[amaybaum]

A trapped colloidal particle and camera provide a physically motivated external memory/read pair. The inspected OI sources do not yet supply its register/preparer, the write from an independent unknown carrier, or the later detector-to-public-record interaction under one fixed native update. This source-selection paper stops at that bridge before any hold or retention derivation.

Current head: 27623b8d4f976b8b0479924640ece67bc13fb935, from main b1d782f954f02cec578a10e071b73e48f86eb3dd. The complete branch delta adds only verification/programmes/oi-qm/reconstruction/o-ret-routes-20261103/classical-retention-20261107/LEAD.md (original accepted blob d6d144036120f4b20e5204de09fd2f4c4227636c; the sole later change is the authorized review-status sentence). Accountable home #1032; owner scope. Author retention_lead; separate reviewer retention_review.

Independent exact-head ACCEPT AS A BOUNDED STOPPED SOURCE-GAP RECORD, with no required scientific corrections. The native physical-lead gate is NOT PASSED; retention derivation remains blocked. Theorem N/PAD/NP/AE/SS-2 hypotheses retain their exact scopes; lack of a native map is neither a certified escape nor a universal no-go. No second-hold, counted-pass, coherence or reuse result is claimed. Old O5 #1177 and all frozen records are preserved; undecided D1/D2 and write-tick knowledge cases remain open.

Ordinary verification 42414495046 completed successfully at the original accepted head 90a554902753187ef4033ad757f1f0da97258fa3: 25 successful jobs and one conditional skip, checked from structured run/job records. Repository CI is separate from the source-selection verdict and is not a V3 F/E attestation.

The primary experimental paper and full Methods were read directly and independently. Existing Native A records have limited verification standing; they are contextual source traces here, with no unverified proof consumed. Q-A #1184 at cfe5200d4aa78647ba7d290d59664c590cdf5a14, blob 43a49dd7724b49dcc3f28f7d6a4f831196eb283e, identifies prospective compatibility constraints only. Its privacy/conservation claims and supplied resources are not accepted or used as premises. Full-history compatibility with Q-A and #866 remains unproved.

Paper-only source selection and its original independent review/CI are complete. Under owner conditional normal-merge approval, the stale review-pending sentence was corrected in a single-parent child. Independent exact-head delta ACCEPT found no blockers or scientific changes. Ordinary CI 42456868164 at the corrected head is pending. Earlier integrations' main CI must pass before this merge. No simulation, enumeration, implementation, Lean/scientific computation, new premise adoption, freeze, special dispatch, merge or manuscript promotion. Any continuation requires a concrete physical source and independent selection review; a decisive search requires separately authorized V3 scope before execution.

[amaybaum]

Independent model-authored exact-head source/selection review — ACCEPT, as a bounded stopped source-gap record only. Physical-lead gate: NOT PASSED.

Reviewed LEAD.md, blob d6d144036120f4b20e5204de09fd2f4c4227636c, at pushed head 90a554902753187ef4033ad757f1f0da97258fa3, against main/base b1d782f954f02cec578a10e071b73e48f86eb3dd. I am a separate Codex reviewer who did not author this packet. This is source reading, hand verification of existing obstruction hypotheses, and static repository review, not external human review, a scientific run, or a CI attestation.

1. The publication and preservation scope checks out. The complete branch delta is one new, 164-line paper. Its two commits form the single-parent chain b1d782f9 → ee81d7bd7173b008ef991e51c76259772a70e034 → 90a55490. I read both checkpoints and the complete final file. No old Phase A/frozen record, Theorem N record, earlier O5 artifact, manuscript, implementation, or preparation family changes. The initial checkpoint records the gates without selecting a register or deriving retention. This verifies published history, not unrecorded private chronology.

2. The external apparatus claim is supported, on its stated external scope. I independently read all four pages of Bérut et al., doi:10.1038/nature10872, including full Methods. It documents a double-well bead register, camera position tracking at 502 Hz, thermal hopping, controlled barrier/tilt operations, and reinitialization. Its erasure-heat observations give physical motivation independent of the O-RET obstruction analysis. The reported operation erases a prepared memory; it does not demonstrate the requested unknown incoming-carrier transfer into a distinct native register under fixed background and controls. Camera tracking supports an implemented laboratory output, not a microscopic OI detector/read law. The packet makes these distinctions correctly.

3. The obstruction screen preserves the exact hypotheses. I checked the landed Theorem N, blob 8c266a8b2b82e46e91c70ead73f6ca60db01325f, and its companion review. Theorem N concerns its specified binary K1/SMR family, preparations, current-slice read, fixed decoder and J-1/ST classifier, with T≥1 and ε*<1/4. PAD needs a uniform previous register slice independent of the stated remaining variables; full support alone is insufficient. In the centre-free binary setting, NP needs the product law and both x₀ values for some fixed c; uniform G₀ is a necessary exception, not a sufficient retention mechanism. AE needs its fixed additive carrier coefficient and preparation hypotheses. SS-2 needs a one-site register with fixed initial current slice and current-slice read, and does not need a product law. The LS/U descriptions retain their geometry/readiness/reach qualifications.

   A two-valued effective bead occupancy does not identify a binary native lattice site, and an effective nonlinear potential does not establish non-additive native carrier entry. With no native state map, joint law, structural parent set or physical read process, non-applicability has not become a certified escape. No obstruction is generalized into a universal no-go.

4. The separate P2-G paragraph is accurately scoped and unused as a rejection premise. I read the cited historical #914 comment 6563955678 directly. Its exact result concerns finite copy-form bijections, full support, current-slice-only single-time readouts without retained previous reads, and consecutive ticks. Prescribed time dependence does not evade that statement. Its prior-uniform approximate analogue is not established by full support. The packet correctly keeps adaptive/history access, continuous/infinite settings and approximate nonuniform-prior questions separate, and explicitly makes the present stop independent of that off-main host proof.

5. The first missing ingredient and the later-read gap justify the stop. Main C2 distinguishes structural persistence from its slow-bath mechanism; C4 can be satisfied by presampled mediation rather than a physical write/read cycle. SM/Substratum rule and partition statements do not identify this trap/preparer/carrier with one native state space and fixed update. The packet therefore stops first at the native controlled-register and carrier-write realization, with a separate unresolved imaging-to-public-output interaction. A residence time, declared readiness, static sign decoder, effective stochastic equation, or generic finite realization theorem supplies neither bridge. The source finding is bounded to the inspected material and does not deny that another sourced construction could exist.

6. Knowledge, hold timing and failure accounting are not replaced by a claimed result. The packet explicitly rejects counting the decoder's already-known preparation or write-time input as later carrier evidence. It supplies no decoder, native hold law, error table, storage row or counted pass. It correctly gives the old T=2 convention as two hold ticks and the three-point read window through t₀+3, and makes no conversion from laboratory sampling/residence time to native ticks. The corrected counting criterion is not adopted beyond the old classical O5 design; ambiguous D1/D2 and write-tick-input cases remain undecided. The required complete carrier/apparatus/environment correlations, failed writes/reads/preparations, consumed resources and absence of free reset are correctly identified as unfilled obligations, not as a constructed failure kernel or operational reuse result.

7. The source-status and compatibility limits remain essential to this acceptance. I read the cited Native A records with the current continuous-substates README standing. Their author-reported acceptances and paper proofs are not independent verification on main. Here they serve as contextual source traces; this packet consumes no such proof as a retention, actuation or no-go premise. The O-RET route material and old #1177 stopped screen likewise are not upgraded into physical evidence.

   For traceability, the Q-A context I inspected is draft #1184 at cfe5200d4aa78647ba7d290d59664c590cdf5a14, DESIGN blob 43a49dd7724b49dcc3f28f7d6a4f831196eb283e. Its P1–P3/E-iso/H-PREP and proposed NNB/R-ONE resources are supplied/unreviewed context. No Q-A privacy/conservation claim is validated or imported here, and no positive common-carrier/access or parity-safety compatibility finding is issued. A future positive must check full-history reuse/recombination with #866 and Q-A. Classical retention would still not prove a coherent carrier or coherence through a read; #1032's separate obligation and #1143's distinguishing test remain separate.

Adding that exact Q-A pin and a link to the Native A standing paragraph in the author's source map would improve traceability. They are not blockers for this stopped packet because it expressly imports neither result and asserts no completed compatibility check. Any later use as a scientific premise would require the actual source, its verified scope and independent validation.

Verdict: no required scientific correction found at this head. Accept only the bounded conclusion: one physically motivated external memory/read pair was located, while no qualifying native register/write/read pair was sourced in this screen. The selection gate remains NOT PASSED; retention derivation remains blocked. This is not acceptance of a native candidate, a broad absence theorem, completion of the retention obligation, or authorization to freeze, execute, adopt a premise, merge or promote manuscript claims.

I changed no author files or refs and ran no scientific computation, simulation, enumeration, implementation or workflow. Ordinary PR CI is separate verification and was not used as physical or mathematical evidence for this verdict.

[amaybaum]

Authorized status-sentence correction published for independent delta review

New immutable head 27623b8d4f976b8b0479924640ece67bc13fb935 is the direct single-parent child of the previously accepted 90a554902753187ef4033ad757f1f0da97258fa3. Under owner conditional integration approval and the integration-preparation writer record, only “Independent selection review pending.” was replaced with a stable link to review 5815049227.

All 164 lines, all scientific findings and source claims otherwise remain byte-identical. Exact sentence-only comparison, whitespace, code-fence and sensitive-pattern checks pass. No scientific computation or research continuation. Separate independent delta review and ordinary CI are next; the merge remains conditional on those and the earlier integrations' green main CI. Historical author credits and branches are preserved.

[amaybaum]

Independent exact-head delta review — #1186

Verdict: ACCEPT for the authorized review-status sentence correction. No blocking findings.

Reviewer: Codex /root/review_wave_sign, a separate review agent who did not author this delta. Reviewed pushed head 27623b8d4f976b8b0479924640ece67bc13fb935 against accepted parent 90a554902753187ef4033ad757f1f0da97258fa3.

• Verified that the new head is the direct single-parent child of that accepted head. The sole changed path is verification/programmes/oi-qm/reconstruction/o-ret-routes-20261103/classical-retention-20261107/LEAD.md.
• Verified exact bytes: the complete new file equals the old file with the single occurrence of Independent selection review pending. replaced by the sentence linking review 5815049227. No other byte changes. git diff --check passes.
• Independently retrieved the PR review submission and discussion timeline. The exact linked review exists, was submitted on 2026-11-07, and reviews parent 90a554902753187ef4033ad757f1f0da97258fa3. Its verdict is ACCEPT only as a bounded stopped source-gap record; the physical-lead gate remains NOT PASSED and retention derivation remains blocked. It identifies a separate model reviewer, rather than external human review or scientific execution. Its API state is COMMENTED, so this is a recorded substantive acceptance, not a GitHub APPROVED state.
• LEAD.md:3 now states only that independent selection review is recorded. It does not strengthen that acceptance, adopt a native candidate or imply completed retention. The adjacent native-register/write/read gaps and explicit absence of a counted pass remain unchanged. All scientific text and the historical author's result are preserved.
• Read owner authorization #866 c.6718471099 and the sentence-specific writer record #1032 c.6718480346. This delta stays within their exact scope.

This is a delta review, not a fresh re-review of the accepted scientific source packet. Applicable CI and the owner's sequential integration checks remain separate requirements; this verdict does not certify CI or perform a merge. No author file or ref was changed, and no scientific computation, research derivation, Lean build, workflow launch or integration action was performed.

[amaybaum]

The authorized sentence correction at 27623b8d4f976b8b0479924640ece67bc13fb935 now has independent delta ACCEPT and green ordinary verify 42456868164, 25 successful jobs and one conditional skip from structured records. The original source-gap findings remain unchanged. Its conditional merge prerequisites are met; it will be integrated only in the approved sequence after the preceding main integrations are green.

[amaybaum]

The owner's conditional normal-merge prerequisites are met: accepted report 90a55490, sole sentence correction 27623b8d4f976b8b0479924640ece67bc13fb935, independent delta ACCEPT c.6718496406 and green corrected-head CI 42456868164. Previous #1177 post-merge main CI 42458937435 is green. Concurrent #1083 advanced main to 9e0560d888260bc70aaeeaf27863d265f76ba2aa, adding only two separate A5 papers with green reviewed-head CI 42458082294. Recomputed conflict-free tree 03a4cc9d593df454193becb083550c9be6a2361d preserves those papers and all prior integrations. Its binary-inclusive delta versus current main is byte-identical to the corrected one-file/164-line branch delta; all other scientific/source bytes equal the original acceptance. Raw host data confirms unchanged head and mergeability. Proceeding by ordinary merge; CP-PREP-1 waits for green post-merge main CI. No native retention or universal impossibility is inferred; #1032 stays open.

[amaybaum]

Normal merge f88c184220453badfc9279ab9a86b6785e4db5ff has the verified predicted tree and both expected parents, including concurrent #1083. Post-merge main CI 42459530516 completed successfully: 25 successful jobs, one conditional skip. All five approved integrations and sequential post-merge checks are complete. This record still supplies no native retention candidate or physical write/read map. #1032 stays open; further retention derivation is not activated.