[amaybaum]

Guiding draft PR (§A.43) for RR-1, ready-resource sourcing for the native-Y public-port interface. It is coordinated through #914 (P0).

Frozen preregistration: verification/programmes/oi-qm/reconstruction/ready-resource-rr1/preregistration.md at commit c41e0e6f.

• Blob 77a471ac4e590554e0f331557c87ad1253a1309d: the bytes reviewed in three independent rounds. The final round was ACCEPT WITH CHANGES, and C-1 to C-8 are applied.
• Freeze authority: owner chat, 2026-11-01. The owner chose to "freeze the reviewed RR-1 preregistration, then run its paper-only gates". The file's "PROPOSAL ONLY" header records its status when it was reviewed; the freeze is this designation.

Also added: assessment.md, the paper-only sourcing assessment (#914 comment 6557668736).

Owner decisions that apply (#914 comment 6558349705):

• H-sel is admitted as RR-AVAILABLE[H-sel] and never yields DERIVED.
• H-law is admitted conditionally. W-certified stays the stronger diagnostic.

Authorized: Stage 1, paper-only. That means the S0 controls and gates G1–G10 run in writing on the declared candidates, ending in UNRESOLVED wherever a step cannot be decided on paper. Stage-1 results land as a separate record file in a later commit, after independent review.

Not authorized: computation, simulation, Lean, premise adoption, manuscript/ROADMAP edits, F/E designation, dispatch, merge. All four holds (#1009, #1023, #1011, #1003) are unchanged.

---

Generated by Claude Code

[amaybaum]

RR-1 Stage 1: STAGE-VOID (recorded on owner approval, chat, 2026-11-01)

Record: commit e02544d54b365b6a123ee284bd16442fb617c0b2 adds stage1/RESULT.md (the execution record, unrepaired), stage1/REVIEW.md (the independent review) and stage1/VERDICT.md. The frozen preregistration is unchanged (blob 77a471ac, frozen at c41e0e6f).

Why void.

• G7's pin-ablation step ("each given π_0 on its cells", PR:95–98) does not say how to treat a cell pinned by two overlapping ready regions.
• Two readings are possible: removing only the ablated item's declaration, or overriding the retained items' pins on shared cells. The review rules this genuinely ambiguous.
• The text gives the executor no licence to choose a reading. Under its own stop rule (PR:24–25, 98), the positive control POS-1 stops at UNRESOLVED(G7:port-0 ready ball). S0 therefore fails (PR:74–75, 107), and no candidate token is issued.

What it does not mean.

• It is not a negative physics result, and no candidate classification stands.
• As a diagnostic only, the review notes that POS-1's pass condition holds under each reading taken separately. The void records under-specification in the frozen text.

Carried forward to any successor (review findings):

1. Fix the overlap rule.
2. Fix the "source-table order", which the text never names.
3. C3's stop at G7(3) is decidable from the sources. They state q8 = (0, x⊕u, 0) on all 4096 rows (r13c:21–23, 238–242), so H-access would be removed.
4. C2 should stop at G1, because its catalogue schema is unsourced.
5. C4's stated reason needs correcting.
6. Low-severity findings 6–12 are in the review.

Scope. No successor, amendment or re-run is authorized. A successor needs a separately reviewed and owner-authorized amendment. All four research holds (#1009, #1023, #1011, #1003) remain in force.

---

Generated by Claude Code

[amaybaum]

Closing without merge (owner approval, chat, 2026-11-04; PR-AUDIT-1, #1088). The branch research/ready-resource-rr1-20261101 is kept at e02544d54b365b6a123ee284bd16442fb617c0b2.

What this PR tried to answer. Can OI's own physical rules produce a system that is ready to record information, rather than assuming such a ready memory cell already exists?

What happened. The test's frozen G7 pin-ablation rule turned out to be ambiguous. It did not say how to treat a cell pinned by two overlapping ready regions, and the two readings could give different answers. The stage was therefore recorded as STAGE-VOID. No interpretation was chosen after the fact.

What this means:

• It does not show that OI can produce ready memory.
• It does not show that OI cannot.
• It is not a negative physics result. It identifies a defect in the test design that must be fixed before any retry.

Where the record lives:

• This PR, comment 6559037887: the void reason and the carry-forward findings.
• OI ↔ QM equivalence: proof gate (dependency index; carries #885) #914, comment 6559055918: the P0 record.
• OI ↔ QM equivalence: proof gate (dependency index; carries #885) #914, comments 6557668736 and 6557674837: the assessment and the preregistration, quoted verbatim.
• OI ↔ QM equivalence: proof gate (dependency index; carries #885) #914, comment 6558349705: the owner's decisions on RR-1.
• The branch commit e02544d5: the full files, including stage1/REVIEW.md, findings 1–12.

Nothing on main depends on this PR.

Where the question continues: #1031, the K1-RDY readiness unit. Any successor test needs a separately reviewed and authorized amendment. This closure authorizes none.

Context. Deriving measurement from OI needs three things:

1. how a memory becomes ready to record;
2. how an interaction writes into it;
3. how the record stays available to be read later.

RR-1 addressed the first; O-RET (#1032) addresses the third.

---

Generated by Claude Code