evidence from signal/global metrics, pace figures and tables, place exact values and local limitations, and turn a performance result into the next interpretive question?
-
-**Bounded recommendation.** Give this section one compact reference-case argument: declare the exact evaluation/comparator contract; state the primary field result; place complementary signal evidence beside rather than above it; expose one local evidential boundary; then hand the established performance to the action-law question. This memo recommends rhetorical form only. It supplies no project prose, no project number, no new internal claim, and no inference from external literature to internal evidence.
-
-The closest precedents do not impose one universal order. Paris et al., Rabault et al. and Cornejo Maceda et al. establish global or temporal performance before spatial interpretation, whereas Mao et al. alternates sensitivity, forcing distribution, global suppression, fields and stability because each representation tests a different step. The transferable practice is **comparator-led evidence escalation**, not mechanical “signals first” imitation. For this paper, the controlling architecture independently requires spatial L2 to carry the field claim and DTW to remain complementary; that project-specific choice overrides the references' drag-centred ordering.
-
-## 2. Coverage ledger
-
-| Status | Source/input | Why in scope | Evidence state/reason |
-|---|---|---|---|
-| `read` | `ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/README.md` | Round-4 purpose, phases, statuses and Round-5 handoff | Read directly; not independent scientific verification or artifact audit |
-| `read` | `ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/00_MASTER_AGENT_PROMPT.md` | Required deliverables, fixed ladder, style method and first-pass rule | Read directly; controlling workflow |
-| `read` | `ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/00_QUALITY_GATE.md` | Style gate and coverage-state semantics | Read directly; controlling workflow |
-| `read` | `ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/00_GLOBAL_DECISION_LEDGER.md` | Performance ownership, M04/M06 boundary and choices | Read directly; decision authority, not evidence |
-| `read` | `ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/00_DISPLAY_EQUATION_INVENTORY.md` | Display/equation classification and fallback | Read directly; inventory is not artifact readiness |
-| `read` | `ROUND2_TOP_DOWN/05_REVISED_STRUCTURE_FREEZE.md` | Frozen section role, space and metric hierarchy | `full-report`; not independently verified or artifact-audited |
-| `read` | `ROUND2_TOP_DOWN/06_SECTION_LEVEL_JFM_STYLE_GUIDE.md` | R2 observed practice and performance contract | `full-report`; four closest PDFs were re-read below |
-| `read` | `ROUND3_BOTTOM_UP/04_KARMAN_PERFORMANCE.md` | Owning R3 dossier, interfaces, limits and display needs | `full-report`; internal values intentionally not reproduced; raw artifacts not audited |
-| `read` | `ROUND3_BOTTOM_UP/11_FINAL_CONSISTENCY_AUDIT.md` | Ownership/deletion and near-collision ruling | `full-report`; no recomputation or artifact audit |
-| `read` | Paris, Beneddine & Dandois, “Robust flow control and optimal sensor placement using deep reinforcement learning”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* 913, A25 (2021), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2020.1170` | DRL reference-case progression from performance to fields and robustness | `full-PDF`; targeted reread of §4/displays; metadata/DOI checked; no numerical reproduction |
-| `read` | Mao, Blackburn & Sherwin, “Nonlinear optimal suppression of vortex shedding from a circular cylinder”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* 775, 241–265 (2015), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2015.304` | Global performance, fields, stability, interpretation and realizability | `full-PDF`; targeted reread of §4; metadata/DOI checked; no numerical reproduction |
-| `read` | Rabault, Kuchta, Jensen, Réglade & Cerardi, “Artificial neural networks trained through deep reinforcement learning discover control strategies for active flow control”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* 865, 281–302 (2019), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2019.62` | Compact DRL reference case with spread, traces, fields and limits | `full-PDF`; targeted reread of §3/relevant appendix; metadata/DOI checked; no numerical reproduction |
-| `read` | Cornejo Maceda, Li, Lusseyran, Morzyński & Noack, “Stabilization of the fluidic pinball with gradient-enriched machine learning control”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* 917, A42 (2021), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2021.301` | Closest plant and comparator ladder | `full-PDF`; targeted reread of §4/summary displays; metadata/DOI checked; no numerical reproduction |
-| `mapped` | Remaining six exact JFM papers in the R2 style guide | Broader precedent not needed for this bounded reread | Identities and prior lessons mapped through R2; PDFs not re-read in this lane |
-| `mapped` | R3 controls/modules other than M04/M11 | Cross-section interfaces and terminology | Located through ledgers/audit; not read as evidence for this question |
-| `not-covered` | New search, exhaustive sentence coding, unrelated JFM papers and citation-network expansion | Four closest PDFs plus controls answer the bounded question | No practice/scientific claim inferred beyond this sample |
-| `not-covered` | Raw fields/arrays, model bundles, evaluator reruns, CFD, training, SR/CCD analysis and figure generation | Explicitly outside style research | No internal quantity independently verified; no panel called ready |
-| `external-inaccessible` | None essential to the style question | All four PDFs were available | Hidden/external project artifacts remain out of scope and artifact-audit deferred |
-
-**State boundary.** `read` means the named report or targeted full PDF was inspected. It does not mean an internal result was independently verified, a bibliography exhaustively audited, or a project artifact audited. Targeted memory recall only located controlling decisions; repository controls and full PDFs supplied the memo's substance.
-
-## 3. Observed practice in the four closest JFM papers
-
-### 3.1 Paris, Beneddine & Dandois (2021)
-
-**Result order.** Section 4 moves through control performance/efficiency (§4.1), controlled-flow analysis (§4.2), Reynolds and noise robustness (§4.3), sensor-number/location effects (§4.4), and sensor optimization (§4.5). The reference case is established before robustness and design extensions.
-
-**Baseline/comparator.** The uncontrolled baseline and steady base-flow reference anchor the opening. A literature table situates the headline; robustness later uses policies trained at individual Reynolds numbers as stricter internal comparators. Comparator changes are explicit.
-
-**Signals and fields.** Drag, lift and actuation histories precede vorticity and recirculation fields; spectra connect temporal behaviour to the physical reading. This order reflects a drag-centred objective, not a rule that reward-adjacent signals outrank independent fields.
-
-**Cadence/numbers.** Time traces, efficiency, fields, spectra, robustness and sensing each receive nearby displays. A few inference-changing values appear in prose (baseline and headline reduction); multi-study/noise comparisons move to tables. Captions carry parameters and panel definitions.
-
-**Limits/transitions.** Limits sit beside claims: Reynolds asymmetry is related to sensor coverage; absence of a simple action pattern appears during flow analysis; reference-Re-only optimization limits broader comparison. The transition is `global change → spatial/spectral correlate → bounded explanation → robustness test`.
-
-### 3.2 Mao, Blackburn & Sherwin (2015)
-
-**Result order.** Section 4 proceeds from sensitivity (§4.1), to nonlinear control distribution (§4.2), suppression effects (§4.3), mechanism synthesis (§4.4), and controlled drag (§4.5). Representations alternate because each answers the next deductive question.
-
-**Baseline/comparator.** Linear sensitivity is the recurring simple comparator for nonlinear solutions; uncontrolled and two-/three-dimensional states enter where they test suppression and admissibility.
-
-**Signals and fields.** Frequency response and global unsteadiness establish forcing choice; boundary distributions expose linear/nonlinear divergence; vorticity shows suppression; stability distinguishes a lasting state from a transient image; drag closes the consequence.
-
-**Cadence/numbers.** Results use a figure chain and no results table. Prose retains decisive selected frequencies, approximate drag-reduction ranges and effectiveness; parameters/contours remain in plots and captions.
-
-**Limits/transitions.** The shrinking linear regime, failure of non-zero-frequency forcing and actuator-efficiency omission are local. The key move is `field suppression → stability test → physical schematic`; synthesis is earned by prior evidence.
-
-### 3.3 Rabault et al. (2019)
-
-**Result order.** Section 3 first establishes drag reduction (§3.1), including repeat learning and controlled histories, then analyses the strategy (§3.2) through wake and pressure fields. “What/how much” and “what changed” remain adjacent.
-
-**Baseline/comparator.** The uncontrolled flow is qualified before results and remains primary. A separately constructed steady symmetry-constrained reference is a limiting comparator, not the uncontrolled baseline.
-
-**Signals and fields.** Multi-run learning statistics and drag/control histories precede velocity and pressure fields. Fields explain a scalar objective; they are not an independent field-matching metric.
-
-**Cadence/numbers.** Learning spread, definitive histories, then velocity/pressure fields form a compact sequence. Prose repeats headline magnitudes that change interpretation; figures carry temporal/spatial detail.
-
-**Limits/transitions.** Network internals are treated as a black box; probe sensitivity is outside scope; training cost is contextualized. Field differences motivate a fluid-mechanical analogy. That causal register is evidence-specific and should not be copied under a descriptive ceiling.
-
-### 3.4 Cornejo Maceda et al. (2021)
-
-**Result order.** Control-space richness increases: symmetric steady (§4.1), general non-symmetric steady (§4.2), feedback (§4.3), after the unforced flow is established. Each residual failure motivates the next space.
-
-**Baseline/comparator.** A common normalized cost keeps unforced, simple-steady, richer-steady and feedback cases legible. Each comparator asks whether greater freedom buys a specific increment.
-
-**Signals and fields.** Within each stage, lift/cost histories and spectra establish performance before phase/mean vorticity fields interpret it. Summary graphics later compress the hierarchy.
-
-**Cadence/numbers.** A repeated metric/history→field→local-conclusion rhythm creates continuity. Selected costs/control vectors appear in prose/equations; detailed law weights move to a table; summary graphics collect comparative values.
-
-**Limits/transitions.** Failure of the best symmetric forcing to stabilize motivates richer search; incomplete feedback authority stays beside the final comparison. The bridge is `best current result → residual failure → justified increase in control freedom`.
-
-## 4. Observed practice versus project recommendation
-
-### 4.1 Result order
-
-**Observed.** All four establish a named reference case before extensions. Three move mainly from global/time evidence to fields; Mao alternates representations. Broad physical synthesis follows the comparator and principal outcome.
-
-**Recommended four-paragraph order.** (1) Exact chain/case/Re/roles/comparator/window and selection contract, briefly imported from Contracts. (2) Primary mean and phase spatial L2 as separate estimands against the declared physical-zero comparator, with the principal display and local ROI/mask/window limits. (3) Complementary DTW orientation/result and a direction-only consistency check under its separate signal contract. (4) Phase/mask/seed/retention boundary and the action-law-complexity handoff. If V5 remains, label it secondary and separate.
-
-**Trade-off.** This reverses the predominant drag-centred JFM sequence but follows the frozen evidentiary hierarchy. DTW-first would be familiar to DRL readers yet make independent fields look confirmatory; L2-first prevents optimized signals from appearing self-validating.
-
-### 4.2 Baseline and comparator
-
-**Observed.** Papers name a physical baseline first, then add simple, limiting or separately trained comparators only to sharpen a question. Shared metrics are used only when contracts permit.
-
-**Recommended.** Keep the principal comparison triadic and chain-local: declared target, controlled role and physical zero. Import definitions, do not retell acquisition. Put V5 retention in a separate sentence/inset, never another Legacy field row. Do not manufacture a theoretical-best comparator because a reference paper uses one.
-
-### 4.3 Field versus signal metrics
-
-**Observed.** Global/time signals usually establish efficacy and fields explain it because the references optimize drag/lift/fluctuations. Spectra often bridge layers. None licenses signal alignment as spatial equivalence.
-
-**Recommended.** Name the estimand in every result sentence: `complete-cycle mean-field error`, `phase-resolved field diagnostic`, or `signal-level DTW similarity`. Define DTW orientation once. If diagnostics point the same way, call them consistent under separate contracts—not replicated, independently validating, or the same evidence.
-
-### 4.4 Figure/table cadence
-
-**Observed.** Displays arrive when the argument changes representation. Paris is figure/table dense; Mao uses a figure chain; Rabault uses learning→signal→field; Cornejo Maceda repeats metric→field and later compresses the hierarchy. Tables suit many comparable rows; figures suit temporal/spatial relationships.
-
-**Recommended.** Use one compact L2-first performance display with subordinate DTW. A compact result table is fallback if field rendering provenance is unavailable. A V5 seed/retention inset is optional/drop-first. Keep one principal display claim per paragraph.
-
-### 4.5 Exact numbers
-
-**Observed.** Numbers enter prose when they define a baseline, headline, selected control or consequential limit. Multi-condition values go to tables/plots; contour/setup values to captions.
-
-**Recommended.** Retain the minimum exact set needed for controlled-versus-zero comparison per owned estimand. Move provenance precision/secondary variants to table or supplement. This memo intentionally reproduces no project number. Never cite a number without chain, comparator, metric orientation and window.
-
-### 4.6 Local limitations
-
-**Observed.** Strong references put limitations beside affected results: incomplete authority, shrinking linear validity, sensor coverage, absent actuator efficiency, black-box interpretation or restricted optimization. Failure often motivates the next test.
-
-**Recommended.** Attach field→mask/phase-sampling limit; DTW→signal/window/normalization limit; V5 retention→separate-chain/best-versus-retained/no-robustness limit; display→artifact-readiness limit. End with one aggregate ceiling: named-contract field matching does not identify an action law or mechanism.
-
-### 4.7 Result-to-interpretation transitions
-
-**Observed.** Effective bridges transform results into tests: performance→controlled-flow analysis; suppression→stability; simple-forcing failure→richer control; global change→spatial/spectral correlate.
-
-**Recommended.** Use two steps: the named field comparison is not solely a reward-proxy statement; it still does not determine whether learned action is complex or compressible. SR may test an executable surrogate against the declared contract, not treat performance as proof of a persistent-action mechanism.
-
-## 5. Paragraph jobs, ownership and interfaces
-
-| Job | Import | Owned function | Local limit | Export |
-|---|---|---|---|---|
-| P1 exact contract | Contracts: chain, roles, Re, metrics, ROI/window | Establish one comparison and selection status | Do not repeat Methods/capability | Legible comparator |
-| P2 L2-first result | M04 detailed Legacy values/contracts | Centre independent mean/phase field evidence | Separate estimands; local mask/window limits | Named field matching only |
-| P3 signal companion | DTW definition/orientation once | Compare direction without pooling | Reward-adjacent, signal-only; no delay/equivalence | Diagnostic compatibility only |
-| P4 boundary/handoff | M04 seed/retention boundary | Define ceiling and action-law question | Legacy/V5 separate; no robustness | Performance arbiter, not mechanism |
-
-**Ownership.** Performance alone owns detailed Legacy L2/DTW values, roles, ROI/windows and V5 seed/retention boundary. Capability keeps a headline. Contracts owns reusable equations. Field/CCD owns corrected four-role mean/residual estimands and cannot use M04 as replication/closure. SR owns its law and same-protocol arbitration.
-
-**Opening dependency.** Contracts must freeze role vocabulary, Legacy/V5, Reynolds conventions, metric orientation and ROI/window notation.
-
-**Closing bridge.** Convert “what the policy achieved” into “how complex an executable law must be,” withholding mechanism, necessity and uniqueness.
-
-**Duplication deletions.** Delete detailed values from capability; repeated metric equations from performance; any second full M04/M06 collision explanation outside its owner/interface; training chronology/artifact inventories from narrative; duplicate V5 support.
-
-## 6. Claim ceiling and near-collision audit
-
-**Green:** `is closer to the declared target than physical zero under the named spatial estimand`; `mean and phase diagnostics are separate`; `signal similarity is directionally consistent under a separate contract`; `retention is secondary and chain-specific`.
-
-**Amber:** `supports named-condition field matching in the registered region`; `is not solely a reward-adjacent signal statement`; `motivates testing a reduced executable law`.
-
-**Prohibited red:** `restores the wake`, `full-field identity`, `mechanism`, `causes`, `proves`, `robust`, `general`, `stable`, `optimal`, `universal`, `independently validates`, `replicates`, `triangulates`; DTW as spatial error/delay/causality/equivalence; mean/phase agreement as uncertainty; retention as convergence; Legacy/V5 continuation; literature as internal authorization.
-
-| Pair | Contract check | Class | Required treatment |
-|---|---|---|---|
-| M04 mean L2 vs phase L2 | Same family/direction; different averaging/phase construction/window | `related diagnostic` | Separate; no pooling/uncertainty claim |
-| M04 L2 vs DTW | Fields/ROI versus sparse histories; different normalization/geometry/window | `different estimand` | L2 field claim; DTW complementary |
-| M04 PPO mean vs M06 corrected four-role mean | Different acquisitions, roles, mask, weighting/normalization and windows despite proximity | `different estimand` | Never combine, cross-normalize, replicate, validate, agree, close or triangulate |
-| Legacy performance vs V5 retention | Different chain, solver/geometry, selection and role | `different estimand` | Secondary context; no pooling/continuation |
-
-## 7. Figure, table and equation contracts
-
-### Kármán performance display
-- **Owner/class:** performance; `dependency-gated`.
-- **Job/source/roles:** named Legacy target/controlled/physical-zero comparison from exact R3-bound authorities; L2 primary, DTW subordinate; mean/phase distinct.
-- **Caption ceiling:** chain, case/Re, roles, ROI/mask/window, normalization and phase semantics; no causal, robust, universal, cross-chain or M06-validation wording.
-- **Readiness:** text/numbers bound in R3; this pass does not establish raw-role/manifest/render/orientation readiness.
-- **Fallback:** compact result table; omit unsourced redraws.
-
-### Optional V5 seed/retention inset
-- **Owner/class:** performance; `dependency-gated`, optional/drop-first.
-- **Job:** distinguish discovery from late retention without strengthening Legacy.
-- **Ceiling/readiness:** separate-chain diagnostic; no robustness/convergence or selected-policy reproducibility without exact model/normalizer. Text bounded; redraw dependent.
-- **Fallback:** one sentence or omission.
-
-### Compact performance table
-- **Owner/class:** performance; `optional` fallback.
-- **Job/source:** controlled and zero side by side for each separate Legacy estimand from M04; DTW orientation explicit; no M06/V5 rows in Legacy block.
-- **Ceiling/readiness:** no universal score/uncertainty/cross-chain synthesis; final notation, rounding and source audit remain production work.
-- **Fallback:** only inference-changing values in prose.
-
-### Metric equations
-- **Owner/class:** Contracts; manuscript-wide `required`, reused rather than re-derived here.
-- **Job/ceiling:** define mean L2, phase L2, zero-relative comparison and DTW orientation once; spatial L2 is not a pipeline gate and DTW not delay/field equivalence.
-- **Readiness/fallback:** definition-ready; notation freeze pending; use inline reminder/pointer if no repeated display.
-
-## 8. Anti-patterns
-
-1. Training diary before comparator.
-2. Reward-first self-validation.
-3. Flattening mean L2, phase L2, DTW and retention into “performance”.
-4. Unannounced comparator drift.
-5. Precision/seed dumping in prose.
-6. Caption-like panel narration.
-7. Delaying mask, phase, signal-only or retention limits to Discussion.
-8. Pre-empting SR/CCD interpretation.
-9. Calling M06 replication/agreement/closure or DTW independent field validation.
-10. Using V5 to imply Legacy robustness/reproducibility.
-11. Borrowing causal language from papers with different dedicated tests.
-12. Package/path/hash/report voice in manuscript narrative.
-13. Empty “next section presents SR” transition.
-
-## 9. Decisions, conflicts, deferrals and blockers
-
-**Evidence-governed:** M04 owns detailed Legacy L2/DTW; L2 is primary and DTW complementary; mean/phase stay separate; M04/M06 differ; Legacy/V5 stay separate; the close asks action-law complexity, not mechanism.
-
-**Author/coordinator choices (`discuss`).** (1) Recommend one L2-first display with subordinate DTW; safe fallback compact table. (2) Retain V5 inset only if it does not displace Legacy; safe default omit/drop-first. (3) Put only headline comparator values in prose and detailed precision in table/supplement; exact density/rounding awaits audit. None is frozen here.
-
-**Conflict check.** No control/R2/R3 conflict was found. The cross-paper tendency toward scalar-first order reflects drag/stabilization objectives; it does not override the frozen project hierarchy that makes independent spatial field matching primary.
-
-**Deferrals/blockers.** No style-content blocker. Panel audit/render provenance/final rounding are deferred. Same-selection V5 model/normalizer is required only if a selected-policy reproduction panel is retained. First pass cannot self-freeze; coordinator must audit controls, identities/read levels, ownership, near-collision wording, display status and choices.
-
-## 10. Validation and disposition
-
-- [x] Only the requested style-research file created.
-- [x] All Round-4 controls/README, R2 freeze/style, and R3 M04/final audit read.
-- [x] Four closest JFM papers re-read at `full-PDF` level with exact identities/DOIs.
-- [x] Observation separated from recommendation.
-- [x] Result order, comparator, field/signal metrics, cadence, numbers, limitations and transitions covered.
-- [x] Anti-patterns and coverage/evidence states included.
-- [x] No project prose, project number or new internal claim reproduced.
-- [x] Text readiness separated from artifact readiness; Legacy/V5 and M04/M06 boundaries preserved.
-
-**Disposition:** `revise` — style research is complete with no content blocker, but Round-4 rules prohibit first-pass self-freezing. Required next action is coordinator second audit; display choices remain `discuss`.

docs/JFM_WYQ/ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/STYLE_05_SR_LAW.md

@@ -1,306 +0,0 @@
-# Round 4 section-style research — explicit learned-law/control-law section
-
-**Lane:** Section-style research for the SR-law unit.
-**Status:** `researching` (style recommendation complete; this first-pass memo cannot freeze a section contract).
-**Function:** Decision support for a later section freeze and Round-5 drafting. This is not manuscript prose, internal evidence, or a claim authority.
-
-## 1. Scope, question and bounded recommendation
-
-### Scope and question
-
-This memo studies how close *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* papers present an explicit learned or reduced law: how an equation enters the argument; how notation, imposed structure and physical translation are handled; what evidence arbitrates an offline or learned representation; where deletion-like tests are limited; how equations and figures alternate; and what claim ceiling the section itself makes visible.
-
-External literature is used only to establish rhetorical and methodological practice. It establishes no result, priority, validity or artifact readiness for the present paper. The Round-3 SR dossier is used only to identify the later section's required jobs and scientific boundaries; its project-specific prose and numbers are not reproduced here.
-
-### Bounded recommendation
-
-Build the later SR section as a five-move argument:
-
-1. define the surrogate estimand and its boundary;
-2. state the recovery/deployment contract, including imposed structure;
-3. display the executable law once and decode only notation, sign, action order and topology;
-4. let matched closed-loop execution arbitrate the law, with offline fit remaining diagnostic;
-5. present deletion as a bounded parent-relative perturbation and end on the field-level question exported to the next section.
-
-Use one displayed symmetry/deployment map and one displayed canonical law. Place each before the evidence that depends on it. Prefer a compact law/symmetry display followed by a closed-loop comparison and then a deletion display or table; omit a direct PPO/SR/zero panel unless its acquisition roles, comparator and window are genuinely matched. The section may support a bounded control-skeleton interpretation, but not a governing law, mechanism, causality, necessity, sufficiency, uniqueness, optimality, robustness, stability, universality or transfer.
-
-## 2. Coverage ledger
-
-Evidence states are intentionally separate: `read` does not mean independently verified or artifact-audited; `mapped` does not mean read.
-
-| Status | Source/input | Why in scope | Read level and evidence state |
-|---|---|---|---|
-| `read` | `ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/README.md` | Round-4 purpose, phase and status controls | Full repository document; not independently verified; no artifact audit applicable |
-| `read` | `ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/00_MASTER_AGENT_PROMPT.md` | Required method, fixed ladder and deliverables | Full repository document; not independently verified; no artifact audit applicable |
-| `read` | `ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/00_QUALITY_GATE.md` | Style-memo pass/revise/block criteria | Full repository document; not independently verified; no artifact audit applicable |
-| `read` | `ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/00_GLOBAL_DECISION_LEDGER.md` | Ownership, claim ceiling, duplication and unresolved choices | Full repository document; not independently verified; no artifact audit applicable |
-| `read` | `ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/00_DISPLAY_EQUATION_INVENTORY.md` | SR equation/display ownership and readiness boundary | Full repository document; not independently verified; no artifact audit applicable |
-| `read` | `ROUND2_TOP_DOWN/05_REVISED_STRUCTURE_FREEZE.md` | Frozen section ownership, Kármán/cloak-only positive SR scope and figure logic | Full repository report read directly; not independently verified; not artifact-audited |
-| `read` | `ROUND2_TOP_DOWN/06_SECTION_LEVEL_JFM_STYLE_GUIDE.md` | Prior JFM style synthesis and SR cadence | Full repository report; not independently verified; bibliography checked against the records below where relevant |
-| `read` | `ROUND3_BOTTOM_UP/00_MODULE_INTERFACE_LEDGER.md` | Module ownership, downstream readiness and optional-panel gate | Full repository report read directly; not independently verified; not artifact-audited |
-| `read` | `ROUND3_BOTTOM_UP/11_FINAL_CONSISTENCY_AUDIT.md` | Final ownership, scope, panel-readiness and author-synthesis disposition controls | Full repository report read directly; not independently verified; not artifact-audited |
-| `read` | `ROUND3_BOTTOM_UP/05_KARMAN_SR_LAW.md` | Required SR jobs, imports/exports and caveats | Full repository dossier; not independently verified; internal artifact audit explicitly outside this style lane |
-| `read` | N. Gautier, J.-L. Aider, T. Duriez, B. R. Noack, M. Segond & M. Abel, “Closed-loop separation control using machine learning”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **770**, 442–457 (2015), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2015.95` | Closest explicit machine-learning control-law precedent | `full-PDF`; PDF available and read for law, objective, execution, figures, benchmark and limits; bibliographic metadata record checked; no independent reproduction |
-| `read` | G. Y. Cornejo Maceda, Y. Li, F. Lusseyran, M. Morzyński & B. R. Noack, “Stabilization of the fluidic pinball with gradient-enriched machine learning control”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **917**, A42 (2021), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2021.301` | Closest fluidic-pinball learned-law and simpler-to-richer control hierarchy | `full-PDF`; PDF available and read for control hierarchy, explicit law, averaged-law test, figures and limits; metadata record checked; no independent reproduction |
-| `read` | J.-C. Loiseau, B. R. Noack & S. L. Brunton, “Sparse reduced-order modelling: sensor-based dynamics to full-state estimation”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **844**, 459–490 (2018), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2018.147` | Closest sparse-equation/topology and model-selection precedent | `full-PDF`; PDF available and read for learned equations, constraints, model selection, validation and reconstruction cadence; metadata record checked; no independent reproduction |
-| `read` | J. Rabault, M. Kuchta, A. Jensen, U. Réglade & N. Cerardi, “Artificial neural networks trained through deep reinforcement learning discover control strategies for active flow control”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **865**, 281–302 (2019), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2019.62` | Useful negative comparator: closed-loop learned policy without an explicit symbolic law | `full-PDF`; PDF available and read for action definition, policy evaluation, intervention, physical interpretation and limits; metadata record checked; no independent reproduction |
-| `mapped` | Other JFM papers already indexed in the Round-2 style guide | Wider context for results-section cadence | Identity and prior style notes mapped only in this lane; not reread and not used for new observations here |
-| `mapped` | Other Round-3 controls and audits beyond the two named controls and SR dossier read above | Wider coordinator context | Located through Round-4 controlling-input list; not read in this bounded style lane; no scientific inference drawn |
-| `not-covered` | Exhaustive coding of all figures, sentences and supplementary material in the four papers | Disproportionate to the bounded style question | No inference of universal JFM convention |
-| `not-covered` | Internal SR authorities, manifests, code, arrays and immutable artifacts | This lane must not establish or restate project results | No internal result, number, formula validity or panel readiness inferred |
-| `not-covered` | New literature search beyond the four closest records | Existing exact full-PDF set directly covers the requested dimensions | Recommendation is explicitly a bounded four-paper synthesis, not a journal-wide survey |
-| `external-inaccessible` | None essential | All four selected records had readable PDFs | No access blocker |
-
-## 3. Exact literature identities and direct observations
-
-### 3.1 Gautier et al. (2015): explicit law as an experimentally executed object
-
-**Identity/read level.** N. Gautier, J.-L. Aider, T. Duriez, B. R. Noack, M. Segond & M. Abel, “Closed-loop separation control using machine learning”, *JFM* **770**, 442–457 (2015), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2015.95`; `full-PDF`.
-
-**Observed practice.** The plant, scalar sensor and actuator are defined before the machine-learning-control section. The objective then receives its own equation before candidate laws are discussed. A law is consequently legible as a map between already physicalized quantities, not as a free-standing symbolic expression. Candidate topology is shown through expression trees, while practical admissibility is enforced by pre-evaluation that rejects saturating or extreme laws before plant testing. The selected law is presented together with its input-output graph and a closed-loop temporal response; spectral interpretation follows, and periodic forcing provides a separate benchmark. The conclusion retains an explicit non-optimality caveat.
-
-**Observed claim ceiling.** Strong performance and robustness wording is attached to dedicated experimental comparisons across tested conditions, while optimality is withheld. The paper does not use coefficient readability alone as evidence of closed-loop value.
-
-**Style lesson, not a transferred claim.** A concise explicit-law section earns interpretability through the sequence `defined variables → objective → law shape → executed response → frequency/physical reading → benchmark → envelope`. Admissibility checks and closed-loop tests are different rhetorical jobs and should not be collapsed.
-
-### 3.2 Cornejo Maceda et al. (2021): hierarchy before the final learned law
-
-**Identity/read level.** G. Y. Cornejo Maceda, Y. Li, F. Lusseyran, M. Morzyński & B. R. Noack, “Stabilization of the fluidic pinball with gradient-enriched machine learning control”, *JFM* **917**, A42 (2021), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2021.301`; `full-PDF`.
-
-**Observed practice.** The results progress through nested control spaces: symmetric steady forcing, general steady forcing, then feedback control. The final learned law appears only after sensors, delayed inputs, objective and search procedure have been established. Its long component equations are displayed as the exact executable outcome, but interpretation shifts quickly away from coefficient-by-coefficient narration toward mean actuation, temporal content, flow organization and comparative performance. A test of the time-averaged control separates the value of the mean component from the remaining feedback fluctuations. A late synthesis figure compares the control-space hierarchy. The conclusion states that the feedback still lacks authority to achieve complete stabilization.
-
-**Observed topology/symmetry handling.** Symmetry is explicit in the deliberately restricted steady search, not silently attributed to the richer feedback law. Increasing search-space freedom is itself part of the physical argument. The paper therefore distinguishes a chosen topology or actuation subspace from what the final optimizer discovers within a richer space.
-
-**Observed deletion/ablation boundary.** The averaged-law intervention is a closed-loop comparator with a precise operational meaning. It is stronger than coefficient inspection, but it still tests one constructed replacement, not every possible decomposition of feedback value. The paper's own strong interpretation is supported by this dedicated comparison and remains bounded by incomplete stabilization.
-
-**Style lesson, not a transferred claim.** If a learned law contains a persistent component plus fluctuations, test the simpler executed controller directly and explain exactly what was held or replaced. Introduce richer feedback as the answer to a limitation exposed by the simpler class; do not start with the most complex expression and reverse-engineer a hierarchy afterward.
-
-### 3.3 Loiseau et al. (2018): topology, sparsity and validation as separate decisions
-
-**Identity/read level.** J.-C. Loiseau, B. R. Noack & S. L. Brunton, “Sparse reduced-order modelling: sensor-based dynamics to full-state estimation”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **844**, 459–490 (2018), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2018.147`; `full-PDF`.
-
-**Observed practice.** A single framework schematic establishes the route from sensors to lifted coordinates, sparse dynamics, manifold mapping and full-state reconstruction before case equations appear. Learned differential and algebraic equations are introduced after their variables and candidate libraries are defined. Sparsity selection is not presented as self-validating: complexity is arbitrated with an information criterion, identified trajectories are compared with reference data, and full-state reconstruction is evaluated separately. A failed unconstrained identification motivates explicit physical constraints rather than being hidden. Limitations of the preferred reconstruction method, including storage cost, stay beside its accuracy advantage.
-
-**Observed topology/deletion handling.** Term removal is embedded in sparse model selection, not described as causal ablation. Constraints may encode known physical properties; the text identifies which structure is imposed and which is identified. Model-form selection, temporal validation and full-state reconstruction are distinct evidentiary layers.
-
-**Style lesson, not a transferred claim.** State imposed structure before interpreting a sparse equation. A compact topology is a selected representation, not proof that every retained term is physically necessary. If a constraint repairs a known failure, show the failure and name the constraint; this increases credibility more than presenting the constrained equation as spontaneous discovery.
-
-### 3.4 Rabault et al. (2019): why policy interpretation is not an explicit-law section
-
-**Identity/read level.** J. Rabault, M. Kuchta, A. Jensen, U. Réglade & N. Cerardi, “Artificial neural networks trained through deep reinforcement learning discover control strategies for active flow control”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **865**, 281–302 (2019), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2019.62`; `full-PDF`.
-
-**Observed practice.** Geometry, probes, action normalization, zero-net-mass-flow constraint and action smoothing are stated before performance. The neural policy itself remains a black box; the paper interprets controlled trajectories and mean/statistical fields rather than printing network weights as a law. Evaluation uses deterministic policy execution after training. Suppressing control after a controlled state is reached tests persistence of that state, while reduced-probe studies test observation sufficiency under named alternatives. Figures progress from setup and learning consistency to time histories, instantaneous flow and statistical fields. Dimensionality, Reynolds-number scope, probe-position sensitivity and black-box interpretability are visibly bounded.
-
-**Observed claim ceiling.** Physical interpretation is attached to observed controlled-flow changes and intervention, not to the internal topology of the neural network. The policy is not recast as a symbolic governing equation.
-
-**Style lesson, not a transferred claim.** Keep the parent policy and the explicit surrogate conceptually separate. A surrogate section must not borrow the parent's field interpretation merely because both execute in closed loop. Likewise, turning control off is a different intervention from deleting one surrogate term; the two should not share “ablation” language without qualification.
-
-## 4. Cross-paper observed practice
-
-The following statements are observations across this bounded set, not universal rules for JFM.
-
-### Equation introduction
-
-- Physical variables, action bounds and objective precede the learned equation.
-- A displayed law enters when the reader can already answer: input from what state, output to which actuator, under what normalization, and judged by which objective or comparator?
-- Long formulas are not mined coefficient by coefficient. Authors move from exact expression to lower-dimensional behavior: law shape, mean actuation, frequency content, trajectory or field consequence.
-- Equations that do not carry a later comparison are minimized; a framework schematic often removes the need for repeated algebra.
-
-### Notation
-
-- Symbols are attached to physical observables and actuators before algorithmic detail.
-- Normalization, index order and delays are defined locally enough to read the law without consulting an implementation inventory.
-- Present tense is used for definitions and equation meaning; past tense is used for optimization, execution and measured outcomes.
-- The executable map and the objective use separate notation. Fit or search notation is not allowed to obscure plant semantics.
-
-### Symmetry and topology
-
-- Restricted actuation spaces, expression-tree libraries, sparse candidate libraries and physical equality constraints are disclosed as choices.
-- Imposed structure is not narrated as a discovered property.
-- A failed or weaker unconstrained/simple class can motivate a richer or constrained law.
-- Topological compactness supports readability and model selection; by itself it does not establish physical truth, necessity or causality.
-
-### Closed-loop arbitration
-
-- The learned object is judged in execution: direct plant evaluation, deterministic policy rollout, reference-trajectory comparison or reconstruction against held reference data.
-- Admissibility/static checks, offline fit, search convergence and closed-loop performance answer different questions.
-- A benchmark is introduced only after the law has a declared objective and execution protocol.
-- Simpler executed controls provide more interpretable comparisons than symbolic coefficient inspection, provided replacement and acquisition semantics are explicit.
-
-### Deletion and ablation caveats
-
-- None of the four papers licenses a generic rule that deleting a term proves causality or necessity.
-- Sparse thresholding is model selection; control suppression tests continued actuation; averaged-law replacement tests one simpler controller; reduced sensors test an observation set. These interventions are non-equivalent.
-- Stronger words are earned only when the experiment is designed for them. Even then, finite conditions and unresolved authority/optimality limitations remain local.
-
-### Figure cadence
-
-A recurrent cadence is:
-
-`contract/schematic → explicit equation or law graph → executed time/trajectory evidence → flow or spectral interpretation → simpler/benchmark comparison → limitation or synthesis`.
-
-The equation and its first evidence are close. A summary figure arrives after the hierarchy is established, not as an opening gallery. One figure carries one main inferential job; secondary implementation details remain in captions, methods or appendices.
-
-### Claim ceilings
-
-- “Law” denotes an executable mapping or identified reduced dynamics under a specified contract; it is not automatically a governing physical law.
-- “Robust”, “stable” and “optimal” appear only with purpose-built tests, and explicit caveats still narrow them.
-- Interpretation of observed flow organization can be stronger than interpretation of symbolic coefficients when supported by executed comparisons.
-- Failure and incomplete authority are reported where they delimit the result, not postponed to a generic limitations paragraph.
-
-## 5. Recommendation for the later SR section
-
-This section translates observed practice into a bounded recommendation. It does not prescribe internal findings.
-
-### Paragraph jobs and cadence
-
-1. **Question and estimand.** Define the SR object as an observation-to-action surrogate under one declared plant and role contract. State immediately that it is neither a flow-field model nor a causal model. Import action order, normalization, roles and metric semantics rather than redefining them.
-2. **Recovery and deployment contract.** Give causal pairing, search/refit hierarchy, imposed symmetry and executable/static gates. Separate discovered topology from imposed deployment structure. Move exhaustive libraries, run history and package provenance to a ledger or supplement.
-3. **Canonical law.** Display it once. Decode variables, action order, signs, odd/shared mapping and persistent versus observation-dependent structure. Do not narrate every coefficient or call the expression a governing law.
-4. **Closed-loop arbitration.** State which acquisition actually compares which roles under which window. Put offline fit in a subordinate diagnostic role. If the available formula-parent execution and a standardized multi-role collection are different acquisitions, present them as different evidence contracts rather than assembling a synthetic comparison.
-5. **Deletion and limit.** Report parent-relative fixed-window term tests as a ranking of tested perturbations. Put `not causal ablation; not necessity, sufficiency or uniqueness` in the same paragraph and caption. End by exporting the unresolved field-accounting question, not by claiming mechanism.
-
-### Equation and notation contract
-
-- **Equation 1: symmetry/deployment map — `required`.** Owner: the Kármán SR section (Round-3 M05). Job: expose native action order and every imposed transformation before the canonical law. Caption/text ceiling: “defines the deployed mapping”; it cannot prove parent-policy equivariance, plant symmetry or discovery of symmetry. Text readiness: supported by the R3 dossier. Artifact readiness: no separate schematic should be claimed without production/provenance; the equation itself is sufficient fallback.
-- **Equation 2: canonical executable law — `required`.** Owner: the Kármán SR section (Round-3 M05). Job: provide one exact, reusable law identity and permit a bounded structural translation. Caption/text ceiling: executable surrogate under the declared contract, not governing law, mechanism or unique representation. The Round-3 interface ledger and final audit mark the equation/text ready for author synthesis; this style memo does not independently verify or artifact-audit that readiness.
-- Define observation aggregates before or directly beneath the law; never force the reader to reconstruct them from subscripts.
-- Keep parent-policy notation, surrogate notation, physical angular velocity and normalized action distinct.
-- Do not repeat reusable Reynolds, field-L2 or DTW equations owned by Contracts. A short metric name and exact imported semantics are enough.
-
-### Closed-loop arbitration contract
-
-- **Primary rhetorical arbiter:** executed surrogate under a named plant, comparator and evaluation window.
-- **Subordinate diagnostics:** offline action fit, symbolic complexity, search convergence, static finiteness/schema checks.
-- **Direct multi-role display — `blocked if retained`.** Include only if target, parent policy, surrogate and zero roles share the required acquisition protocol and their comparator/window provenance is explicit. Otherwise omit the panel; this optional artifact gate does not block bounded section text.
-- Failed formulas or gates should be visible when they explain why the displayed topology was retained. They need not become a package history.
-
-### Deletion contract
-
-- Prefer “parent-relative term deletion” or “fixed-window deletion test” over unqualified “ablation”.
-- State parent, replacement/deletion, held-fixed conditions, metric, window and tested set.
-- Rank only the tested perturbations. Do not convert a larger change into causal contribution, physical necessity, universal sensitivity or a decomposition of total performance.
-- If deleting one term changes the state distribution, acknowledge that the result is a new closed-loop trajectory, not a local coefficient derivative.
-- **Deletion display/table — `required` if the term-ranking claim is retained.** Job: make tested variants and caveats auditable. Caption ceiling: comparative degradation among tested parent-relative variants. Fallback: concise table; no decorative bar chart is needed.
-
-### Figure cadence and density
-
-Recommended minimum sequence:
-
-1. symmetry/deployment equation and canonical law;
-2. compact closed-loop arbitration display or table only if its artifact gate passes;
-3. compact deletion table/figure.
-
-A law graph or symmetry schematic is optional if it resolves sign/order ambiguity that equations cannot. Avoid placing a field figure in this section merely to strengthen the law; field accounting belongs to the following owner. Keep one principal inference per display and put the strongest limitation in the adjacent paragraph and caption.
-
-### Imports, exports and bridge
-
-**Imports:** plant and chain identity; action order/sign/normalization; observation definitions; role/comparator vocabulary; field-L2 versus DTW distinction; the bounded Kármán performance handoff.
-
-**Owns/exports:** the Kármán SR section (Round-3 M05) owns the exact executable law identity, imposed symmetry/deployment topology, distinction between offline diagnostics and closed-loop arbitration, and bounded fixed-window deletion ranking; it exports the question passed to field-level accounting. Steady sign/magnitude context remains owned by the steady section and must not be used to imply amplitude agreement or chain continuation.
-
-**Does not own:** full parent-policy performance; full field matching; mean/dynamic field attribution; CCD; steady-chain results; positive cross-case SR interpretation.
-
-**Opening dependency:** the preceding performance section must have already established why action-law complexity is the next question without implying that performance reveals law structure.
-
-**Closing bridge:** convert action-space structure and deletion ranking into a field-accounting question: what portion, if any, of independently defined field improvement is associated with persistent and correction components?
-
-### Duplication deletions
-
-- Delete repeated plant, Reynolds, action and metric equations already owned by Contracts.
-- Delete full performance numbers and field comparisons owned by neighboring sections.
-- Delete search-stage chronology, package names, hashes and library dumps from narrative; retain only details needed to distinguish fit, gate and execution.
-- Delete any steady-result detail beyond a later, explicitly separate contextual bridge.
-- Delete positive Illusion SR language and any import of CCD as confirmation of the law.
-
-## 6. Claim ceiling and near-collision audit
-
-### Green
-
-Permissible style-level forms, conditional on later authority verification:
-
-- “defines the executable surrogate and its imposed deployment map”;
-- “was evaluated in closed loop under the named contract”;
-- “the tested deletion produced the largest/smaller change among the listed variants”;
-- “offline fit is diagnostic; closed-loop execution is the arbiter.”
-
-### Amber
-
-Use only with the full local qualifier:
-
-- “supports a bounded control-skeleton interpretation under the declared Kármán contract”;
-- “organizes the law into a persistent component and smaller observation-dependent corrections”;
-- “is consistent with”, when the comparison and non-equivalence are named.
-
-### Prohibited red without new dedicated evidence
-
-`governing law`, `mechanism`, `causes`, `necessary`, `sufficient`, `unique`, `optimal`, `stable`, `robust`, `universal`, `transferable`, `general Reynolds law`, `independent validation`, `term contribution to the flow`, `PPO symmetry discovered`, `DTW delay`, or positive Illusion SR efficacy/generalization.
-
-### Near-collision findings
-
-| Pair | Acquisition/roles/domain/window distinction | Classification and wording consequence |
-|---|---|---|
-| Offline parent-action fit vs surrogate closed-loop execution | Fixed parent-visited states versus a surrogate-generated trajectory; action error versus plant outcome | `different estimand`; fit cannot be called control success |
-| Static/schema/short execution gate vs standard closed-loop comparison | Admissibility/finiteness and short-horizon behavior versus declared evaluation roles/window | `related diagnostic`; do not call a short gate validation of the full result |
-| Formula-parent execution vs standardized target/policy/surrogate/zero acquisition | Potentially different role acquisition and windows even in the same plant | `different estimand` unless exact authority establishes sameness; no synthetic panel or arithmetic |
-| Parent-relative deletion vs causal ablation | New closed-loop trajectory after a controller intervention; no randomized/local causal estimand | `different estimand`; use deletion/ranking language only |
-| Persistent action magnitude vs separate steady-chain actuation | Different chain, solver/geometry, role, metric and temporal contract | `related contextual diagnostic` at most; no agreement, validation or amplitude equivalence |
-| SR law vs field/CCD organization | Action mapping versus separately defined field residual/subspace, potentially sharing parent lineage | `different estimand`; no independent triangulation, causality or identification of law terms with modes |
-| Control suppression vs term deletion | Whole-controller removal after a controlled state versus modification of one surrogate component | `different estimand`; do not generalize “ablation” conclusions across them |
-
-## 7. Anti-patterns
-
-- Opening with the full formula before defining input, output, normalization, action order and objective.
-- Calling imposed oddness, shared topology or reflection a discovered parent-policy symmetry.
-- Treating a sparse expression as self-interpreting and narrating every coefficient.
-- Presenting offline action RMSE, Pareto rank or search convergence as closed-loop control evidence.
-- Combining different acquisitions into a PPO/SR/zero comparison because their labels look compatible.
-- Using `ablation` without saying whether the intervention deletes a term, averages a controller, removes control, changes sensors or changes the model library.
-- Inferring necessity, causality or mechanism from parent-relative deletion.
-- Calling a short gate, a spatial L2 metric or a DTW score interchangeable forms of validation.
-- Importing field panels, CCD modes or steady results to manufacture independent confirmation.
-- Hiding failed candidates, imposed constraints or incomplete authority until the final Discussion.
-- A figure gallery: formula, traces, spectra, fields and bars with no single comparator-led argument.
-- Repeating equations owned by Contracts or narrating package stages, hashes and artifact inventories in prose.
-- Borrowing strong words such as robust, stable or optimal from literature without purpose-built internal tests.
-- Treating an explicit surrogate as the parent neural policy or as a physical governing law.
-
-## 8. Decisions, deferrals and disposition
-
-### Evidence-governed recommendations
-
-- Use the five-move cadence and two required SR-owned equations.
-- Make imposed structure explicit before interpretation.
-- Let matched closed-loop execution arbitrate; subordinate offline fit and static gates.
-- Use parent-relative deletion language with same-location caveats.
-- Keep field/CCD and steady evidence outside this section except for narrow imports/bridges.
-- Enforce the bounded Kármán/cloak-only claim ceiling.
-
-### Author/coordinator choices
-
-- **Direct multi-role panel:** omit unless exact same-protocol role artifacts and comparator/window values are bound. The Round-3 final audit classifies the retained panel as blocked but the bounded text as ready; omission leaves the core law/deletion argument intact.
-- **Law graph or symmetry schematic:** safe default is equations only. Add a schematic only if action order/sign cannot be read quickly; it remains a production artifact, not existing evidence.
-- **Deletion visualization:** safe default is a compact table rather than bars, because the table can carry parent, variant, window and caveat without implying additive contribution.
-
-### Deferrals and blockers
-
-- Internal formula identity, coefficients, run lineage, comparator roles, windows, hashes and panel arrays were deliberately not audited in this style lane. Any retained manuscript detail or panel must be checked against current authorities during later assembly; the Round-3 readiness disposition remains controlling.
-- The optional direct multi-role panel is blocked if retained until matched acquisition is established; this does not block bounded section text.
-- No literature access blocker exists.
-- No first-pass style memo may declare the section frozen.
-
-### Disposition
-
-`researching` — the bounded style research is complete and traceable. The Round-3 controls already mark the SR equation/text ready for author synthesis and the optional standardized panel blocked if retained; those controls do not authorize this first-pass Round-4 memo to self-freeze. A later coordinator disposition, not this memo, may assign `frozen` status.
-
-## 9. Validation against the Round-4 style gate
-
-- Exact identities, publication venues, years, DOIs and `full-PDF` read levels are recorded for four selected papers.
-- Observed practice is separated from recommendation and no external paper is used as internal evidence.
-- Equation introduction, notation, imposed symmetry/topology, closed-loop arbitration, deletion caveats, figure cadence and claim ceilings are covered explicitly.
-- Coverage states, independent-verification state and artifact-audit state remain distinct.
-- Imports, ownership, exports, bridge and duplication deletions are explicit.
-- Display/equation recommendations state owner, job, readiness/dependency, caption ceiling and fallback.
-- Near-collisions are classified without pooling or replication/validation/agreement language.
-- No project result, coefficient, performance number or new scientific claim is introduced.
-- Gate-1 self-check: **PASS candidate for coordinator review**, not self-freeze.

docs/JFM_WYQ/ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/STYLE_06_FIELD_CCD.md

@@ -1,195 +0,0 @@
-# Round 4 style research — Field decomposition and CCD
-
-**Lane:** section-style research only; not manuscript prose, evidence generation, artifact approval, or a section freeze.  
-**Disposition:** `researching` — completed first-pass memo for coordinator audit.
-
-## 1. Scope, question, and bounded recommendation
-
-**Question.** How do close *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* papers order and qualify sections that progress from mean/reference fields through a dynamic residual to modal or correlation-based interpretation?
-
-**Recommendation.** Use the narrowing sequence
-
-`four-role contract → mean fields → scalar error-difference accounting → local caveat → separately centred residual → action-correlated modal organization → same-object POD boundary → non-transfer bridge`.
-
-The scalar estimand and comparator must precede modes. Put the mean display before the residual/mode display. Display only equations that define an immediately used object: scalar shares, the non-paired residual, and an optional compact CCD operator. Introduce POD after CCD as a boundary on distinct field information, not a superiority contest. This memo adds no project prose, numbers, or claims; external literature supplies style precedent only.
-
-## 2. Coverage ledger
-
-`read` is not independently verified or artifact-audited; `mapped` is not read.
-
-| Status | Source/input | Why in scope | Evidence state/reason |
-|---|---|---|---|
-| `read` | Round-4 `README.md`, `00_MASTER_AGENT_PROMPT.md`, `00_QUALITY_GATE.md`, `00_GLOBAL_DECISION_LEDGER.md`, `00_DISPLAY_EQUATION_INVENTORY.md` | Controls, ownership, statuses, display/equation gates | Read directly; workflow/decision authority, not scientific verification |
-| `read` | R2 `05_REVISED_STRUCTURE_FREEZE.md` and `06_SECTION_LEVEL_JFM_STYLE_GUIDE.md` | Author-ratified architecture and sampled JFM practice | Read directly; style guide is `full-report` |
-| `read` | R3 `06_KARMAN_FIELD_CCD.md`, `00_MODULE_INTERFACE_LEDGER.md`, `11_FINAL_CONSISTENCY_AUDIT.md` | M06 estimands, ownership, near-collisions, readiness | Read directly as repository reports; no recomputation or artifact audit |
-| `read` | Jean-Christophe Loiseau, Bernd R. Noack & Steven L. Brunton, “Sparse reduced-order modelling: sensor-based dynamics to full-state estimation”, *JFM* 844, 459–490 (2018), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2018.147` | Closest reconstruction → correlation modes → POD precedent | `full-PDF`; full-text method/results/modal passages inspected, not equation-by-equation verified |
-| `read` | Nan Deng, Bernd R. Noack, Marek Morzyński & Luc R. Pastur, “Low-order model for successive bifurcations of the fluidic pinball”, *JFM* 884, A37 (2020), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2019.959` | Plant-specific mean/fluctuation decomposition and basis choice | `full-PDF`; decomposition and POD passages inspected, not equation-by-equation verified |
-| `read` | Guy Y. Cornejo Maceda, Yiqing Li, François Lusseyran, Marek Morzyński & Bernd R. Noack, “Stabilization of the fluidic pinball with gradient-enriched machine learning control”, *JFM* 917, A42 (2021), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2021.301` | Scalar objective → law → mean field → hierarchy precedent | `full-PDF`; result-order and field-interpretation passages inspected, not equation-by-equation verified |
-| `mapped` | Bernd R. Noack, Witold Stankiewicz, Marek Morzyński & Peter J. Schmid, “Recursive dynamic mode decomposition of transient and post-transient wake flows”, *JFM* 809, 843–872 (2016), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2016.678` | Close POD/DMD comparison record | Exact record/abstract mapped; full-text retrieval failed, so no section-practice inference is assigned |
-| `mapped` | Remaining JFM papers indexed in the R2 style guide; current CCD manifests/publication siblings named by M06 | Broader cadence and panel lineage | Mapped through controlling reports; not reread or artifact-audited here |
-| `not-covered` | Raw arrays, masks, hashes, numerical arithmetic, new CFD/training/SR/CCD/OID, figure generation | Outside style lane and explicitly prohibited | No claim inferred; authority-led deferral |
-| `not-covered` | Exhaustive sentence coding of all JFM modal literature | Three closest full PDFs are proportionate | Findings are sampled practice, not universal rules |
-| `external-inaccessible` | Noack et al. (2016) full text during this pass | Retrieval failed | Non-blocking; record remains `mapped` |
-| `external-inaccessible` | Hidden/external project payloads | Unnecessary for style analysis | `artifact-audit deferred`; retained panels remain gated |
-
-Requested controls, R2 style guidance, R3 M06, and relevant audits were read. Three close JFM papers were inspected at full-PDF level and one additional exact record was mapped.
-
-## 3. Observed practice versus recommendation
-
-### 3.1 Role ordering
-
-**Observed practice.** Loiseau et al. order sensor dynamics and predictive performance before full-state reconstruction, then use feature-correlated modes as an interpretability layer. Deng et al. establish phenomenology before mean/fluctuation decomposition and refine the representation where a simpler model fails. Cornejo Maceda et al. repeatedly couple scalar objective, explicit law, and corresponding fields within an increasingly rich control hierarchy.
-
-**Recommendation.** Begin with target, zero, constant, and DRL roles under one exact comparison contract. Show means and scalar accounting before defining the residual; introduce CCD only after centring and non-pairing are explicit; end with POD on the same residual object. This delays attractive modes but prevents them from being mistaken for the primary performance estimand or a causal decomposition.
-
-### 3.2 Scalar versus modal estimands
-
-**Observed practice.** Loiseau et al. distinguish reconstruction accuracy from modal interpretability and note that a less accurate modal expansion may still aid interpretation. Deng et al. make basis choice conditional on the represented regime: transient-near-base and asymptotic-limit-cycle estimands need not favour the same modes. Cornejo Maceda et al. use fields to interpret an optimized outcome rather than silently redefine its scalar cost.
-
-**Recommendation.** Keep three propositions separate: means are compared under one role/ROI/mask/window contract; scalar error differences provide arithmetic accounting; CCD organizes a separately defined residual. Never call scalar shares modal energy, explained variance, modal contribution, or actuator attribution. Never use a scalar mean ledger to validate dynamic reconstruction.
-
-### 3.3 Equations
-
-**Observed practice.** In Deng et al., decomposition equations arrive where mean-field assumptions begin, after phenomenology motivates them. Loiseau et al. stage equations within the method and let comparative figures carry empirical burden. Cornejo Maceda et al. display a law when it becomes the object interpreted by scalar and field evidence.
-
-**Recommendation.**
-1. **Scalar-share identity:** required only if shares are retained; place after mean errors and before interpretation. Define numerator/denominator and state “not energy or causality”.
-2. **Separately centred residual:** required; place immediately before residual/mode evidence and state non-pairing in the same paragraph.
-3. **CCD operator:** optional; retain only if its field side, action side, weighting, or rank is needed for the adjacent interpretation. Otherwise use prose and move derivation to supplement.
-
-Do not duplicate reusable L2/action definitions owned by Contracts, the SR law owned by M05, a general POD derivation, or OID equations.
-
-### 3.4 Figure sequence
-
-**Observed practice.** Loiseau et al. proceed from method/prediction to reconstruction comparisons, estimator errors, and generalized modes. Deng et al. show phenomenology before model construction and connect modes back to the bifurcation narrative. Cornejo Maceda et al. pair law hierarchy with time/scalar behaviour and mean fields, then synthesize the hierarchy. Figures advance an inference rather than form mode galleries.
-
-**Recommendation.**
-1. Mean comparison: four roles on one scale plus compact scalar ledger.
-2. Residual definition: make separate centring and non-pairing legible.
-3. Mode identity and phase organization: selected modes/action coordinates only.
-4. POD boundary: compact same-object subspace comparison, not a second gallery.
-
-One paragraph should carry one principal figure claim. Captions own role, component, normalization/orientation, domain, arbitrary sign, lineage, and noncausal ceiling. If panels are unavailable, retain the scalar ledger, residual equation, and bounded comparison; do not invent redraws.
-
-### 3.5 POD and other methods
-
-**Observed practice.** Loiseau et al. state what generalized modes correlate with, compare reconstruction against POD alternatives, and expose modal-deformation limits. Deng et al. choose eigenmodes or POD modes according to transient versus asymptotic purpose. The mapped Noack et al. record frames RDMD against POD/DMD, but unread sections are not evidence here.
-
-**Recommendation.** Compare CCD and POD only on identical residual snapshots, rank, weighting, and domain. Ask whether tested field subspaces differ and what action association adds. If subspaces are near-equivalent, say CCD is not shown to provide a distinct field basis and adds action-coordinate association/phase organization under the declared construction. Do not use `outperforms`, `unique modes`, `more physics`, or `explains more variance` without exact dedicated authority. Add DMD/SPOD/resolvent/OID only for a live boundary question, never as a catalogue.
-
-### 3.6 Descriptive caveats
-
-Place each limit beside the object it limits:
-
-- scalar shares: arithmetic accounting, not energy or causal contribution;
-- residual: separately centred and non-paired, not a matched counterfactual or response;
-- CCD: descriptive action correlation, not lag, direction, response time, authority, or mechanism;
-- modes: global sign arbitrary; rotation/parity views do not measure wall vorticity;
-- POD comparison: one parent lineage, not independent validation or triangulation;
-- synthesis: Legacy Kármán only; no V5, steady, Vortex, Illusion, or OID transfer.
-
-A final disclaimer cannot repair causal verbs used earlier.
-
-### 3.7 Bridges
-
-**Observed practice.** Loiseau et al. turn predictive success into reconstruction and then interpretability questions. Deng et al. let phenomenology and representational failure motivate refinement. Cornejo Maceda et al. let each richer control space pose the next question.
-
-**Recommendation.**
-- SR → mean: term ranking asks what the constant reference accounts for at field level; it does not predict the answer.
-- Mean → residual: scalar accounting leaves a field difference whose organization is unresolved.
-- Residual → CCD: once centring/non-pairing are fixed, ask whether action-associated low-rank organization is present.
-- CCD → POD: association does not establish a distinct basis, motivating a same-object boundary test.
-- Closing bridge: cross-case temporal/target contracts change and cannot inherit this Kármán interpretation.
-
-## 4. Paragraph jobs, ownership, and deletion
-
-### Six paragraph jobs
-
-1. Exact four roles and comparison contract; import definitions compactly.
-2. Mean fields, scalar errors, and error-difference identity.
-3. Local scalar limit and one concise M04/M06 different-estimand warning.
-4. Residual definition, separate centring, non-pairing, and dynamic question.
-5. CCD rank/action coordinates/phase as **action-correlated correction-field modes**, with local caveats.
-6. Same-object POD boundary, single-lineage limit, bounded export, and non-transfer bridge.
-
-If compressed, combine 2–3; never combine mean and modal estimands in the opening paragraph.
-
-**Owned here:** corrected four-role mean comparison; scalar error-difference semantics; separately centred non-paired residual; descriptive CCD organization; same-object POD boundary; M04/M06 near-collision rule.
-
-**Imports:** chain/action/Re/metric definitions from Contracts; detailed independent field matching from M04; SR formula/deletion ranking from M05. Imports orient but do not duplicate.
-
-**Exports:** bounded mean accounting plus smaller descriptively action-correlated residual organization under the named Legacy Kármán contract; explicit non-transfer; no positive OID export.
-
-**Deletion instructions:** remove full SR formula/deletion detail, M04 values/seed/DTW prose, repeated package hashes/dimensions, general POD derivation, and OID results. State the full M04/M06 prohibition once here; later sections keep only a reminder.
-
-## 5. Claim ceiling and near-collision audit
-
-**Green:** `defines`, `compares`, `separates`, `uses separate centring`, `is non-paired`, `is associated with`, `spans the tested rank`.
-
-**Amber:** `accounts for the measured error difference`, `organizes the residual`, `is action-correlated`, `is phase-organized`, `adds action-coordinate association`, `supports a bounded persistent-plus-dynamic reading`—always with exact contract and adjacent caveat.
-
-**Red without dedicated evidence:** `causes`, `drives`, `responds`, `control authority`, `mechanism`, `necessary/sufficient`, `unique`, `optimal`, `stable`, `robust/general`, `transferable`, `restores momentum`, CCD `energy captured`/`explained variance`, `independently validates`, `triangulates`, or `CCD superiority`.
-
-| Comparison | Contract differences | Classification / rule |
-|---|---|---|
-| M04 standardized PPO fields vs M06 corrected means | Independent three roles versus four-role target/zero/constant/DRL; geometry guard versus exact common mask; unweighted normalized RMS versus coordinate-weighted nondimensional RMS; different retained windows | **Different estimands.** No arithmetic, replication, validation, agreement, closure, or triangulation |
-| M06 scalar shares vs M06 modal quantities | Scalar mean target-error differences versus weighted residual/action decomposition; mean window versus centred cycle/phase object | **Different estimands.** Shares are not energy, variance, or modal contribution |
-| M05 SR ranking vs M06 action coordinates | Observation-to-action closed-loop/deletion contract versus field/action residual association | **Related diagnostic.** Brief descriptive bridge; no derivation/equivalence/validation |
-| CCD vs POD | Valid comparison requires identical residual, samples, rank, weighting, and domain; action-informed versus action-agnostic bases | **Same field object, different basis estimand.** May bound distinctness, not confer causality/independence |
-| Legacy M06 vs V5 steady/cross-cases | Different chain, roles, fields, metrics, and temporal contracts | **Different estimands.** Context/non-transfer only |
-
-## 6. Display and equation contracts
-
-No inventory entry implies an existing publication-ready artifact.
-
-| Item | Owner/job/source | Ceiling | Readiness, dependency, fallback |
-|---|---|---|---|
-| Mean comparison + scalar ledger | Field/CCD; establish four roles and arithmetic accounting; exact M06 role arrays only | Registered mean comparison; no causality, energy, mechanism, necessity, or M04 validation | `dependency-gated`; text ready, redraw needs arrays/mask/window/scale/orientation/provenance. Fallback: scalar ledger + prose |
-| Scalar-share equation | Field/CCD; define retained shares from authority-bound scalar errors | Measured error-difference accounting only | `required` if shares retained; text ready, artifact audit deferred. Fallback: verbal definition/table; no unexplained percentages |
-| Residual equation | Field/CCD; define separately centred non-paired object from exact DRL cycles/constant template | Not counterfactual, response, force, or lag | `required`; text ready, panels gated. Fallback: equation plus explicit non-pairing sentence |
-| Compact CCD operator | Field/CCD; clarify field/action sides, weighting/rank if necessary | Descriptive correlation organization | `optional`; include only after equation-budget test. Fallback: prose/supplement |
-| Residual/modes/phase figure | Field/CCD; corrected parent/derived arrays and same-boundary action observable | Action association/phase; arbitrary sign; no wall-vorticity, causality, lag, or response time | `dependency-gated`; needs arrays/orientation/labels/lineage/render audit. Fallback: residual equation + bounded rank/coordinate statement |
-| Same-object POD boundary | Field/CCD; identical residual/rank/weight/domain | Tested subspace boundary; no superiority, uniqueness, independence, or CCD explained variance | `dependency-gated`; needs paired arrays/comparison metric. Fallback: sentence or compact row |
-| Estimand-boundary table | Field/CCD with Contracts terminology; prevent unsafe compression | Taxonomy, not convergence | `optional`, text-ready. Fallback: local caveat sentences |
-
-## 7. Choices, deferrals, blockers, and anti-patterns
-
-### Evidence-governed decisions
-
-Mean precedes modes; scalar and modal estimands stay separate; non-pairing appears at first residual use; CCD remains descriptive and uses the fixed term; POD is a same-object boundary; M04 and M06 remain different estimands.
-
-### Author/coordinator choices
-
-| Choice | Recommendation and safe default | Status |
-|---|---|---|
-| Display CCD operator | Omit unless symbols materially clarify interpretation; prose/supplement fallback | `discuss` |
-| Combine mean fields and ledger | Combine only if roles/scale remain legible; otherwise split | `discuss` |
-| Retain POD panel | Only with exact same-object arrays; otherwise one bounded sentence | `discuss` |
-| Caption publication label | Exact preferred derived publication plus validated parent; avoid “canonical CCD” | `discuss` |
-| Compress displays | Protect mean-first order, residual equation, local caveats; drop operator/redundant modes first | `discuss` |
-
-**Deferrals/conflicts.** The fourth modal record remains mapped because retrieval failed. Project arrays/payloads were not artifact-audited. Visual economy conflicts with dual CCD/POD galleries; resolve with one CCD/phase sequence and compact subspace boundary. Causal language from other correlation literature cannot transfer to this different estimand.
-
-**Blockers.** None for this style memo or bounded text contract. A retained panel is blocked if exact role arrays, common object/domain, orientation, lineage, or rendering provenance are missing. POD comparison is blocked unless both methods use the identical declared residual. Optional missing panels do not block text.
-
-### Anti-patterns
-
-- Linear algebra or mode gallery before roles and scalar estimand.
-- Four fields without comparator, mask, window, and acquisition.
-- Percentage without scalar denominator and non-energy caveat.
-- Residual called response or paired counterfactual.
-- Negative lag called response time or directionality.
-- CCD strengths called energy/explained variance.
-- SR terms equated with CCD coordinates or one lineage called triangulation.
-- CCD superiority inferred from visual cleanliness or action labels.
-- POD used as a straw comparator or methods added as a catalogue.
-- M04/M06 called agreement because values are close.
-- Caveats delayed until Discussion.
-- Panel-by-panel narration, package-handoff prose, or inventory treated as artifact existence.
-- Closing with a section-number announcement rather than the non-transfer bridge.
-
-## 8. Validation and disposition
-
-**Gate-1 validation: PASS for coordinator review.** Exact identities, DOIs, and read levels are stated; the unread record remains mapped. Sampled observed practice is separate from recommendation. Role order, scalar/modal boundaries, equations, figure cadence, POD comparison, caveats, bridges, ownership, near-collisions, choices, readiness, fallbacks, and anti-patterns are explicit. Literature supplies no internal result or priority. Evidence and artifact-audit states remain distinct.
-
-**Disposition:** `researching`. This is a completed first-pass style memo, not a freeze; only the Round-4 coordinator’s required second audit may advance the downstream section contract.

docs/JFM_WYQ/ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/STYLE_07_CROSS_CASE.md

@@ -1,401 +0,0 @@
-# Round 4 style research — cross-case extensions
-
-**Lane:** section-style research for the cross-case extension unit.  
-**Status:** `researching`; this first-pass memo cannot self-freeze.  
-**Role:** decision/freeze input, not manuscript prose, project evidence, or a source of new scientific claims.
-
-## 1. Scope, question and bounded recommendation
-
-### Scope and question
-
-This memo studies how a JFM-facing cross-case section can move from a reference case to heterogeneous, transient, retargeted, or failure-bounded extensions without turning the section into a case gallery or implying generalization. It focuses on five rhetorical operations:
-
-1. change one contract dimension at a time;
-2. reintroduce the local comparator whenever the contract changes;
-3. use visual-only evidence at a visibly lower claim level than quantified comparison;
-4. place negative or failed routes beside the claim they bound; and
-5. finish with an evidence envelope rather than a breadth or universality claim.
-
-External papers are used only to observe publication practice. They do not establish any project result, role, artifact, or priority.
-
-### Bounded recommendation
-
-Build the section as three argumentative tests rather than a catalogue of cases. Each module should begin by naming the single changed contract, then restate the target and comparator, state the strongest admissible evidence type, give one principal finding at its actual readout level, expose the nearest failure or missing dependency, and hand off the resulting boundary. Keep the reference case as a comparison anchor, but do not import its deep interpretation. When only images are available, call the evidence a named visual demonstration and let the caption carry acquisition identity and visible limitations; do not convert appearance into field matching, efficacy, robustness, or transfer. End by stating which execution interfaces were exercised under distinct contracts and which interpretations did not travel with them.
-
-The trade-off is deliberate. This structure gives up the rhetorical breadth of a montage and some visual variety, but it lets each extension answer a distinct question and prevents incompatible metrics, targets, temporal coordinates, and evidence states from being read as one progression score.
-
-## 2. Coverage ledger
-
-`Read` means inspected directly for this lane. It does not mean independently reproduced, independently verified, or artifact-audited. `Mapped` means located and used for navigation only. Literature read levels follow the Round-2 definition: `full-PDF` is paper-level full-text reading, not equation-by-equation verification.
-
-| Status | Source/input | Why in scope | Evidence state/reason |
-|---|---|---|---|
-| `read` | `ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/00_MASTER_AGENT_PROMPT.md` | Round-4 method, deliverables, fixed cautions and status rules | Read directly; control document, not independently verified or artifact-audited |
-| `read` | `ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/00_QUALITY_GATE.md` | Style-memo and section-freeze gates | Read directly; control document |
-| `read` | `ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/00_GLOBAL_DECISION_LEDGER.md` | Ownership, claim ladder, section order and cross-case ceiling | Read directly; coordinator authority, not scientific artifact audit |
-| `read` | `ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/00_DISPLAY_EQUATION_INVENTORY.md` | Cross-case display readiness, equation ownership and fallbacks | Read directly; inventory does not establish panel existence |
-| `read` | `ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/README.md` | Round-4 purpose, inputs, statuses and handoff boundary | Read directly; control document |
-| `read` | `ROUND2_TOP_DOWN/05_REVISED_STRUCTURE_FREEZE.md` (relevant cross-case and supersession passages) | Controlling section placement and rejection of a mere gallery | Read directly; project architecture authority |
-| `read` | `ROUND2_TOP_DOWN/06_SECTION_LEVEL_JFM_STYLE_GUIDE.md` | Controlling JFM style synthesis and cross-case cadence | Read in full; `full-report`; its literature identities were checked against current records where used below |
-| `read` | `ROUND3_BOTTOM_UP/07_CROSS_CASE_EXTENSIONS.md` | Relevant M07 evidence, interfaces, display gates and failure boundaries | Read in full; `full-report`; no underlying project artifact independently verified or artifact-audited in this lane |
-| `read` | `ROUND3_BOTTOM_UP/00_MODULE_INTERFACE_LEDGER.md` | M07 ownership and downstream interface | Read directly; coordinator ledger |
-| `read` | `ROUND3_BOTTOM_UP/11_FINAL_CONSISTENCY_AUDIT.md` | Reconciled cross-module scope, readiness and duplication findings | Read in full; `full-report`; no artifact recomputation |
-| `read` | Xia, Zhang, Kerrigan & Rigas (2024), exact record below | Closest failure-to-repair and bounded unseen-condition example | `full-PDF`; paper-level rhetorical reading; bibliographic DOI/PDF availability checked; no numerical reproduction |
-| `read` | Paris, Beneddine & Dandois (2021), exact record below | Closest reference-case-to-robustness/sensor-extension example | `full-PDF`; paper-level rhetorical reading; bibliographic DOI/PDF availability checked; no numerical reproduction |
-| `read` | Wang et al. (2024), exact record below | Closest escalating heterogeneous-flow and degraded-route example | `full-PDF`; paper-level rhetorical reading; bibliographic DOI/PDF availability checked; no numerical reproduction |
-| `read` | Deng et al. (2020), exact record below | Closest pinball example of visible failure, refinement and synthesis rather than gallery | `full-PDF`; paper-level rhetorical reading; bibliographic DOI/PDF availability checked; no numerical reproduction |
-| `mapped` | Round-3 modules adjoining M07 and authority/manifests linked from M07 | Locate imported definitions, export boundaries and artifact gates | Mapped for interface navigation; not read as evidence in this style lane and not independently verified |
-| `mapped` | Existing Undermind `JFM/` and `JFM References/` collections | Locate exact records and PDFs | Collection/index mapping only; mapped is not read |
-| `not-covered` | Exhaustive sentence coding of the broader JFM corpus; all references cited by the four papers | Beyond the bounded closest-example sample | No general frequency claim is inferred from four papers |
-| `not-covered` | Raw project arrays, field files, evaluator outputs, source media, rendering scripts and hashes | This is style research, not artifact generation or audit | No project value, panel existence or quantitative result is inferred |
-| `not-covered` | New CFD, training, SR, CCD, experiment analysis or metric computation | Explicitly outside Round 4 | No new evidence or claim produced |
-| `external-inaccessible` | None among the four selected JFM PDFs | All four full texts were available in the literature workspace | No essential literature blocker |
-| `external-inaccessible` | External/symlink-backed project payloads named by M07 | Not opened in this style lane; access and audit state are outside its remit | Authority-led artifact-audit deferral; retained quantitative panel dependencies remain governed by M07 and Round-4 inventory |
-
-Coverage is complete for the requested Round-4 controls, controlling Round-2 style guide, relevant Round-3 M07 dossier/audit interface, and four closest full-PDF examples. It is intentionally not a new project-evidence audit.
-
-## 3. Exact literature identities and observed JFM practice
-
-### 3.1 Exact identities and read levels
-
-1. C. Xia, J. Zhang, E. C. Kerrigan & G. Rigas, “Active flow control for bluff body drag reduction using reinforcement learning with partial measurements”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics*, **981**, A17 (2024). DOI: `10.1017/jfm.2024.69`. Read level: `full-PDF`.
-2. R. Paris, S. Beneddine & J. Dandois, “Robust flow control and optimal sensor placement using deep reinforcement learning”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics*, **913**, A25 (2021). DOI: `10.1017/jfm.2020.1170`. Read level: `full-PDF`.
-3. Qiulei Wang, Dong Yan, Guodong Hu, Gang Chen, Jean Rabault & Bernd R. Noack, “Dynamic feature-based deep reinforcement learning for flow control of circular cylinder with sparse surface pressure sensing”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics*, **988**, A4 (2024). DOI: `10.1017/jfm.2024.333`. Read level: `full-PDF`.
-4. N. Deng, B. R. Noack, M. Morzyński & L. R. Pastur, “Low-order model for successive bifurcations of the fluidic pinball”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics*, **884**, A37 (2020). DOI: `10.1017/jfm.2019.959`. Read level: `full-PDF`.
-
-The literature service’s cite-key years reflect prepublication records for some papers; the journal year, volume and article identity above control this memo. No quotations are used, so there is no quotation-level verification claim.
-
-### 3.2 Observed practice: extensions change a declared difficulty
-
-**Xia et al.** establish the fully observed reference problem before reducing the available measurements. The degraded static-controller route is shown before temporal history is introduced as the repair. Later tests vary history content, history length, reward design, sensor arrangement and unseen Reynolds number in separate steps. The rhetorical value is not merely chronological: the reader can identify which information contract changed and which comparison diagnoses the consequence.
-
-**Paris et al.** first establish a reference control configuration, then test a fixed learned policy under changed flow and noise conditions, and only afterward narrow the sensor interface. The robustness and sensor-placement parts are therefore extensions of a declared reference, not additional showcase cases. Dedicated parameter tests precede the stronger vocabulary attached to them.
-
-**Wang et al.** first compare the proposed feature construction with a conventional controller under a baseline sensing/flow setting. Harder Reynolds-number and three-dimensional settings arrive later, with comparison schemes renamed or restated so that the reader can still tell which method and sensing contract is being compared. A degraded sparse-sensing route and an undesirable reward-exploitation route are made visible rather than omitted.
-
-**Deng et al.** build separate low-order descriptions for successive physical transitions, compare each against the numerical plant in its applicable regime, and then combine/refine them. A simpler model’s visible inability to reproduce part of the transient is used to motivate additional cross-terms. The final phenomenogram synthesizes the route through regimes; it is not a montage offered as proof that one model is universal.
-
-**Observed pattern across this sample.** A heterogeneous extension is readable when the paper makes the changed difficulty explicit and preserves a stable comparison anchor. The papers do not rely on section ordering alone to communicate this: they restate the relevant sensing, flow, model or policy condition at the point where it changes. This is a sample-level observation, not a claim about all JFM papers.
-
-### 3.3 Observed practice: comparators are renewed locally
-
-The four papers repeatedly return to a local reference rather than assuming that a comparator introduced many pages earlier remains obvious.
-
-- Xia et al. keep uncontrolled/base-flow bounds and the fully measured controller visible when evaluating partial-measurement variants and their repair.
-- Paris et al. retain the reference policy/configuration while perturbing Reynolds number, noise or sensor count, so a change in outcome can be attached to the stated test.
-- Wang et al. explicitly define comparison schemes again when the dimensionality and sensing arrangement change.
-- Deng et al. renew DNS as the plant comparator at each regime and distinguish the unrefined and refined reduced models.
-
-This renewal does not mean that all cases share one metric. Its function is local identification: what is the target or baseline here, what changed, and what readout answers this module’s question?
-
-### 3.4 Observed practice: visuals explain or delimit; they do not silently upgrade evidence
-
-In Xia et al., wake snapshots are read beside reward, force or temporal comparisons and are used to clarify why the partial-measurement configurations differ. In Paris et al., wake structure and sensor-layout views are paired with performance curves rather than substituted for them. In Wang et al., representative and mean flow fields contextualize force changes, while training and force evidence carry the comparison. In Deng et al., state-space portraits and the final phenomenogram provide physical organization, while time histories and coefficient/model comparisons test fidelity.
-
-The common rhetorical discipline is pairing: a visual can show morphology, timing, placement or qualitative difference, but the claim register follows the acquisition and readout actually supplied. None of these examples licenses treating visual resemblance as an unreported norm, field error, target match or transfer test.
-
-### 3.5 Observed practice: failed routes remain in the argument
-
-The closest examples use negative evidence constructively:
-
-- a partial-measurement static controller fails before a history-based repair is introduced;
-- extreme sensor sparsity and some transient energetic behaviour remain visible beside successful control;
-- a conventional sparse-sensing route degrades, and an undesirable reward-exploitation strategy is identified;
-- a least-order model’s transient mismatch motivates refinement before the final synthesis.
-
-These failures are local and diagnostic. They identify the limit of a specific information, actuation, reward or model contract. The papers do not automatically turn a repaired failure into robustness across all omitted conditions.
-
-### 3.6 Observed practice: breadth is earned test by test
-
-Paris et al. attach robustness/generalization wording to dedicated perturbation tests. Xia et al. delimit unseen-condition performance around a tested training setting and expose degradation away from it. Wang et al. qualify conclusions by the investigated flow and sensing configurations. Deng et al. identify configuration-specific and non-generic aspects of the bifurcation sequence. In this sample, the breadth word follows the breadth test; it does not follow from the number of visually different cases.
-
-## 4. Project recommendation derived from the observed practice
-
-The recommendations below are design choices for this paper, not descriptions of project outcomes.
-
-### 4.1 Section-level rhetorical contract
-
-Use three modules, each with the same six-part logic but not identical prose:
-
-1. **Changed contract.** Name exactly one primary change from the preceding reference: temporal coordinate, target/reference, or evidence availability.
-2. **Local comparator.** Restate target, controlled role and baseline/zero role only to the detail needed for this comparison. If one role is absent, say so before the result.
-3. **Admissible readout.** Name whether the evidence is event-relative quantitative, periodic target-relative quantitative, mean-only, or visual-only. Do not promote a candidate definition into a result.
-4. **Principal observation.** Give one result-level sentence at the admissible claim ceiling; let the figure/caption carry secondary case labels.
-5. **Negative boundary.** Place the failed route, unavailable comparator, negative reduction route or unresolved evaluator beside the principal observation.
-6. **Consequence.** State what the changed contract demonstrates and what interpretation does not transfer.
-
-This repetition is conceptual, not templated wording. Vary sentence shape and transition according to the scientific change. If every module reads as “case name → image → success,” the section has become a gallery.
-
-### 4.2 Change one contract at a time
-
-The opening transition should decompose heterogeneity into independent axes before presenting examples. Recommended conceptual sequence:
-
-- periodic coordinate → event-relative coordinate;
-- background/reference objective → declared non-zero target;
-- supported target/comparator roles → a further objective whose quantitative role contract is incomplete.
-
-At each transition, explicitly name what remains fixed only if the source authority permits that statement. Do not use “same framework” as a shortcut: it can conceal changes in chain, geometry, role acquisition, normalization, evaluation window or target construction. When several things actually change together, label the module as a named demonstration under a distinct contract rather than pretending it is a controlled one-variable extension.
-
-### 4.3 Reintroduce comparators without repeating Methods
-
-A local comparator sentence should answer four questions:
-
-- What field or signature is the declared target?
-- Which role is the controlled observation?
-- Which baseline or physical-zero role is informative here?
-- Which metric or visual readout is admissible under this acquisition?
-
-The section should import definitions from Contracts and avoid reprinting formulas, ROI details or action conventions unless the change itself makes one of them newly consequential. This gives enough re-anchoring for the reader without duplicating M03 or the detailed Kármán performance section.
-
-Do not call physical zero the target in a non-zero-target module. Do not treat a missing baseline as if a visual panel supplies it. Do not preserve a comparator label while silently changing its acquisition or window.
-
-### 4.4 Visual-only evidence contract
-
-When the evidence is visual-only, use a two-level statement:
-
-- **Observation:** identify the named scene, relative/event coordinate or target/control role visible in the source artifact.
-- **Limit:** state that no quantitative target/control/baseline field comparison follows without exact roles, common domain/mask, weighting/normalization, window and evaluator authority.
-
-Recommended verbs are `shows the named visual demonstration`, `depicts`, `is visibly different under the stated acquisition`, or `supports inclusion as a capability example`. Avoid `matches`, `recovers`, `suppresses`, `tracks`, `generalizes`, `is effective`, or `performs comparably` unless the corresponding quantitative comparator and estimand are available.
-
-A visual panel should not carry an unsourced scalar annotation. If the caption cannot state chain, case, role, comparator/target, temporal coordinate, source and evidence level, omit the panel. Visual-only is an evidence status, not a criticism; hiding that status is the defect.
-
-### 4.5 Negative and failed routes
-
-Place each negative route in the module it constrains, not in a late limitations dump.
-
-- A negative surrogate/reduction route belongs beside the positive learned-policy capability, with the chain and acquisition difference made explicit; it is a boundary, not a head-to-head comparison unless protocols match.
-- A missing event evaluator or exact role set belongs immediately after any transient visual demonstration; it prevents numerical inference but need not erase the visual observation.
-- An unsupported objective/target construction should be presented as a route that cannot sustain quantitative efficacy, not as an empty placeholder for a future success.
-
-Use failures to answer “what would have to change for a stronger claim?” They should not be dramatized as universal impossibility, and a successful neighbouring case should not be presented as having repaired a failure in a different chain or estimand.
-
-### 4.6 Avoid gallery and generalization claims
-
-A cross-case figure becomes a gallery when panels are grouped by appearance but lack a shared argumentative question. Prevent this by giving each retained panel one job:
-
-- establish the changed temporal coordinate;
-- establish the changed target/reference;
-- expose a boundary or unavailable comparison.
-
-The prose should compare contracts, not visual attractiveness. Do not count cases as evidence of generality. Do not use a common colour scale, aligned panel geometry or shared layout to imply a common estimand. A synthesis sentence may say that the execution objective was exercised in named cases under distinct contracts; it may not say that the policy, interpretation, mechanism or efficacy generalized across them.
-
-### 4.7 Evidence density, cadence and transitions
-
-Recommended density is one principal evidentiary object per module. Put secondary labels, acquisition details and non-claims in the caption or a compact case-contract table. A paragraph should not enumerate every case variant, target size, offset or file. Move complete inventories to the supplement if they remain scientifically useful.
-
-Use transitions as logical changes:
-
-- reference periodicity established → ask what replaces phase for an incoming event;
-- event-relative execution established → ask what changes when the desired signature is non-zero;
-- retargeting shown at capability level → ask which extension routes survive exact comparator and evidence requirements;
-- bounded extensions assembled → return to the deep case’s context without transferring its interpretation.
-
-Avoid transitions of the form “the next case is…” or “Figure X also shows…”.
-
-## 5. Paragraph jobs, ownership and interfaces
-
-### Opening dependency
-
-Import from the contracts section only the already frozen distinctions among chains, target/control/baseline roles, temporal coordinates and case-specific metrics. Import from the capability section only the existence and placement of the named cross-case preview. Import from the Kármán deep block only the fact that it is the reference/deep case; do not import detailed values, surrogate structure or dynamic-field interpretation.
-
-### Recommended paragraph-function map
-
-| Paragraph job | Opening move | Evidence function | Local limitation | Export/bridge |
-|---|---|---|---|---|
-| 1. Decompose the extension problem | State that temporal and target contracts change independently | Establish the comparison logic and prohibit a pooled score | “Shared interface” cannot imply same chain or estimand | Opens event-relative module |
-| 2. Event-relative extension | Replace periodic phase with a declared event coordinate; renew target/control/baseline roles | One bounded event-relative result if authority exists; otherwise one visual-only observation | No phase averaging, arbitrary-disturbance claim or imported Kármán interpretation | Asks whether the objective itself can be retargeted |
-| 3. Non-zero-target extension | Define the local non-zero target and comparator anew | One bounded learned-policy capability observation; quantitative field statement only if exact role authority exists | Keep negative reduction route local and chain-separated; no target-tracking inference from appearance | Asks what happens when the target/reference changes again |
-| 4. Failure-bounded further objective | State the required target/comparator contract before any panel | Either a supported mean/target comparison or an explicit unsupported-route boundary | Filenames, plot navigation and visual similarity do not establish roles or efficacy | Builds the evidence envelope |
-| 5. Cross-case synthesis | Compare what changed and what did not travel | Synthesize named capability under distinct contracts | No common score, transfer, robustness, mechanism or universality | Bridges to later steady context as context only |
-
-Five paragraphs is a functional target, not a quota. Split a paragraph only when the comparator and failure boundary cannot remain legible together; combine only when no evidence distinction is lost.
-
-### Result ownership
-
-- **Cross-case section owns:** the changed-contract sequence; local comparator renewal; event-relative versus periodic-target semantics at a high level; visual-only evidence language; the negative/unsupported extension envelope; and the final non-transfer statement.
-- **Contracts owns:** reusable chain, role, action, metric, ROI/mask/window and normalization definitions.
-- **Capability owns:** the early preview/progression and Fig. 1 selection logic.
-- **Kármán performance owns:** detailed reference-case field and signal results.
-- **SR and field/CCD own:** deep Kármán interpretation and its exact evidentiary components.
-- **Conclusion owns:** one compressed restatement of breadth with asymmetric interpretation, not the detailed negative-route ledger.
-
-### Imports
-
-1. Definitions of chain, role, comparator, temporal coordinate and metric semantics from Contracts.
-2. The reference/deep-case designation from Capability/Kármán performance.
-3. The positive-scope boundary from SR and non-transfer boundary from Field/CCD.
-4. M07’s authority-led status for visual, quantitative, conditional and blocked routes.
-
-Imports must remain brief. They cannot be rewritten as cross-case evidence.
-
-### Exports
-
-1. A named, case-bounded capability statement under distinct temporal/target contracts.
-2. A local evidence envelope distinguishing quantitative, visual-only, negative and unsupported routes.
-3. A prohibition on carrying the deep-case interpretation or one score across extensions.
-4. A bridge to later steady context that leaves transient and target-transfer gaps open.
-
-### Duplication deletions for assembly
-
-- Delete detailed Kármán values and metric contracts from this section; retain only the reference function.
-- Delete full action-law or correction-field explanations; retain only their non-transfer boundary.
-- Delete the case inventory from main prose; place exact variants in a contract table or supplement if retained.
-- Delete any second full definition of spatial L2 or DTW; use the contracts notation by reference.
-- Delete repeated negative-route detail from Conclusion; Conclusion keeps only the envelope.
-- Delete caption-style narration from prose when the panel already carries role and acquisition identity.
-
-### Closing bridge
-
-The bridge should say, in function rather than polished prose: heterogeneous cases exercise execution under changed temporal or target contracts, while the deep interpretation remains local; the manuscript can now return to steady evidence only as contextual reference for that local interpretation, not as closure of transient or target-transfer questions.
-
-## 6. Claim ceiling and near-collision audit
-
-### Green: admissible at named scope
-
-- The section may distinguish periodic, event-relative, non-zero-target and unsupported/conditional comparison contracts.
-- It may report a named visual demonstration as visual-only when exact provenance and roles are available.
-- It may state that a negative or unsupported route bounds the extension claim under its own chain and acquisition.
-- It may state that cross-case evidence supports named capability breadth under distinct contracts, provided “breadth” is not rewritten as robustness or generalization.
-
-### Amber: allowed only with explicit bounds
-
-- `extends the objective` or `exercises the execution interface under a changed contract` when the unchanged and changed elements are authority-bound.
-- `supports a comparable-scale hypothesis` only if the source dossier licenses that interpretation and the named tested disturbances remain explicit.
-- `is consistent with retargeting at capability level` only when target and controlled roles are identified and the statement does not imply independent field matching.
-- `provides a failure boundary` when the negative route’s chain, protocol and comparator are stated.
-
-### Prohibited red without new authoritative evidence
-
-- `generalizes`, `transfers`, `robust`, `universal`, `arbitrary-flow`, `cross-size law`, `common efficacy`, `same mechanism`, `same control skeleton`, `validates`, `replicates`, `agrees with`, `triangulates`, `target tracking`, or `field matching` from visual resemblance alone.
-- Any positive extension of the Kármán-only surrogate or dynamic-field interpretation.
-- Any quantitative result inferred from filenames, plot navigation, panel existence, a candidate equation or an unverified role mapping.
-- Any pooled arithmetic across periodic, event-relative, mean-only, visual-only or chain-separated readouts.
-
-### Near-collision findings
-
-The section must perform the near-collision check before putting two values or panels into comparative syntax. For each pair, compare:
-
-1. acquisition and executable chain;
-2. target, controlled and baseline role identities;
-3. temporal coordinate and retained window;
-4. ROI/domain and mask;
-5. weighting and normalization;
-6. metric definition and orientation.
-
-Classification rules:
-
-- **Same estimand:** only when all six items are authority-bound as the same comparison.
-- **Related diagnostic:** same acquisition/question but a deliberately different readout, such as field and signal evidence that remain separately interpreted.
-- **Different estimand:** any changed chain, role acquisition, target, temporal coordinate, mask/weighting, normalization or window that changes the measured object.
-
-For this style lane, periodic versus event-relative evidence is `different estimand`; visual-only versus quantitative field comparison is `different evidence/readout`, not agreement; positive learned-policy capability versus a negative surrogate route from another chain/protocol is a boundary juxtaposition, not a direct comparator; and any further objective lacking exact target/control/baseline roles is not classifiable as an efficacy result. No arithmetic, replication, validation, agreement or triangulation wording is allowed merely because values or images look similar.
-
-## 7. Figure, table and equation contracts
-
-### Cross-case display
-
-- **Owner:** Cross-case section.
-- **Argumentative job:** show the sequence of contract changes and their evidence ceilings, not maximize the number of cases.
-- **Source:** only authority-bound existing visual or quantitative artifacts identified by M07 and later production audit.
-- **Roles/arrays:** each retained panel must identify chain, case, target, controlled role, baseline/zero role if present, temporal coordinate, source artifact and readout. Exact arrays remain a production/audit dependency.
-- **Caption ceiling:** named event-relative or non-zero-target capability; visual-only where no exact quantitative comparison exists; negative/unsupported route visible locally.
-- **Classification:** overall `dependency-gated`; quantitative transient and unsupported-objective components remain `blocked` where the Round-4 inventory says so; a non-zero-target field metric remains conditional on exact authority.
-- **Text readiness:** the rhetorical contract is text-ready as a recommendation.
-- **Artifact readiness:** not panel-ready in this memo; no artifact was inspected or generated.
-- **Fallback:** retain only sourced visual panels with explicit evidence level; omit blocked quantitative annotations and unsupported panels. If the remaining display becomes a gallery, replace it with the compact case-contract table.
-- **Does not establish:** common efficacy, arbitrary-flow capability, cross-case transfer, robustness, positive surrogate scope, causal mechanism or quantitative success from appearance.
-
-### Compact case-contract table
-
-- **Owner:** Cross-case section; detailed definitions imported from Contracts.
-- **Argumentative job:** make the changed dimension, comparator, readout, evidence state and local limit visible in one place.
-- **Source:** frozen contracts plus M07 authority ledger; no new values.
-- **Rows/fields:** module/question; changed contract; target; controlled role; baseline/comparator; temporal coordinate; admissible readout; evidence status; strongest local limit.
-- **Caption ceiling:** organizational aid for non-equivalent extensions.
-- **Classification:** `optional`, but preferred fallback if a multi-panel display cannot avoid gallery reading.
-- **Text readiness:** table schema ready.
-- **Artifact readiness:** content requires coordinator production audit against current authorities.
-- **Fallback:** concise opening paragraph plus local comparator sentences.
-- **Does not establish:** comparability of metrics merely because they occupy adjacent rows.
-
-### Event-relative metric equation
-
-- **Owner:** Cross-case section for the event-specific definition; Contracts owns reusable spatial-error notation.
-- **Argumentative job:** define an event-relative candidate estimand only if a retained quantitative transient comparison requires it.
-- **Source/roles:** exact target/control roles, event offsets, common ROI/domain/mask, weighting/normalization and evaluator authority must be bound before use.
-- **Caption/text ceiling:** definition only; it creates no role acquisition, evaluator output or result.
-- **Classification:** `optional`; currently dependency-bound and not required for the section’s bounded visual text.
-- **Text readiness:** semantic description is ready; notation is not frozen here.
-- **Artifact/result readiness:** blocked wherever exact roles/evaluator are absent.
-- **Fallback:** prose or the compact case-contract table.
-
-### Negative-route callout
-
-- **Owner:** Cross-case section.
-- **Argumentative job:** keep negative surrogate evidence and unsupported objective routes adjacent to the positive capability they bound without presenting unlike protocols as matched comparisons.
-- **Source:** M07’s current authority ledger and final Round-3 audit.
-- **Classification:** `required` as prose; `optional` as a boxed/table display.
-- **Caption ceiling:** historical/negative or unsupported under the named acquisition; no cross-chain efficacy comparison.
-- **Text readiness:** ready as a rhetorical requirement.
-- **Artifact readiness:** any numerical callout remains dependent on exact authority and coordinator choice; this memo introduces none.
-- **Fallback:** one local limiting sentence in each affected module.
-
-No other equation is recommended. The section should reuse frozen notation and spend display space on comparison logic, not derive a common metric that the evidence does not support.
-
-## 8. Anti-patterns and corrective actions
-
-| Anti-pattern | Why it fails | Corrective action |
-|---|---|---|
-| One panel or paragraph per case | Converts heterogeneity into inventory and encourages case counting | Organize by changed contract and retain one principal evidentiary job per module |
-| “The framework generalizes to…” | A changed case is not a dedicated transfer/generalization test | Use named-capability wording and state the tested contract |
-| Common score bar across extensions | Periodic, event-relative, target-relative and mean-only quantities are different estimands | Use a contract/evidence-state table; keep metrics local |
-| Visual similarity described as matching | Appearance does not establish target/control/baseline field error | Label visual-only and state the missing quantitative dependencies |
-| Comparator introduced once, then assumed | The target, baseline or acquisition may have changed | Renew the local comparator at every contract change |
-| Positive capability and negative route treated as matched | Different chain, role or window can make the juxtaposition non-comparative | Present the negative route as a local boundary and state protocol separation |
-| Failure hidden in Limitations | The reader overreads the preceding success before reaching the caveat | Put the failed or unsupported route beside the claim it limits |
-| Failure called proof of impossibility | A local failed configuration does not exhaust alternatives | Name the failed contract and the next evidence needed |
-| Kármán interpretation reused as explanation | Capability breadth does not transfer deep-case SR/field interpretation | Import only the non-transfer boundary |
-| Candidate equation presented as evidence | A definition cannot create missing roles, arrays or evaluator output | Mark the equation optional/conditional and separate result readiness |
-| Filenames or manifests treated as role proof | Navigation metadata need not bind target identity or comparability | Require authority-bound roles and artifact audit before quantitative prose |
-| Captions narrate success while prose lists files | Splits the argument between promotional captions and inventory prose | Give prose the inference; captions carry provenance and limits |
-| Every module uses identical six-sentence form | Reads as generated template rather than scientific progression | Preserve the six jobs but vary cadence and emphasis by the changed question |
-| Strong caveat only in final synthesis | Allows local overclaim and makes limits look retrofitted | Pair each major observation with its nearest limitation |
-
-## 9. Author decisions, conflicts, deferrals and blockers
-
-### Evidence-governed decisions
-
-These are not author choices:
-
-- Keep periodic, event-relative, non-zero-target, mean-only and visual-only evidence states distinct.
-- Keep executable chains and role acquisitions distinct.
-- Keep positive surrogate interpretation confined to its authorized deep case; retain the negative extension route as historical/negative.
-- Do not infer quantitative efficacy from an unsupported target construction, filenames or visual navigation.
-- Do not call a multi-case display generalization, robustness, transfer or a common score without dedicated authority.
-- Preserve text readiness separately from panel/artifact readiness.
-
-### Decision-ready author/coordinator choices
-
-1. **Main display form.** Recommendation: use the cross-case display only if each retained panel has one distinct argumentative job and complete caption provenance. Safe default: use the compact case-contract table plus at most the strongest sourced visual examples. Consequence: fewer images, clearer evidentiary hierarchy. Status: `discuss`.
-2. **Retain an event equation.** Recommendation: omit unless a quantitative event result becomes authority-bound and remains in the main text. Safe default: prose semantics. Consequence: avoids displaying a definition that has no result. Status: `discuss`.
-3. **How prominently to show the negative route.** Recommendation: retain it in the same module as the positive capability, in prose or a small callout. Safe default: one local sentence, not a full comparative panel. Consequence: the boundary stays visible without implying matched protocols. Status: `discuss`.
-4. **Further-objective panel.** Recommendation and safe default: omit while its exact quantitative target/control/baseline contract is unsupported. Consequence: the failure envelope remains in prose and the section avoids a speculative gallery. Status: `blocked` if the panel is retained; omission is nonblocking.
-
-### Conflicts
-
-No conflict was found between the controlling Round-4 ledger, Round-2 style guide, M07, the Round-3 final audit and the observed practices in the four selected papers. The literature sample supports the rhetorical direction—reference first, changed difficulty declared, comparator renewed, failure local, breadth test-bounded—but it does not decide project evidence or elevate any project claim.
-
-### Deferrals
-
-- Project artifact inspection, role-array audit, mask/window verification, evaluator availability and rendering provenance are deferred to the owning evidence/production lanes.
-- Exact sentence/page coding of the four papers is not required because this memo uses no quotations or paper-derived numerical claims.
-- Broader JFM corpus coverage is deferred; the four-paper sample is treated as closest examples, not a universal style law.
-
-### Blockers
-
-There is no blocker to this style recommendation. Retained quantitative transient or unsupported-objective panels remain blocked by the dependencies already recorded in M07 and the Round-4 display inventory. Those panel blockers do not justify stronger visual prose and do not block a bounded text contract with omission fallbacks.
-
-## 10. Disposition
-
-**Disposition: `researching`.** The requested style evidence and section recommendation are complete for first-pass review, but Round-4 controls prohibit a first-pass lane from self-freezing. A coordinator second audit should re-read this memo with the controls and M07, confirm exact literature identities/read levels, test the ownership and near-collision boundaries, and decide the display/table/equation options. Artifact readiness remains separate and does not control the bounded style memo.

docs/JFM_WYQ/ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/STYLE_08_STEADY_THEORY.md

@@ -1,165 +0,0 @@
-# Round 4 style research — steady context, physical synthesis and theory limits
-
-**Status:** `researching` — first-pass style memo, not a section freeze or manuscript prose.
-**Owner:** steady/theory section style lane.
-**Question:** How should a short late return to steady control compare finite-Re observations with an outer theory, retain failed sign/closure routes as scientific boundaries, and close into experiment/conclusion without turning a contextual section into a mechanism chapter?
-
-## 1. Bounded recommendation
-
-Use a **contextual return, not a second results climax**. Open by recalling the earlier steady seed and narrowing the question to what the separate steady chain can contextualize. Establish the finite-Re contract and accepted/reverse branch before interpretation; then introduce one short outer-reference equation, confront it immediately with the sign or closure failure, and end with a synthesis that transfers only compatible context. The section should carry one required action/sign display, one compact endpoint comparison, and one theory-failure display or equation; a new MFS field remains blocked. Caveats should sit beside the exact inference they limit, not be postponed to the final Discussion.
-
-This recommendation governs style and argumentative order only. It supplies no project prose, numerical result, or new scientific claim.
-
-## 2. Coverage ledger
-
-| Status | Source/input | Why in scope | Evidence state/reason |
-|---|---|---|---|
-| `read` | Round-4 `README.md`, `00_MASTER_AGENT_PROMPT.md`, `00_QUALITY_GATE.md`, `00_GLOBAL_DECISION_LEDGER.md`, `00_DISPLAY_EQUATION_INVENTORY.md` | Controls status, ownership, claim ceiling, section order, display/equation readiness and mandatory coverage fields | Read directly; no independent scientific verification or artifact audit |
-| `read` | Round-2 `05_REVISED_STRUCTURE_FREEZE.md` | Controls the two-pass steady chronology, 6% late-return role, separate-chain boundary and theory ceiling | Full-report; read directly; not independently verified or artifact-audited |
-| `read` | Round-2 `06_SECTION_LEVEL_JFM_STYLE_GUIDE.md` | Controlling R2 style guide and existing exact literature/read-level ledger | Full-report; read directly; literature observations selectively checked against four PDFs below |
-| `read` | Round-3 `08_STEADY_SYNTHESIS.md` | Relevant M08 section dossier: paragraph jobs, provenance, near-collision, equations, displays, failures and blockers | Full-report; read directly; reported project facts were not recomputed and artifact-leaf audit was deferred |
-| `read` | Round-3 `11_FINAL_CONSISTENCY_AUDIT.md` | Controlling R3 ownership, duplication, text/panel readiness and synthesis-stage deletions | Full-report; read directly; no artifact audit |
-| `read` | `src/steady_pinball_theory/LITERATURE.md` and relevant portions of `DERIVATION.md` | Current theory-interface authority used only to understand the section’s failure/closure and equation-selection constraints | Full-report; read directly; no new derivation, recomputation or universal artifact audit |
-| `read` | Deng, Noack, Morzyński & Pastur (2020), “Low-order model for successive bifurcations of the fluidic pinball”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **884**, A37, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2019.959` | Closest pinball precedent for physical chronology, model refinement, visible failure and synthesis figure | `full-PDF`; PDF read for sections, equations and figures; no independent reproduction of DNS or ROM |
-| `read` | Cornejo Maceda, Li, Lusseyran, Morzyński & Noack (2021), “Stabilization of the fluidic pinball with gradient-enriched machine learning control”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **917**, A42, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2021.301` | Closest pinball precedent for simple steady forcing → richer steady forcing → feedback and for failed/weaker branch placement | `full-PDF`; PDF read for rhetorical and comparison practice; no independent control-result verification |
-| `read` | Mao, Blackburn & Sherwin (2015), “Nonlinear optimal suppression of vortex shedding from a circular cylinder”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **775**, 241–265, DOI `10.1017/jfm.2015.304` | Closest precedent for theory/optimization versus nonlinear simulation, regime-of-validity failure and realizability caveats | `full-PDF`; PDF read for equation/figure cadence and local limits; no numerical or stability reproduction |
-| `read` | Ueda, Sellier, Kida & Nakanishi (2003), “On the low-Reynolds-number flow about two rotating circular cylinders”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **495**, 255–281, DOI `10.1017/S002211200300627X` | Closest analytical rotating-cylinder precedent for viscous wall conditions, asymptotic branches, order-of-limits failure and incomplete higher-order closure | `full-PDF`; PDF read for asymptotic structure and negative-route treatment; no derivation verification |
-| `mapped` | Remaining ten-paper R2 style-guide corpus and Undermind `JFM/`, `JFM References/01`, `/02`, `/07` indexes | Broader JFM style/context pool and source navigation | Located and metadata-mapped only in this lane; not reread and no new practice inferred from mapped-only papers |
-| `not-covered` | New literature/deep search; exhaustive sentence coding; full bibliography expansion; all Round-3 modules other than M08 and controlling audit | Not needed for this bounded section-style question | No claim inferred |
-| `not-covered` | New CFD, MFS, continuation, budgets, stability, figure generation, raw-field/NPZ review, hash recomputation or experiment analysis | Explicitly outside Round 4 style research | No result inferred; no panel promoted |
-| `external-inaccessible` | Authority-linked hidden/symlink-backed endpoint fields, dense MFS/NS payloads and facility media | Not needed to study style; required for any unsupported retained panel or reproducibility claim | Artifact audit deferred; this blocks stronger artifact/panel claims, not this style memo |
-
-**Coverage finding.** All requested controls, R2 style/freeze inputs, R3 M08 and four closest JFM full PDFs were read. Evidence states remain distinct: `full-PDF`/`read` does not mean independently verified, and no literature paper establishes an internal result.
-
-## 3. Observed JFM practice
-
-The observations below are paper-specific; they are not universal rules inferred from four papers.
-
-### 3.1 Contextual return and section progression
-
-- **Deng et al. (2020), observed:** physical chronology structures the paper: flow configuration and bifurcation sequence precede incremental low-order modelling; primary and secondary regimes then test the corresponding models. The final phenomenogram (figure 14) synthesizes the chronology after the model comparisons. This is a genuine return to the physical sequence, not an isolated theory appendix.
-- **Cornejo Maceda et al. (2021), observed:** the results move from the uncontrolled baseline to one-parameter symmetric steady forcing (§4.1), general asymmetric steady forcing (§4.2), and learned feedback (§4.3). The simpler controls remain visible after the richer controller appears because they supply the comparison hierarchy and physical vocabulary.
-- **Mao et al. (2015), observed:** theory and numerical integrity are established before results; the results then move sensitivity → nonlinear optimum → control effect → physical interpretation → drag. Theory stays early because it defines the optimization actually used later.
-- **Ueda et al. (2003), observed:** governing equations and matched asymptotic regions lead directly to limiting procedures and force branches. The theory is the result rather than late context, so its long derivation is not a suitable structural template for a 6% contextual return.
-
-**Style inference:** a late return works when it answers a narrower question created by earlier results. It should recover a simple reference or historical route and then expose what that reference can and cannot organize. Importing the full architecture of a theory-led paper into a short synthesis section would invert the paper’s evidence hierarchy.
-
-### 3.2 Theory/model comparison
-
-- **Deng et al., observed:** the idealized uncoupled model (equation (3.31)) is compared directly with DNS in figure 12 before the refined cross-coupled model (equation (5.5)) is shown in figure 13. The failed comparison is part of the proof for refinement, not omitted as an obsolete route.
-- **Cornejo Maceda et al., observed:** steady and feedback search spaces are compared under a common declared cost, with a compact final summary table/figure. Physical labels follow tested actuation branches; they do not substitute for the comparison.
-- **Mao et al., observed:** linear sensitivity and nonlinear optimum coincide at low control cost and diverge when the linear assumptions cease to hold (figure 4). The comparison defines the validity range of the simpler theory rather than declaring one model globally wrong.
-- **Ueda et al., observed:** alternative orders of limits are compared explicitly. One route retains an orientation-dependent limit and fails to recover the desired quiescent far field; the other yields the admissible steady limit. The failure identifies a mathematical non-commutation, not a generic physical mechanism.
-
-**Style inference:** state the comparison contract first, show the attractive reference and finite-Re/observed counterpart in the same argumentative unit, and report the failed sign/closure test before offering synthesis. A theory curve or field without the decisive incompatibility beside it invites mechanism overreading.
-
-### 3.3 Failed sign/closure routes and negative results
-
-- **Deng et al., observed:** failure appears at the point where the uncoupled model misses transient and asymptotic features (§5.2, figure 12); the authors then add cross-terms and retain a residual limitation after refinement.
-- **Cornejo Maceda et al., observed:** the best symmetric base-bleed forcing is reported as failing to stabilize, while a strong Coanda/boat-tail branch can stabilize but remains far from the target and costly. A weaker route is not erased merely because a richer controller performs better.
-- **Mao et al., observed:** the linear sensitivity route is useful at small magnitude and explicitly loses validity at larger forcing; non-zero-frequency forcing is less effective; continuously distributed transpiration is acknowledged as non-realizable in the abstract and interpreted as a map for future localized actuation.
-- **Ueda et al., observed:** the Jeffery-paradox route is retained through the order-of-limits comparison; leading-order lift is zero, and higher-order lift closure is deferred because nonlinear inertial analysis is substantially more involved.
-
-**Style inference:** classify each negative route by what exactly failed—sign, closure, approximation range, target, realizability or missing order—and preserve what remains usable. “Failed theory” is too coarse if a mathematical identity or outer reference survives while its finite-Re transfer fails.
-
-### 3.4 Caveat placement
-
-- **Observed across the four papers:** decisive caveats are local. Deng places missing coupling beside the failed ROM comparison; Cornejo Maceda places incomplete stabilization beside the feedback result; Mao flags non-realizability in the abstract and actuator-efficiency limits with the relevant effectiveness claim; Ueda places asymptotic-order and missing-higher-order limits with the force conclusions.
-- **Observed distinction:** broader scope limits may recur in conclusions, but conclusions do not perform the first repair of an overstrong result paragraph.
-
-**Style inference:** use a two-level caveat pattern: (i) a short local limit in the same paragraph/caption as every attractive comparison; (ii) one closing envelope that names the remaining mechanism, stability and transfer boundaries. Do not stack all warnings in the last paragraph.
-
-### 3.5 Equations and figure selection
-
-- **Deng et al., observed:** equations are introduced by modelling need; the argument is carried by the uncoupled/refined equation pair and their adjacent DNS comparisons, then compressed by one phenomenogram.
-- **Cornejo Maceda et al., observed:** one reusable objective equation precedes the search-space progression; branch figures and a compact synthesis table/figure carry comparison. The complex learned law is displayed only because it is itself an object of analysis.
-- **Mao et al., observed:** the methodology legitimately carries many equations because adjoint derivation is a principal contribution; results figures then test linear/nonlinear overlap, saturation, fields and stability. This equation density is inappropriate when theory is only an outer reference.
-- **Ueda et al., observed:** a high equation count is justified by matched asymptotics; a domain map and a small number of force-versus-gap plots compress the derivation into interpretable regimes and branch consequences.
-
-**Style inference:** equation count should follow argumentative ownership, not mathematical availability. For a contextual steady/theory return, retain only definitions reused to read the displays and the shortest equation that exposes the outer-reference boundary. Move MFS, strip-image, multipole and control-volume derivations to supplement unless the main-text inference truly depends on them.
-
-## 4. Project recommendation: paragraph jobs and interfaces
-
-### Recommended five-paragraph progression
-
-1. **Return and narrowed question.** Recall the early steady discovery seed in one sentence; state that this late return asks whether a separate steady branch supplies context for the already established near-constant component. Import only the minimum Kármán conclusion and immediately prohibit continuation/equivalence.
-2. **Finite-Re contract and comparison.** Establish V5 chain, solver/geometry, Reynolds convention, body/action/sign order, comparator, settling/evaluation window and steady estimand. Present the accepted endpoint against stationary/reverse or nearby endpoint context only to the extent required by the selected display. Put endpoint-not-optimum and reverse-amplitude-mismatch caveats here.
-3. **Bounded physical description.** Read the action-sign schematic before fields. Describe gap-facing/base-bleed or gap-jet-family compatibility as observation/hypothesis. Put absent causal arrow, force ownership and closed budget in this paragraph; do not defer them.
-4. **Outer reference and failed route.** Introduce the shortest one-circle or partial-budget equation, define what it constrains, then place circulation independence/rotating-no-slip limitation and the failed sign comparison immediately beside it. Preserve surviving mathematics while marking the finite-Re closure as failed or incomplete. No new MFS field unless all validation gates close.
-5. **Synthesis export.** Relate separate steady, SR and field observations only as compatible context; state the different-chain/different-estimand boundary once. End with the decisive missing test and a bridge to qualitative experiment/conclusion, not with another result inventory.
-
-### Result ownership and duplication deletions
-
-- **Owned here:** V5 steady contract/sign, contextual endpoint status, accepted/reverse boundary, shortest outer-reference/failure boundary, incomplete finite-Re closure/budget, and the late-return bridge.
-- **Imports:** contracts section supplies reusable body/action/Re/metric definitions where already frozen; SR supplies only the bounded near-constant-term conclusion; field/CCD supplies only the bounded mean/dynamic organization; cross-case supplies the reason interpretation did not transfer.
-- **Exports:** a constrained compatible-context statement, explicit theory-failure boundary, decisive test, and qualitative-experiment bridge.
-- **Delete during assembly:** repeated SR formula/deletion details; detailed CCD shares/residual construction; full M04/M06 near-collision explanation; full steady sweep; package/manifest histories; repeated experiment provenance checklist. Those belong to their owners or supplement.
-- **Opening dependency:** Kármán persistent/smaller-correction interpretation and cross-case non-transfer must already be established.
-- **Closing bridge:** the computational evidence supplies bounded context, while experiment addresses qualitative deployability only and cannot close the quantitative or causal gap.
-
-## 5. Claim ceiling and near-collision audit
-
-### Claim ceiling
-
-- **Green:** `defines`, `shows under the stated contract`, `has the declared sign`, `passes/fails the stated gate`, `is a separate endpoint observation`, `the outer reference leaves circulation unspecified`, `the sign/closure route fails`.
-- **Amber:** `is compatible with`, `provides context for`, `belongs to a base-bleed/gap-jet-family description`, `constrains the interpretation`, `motivates a bounded control-skeleton reading`.
-- **Prohibited red without new authority:** `explains`, `mechanism`, `causes`, `restores momentum`, `validates the Kármán skeleton`, `selects circulation from wall speed`, `optimal`, `stable`, `robust`, `universal`, `equivalent`, `replicates`, `triangulates`, or any quantitative experimental-validation wording.
-
-### Near-collision findings
-
-| Pair | Acquisition/roles | Domain, mask, weighting and window | Classification | Writing rule |
-|---|---|---|---|---|
-| Legacy SR persistent-action magnitude vs V5 steady spin ratio | Separate chains, action parameterizations, plants and objectives | Action-law/window diagnostic versus steady endpoint profile evaluation | `related diagnostic` | No amplitude agreement, arithmetic, continuation, validation or replication wording |
-| Legacy corrected constant/DRL mean-field comparison vs V5 steady endpoint | Different role sets and acquisitions | Legacy ROI/common mask/coordinate weighting/retained window versus V5 full-cross-section steady profile metric/settling window | `different estimand` | Only compatible contextual organization; no shared percentage or closure |
-| V5 accepted vs reverse branch | Separate endpoint acquisitions; reverse is not an amplitude-matched intervention | Same broad steady family but different sign/amplitude and endpoint status | `related diagnostic` | Use as a sign/branch boundary, not causal mechanism, stability or symmetry proof |
-| Outer potential/MFS reference vs finite-Re V5 endpoint | Prescribed-circulation mathematical family versus rotating no-slip CFD observation | Different governing equations, wall conditions, fields and metrics | `different estimand` | Compare only through an explicitly defined sign/projection test; disagreement bounds the route and agreement would not validate mechanism |
-
-No arithmetic combination, replication, validation, agreement or independent-triangulation language is licensed by these comparisons.
-
-## 6. Figure, table and equation contracts
-
-| Item | Owner / argumentative job | Source and required roles/arrays | Caption ceiling | Classification and readiness | Fallback |
-|---|---|---|---|---|---|
-| Action/sign schematic | Steady/theory; establish body order, wall law and gap-/outer-facing directions before physical labels | Current V5 contract/manifest-bound wall oracle; no field array required | Establishes action geometry only; not circulation, gap-jet causality, boat-tail equivalence or force direction | `required`; text/source-ready, redraw/production pending; artifact audit deferred | Compact contract table with cardinal directions |
-| Endpoint comparison | Steady/theory; show accepted contextual endpoint and bounded reverse/stationary comparison under the steady metric | Exact V5 roles, comparator, profile arrays, settling window and source/render lineage | Separate chain and metric; endpoint not optimum/stability; reverse not amplitude matched; no Legacy comparison | `dependency-gated`; text ledger ready, panel needs bound arrays/render provenance | Endpoint table with status/caveat, or prose-only comparison |
-| Outer-reference/sign-failure display | Steady/theory; make the attractive theoretical route and decisive incompatibility visible together | Existing one-circle identity and authority-bound outer/finite-Re sign test; no newly generated field | Outer impermeability/reference only; no rotating no-slip finite-Re mechanism or closure | `required` as an argumentative element; equation/sign schematic ready, new field blocked | One-circle trace plus compact sign-conflict annotation |
-| MFS field | Steady/theory; only if it adds a validated spatial outer-reference comparison | Dense off-grid body/sector residuals, conditioning/rank, source-radius/order/image-layer convergence, independent reference, exact source arrays and rendering provenance | Mathematical outer reference only; never finite-Re no-slip physics or mechanism | `blocked` until all gates close; no current publication-ready field implied | Omit; retain one-circle/sign-failure boundary |
-| Integrated evidence map | Conclusion or steady/theory by coordinator choice; show compatible and broken links without causality | Chain/estimand/status labels from owning sections; no pooled values | Dashed links mean context, not proof; broken links mark missing closure | `optional`; text concept ready, visual design dependency-gated | One synthesis paragraph plus limitations table |
-
-### Minimum equation budget
-
-1. **Wall law/spin ratio:** include only if not already reusable from contracts; otherwise cite/import the definition and use the sign schematic.
-2. **Steady metric:** include its definition only if readers cannot interpret the endpoint display from the contracts section; do not redefine spatial L2 or DTW here.
-3. **Outer-reference boundary:** prefer the one-circle tangential trace because one equation simultaneously shows impermeability, free circulation and the nonzero-inflow obstruction. If the partial Navier–Stokes budget is more central in final assembly, substitute one compact budget identity rather than adding both.
-4. **Supplement:** full MFS system, source constraints, strip images, multipole expansion, convergence diagnostics and complete control-volume derivation.
-
-**Cadence:** definition/sign → empirical comparison → bounded reading → outer-reference equation → failed sign/closure → consequence. Never place several pages of derivation between the finite-Re observation and the failure that limits it.
-
-## 7. Anti-patterns
-
-- A detached “theory chapter” that restarts the paper after the Kármán and cross-case argument.
-- Repeating the early steady discovery as a full second capability section.
-- Presenting a potential/MFS field first and revealing its sign conflict several paragraphs later.
-- Treating `failed theory` as total invalidation when the outer mathematical identity survives but its finite-Re closure fails.
-- Treating a visually attractive outer field or small collocation residual as finite-Re physical validation.
-- Imposing rotating-wall tangential speed as an inviscid boundary condition or asserting a universal circulation–spin law.
-- Naming a project branch from another paper’s body order/sign convention without a direct wall-velocity map.
-- Calling a low-deficit endpoint an optimum, stable branch or momentum-restored state.
-- Using the reverse branch as an amplitude-matched intervention when it is not.
-- Joining Legacy SR, Legacy CCD and V5 steady values because dimensionless labels look similar.
-- Equation dumping: deriving MFS, images, multipoles and budgets in main text although only one boundary identity changes the inference.
-- Figure inventory prose, package histories, or captions that imply a proposed panel already exists.
-- Delaying all mechanism/stability/closure caveats to Discussion or converting every negative result into generic future work.
-
-## 8. Author/coordinator decisions, conflicts, deferrals and blockers
-
-1. **Outer-reference equation choice — `discuss`.** Recommendation: use the one-circle trace because it exposes the exact inviscid boundary limitation with the least machinery. Consequence: the partial NS budget moves to text/supplement. Safe default: one-circle trace only.
-2. **Endpoint panel compression — `discuss`.** Recommendation: retain a compact sign schematic and endpoint table/one profile comparison; avoid a field gallery. Consequence: preserves space for the failed route. Safe default: table plus sign schematic.
-3. **MFS field — `blocked`.** Do not retain unless all declared validation, source-array and rendering gates close. Safe default: omit; this does not block the text contract.
-4. **Integrated evidence map — `discuss`.** Recommendation: let the conclusion own it if used, because this section should not visually imply causal closure. Safe default: omit and use one synthesis paragraph.
-5. **Conflict to preserve, not repair:** the outer-reference/finite-Re sign conflict blocks that proposed cancellation route. It is an argumentative result boundary, not a reason to redefine circulation, swap branch labels or add an unsupported closure.
-6. **Authority-led deferrals:** raw endpoint leaves, dense theory arrays and universal hashes remain artifact-audit deferred. They block unsupported panels/reproducibility claims, not the bounded style recommendation.
-
-## 9. Disposition
-
-**`researching`.** The requested literature and controlling documents have been read and the style recommendation is decision-ready, but this first-pass lane cannot self-freeze. A coordinator must perform the required second audit for ownership, equation/display compression, DOI/read-level fidelity, near-collision language and text-versus-artifact readiness.

docs/JFM_WYQ/ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/STYLE_09_EXPERIMENT.md

@@ -1,138 +0,0 @@
-# Round 4 style research — qualitative experiment
-
-**Status:** `researching` (first-pass style memo; not manuscript prose or a freeze). **Owner:** experiment style lane; Frank retains authorship. External literature supplies style/context only and establishes no internal apparatus, result, artifact or priority.
-
-## 1. Question and bounded recommendation
-
-**Question.** How should a JFM-facing qualitative experiment move from apparatus to observation while preserving provenance and preventing computational evidence from becoming experimental validation?
-
-**Recommendation.** Use **purpose/boundary → apparatus, actuation and acquisition contract → named visual comparison → immediate measurement limit → next quantitative test**. A traceable image may support only a visible named-condition observation or bounded physical feasibility. It cannot inherit field, force, mechanism or validation language from computation. Omit media if provenance fails. Use a supplementary movie only when motion is essential and trial linkage is complete.
-
-## 2. Coverage ledger
-
-| Status | Source/input | Why in scope | Evidence state/reason |
-|---|---|---|---|
-| `read` | Round-4 `00_MASTER_AGENT_PROMPT.md`, `00_QUALITY_GATE.md`, `00_GLOBAL_DECISION_LEDGER.md`, `README.md` | Claim, ownership and disposition controls | Read directly; not independently verified or artifact-audited. |
-| `read` | Round-4 `00_DISPLAY_EQUATION_INVENTORY.md` | Gate-A experiment-display classification, ownership, dependencies and fallbacks | Read directly; inventory entry reconciled below; no panel, source media or artifact independently verified or audited. |
-| `read` | Round-2 `05_REVISED_STRUCTURE_FREEZE.md`, `06_SECTION_LEVEL_JFM_STYLE_GUIDE.md` | Experiment ceiling and section cadence | Full reports read; not independent verification. |
-| `read` | Round-3 `09_EXPERIMENT_AUTHOR_INTERFACE.md`, `00_MODULE_INTERFACE_LEDGER.md`, `11_FINAL_CONSISTENCY_AUDIT.md` | Author ownership, provenance gate and fallback | Full reports read; internal experiment remains author-described and unaudited. |
-| `read` | Four exact JFM papers listed in §3 | Closest qualitative visualization/control precedents | Targeted `full-PDF` paper-level read of metadata, apparatus, acquisition, visual results, captions and supplement practice; no data audit or replication. |
-| `mapped` | Supplementary-movie records linked by Bhattacharyya et al. and Khan et al. | Motion-dependent reporting precedent | Identities and links mapped; movies not watched or artifact-audited. |
-| `mapped` | Internal raw-media/provenance slots named by M09 | Defines possible gates | Located through M09 only; mapping establishes no fact. |
-| `not-covered` | Exhaustive JFM facility literature; sentence coding of all captions; new experiment/image/force/PIV analysis | Outside bounded style task | No general frequency or internal claim inferred. |
-| `external-inaccessible` | Hidden/unexposed internal media, trial logs, calibration, synchronization and permissions | Needed for panel/observation promotion | Provenance unresolved; no claim inferred. |
-
-All requested controls were read. `Read` is not independently verified; no literature data or internal artifact was audited.
-
-## 3. Exact literature identities
-
-1. **Soumarup Bhattacharyya, Izhar Hussain Khan, Shivam Verma, Sanjay Kumar & Kamal Poddar**, “Experimental investigation of three-dimensional modes in the wake of a rotationally oscillating cylinder”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **950**, A10 (2022), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2022.792`, `full-PDF`. Closest single rotating-cylinder example: qualitative hydrogen-bubble/LIF, phase selection, separate PIV/hot-wire, validation and movies.
-2. **Izhar Hussain Khan, Puja Sunil, Soumarup Bhattacharyya, Rahul Yadav, Kamal Poddar & Sanjay Kumar**, “Flow past two rotationally oscillating cylinders”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **969**, A16 (2023), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2023.549`, `full-PDF`. Closest geometry/actuation family: visual-first sequence, distinct PIV/force acquisition and extensive movie use.
-3. **Lukasz Klotz, Karol Bukowski & Konrad Gumowski**, “Influence of porous material on the flow behind a backward-facing step: experimental study”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **998**, A31 (2024), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2024.639`, `full-PDF`. Explicitly qualitative dye entry followed by a separate quantitative PIV campaign.
-4. **Yu Zhou, Dewei Fan, Bingfu Zhang, Ruiying Li & Bernd R. Noack**, “Artificial intelligence control of a turbulent jet”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **897**, A27 (2020), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2020.392`, `full-PDF`. Machine-learning-control experiment in which facility/actuator/sensor provenance precedes performance and visualization remains subordinate to quantitative evidence.
-
-## 4. Observed JFM practice
-
-These are observations from this four-paper sample, not universal JFM rules.
-
-### Apparatus-to-observation sequence
-
-- Papers fix the question, then schematic/facility/geometry, actuation, acquisition, and only then observation. Hardware is organized by evidentiary function, not as a build inventory.
-- Visualization has its own contract: tracer, illumination, camera/view, plane/field of view, sampling, phase/frame choice and processing.
-- Comparator structure precedes interpretation. Khan et al. vary declared parameters while stating held conditions; Klotz et al. pair reference and modified cases.
-- Different acquisitions are disclosed. Bhattacharyya et al. call PIV and visualization different realizations under the same conditions; Klotz et al. say visualization and PIV came from different runs. “Same conditions” is not treated as synchronized or paired evidence.
-
-### Provenance and qualitative wording
-
-- Provenance is distributed deliberately: methods carry facility/acquisition/processing; captions carry exact condition, view, phase/scaling and annotations.
-- Intrusive or consequential choices are visible. Bhattacharyya et al. discuss visualization-wire placement and possible wake modification; Klotz et al. disclose dye delivery and background-intensity subtraction.
-- Klotz et al. explicitly call dye panels qualitative and use `illustrate`. Visual prose names morphology—streaklines, rows, coherence, symmetry, deflection, repetition—under a condition, without automatically converting appearance into velocity or force.
-- Stronger conclusions follow distinct diagnostics: image analysis, hot-wire, PIV, spectra or force. Strong words used in those papers are not transferable to a qualitative-only demonstration.
-
-### Quantitative-validation boundary
-
-- Adjacent visual and quantitative evidence remains acquisition-specific: camera, tracer, plane, run, phase and processing differences are stated.
-- Visual observations organize subsequent measurements but do not substitute for them.
-- Visual morphology becomes quantitative only after an estimator is defined. Bhattacharyya et al. specify sampled line, pixel intensity and spectral procedure, and note position dependencies.
-- Quantitative uncertainty belongs to the relevant calibrated instrument/estimator, not retroactively to a dye image.
-
-### Captions, supplement and omission
-
-- Effective captions identify comparison variables and fixed conditions, view/plane, flow direction, phase/averaging state, scaling/extent and annotations. They distinguish visualization from PIV and instantaneous from averaged fields.
-- Acquisition hardware and algorithms stay in Methods unless essential to reading a panel; comparator, condition, view and phase cannot be omitted from the caption.
-- Bhattacharyya et al. and Khan et al. use movies for cycle evolution, repetition, alternation or coalescence that a still cannot establish. The interpretive sentence points to a named movie.
-- Main figures select representative comparisons/maps rather than every condition. A movie supplements a traceable observation; it does not repair an unidentified still.
-- Klotz et al. retain qualitative plates because they provide the visual entry to later PIV. Zhou et al. subordinate visualization when quantitative performance and fields already carry the argument.
-
-## 5. Project recommendation from observed practice
-
-### Paragraph jobs
-
-1. **Purpose/boundary:** why physical deployment is shown; explicitly qualitative and open-loop. Import no computational values or interpretation.
-2. **Apparatus/acquisition:** facility/geometry, command/sign, trial/reference roles, camera/view/scale/timing, tracer and synchronization status. Avoid construction history and brands unless evidence-determining.
-3. **Observation:** one comparator pair at a time; visible morphology, trial/media identity, frame-selection and repeat status. Use past tense and bounded verbs: `appeared`, `was visibly altered`, `a qualitative change was observed`.
-4. **Limit/next test:** immediately state no quantitative field/force/PIV or closed-loop validation; name the acquisition needed to raise the ceiling.
-
-Two paragraphs may combine 1–2 and 3–4. A one-paragraph image anecdote is not ready.
-
-| Dimension | Recommendation | Safe fallback |
-|---|---|---|
-| Apparatus | Functional schematic or compact facility → actuation → acquisition prose | Omit schematic if it becomes a hardware diary. |
-| Observation | One visual claim per named comparator; trial, view and selection rule local | Weakest wording or omission if repeat/selection is unknown. |
-| Provenance | Bind raw file, trial, condition, timing/scale, processing, permission and repeats | Omit; never reconstruct from memory/derivative plots. |
-| Wording | Morphology/appearance only; distinguish visible temporal change from measured frequency | No frequency without timing, extraction and uncertainty. |
-| Quantitative boundary | Keep computational/experimental chains separate; no overlay/shared metric/validation without same-plant registration and uncertainty | Feasibility only. |
-| Caption | Condition/role, view, frame/window, scale/calibration status, processing, trial and qualitative ceiling | Move extended provenance to supplement, not comparator/ceiling. |
-| Supplement | Named movie only when motion matters; include provenance index | Omit unlinked movie. Supplement does not lower standards. |
-| Omission | Keep media only if it changes the argument beyond hardware existence | Text-only, supplement-only or total omission. |
-
-**Imports:** fixed vocabulary and qualitative/open-loop/provenance-gated boundary only. **Experiment owns:** apparatus/media provenance, trial identity, observation, local confounds, panel gate and next measurement. **Exports:** one conditional feasibility statement and one decisive measurement boundary. **Delete here:** computational values, SR/CCD, field metrics and mechanistic synthesis. **Delete elsewhere:** apparatus checklist/provenance detail; conclusion keeps only the boundary. **Bridge:** deployment does not alter computational evidence; it identifies the next synchronized/calibrated/repeated test.
-
-## 6. Claim ceiling and near-collision audit
-
-**Green:** `qualitative`, `open-loop`, `author-described`, `provenance-gated`, `feasibility`; `selected media appear to show [visible morphology] under the named trial/comparator` after provenance passes.
-
-**Amber:** `is consistent with qualitative wake modification under the named condition`; `supports a bounded physical-deployability reading`; `motivates synchronized, calibrated and repeated measurement`. No computational mechanism or policy-validity import.
-
-**Red without new evidence:** `experimentally validates`, `confirms CFD`, field matching, force reduction, closed-loop control, policy validation, measured frequency from unaudited video, causation/mechanism, restoration, stability, optimality, robustness/generality, or quantitative efficacy/uncertainty from appearance.
-
-| Pair | Check | Classification / consequence |
-|---|---|---|
-| Dye/streakline image vs computational field | Different plant/acquisition; intensity/morphology is not velocity; no common roles, coordinates, mask, weighting or window | `different estimand`; no overlay, arithmetic, agreement, replication or validation. |
-| Visible shedding change vs temporal metric | Timing, extraction, trial role and window unbound | `different estimand`; visible temporal change only, no frequency/DTW equivalence. |
-| Open-loop physical actuation vs closed-loop computation | Commanded/realized motion, sensing and feedback differ | `related diagnostic` at most; no policy validation. |
-| Apparatus schematic vs result image | Configuration documentation vs observation | `different estimand`; schematic never proves outcome. |
-
-## 7. Display contracts and readiness
-
-| Display | Owner/job/source | Caption ceiling | Status/fallback |
-|---|---|---|---|
-| Apparatus/signal schematic | Experiment; document facility, geometry, open-loop command/media path from author record | Context only; no calibration, accuracy or result | `author-supply-gated`; prose fallback. |
-| Qualitative comparator plate | Experiment; candidate vehicle for one Frank-authored, named visible observation only after raw traceable minimally processed media pass the gate | Trial/comparator, view, timing/phase, scale, processing, repeats and qualitative ceiling; no field/force claim | `author-supply-gated`; currently no observation is promoted and no panel is ready. Frank may supply a provenance-passing bounded observation and panel; otherwise use a prose boundary or omit (supplement-only media remain equally gated). |
-| Supplementary movie | Experiment; candidate support for temporal evolution that a still cannot establish | Qualitative motion only; trial/condition/timing identified; no measured frequency or repeatability claim without a declared estimator and audit | `author-supply-gated`; Frank-supplied provenance must pass before use; otherwise use a gated still, bounded prose, or omission. |
-| Provenance index | Experiment/supplement; bind media and acquisition from Frank's records | Documentation, not efficacy and not an observation | `author-supply-gated`; Frank supplies the binding record; otherwise use only a bounded caption/data note for retained gated media, or omit media. |
-| Force/PIV/registered-CFD panel | Not owned in qualitative pass | Requires independent quantitative contract | `blocked`; omit. |
-
-**Inventory reconciliation.** Round-4 `00_DISPLAY_EQUATION_INVENTORY.md` classifies the experiment display family as `author-supply-gated`: qualitative open-loop apparatus and candidate steady/Illusion dye media require Frank's conditions, action/sign, trial identity, raw media, scale/frame rate, processing, repeats and permissions. This memo does not treat the inventory wording as evidence that either dye observation exists or is publishable. The apparatus/signal schematic, comparator plate, supplementary movie and provenance index therefore remain `author-supply-gated`; the force/PIV/registered-CFD panel is `blocked`. Each row above states its prose or omission fallback. Frank retains authorship of any apparatus account, observation and media selection. The only ceiling is qualitative, open-loop and provenance-gated; no observation is promoted here and no display provides quantitative validation.
-
-No experiment equation is recommended; introducing one here would imply an unsupported quantitative experimental estimand. Any quantitative experiment equation or main-text results table is `blocked` absent a separately authorized, calibrated estimator and evidence contract, with prose/omission as fallback. Text-interface readiness does not imply any panel, movie, permission or caption is artifact-ready.
-
-## 8. Anti-patterns
-
-Hardware diary; aesthetic image without trial/comparator/selection provenance; “with/without control” caption lacking condition/view/timing; dye as velocity/vorticity/force; unregistered CFD overlay; “same conditions” as simultaneous; unlinked movie as proof; quantitative verbs without estimator/uncertainty; single-cause background attribution without controls; open-loop playback as policy validation; limitation delayed to conclusion; supplement used to relax provenance; retaining an untraceable panel merely to lengthen the section.
-
-## 9. Decisions, deferrals and blockers
-
-**Evidence-governed:** qualitative/open-loop/provenance-gated ceiling; no quantitative or causal ownership; missing provenance blocks panel promotion, not this style interface.
-
-**Author choices:** (1) retain subsection only if provenance supports a named observation, otherwise a brief limit/outlook sentence; (2) main-text still, movie or no media—safe default omit; (3) schematic only if more efficient than prose—safe default prose; (4) Frank supplies exact observation after raw-media review—safe default no sentence yet.
-
-No control conflict was found. External papers often move from visualization to PIV/force/spectra; only their reporting discipline transfers when those measurements are absent. Raw-media, apparatus, synchronization, calibration, repeatability and permission audits are deferred to author supply.
-
-**Blockers to media/observation:** missing raw identity, trial/comparator, condition, view/timing/scale, processing, selection/repeats or permission. **Blocker to quantitative wording:** no synchronized calibrated force/PIV or declared image estimator with uncertainty. These do not block the style memo.
-
-## 10. Disposition and validation
-
-**Disposition:** `researching`. Recommendation is decision-ready, but a first pass cannot self-freeze. Coordinator second audit is required; all candidate qualitative experiment displays remain `author-supply-gated`, while the quantitative force/PIV/registered-CFD panel remains `blocked`.
-
-Validated: exact requested output only; required R4/R2/R3 controls and Round-4 `00_DISPLAY_EQUATION_INVENTORY.md` read; every experiment display reconciled as `author-supply-gated` or `blocked` with prose/omission fallback; Frank authorship preserved; qualitative open-loop provenance-gated ceiling preserved; no observation promoted; four close JFM full-PDF records retain exact identities/DOIs/read levels; observed practice remains separated from recommendation; no internal numbers, artifacts, quantitative validation or new scientific claims; text/artifact readiness remains separate.

docs/JFM_WYQ/ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/STYLE_10_DISCUSSION_CONCLUSION.md

@@ -1,274 +0,0 @@
-# Round 4 style research — Discussion and Conclusion
-
-**Role.** Section-style research memo for the Discussion/Conclusion unit. This is not manuscript prose, scientific evidence, or a section freeze. External papers establish rhetorical practice only; repository controls set the project's evidence and claim boundaries.
-
-**Disposition:** `researching` — the required style pass is complete, but a first-pass style agent cannot self-freeze the later section contract.
-
-## 1. Scope, question, and bounded recommendation
-
-**Question.** How should the final Discussion and Conclusion be separated and paced so that synthesis follows evidence order, limitations remain local and visible, future work names decisive claim-changing tests, and the closing cadence does not exceed the fixed claim ceiling?
-
-**Bounded recommendation.** Use a distinct integrated Discussion followed by a short Conclusion. The Discussion should synthesize in the same order in which the evidence earns progressively narrower inferences, distinguish compatible observations from same-estimand evidence, place each dangerous limitation beside the inference it limits, and end with a small set of tests tied explicitly to unresolved links. The Conclusion should answer the paper question in three compact moves—named capability, bounded evaluation/interpretation, strongest boundary plus decisive next test—without replaying methods, values, citations, equations, or panel descriptions.
-
-This recommendation is evidence-governed rather than an author-style choice because the fixed ownership map assigns integrated answer, limits, and decisive tests to this unit while prohibiting new evidence. The only later author choice is whether an optional synthesis aid improves comprehension enough to justify space; the safe default is a compact limitations table and no new summary figure.
-
-## 2. Coverage ledger
-
-| Status | Source/input | Why in scope | Evidence state/reason |
-|---|---|---|---|
-| `read` | `ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/README.md` | Round-4 purpose, phases, status semantics, controlling-input order | Read directly; not independently verified or artifact-audited |
-| `read` | `ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/00_MASTER_AGENT_PROMPT.md` | Required method, fixed claim ladder/cautions, deliverable contract | Read directly; not independently verified or artifact-audited |
-| `read` | `ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/00_QUALITY_GATE.md` | Style PASS/BLOCK criteria and first-pass no-self-freeze rule | Read directly; not independently verified or artifact-audited |
-| `read` | `ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/00_GLOBAL_DECISION_LEDGER.md` | Conclusion ownership, duplicate limits, claim ceiling, open choices | Read directly; not independently verified or artifact-audited |
-| `read` | `ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/00_DISPLAY_EQUATION_INVENTORY.md` | Conclusion display/equation ownership and readiness distinctions | Read directly; inventory is not panel evidence; no artifact audit |
-| `read` | `ROUND2_TOP_DOWN/05_REVISED_STRUCTURE_FREEZE.md` | Author-ratified paper identity, order, scope and section-space boundary | Read directly as controlling full report; not independently verified or artifact-audited |
-| `read` | `ROUND2_TOP_DOWN/06_SECTION_LEVEL_JFM_STYLE_GUIDE.md` | Prior ten-paper style synthesis and Discussion/Conclusion contract | Read directly as full report; its literature read levels were checked against the four PDFs below, not universally re-audited |
-| `read` | `ROUND3_BOTTOM_UP/10_LIMITATIONS_CONCLUSION.md` | Closest section dossier: evidence order, limits, tests, interfaces and display proposals | Read directly as full report; project claims were not recomputed and artifacts were not audited |
-| `read` | `ROUND3_BOTTOM_UP/00_MODULE_INTERFACE_LEDGER.md` | Import/export readiness and conclusion dependency chain | Read directly; readiness is dossier readiness, not manuscript or artifact approval |
-| `read` | `ROUND3_BOTTOM_UP/11_FINAL_CONSISTENCY_AUDIT.md` | Final ownership, duplication, near-collision and panel gates | Read directly; audit findings not independently recomputed |
-| `read` | N. Deng, B. R. Noack, M. Morzyński & L. R. Pastur, “Low-order model for successive bifurcations of the fluidic pinball”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **884**, A37 (2020), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2019.959` | Closest pinball paper; final phenomenogram and combined conclusion/outlook architecture | `full-PDF`; PDF available and final sections read directly through Undermind; rhetorical reading, not equation/result verification |
-| `read` | G. Y. Cornejo Maceda, Yiqing Li, François Lusseyran, Marek Morzyński & Bernd R. Noack, “Stabilization of the fluidic pinball with gradient-enriched machine learning control”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **917**, A42 (2021), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2021.301` | Closest pinball-control paper; explicit Discussion/Conclusion split and closing synthesis displays | `full-PDF`; PDF available and final sections read directly through Undermind; rhetorical reading, not result verification |
-| `read` | Ji-chao Li & Mengqi Zhang, “Reinforcement-learning-based control of confined cylinder wakes with stability analyses”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **932**, A44 (2022), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2021.1045` | Physics/control integration, distributed discussion, explicit limits and outlook | `full-PDF`; PDF available and final sections read directly through Undermind; rhetorical reading, not result verification |
-| `read` | Jean Rabault, Miroslav Kuchta, Atle Jensen, Ulysse Réglade & Nicolas Cerardi, “Artificial neural networks trained through deep reinforcement learning discover control strategies for active flow control”, *Journal of Fluid Mechanics* **865**, 281–302 (2019), DOI `10.1017/jfm.2019.62` | Compact control paper with interpretation before a short textual Conclusion | `full-PDF`; PDF available and final sections read directly through Undermind; rhetorical reading, not result verification |
-| `mapped` | Remaining six exact JFM papers in the Round-2 style guide and `JFM/`, `JFM References/` indexes | Broader precedent already synthesized by the controlling style report | Identity and prior read level mapped only in this lane; PDFs not re-read here, so no new practice claim depends on them |
-| `mapped` | R3 Modules 03–09 and authority/manifests referenced by M10 | Underlying owners imported by the final synthesis | Located through M10/interface/audit; not re-read as section evidence in this style-only lane |
-| `not-covered` | New CFD, training, SR/CCD analysis, field arrays, masks, hashes, experiment media and new figures | Outside style research; literature cannot establish internal results | No claim inferred; no independent verification or artifact audit attempted |
-| `not-covered` | Exhaustive sentence coding across JFM or a new broad literature search | Four closest full PDFs plus the controlling ten-paper report are sufficient for this bounded rhetorical question | No universality claim about all JFM practice |
-| `external-inaccessible` | Hidden/external project artifacts and provenance-gated experiment media named by R3 | Not needed to determine closing-section style; required only if later prose retains dependent claims/panels | Explicitly deferred; no artifact readiness inferred |
-
-## 3. Observed JFM practice
-
-The observations below are sample-bounded. They describe these four papers, not a universal JFM rule.
-
-### 3.1 Discussion/Conclusion separation
-
-- **Deng et al.** use one final top-level section, “Conclusions and outlooks”, subdivided into concluding discussion and outlook. The architecture separates synthesis from prospective work without creating independent top-level Discussion and Conclusion sections.
-- **Cornejo Maceda et al.** explicitly separate a thematic Discussion from a continuous Conclusions section. Discussion moves through feedback, sensitivity/complexity and applicability; Conclusions compress the study through the hierarchy of control-law spaces.
-- **Li & Zhang** use no separate Discussion section. Interpretation is distributed through results, and a dedicated Conclusions section mirrors the paper's two main evidence blocks before moving to limits and outlook.
-- **Rabault et al.** place the physical reading in the last results subsection, then use a compact Conclusion for achievement, constraint and prospective extension.
-
-**Observed pattern.** Structural labels vary, but interpretive work is done before the final closing paragraph. A distinct Discussion is most useful when several non-equivalent evidence streams must be integrated; a short Conclusion works when local interpretation and caveats have already been earned upstream.
-
-### 3.2 Evidence-order synthesis
-
-- Deng et al. move from the physical sequence to the low-order representation, then broaden to model extensions; the phenomenogram compresses the physical chronology into a final visual argument.
-- Cornejo Maceda et al. synthesize by increasing control-space complexity and then distil methodological consequences; their conclusion follows the hierarchy established by the results rather than listing sections.
-- Li & Zhang preserve the order physics/stability analysis → learned-control findings → coupled methodological implications.
-- Rabault et al. move from named achievement → physical strategy → practical constraint → broader prospective use.
-
-**Observed pattern.** Final synthesis normally follows the inferential order already established in the body. It does not start with the most speculative physical reading and work backward to evidence. Where multiple layers exist, the closing section steps from capability or baseline result toward interpretation and only then toward general implications.
-
-### 3.3 Limitations and future decisive tests
-
-- All four papers place important limitations before or within the final synthesis rather than saving every caveat for the last sentence.
-- Deng et al. pair model success with missing-detail and fixed-mode limits, then name higher-dimensional or data-driven model extensions.
-- Cornejo Maceda et al. distribute limits by theme and place prospective algorithm/robustness directions at discussion transitions and the conclusion end.
-- Li & Zhang explicitly call parts of the design crude or situation-dependent and propose targeted changes to reward and probe-placement logic.
-- Rabault et al. identify regularization/control constraints before proposing higher-fidelity simulation, experiment and transfer-learning routes.
-
-**Observed pattern.** Effective outlooks are attached to an identified unresolved link. The strongest examples say what design or evidence would test that link; weaker closing cadence drifts into broad invitations without an explicit decision criterion.
-
-### 3.4 Claim ceiling and verbal strength
-
-- The sample often uses confident local verbs for tested achievements while bounding scope by plant, parameter range, dimensionality or model fidelity.
-- Deng et al. combine a strong model characterization with explicit loss of detail in harder regimes.
-- Cornejo Maceda et al. make operational/methodological claims but stop short of presenting a universal turbulent-flow solution.
-- Li & Zhang qualify transfer and real-world relevance as prospective and retain tested-condition bounds.
-- Rabault et al. frame the contribution as a proof of concept and a route to a class of methods, not completed general applicability.
-
-**Observed pattern.** Strong nouns such as robustness, stability, optimality or generality are credible only when a dedicated test supports them. A final section may broaden significance, but its grammatical scope must remain narrower than or equal to the actual test design.
-
-### 3.5 Figure/table use in final synthesis
-
-- Deng et al. use a late phenomenogram as an integrative visual that reorganizes the evidence rather than introducing a new result.
-- Cornejo Maceda et al. use late summary displays—a performance/search-space synthesis and a hierarchy schematic—as part of the closing argument.
-- Li & Zhang and Rabault et al. introduce no new final-section displays; they rely on earlier figures or textual synthesis.
-
-**Observed pattern.** A closing display is optional, not conventional by default. It earns space when it performs genuine integration across a physical chronology or hierarchy. It fails when it merely repeats prior panels, suggests causal links not tested, or converts unlike metrics into a visual ranking.
-
-### 3.6 Final bridge and closing cadence
-
-- Deng et al. bridge from model-specific limitations to alternative state spaces and identification methods, ending prospectively.
-- Cornejo Maceda et al. move from the method hierarchy back to the fluidic pinball as a tractable benchmark for future development.
-- Li & Zhang move from local physics-informed simplification to broader coupling between fluid mechanics and learning control.
-- Rabault et al. move from proof-of-concept constraints to higher-fidelity simulation, experiment and complex actuation.
-
-**Observed pattern.** The closing cadence typically has three beats: bounded result → unresolved boundary → prospective route or broader significance. The strongest ending returns to the paper's physical object or governing question; generic “more work is needed” language is less decisive.
-
-## 4. Project recommendation
-
-### 4.1 Separation and local function
-
-Use two labelled units within the final manuscript section:
-
-1. **Discussion** — four functional paragraphs that integrate evidence, classify non-equivalent support, state the envelope, and define decisive tests.
-2. **Conclusion** — three short paragraphs that answer the question once, state the ceiling once, and close on one claim-changing test plus the declared meaning of cloaking/illusion.
-
-Trade-off: a combined “Conclusions and outlook” section would be shorter and has JFM precedent, but it would make this paper's several chains and estimands easier to collapse rhetorically. A separate Discussion provides room for boundary-aware synthesis; the short Conclusion prevents that room from becoming a second Results section.
-
-### 4.2 Discussion paragraph jobs
-
-1. **Re-establish the evidence ladder.** Begin with named capability under distinct task contracts, then narrow to the sole independently evaluated deep case. Import definitions only; do not replay values, acquisition details or panel narration. Job: establish that breadth and depth have different evidence ceilings.
-2. **Assemble the bounded interpretation.** Move from executable action-law evidence to mean/dynamic field organization in their declared order. Classify links explicitly as non-equivalent but compatible observations where appropriate. Job: show why a control-skeleton reading is supportable without calling it causal, unique or independently triangulated.
-3. **Define the envelope.** Group limitations by the inference they constrain: cross-task transfer, chain continuity, metric equivalence, theory closure and experimental status. Put the most dangerous qualification immediately after the affected synthesis sentence. Job: prevent the final Conclusion from carrying caveats that appeared nowhere earlier.
-4. **Name decisive tests.** Select only tests that would resolve an explicit open link: matched interventions/roles, independent parents where required, same-plant or same-chain comparisons, closed budgets, and synchronized calibrated measurements. State which ceiling each test could raise. Job: turn outlook into falsifiable research design rather than a wish list.
-
-Local cadence for each Discussion paragraph:
-
-`bounded synthesis → evidence relationship → strongest alternative/limit → consequence for the next inference`
-
-### 4.3 Conclusion paragraph jobs
-
-1. **Question and scope.** Restate the physical question and named scope without a method list. Answer first at capability level, then identify where stronger field evaluation exists. No citations, values or figure calls.
-2. **Strongest integrated answer.** State the bounded deep-case interpretation in evidence order. Use one concise reminder that the contributing analyses have distinct estimands and do not constitute causal or independent confirmation.
-3. **Ceiling and closing bridge.** State the strongest surviving boundary and one integrated testing programme capable of raising it. Close by returning from the test to cloaking/illusion as matching to declared references, not universal invisibility or transfer.
-
-Recommended final cadence:
-
-`what was established → exactly where it holds → what remains unresolved → what observation/intervention would decide it → return to the physical question`
-
-Do not end on a package, algorithm name, generic application list, or unqualified promise.
-
-### 4.4 Evidence density, tense, and transitions
-
-- **Discussion:** one evidence relationship per paragraph; source details stay with owning result sections. Use present tense for the inference and boundary, past for work performed, and conditional/future for proposed tests.
-- **Conclusion:** no new scientific detail. Use present tense for the bounded answer and conditional/future once for the decisive test.
-- Bridge from experiment to Discussion by separating qualitative deployability from quantitative/causal evidence.
-- Bridge from Discussion to Conclusion only after the envelope and tests are explicit; the Conclusion should feel like compression, not repair.
-- The final sentence should close the conceptual loop, not announce an undefined research horizon.
-
-## 5. Ownership, imports, exports, and duplication deletions
-
-### Imports
-
-- From Introduction: exact three-level claim ladder and declared meanings of hydrodynamic cloaking/illusion.
-- From contracts: chain, role, comparator, metric/estimand, ROI/window and Legacy/V5 distinctions, imported only as short boundary phrases.
-- From capability and cross-case owners: named task capability and the non-transfer envelope.
-- From Kármán performance: sole detailed owner of independent field-matching evidence; Discussion imports only its result-level meaning.
-- From SR: executable-law and bounded-deletion ceiling, without formula or term-by-term replay.
-- From field/CCD: mean/dynamic organization, different-estimand boundary and exact noncausal terminology, without mode or operator detail.
-- From steady/theory: contextual recurrence/sign/failure boundary, without cross-chain amplitude comparison.
-- From experiment: qualitative, open-loop and provenance-gated status only; apparatus/provenance details remain with that section.
-
-### Owned exports
-
-- One integrated answer in the fixed order: named capability → deep-case independent field evaluation → bounded action/field interpretation.
-- One integrated envelope covering non-transfer, non-causality, non-equivalence, theory incompleteness and qualitative experiment status.
-- A prioritized set of decisive tests, each tied to an unresolved inferential link.
-- A closing bridge back to the concept as declared-reference matching.
-
-### Duplication deletions
-
-- Delete detailed values, ROI/window definitions and metric formulas already owned by the performance/contracts sections.
-- Delete the SR formula, coefficient list, deletion ledger and CCD mode/operator details.
-- Keep the full near-collision technical comparison with its owning field/interface material; retain only the classification `different estimand` here.
-- Do not repeat the cross-case case-by-case inventory; summarize only the asymmetric envelope.
-- Do not repeat the experiment provenance checklist; retain only its qualitative/open-loop/provenance gate.
-- State the full three-level ladder once in the Introduction and restate it once here in compressed evidence order; remove intermediate package-list versions.
-
-**Opening dependency:** the experiment section must already have separated deployability from validation and resolved whether any author-supplied material passed provenance gates.
-
-**Closing bridge:** from bounded computational interpretation and qualitative deployment to the exact intervention/measurement programme required for a higher ceiling, then back to declared-reference matching.
-
-**Terminology ownership:** this unit may synthesize `control skeleton` and `action-correlated correction-field modes`, but may not redefine them or introduce synonyms implying mechanism, response, authority, uniqueness or transfer.
-
-## 6. Claim ceiling and near-collision audit
-
-### Green
-
-- The Conclusion may state the three fixed levels in compressed evidence order: named cross-task capability under distinct contracts; independent field matching only for the named Legacy Kármán deep case; and a bounded Legacy Kármán/cloak-only control-skeleton interpretation.
-- It may state that a tested persistent action component ranks above smaller tested corrections and that the residual field organization is action-correlated, provided detail remains with its owner.
-
-### Amber
-
-- `supports`, `is compatible with`, `organizes`, `accounts for the measured difference`, `provides context`, and `motivates a bounded control-skeleton interpretation` are allowed only with the relevant chain/estimand boundary adjacent.
-- Steady evidence may provide separate-chain context for recurrence/sign; it cannot become proof of the periodic interpretation.
-
-### Prohibited red without new authority and dedicated tests
-
-`causes`, `mechanism`, `necessary`, `sufficient`, `unique`, `optimal`, `stable`, `robust`, `general`, `universal`, `transferable`, `restores momentum`, `independently validates`, `triangulates`, `experimentally validates`, or any implication that Illusion SR is positive, OID carries a result, theory closes finite-Re physics, or qualitative media establish quantitative matching.
-
-### Near-collision findings
-
-| Pair | Acquisition/roles/chain/ROI-mask-weight-window finding | Classification | Discussion/Conclusion instruction |
-|---|---|---|---|
-| Standardized PPO performance mean and corrected four-role CCD mean | Distinct role acquisitions and role sets; different retained windows, masks and weighting/normalization contracts | `different estimand` | No arithmetic, agreement, replication, validation or triangulation wording; mention classification once |
-| SR action magnitude and V5 steady endpoint | Separate Legacy periodic and V5 steady chains, different action/metric contracts and evaluation semantics | `related diagnostic` | Context only; no amplitude agreement, continuation or same-law inference |
-| Periodic field L2 and DTW | Spatial registered-field and signal-alignment diagnostics with different objects and semantics | `related diagnostic` | L2 carries field matching; DTW remains complementary and case-specific |
-| Cross-case periodic, event-relative and steady evaluations | Different temporal coordinates, references, roles and windows | `different estimand` | No pooled breadth score or common efficacy ranking |
-
-No pair above is licensed as `same estimand` by the controlling inputs.
-
-## 7. Figure, table, and equation contracts
-
-| Item | Owner and argumentative job | Source/roles and caption ceiling | Readiness | Fallback |
-|---|---|---|---|---|
-| Compact limitations table | Conclusion; align each claim level with chain/task, evidence type, strongest non-claim and decisive test | Text contracts imported from R3 owners; caption may say it summarizes boundaries, not new results or negative findings | `required`; text-ready, formatting/placement not production-ready; no underlying artifact audit implied | Integrate the same four fields into Discussion paragraph 3–4 if space forces omission |
-| Integrated evidence map | Conclusion; visualize evidence order and distinguish same-chain arrows from contextual/non-equivalent links | Only authority-bound labels; dashed/context links must not imply causality, closure, validation or pooled metrics | `optional`; text concept ready, panel not created or artifact-audited | Omit; use the Discussion sequence and limitations table |
-| Reuse of earlier figures | Earlier result owners; only if a brief backward reference materially anchors synthesis | Retain original source, roles, caption ceilings and readiness; Conclusion adds no reinterpretive panel labels | `optional`; depends on each owning panel's readiness | Refer generically to the evidence class or omit figure call |
-| New scientific equation | None; no argumentative need in final synthesis | Not applicable | `blocked` by section ownership; Conclusion introduces no equation | Use fixed terms in prose |
-| New numerical result figure | None; would constitute new/replayed evidence | Not applicable | `blocked` | No replacement needed |
-
-A late summary display is recommended only if it reorganizes relationships that prose cannot show compactly. The safe default is the limitations table without an evidence map. Text readiness does not imply any panel or production readiness.
-
-## 8. Author decisions, conflicts, deferrals, and blockers
-
-### Evidence-governed decisions
-
-- Separate Discussion and Conclusion because the paper must integrate several non-equivalent chains/estimands before compressing its answer.
-- Preserve evidence order rather than manuscript-section inventory order.
-- Put limitations beside their corresponding synthesis claims; do not use the Conclusion to repair prior overstatement.
-- Allow no new number, citation, equation, scientific result or panel narration in the Conclusion.
-- Tie every future test to the exact claim ceiling it could change.
-
-### Author choice
-
-- **Optional integrated evidence map.** Recommendation: omit unless a draft proves that dashed/non-equivalent links are immediately legible and the map replaces rather than duplicates prose. Consequence of inclusion: consumes space and creates a high risk of causal or pooled reading. Safe default: retain only the compact limitations table. Status remains `discuss` until the author/coordinator decides during display compression.
-
-### Conflicts resolved
-
-- The four-paper sample does not prescribe one universal section label: both split and combined architectures occur. Project complexity, not frequency in the sample, supports the split recommendation.
-- Late synthesis figures have JFM precedent, but two of four closest papers close without them. Therefore an evidence map is optional, not required by style.
-- Broad future-facing closing sentences occur in the sample, but this project's fixed ceiling requires narrower, claim-linked decisive tests.
-
-### Deferrals and blockers
-
-- No style blocker remains: four closest JFM PDFs were available and read at full-PDF level, and all controlling reports were read.
-- The optional evidence map is panel-production deferred and nonblocking.
-- The experiment's final author-supplied prose/media and provenance remain externally gated; this does not block the style contract but affects which experiment boundary the later final section may state.
-- Any retained statement that depends on hidden project artifacts remains authority-led and artifact-audit deferred; this memo does not raise or verify those claims.
-
-## 9. Anti-patterns and validation checklist
-
-### Anti-patterns
-
-- Abstract replay or one bullet/paragraph per manuscript section.
-- Opening Discussion with the control-skeleton interpretation before capability and independent evaluation have been restated.
-- Treating compatible observations as independent proof or collapsing different estimands into “agreement”.
-- Introducing a limitation for the first time in the final Conclusion.
-- Converting every limitation into future work without identifying a decisive observable, intervention or decision criterion.
-- Replaying values, equations, formulae, ROI/window details, mode galleries or captions.
-- Using a summary figure as a causal graph, pooled score or metric hierarchy across incompatible contracts.
-- Ending with unsupported applications, generic “opens new avenues”, or universal claims.
-- Allowing qualitative experiment language to inherit computational evaluation or validation wording.
-- Renaming action-correlated correction-field modes for variety or using mechanism/response/control-authority synonyms.
-
-### Validation checklist for the later section contract
-
-- [ ] Discussion and Conclusion have distinct jobs and no duplicate paragraph.
-- [ ] Synthesis follows capability → independent evaluation → bounded interpretation → envelope → decisive tests.
-- [ ] Every imported inference remains within its owning section's ceiling.
-- [ ] Different-estimand and related-diagnostic pairs are classified, not blended.
-- [ ] The strongest local limitation is adjacent to the claim it constrains.
-- [ ] Future tests name the unresolved link and the ceiling they could raise.
-- [ ] Conclusion contains no new number, citation, equation, result, figure narration or artifact claim.
-- [ ] Any limitations table or map states owner, job, source, readiness, caption ceiling and fallback.
-- [ ] Text readiness remains separate from panel/artifact readiness.
-- [ ] The final sentence returns to the physical question under declared-reference matching.
-- [ ] A coordinator second audit occurs before `frozen`; this first-pass memo remains `researching`.
-
-## 10. Validation result
-
-**Style gate: PASS.** Exact identities, DOIs and read levels are recorded; four closest JFM full PDFs and the required repository controls were read; observed practice is separated from recommendation; the memo covers separation, evidence order, limitations, decisive tests, claim ceiling, displays, cadence, ownership, near-collisions, anti-patterns and coverage states. No manuscript prose, project result value, new scientific claim, new figure, equation, CFD/training/analysis, or artifact-readiness assertion was created.
-
-**Round-4 disposition: `researching`.** This is a completed first-pass style memo awaiting coordinator use and second audit; it is not a frozen section contract.