%% v20.0 (August 21, 2026): PROMOTION TO THE v20 STAMP.
%%   Version and cover date only.  Promoted from v15.34 with no other change:
%%   not one character of body text, mathematics, float, caption or
%%   bibliography differs.  The promotion is safe to do mechanically because
%%   the cohort cites its companions BY TITLE, never by versioned filename --
%%   a scan of the printed text of all twelve deposit papers found zero
%%   version strings, so no cross-reference can be left pointing at a
%%   superseded file.  This is the version posted to arisaka-gg.org and
%%   deposited to Zenodo, so homepage, repository and DOI all carry one
%%   stamp.
%% ===================================================================
%% v15.32 (August 18, 2026) -- BT-1: THE BIBLIOGRAPHY TITLE PASS.
%%
%% EVERY COMPANION IS NOW CITED BY THE TITLE PRINTED ON ITS OWN COVER.
%%
%% 9 of this paper's 21 cohort bibitems named a companion by a title
%% that companion does not carry.  Measured, not recalled: the truth is
%% each paper's printed cover, read from its deployed PDF; the markup is
%% each paper's own \GGTitlePage arguments, so the title sets in the same
%% faces the cover does.  Cohort-wide the pass touched 233 sites in 23
%% papers, and afterwards all 477 companion bibitems agree with their
%% covers.
%%
%% TWO CLASSES, and the difference is worth recording.
%%   RENAME PROPAGATION -- a paper was retitled and its citers were never
%%   updated.  The signature is the same wrong string in many papers:
%%   A6-GRIP's retired subtitle "Gi-4 Pillars (TGG, CCI, GFF, and GRIP) as
%%   the Geometric Backbone of GDOS" stood in seventeen papers, and
%%   C2-Hubble's retired "Two Hubble Constants as the Two Ends of One
%%   Six-Dimensional Geometric Corridor" in seventeen more.  W1-Symmetry,
%%   W2-Holonomy, P5-CPT and P6-Proton were all renamed and none of their
%%   citers followed.
%%   HOUSE SHORTHAND -- P5-CPT, W1-Symmetry and W2-Holonomy each wrote
%%   their own descriptive short form for every companion ("GDOS: the
%%   Boundary Law", "The Kaxion", "The Cosmological Inventory of the
%%   Descent").  Readable in prose and useless in a reference list,
%%   because none of those strings finds the paper.
%%
%% ONLY TITLE TEXT CHANGED.  Author blocks, years, availability lines,
%% Relevance notes, keys, labels and \emph/\textit wrappers are asserted
%% unchanged in count; the changelog comments are asserted BYTE-IDENTICAL.
%% ====================================================================
%% ===================================================================
%% v15.31 (August 18, 2026) -- FP-2: THE DISCLOSURE-PREP PASS.
%%
%% The cohort is posted as TWENTY-ONE papers with A11-Origin held back.
%% A2 carries 45 A11 citation sites, the most of any paper in the tree.
%%
%% (1) The A11 bibliography entry said "Preprint, available at
%%     arisaka-gg.org"; it now reads "In preparation ... no result of the
%%     present paper depends on it."  True: the flow is A2 -> ... -> A11.
%% (2) The objections close promised the cohort "published on the same
%%     arXiv day".  It now says the companion papers are posted together
%%     and names the capstone as the one exception.  In the same sentence
%%     the reading attribution is corrected: A9+A10 prove the parameter
%%     collapse and the cosmological partitions; the closing cascade is
%%     the capstone's, not part of what an objector must read.
%% (3) The cohort-inventory caption said "all twenty-two papers"; it now
%%     says twenty-one are posted and the capstone is in preparation, and
%%     the capstone's ROW carries a dagger.
%% (4) THREE PRINTED SITES called A11's cascade SEVENTEEN-layer while a
%%     FOURTH already said EIGHTEEN -- A2 was contradicting itself about
%%     a companion's structure before the hold was ever decided.  All
%%     three corrected; the "twelve to seventeen explicit falsifiers"
%%     site is a DIFFERENT quantity and is frozen by exact text.
%% (5) catalogue -> catalog in printed text (Report 443's pair-list hole).
%%     A2 was spelling it BOTH ways: "Operator Catalog" in a section
%%     title and label against "operator catalogue" in the prose beneath.
%%
%% NO OTHER CONTENT CHANGED.
%% ===================================================================
%% ===================================================================
% v15.30 (August 17, 2026) -- MIGRATED TO STYLE FILE v11.5.
%%
%% FOUR MACROS THAT LIVED IN THE PAPERS COME HOME, AND NOT ONE PAGE
%% MOVES.  This paper's part in that:
%%
%% * \GGShowcaseHead removed; this paper prints the sans form with \bigskip -- the style file default,
%%   and needs no setup line.
%%
%% The style file is v11.5 (2026/08/17).  Every one of the twenty-four
%% MANIFEST.sha256 files covers it, so changing it meant rebuilding and
%% repackaging all twenty-four -- which is why this was deferred five
%% times and is why it was done in one pass.
%%
%% ASSERTED, NOT ASSUMED: this paper's printed text is line for line
% what v15.29 printed, except for the lines named above.
%% ===================================================================
%% ------------------------------------------------------------
%% v15.28 -> v15.29, August 16, 2026.  THE SHOWCASE-HEADLINE RIDER.
%% \GGShowcaseHead rises from \large to \Large, one token.
%%   THE MEASUREMENT.  Across the cohort the showcase headline had four
%%   sizes: \large in the eight papers where I set it, \Large in C1 and
%%   C2, \LARGE in A4, \huge in A9, A10 and A11.  Those are not four
%%   arbitrary choices -- the rule followed was to match each paper's own
%%   existing headline, and four of the four larger values are the
%%   author's.  What the measurement shows is that MY DEFAULT was the
%%   outlier: every headline the author set himself is LARGER than
%%   \large, and on five papers out of five his practice is \Large or
%%   bigger.  On a page whose job is to be read in five minutes from a
%%   homepage, \large reads as a subsection head, not a title.
%%   So the house default rises to \Large, the smallest size he himself
%%   uses.  The cohort now spans \Large / \LARGE / \huge and nothing is
%%   below the author's own floor.
%%   VERIFIED: page count unchanged, no new overfull box, body
%%   page-for-page identical.
%% NEW PROSE IN THIS SHIP: none.
%% ------------------------------------------------------------
%% ===================================================================
%%  A2-GG6 v15.26  (August 13, 2026)
%%  Found while auditing A4-Euclid's imports, not by opening A2.
%%  1. NHT AND HAL HAD THEIR GLOSSES TRANSPOSED.  A1 repaired this
%%     against A7 and recorded it ("NHT/HAL expansions were transposed
%%     against A7"); A2 and A4 never received the repair.  A4 was fixed
%%     at v15.33 and A2 was the last carrier.  A2's body is not wrong:
%%     where it names the pillar it writes "Qi-HAL ... Holographic
%%     Attractor Lattice", agreeing with A1.  The table was the only
%%     place A2 said the wrong thing.
%%       NHT = Neural Holographic Tomography
%%       HAL = Holographic Attractor Lattice
%%  2. THE ABBREVIATION TABLE'S CLAIM, on the ruling given for A4: the
%%     table is the cohort's shared vocabulary, wider than any one
%%     paper and missing terms each paper uses, so "collects every
%%     abbreviation used in the present paper" is false in both
%%     directions.  Keep every row, correct the claim.  ZERO rows added
%%     or removed -- A2's own missing-row census is A2's revision to
%%     run, not this one's.
%%  3. ONE BRITISH SPELLING ("learnt"), and TWO DELIBERATELY LEFT: the
%%     curated 75-pair check flags Symanzik 1970 "Small distance
%%     behaviour in field theory" and Dirac 1931 "Quantised
%%     singularities in the electromagnetic field", which are the
%%     titles as published.  Americanizing a title is a citation error,
%%     not a style fix.  Both are asserted present in the script.
%%     "cancelled" (3 sites) is accepted in both dialects; left alone.
%%  NOT CHANGED, and this is the point of the check: A2's CANONICAL
%%  METRIC.  The author found a stray Randall-Sundrum curvature
%%  constant k in A4's Eq. (75) and asked whether the paper that owns
%%  the equation carried it too.  It does not.  A2 derives A''(r) = 0,
%%  A'(r) = k, then sets k = 1 -- "absorbing the AdS curvature into the
%%  natural RG-scale parametrization" -- and BOXES A(r) = r, so the
%%  scale profile is e^{-2r} with no constant in it.  Every other k in
%%  A2 sits inside an explicit RS comparison (the throat depth kr_c as
%%  a free continuous parameter, the RS warp scale, the RS drawing),
%%  which is the contrast that makes the GG-6 point.  A4 had imported
%%  the equation and kept RS's k; the owning paper was already right.
%% ===================================================================
%% ------------------------------------------------------------------
%%  v15.24 (August 10, 2026): the voice pass, and the last repetition.
%%  (1) "This is the ..." opened 103 sentences.  93 rewritten by hand,
%%      then a rebalancing pass so the fix did not simply redistribute
%%      the tic into "That is the" and "It is the".
%%  (2) "The deepest" 11 -> 3; "the deepest single" 4 -> 0.
%%  (3) The author's phrase "standing offer to be wrong" kept at the
%%      three places it lands hardest -- the falsifier register, the
%%      Conclusions, the close of the objections -- and rephrased at
%%      the other seven.
%%  (4) "What this paper does not do" was printed twice, the same four
%%      sentences in Part I and in the Conclusions.  The Conclusions
%%      telling now says what only a closing can.
%%  NOTE, and it is a finding: three defects the v15.16 audit recorded
%%  are no longer present, having dissolved during Stages 2-5 -- the
%%  two-beat concession generator (39 of 48 responses; now 4 of 78),
%%  the identical closing sentence on the eight Theorems (all nine
%%  sections end differently), and the nine-cluster no-SUSY repetition.
%% ------------------------------------------------------------------
%% ------------------------------------------------------------------
%%  v15.23 (August 10, 2026): the bibliography.
%%  Every replacement below was verified against the published record.
%%  (1) The CODATA "2022" fine-structure value printed four times was the
%%      CODATA 2018 number.  137.035999084 -> 137.035999177.
%%  (2) Super-K 2020 carried the 2017 paper's title and its exposure.
%%  (3) Fritzsch (1975) at the title and volume given does not exist; the
%%      citing passage needs Fritzsch & Minkowski (1975), the SO(10) paper.
%%  (4) Two entries printed "(representative entry)" where a journal
%%      belongs, one of them the empirical baseline for the 3.85 TeV
%%      falsifier.  Replaced by the actual ATLAS (2019) and CMS (2021)
%%      searches.
%%  (5) Maldacena was listed twice under two keys.
%%  (6) Integrated information theory is Tononi's, not Tegmark's.
%%  (7) Eight works were named in the text and absent from the list.
%%      Added, verified.  Five philosophers named on one page are now
%%      named by position rather than by person.
%%  (8) Eight citations printed as sentence subjects.
%%  (9) The B-list had eighteen alphabetical-order breaks, two of them
%%      displaced blocks.  Sorted.
%% (10) 73 of the "First cited in" pointers named a section that does not
%%      contain the first citation.  All are now computed, not maintained.
%% ------------------------------------------------------------------
%% ------------------------------------------------------------------
%%  v15.22 (August 10, 2026): the reader.
%%  (1) Abstract rewritten from scratch for a general audience, with
%%      no abbreviation of any kind.
%%  (2) Executive Summary rewritten from scratch: three printed pages
%%      including the keyword block, down from four; program-internal
%%      abbreviations avoided or expanded where first used; the key
%%      cohort papers cited inline; the uniqueness argument and the
%%      contrast with the superstring program stated; a closing
%%      paragraph for a general reader.
%%  (3) The on-ramps connected.  Nine of eleven appendices were never
%%      cited from the body they exist to support; all eleven now are.
%%      The reading guide's block letters were every one of them wrong
%%      by one and are now \ref, so they cannot go stale again.
%%  (4) Notation cliffs closed: GDOS used 61 times before its
%%      expansion, GRIP 16 times, and "inflow" 87 times without ever
%%      being expanded anywhere.  M_6 and cM_6 disambiguated.
%%  (5) The Preface no longer tells the reader the two extra
%%      dimensions curl up small -- the picture Parts III and IV
%%      spend pages rejecting.  Two passages marked skippable.
%%  (6) Two measured repetitions cut: the third full telling of the
%%      four obstructions, and the second of the three revolutions.
%%  (7) The four doubled-l prose spellings a previous sweep reported
%%      as zero.
%% ------------------------------------------------------------------
%% ------------------------------------------------------------------
%%  v15.21 (August 10, 2026): the Part structure.
%%  (1) All eleven Parts now open with plain-English prose on the
%%      divider page itself, half a page to a page, on the A1 device.
%%      Nine dividers carried no prose at all.
%%  (2) Ten Parts now close on the house device, \subsection*{Closing
%%      remarks on Part N}.  Eight are new; the two "Closing Bridge"
%%      sections are rewritten to close the Part rather than announce
%%      the next one.
%%  (3) The one part-to-part bridge is withdrawn.  The eight
%%      "Bridge to <companion>" sections of Part V and the two in-proof
%%      "Bridge" subsections are a different object and are protected.
%%  (4) The Part introductions carried four different names; they now
%%      carry one.
%%  (5) Section 70 is relabelled as the closing of the argument as a
%%      whole, which is what it is, and Part VIII is given its own
%%      one-page closing above it.
%% ------------------------------------------------------------------
%% ------------------------------------------------------------------
%%  v15.20 (August 10, 2026): floats, tables and the Part V cascade.
%%  (1) Sixteen floats that no sentence pointed at are now referenced
%%      from the prose that discusses them.
%%  (2) The OGN-5 cascade was drawn twice on facing pages and
%%      tabulated a third time.  The first plate is withdrawn; its
%%      caption also claimed identity with a companion figure whose
%%      picture source differs.  The table is brought into line with
%%      the ruling that the trace ratio is the check and the dual
%%      lock is the forcing.
%%  (3) Part V's summary of the cascade carried a general trace-ratio
%%      formula that does not evaluate to 2/5 on the ledger, and a
%%      Diophantine equation the stated solution family does not
%%      satisfy.  Both are corrected, and the selection of k = 1 is
%%      now proved from the dual lock rather than argued from AX-4.
%%  (4) Captions that described what was not on the page are made
%%      true: a missing rule is drawn, missing coefficients are
%%      printed, and two promises are withdrawn.
%%  (5) The cohort inventory carried eleven of the twenty-two papers.
%%  (6) Table type size brought to the house standard, with the
%%      exceptions named in the report.
%% ------------------------------------------------------------------
%% ------------------------------------------------------------------
%%  v15.16 (August 9, 2026): the curious-reader cluster.
%%  Twenty-five broad-audience questions open the Common Objections
%%  Part, ahead of the specialist clusters, on the model of
%%  W1-Symmetry, W2-Holonomy and A10-Cosmos.  Eight are the spine
%%  those three share, answered here in this paper's own vocabulary;
%%  seventeen are questions only a six-dimensional arena can be asked: why six, where the other
%%%%  two are, and whether extra room explains or merely accommodates.
%%  The introduction names the hardest of the set.
%% ------------------------------------------------------------------
%% ------------------------------------------------------------------
%%  v15.15 (August 9, 2026): two cohort rules applied.
%%  (1) British doubled -l corrected in prose only -- 0 site(s);
%%      12 further site(s) protected as comment, identifier or
%%      bibliography and deliberately untouched.
%%  (2) Ragged-right on 56 p-column(s) across 18 multi-p-column
%%      table(s): a narrow prose column cannot be justified
%%      without a visible interword stretch, and an overfull box
%%      under the gate's tolerance can still eat the gutter.
%% ------------------------------------------------------------------
%%% ==================================================================
%%%  A2-GG6  v15.14  (August 8, 2026)
%%%
%%%  (1) SHARED PLATE: the twenty-two-paper acronym plate is taken
%%%      verbatim from A1-Constitution, which is now the cohort
%%%      copy.  It was carried in four source states, and five of
%%%      the six differed in a way that PRINTED: the sub-line ran
%%%      at \normalsize with no wrap and the GRIP entry overlapped
%%%      the Qi-HAL box in the right-hand column.  A1's copy sets
%%%      it at \footnotesize wrapped to 86 mm and clears.  The
%%%      Q_B box reads "energy--information Arisaka constant" on
%%%      the author's decision: Q_B applies beyond biology.
%%%  (2) PALETTE: fig:constitutional-flowchart-A2's `box' border
%%%      draw=red!80!black is outside the house band (!45..!75);
%%%      clamped to the band edge, red!70!black.
%%%  Body text, values and figures: otherwise UNCHANGED.
%%% ==================================================================
% ===================================================================
%  A2-GG6 v15.25 (August 12, 2026) -- cohort-wide sweep, two defects.
%
%  (1) GU-5 IS A THREE-PLUS-TWO PARTITION, exactly as OGN-5 is
%      (M,N,L;J,K).  The separator before k_B is a SEMICOLON:
%      {c, G_N, hbar; k_B, Q_B}.  9 site(s) corrected here.
%      NOT touched, by design: the four-constant Planck unit system
%      {c, G_N, hbar, k_B}, which is a different object and takes a
%      comma; a semicolon there would be wrong.
%
%  (2) Internal affairs -- companion versions, dates, page counts and
%      build status -- do not belong in a preprint.
%%      Nothing of this class was found in this paper.
%
%  No physics changes; no parameter, theorem or falsifier is touched.
% ===================================================================
%% ===================================================================
%%  A2-GG6 v15.7  (August 7, 2026)  -- stage 2 of the v16 standards.
%%  Every bare grid in the running text promoted to a numbered,
%%  captioned float (the long one to a longtable, which can break);
%%  every thin caption rewritten as a paragraph that says what the
%%  object shows, how to read its columns, and what to take away.
%%  Each promoted table's lead-in sentence was rewritten to name it
%%  by \ref, because a floating table with a 'listed below:'
%%  lead-in is the worse defect.
%%  Recipe: [v15-Support]/ship_stage2.py + a2_captions_v157.py.
%% ===================================================================
%% ===================================================================
%%  Arisaka-GG-A2-GG6-v15.6  (August 7, 2026)  -- the v16 mechanical sweep.
%%  Shared cohort plates synced from A5; the house flowchart palette
%%  applied (no bare \draw, box fills within !8..!18, keyword widths
%%  made explicit); every flowchart re-weighted so its lightest box
%%  rule RENDERS at the house 0.521pt and nothing above 0.956pt.
%%  Gate numbers are identical to the previous version: this sweep
%%  changes ink, not layout.
%%  Recipe: [v15-Support]/sweep_v16.py + palette_fix.py.
%% ===================================================================
%% ===================================================================
%%  A2-GG6 v15.5  (August 6, 2026)  -- style v11.4.
%%  No change to the paper: v11.4 gives every figure-and-caption block
%%  an extra line of space on each side, and the paper inherits it.
%%  Re-gated because the extra space reflows the document.
%% ===================================================================
%% ===================================================================
%%  A2-GG6 v15.4  (August 6, 2026)  -- seven refinements.
%%  Short captions for Tables 16, 17, 20 (printed caption unchanged);
%%  19 table(s) taken to \footnotesize; 12 interior \midrule(s)
%%  removed from Table 22, leaving the house toprule/midrule/bottomrule;
%%  the eleven-Parts roadmap freed from its \null\vfill frame, which
%%  was leaving page 32 blank.  The cover date and the caption size are
%%  in the style file (v11.3), not here.
%%  Recipe: [v15-Support]/ship_a2_v154.py.
%% ===================================================================
%% ===================================================================
%%  A2-GG6 v15.3  (August 6, 2026)  -- the figures.
%%  Three label collisions removed (Figure 6 twice, Figure 10 once):
%%  coordinates only, no node text altered.  Two plates enlarged to
%%  the house 7.79 pt type size, measured by compiling each picture
%%  standalone: Figure 5 at 0.850 printed 6.81 pt and Figure 11 at
%%  0.800 printed 6.61 pt.  Recipe: [v15-Support]/ship_a2_v153.py.
%% ===================================================================
%% ===================================================================
%%  A2-GG6 v15.2  (August 6, 2026)  -- near-empty pages closed.
%%  2 float site(s) adjusted, each one measured: a page over 40%%
%%  empty (outside a Part boundary) was rendered, the float that
%%  ejected it identified, and only that float released.  Causes:
%%  \clearpage in front of a [p] float, \clearpage behind one
%%  (it flushes the float queue and ships the text page short),
%%  and [H] on a full-page float.  Recipe: [v15-Support]/ship_v152.py.
%% ===================================================================
%% ===================================================================
%%  A2-GG6 v15.2  (August 6, 2026)  -- near-empty pages closed.
%%  12 float site(s) adjusted, each one measured: a page over 40%%
%%  empty (outside a Part boundary) was rendered, the float that
%%  ejected it identified, and only that float released.  Causes:
%%  \clearpage in front of a [p] float, \clearpage behind one
%%  (it flushes the float queue and ships the text page short),
%%  and [H] on a full-page float.  Recipe: [v15-Support]/ship_v152.py.
%% ===================================================================
%% ===================================================================
%%  A2-GG6 v15.1  (August 6, 2026)  -- front matter and tables.
%%  List of Tables added after the List of Figures; 1 short captions
%%  added so every list entry is one line; 1 table(s) given a font
%%  size (none declared = 11pt body size); 0 table(s) widened and 13
%%  narrowed to the true measure (1 - 2*tabcolsep*ncol/textwidth).
%%  Registered standard: GG-Standard-Front-Matter-v1.0.
%%  Recipe: [v15-Support]/ship_v151.py.
%% ===================================================================
%%% ===================================================================
%%%  A2-GG6 v15.0  (August 6, 2026)  -- American spelling, US Letter.
%%%  (1) British to American spelling throughout the running prose:
%%%      -ise/-yse to -ize/-yze in verb forms only, -our to -or, -re to
%%%      -er, doubled-l inflections reduced, and the individual words.
%%%      Nothing outside running prose is touched -- cross-reference and
%%%      citation keys, the bibliography and its cited titles, every
%%%      macro name, and the changelog all keep their spelling.  Noun
%%%      forms identical in both varieties (analysis, realism, organism,
%%%      specialist, emphasis) are left alone.  884 words changed,
%%%      130 occurrences protected.
%%%  (2) a4paper -> letterpaper.  US Letter is wider and shorter:
%%%      \textwidth +16.79pt, \textheight -50.08pt.  The height loss
%%%      dominates, so the paper reflows and grows.
%%%  Recipe: [v15-Support]/ship_v150.py; cohort impact in GG-Report-214.
%%% ===================================================================
%% ===================================================================
%%  A2-GG6 v13.18  (August 6, 2026)  -- landscape figures restored.
%%  The cohort figure sweep sets each plate to a fraction of
%%  \textwidth.  Inside \begin{landscape} the page is rotated but
%%  \textwidth is not, so the usable width is about 246mm while
%%  \textwidth still reports 159.2mm, and a plate placed by the rule
%%  lands at roughly half the size it should.  1 figure on
%%  landscape page restored to its exact pre-sweep placement.
%%  Four figures cohort-wide were affected; none other sits inside a
%%  landscape environment.  Script: [v13-support]/revert_landscape.py.
%% ===================================================================
%% ===================================================================
%%  A2-GG6 v13.17  (August 6, 2026)  -- the cohort-wide figure-size sweep.
%%  8 figures re-placed so their node text lands at the house size,
%%  7.79pt: what GG-P3-Electron Figure 3 renders (\footnotesize at
%%  0.865 of natural size).  For a picture of measured width W drawn
%%  at a base font of B points the target is f = (7.79/B) * W / 159.2
%%  of \textwidth, W being measured by compiling each picture
%%  standalone and reading its ink bounding box.  Nothing inside any
%%  picture changes: no font command, no dimension, no text, no
%%  relative position.  The cohort map and the central-claim funnel
%%  are excluded, both being at the house size already.
%%  Per-figure table and recipe: [v13-support]/allsweep.py and
%%  [v13-support]/figure_census.json.
%% ===================================================================
%% ===================================================================
%%  A2-GG6 v13.16  (August 5, 2026)  -- the cohort funnel at the house size.
%%  The central-claim funnel was drawn with 114mm boxes and then
%%  stretched to the full text width, so its \footnotesize landed 47% larger than the roadmap
%%  and cohort-map plates beside it.  The plate target is now
%%  0.681\textwidth, computed rather than chosen: the picture measures
%%  125.2mm wide compiled standalone, and the house type size is set by
%%  GG-P3-Electron Figure 3 (0.93\textwidth on 171.1mm, \textwidth =
%%  159.2mm, so type at 0.865 of natural size), which for any picture
%%  of width W means f = W / 184.0.
%%  Nothing inside the picture changes: no font command, no box
%%  dimension, no text, no relative position.
%%  Recipe and the measured table for all fourteen papers:
%%  [v13-support]/funnel_sweep.py.
%% ===================================================================
%% ===================================================================
%%  A2-GG6 v13.15  (August 5, 2026)  -- the twenty-two-paper cohort sweep.
%%  The cohort map becomes the twenty-two-paper map: GG-P6-Proton on
%%  the Predictions row with a second sister-import arrow, and the
%%  White-Paper Branch (GG-W1-Symmetry above GG-W2-Holonomy) as a
%%  right-flank column at the mirror positions of the Foundations
%%  column -- the left flank feeds the spine, the right reads it.
%%  GG-P7-Inflow does not appear: it is Appendix H of GG-P2-N3.
%%  The plate is also enlarged for reading: boxes and the type inside
%%  them x1.15, every word outside a box x1.20, and the long
%%  A10 -> C-frame edge redrawn as a polyline, which returns 24mm of
%%  bounding box that was Bezier control points rather than ink.
%%  Prose: every count site, the series breakdown, and the canonical
%%  Suffix list, which was missing Proton, Symmetry and Holonomy.
%%  Recipe and variant analysis: [v13-support]/sweep22.py.
%% ===================================================================
%% ===================================================================
%%  A2-GG6 v13.11  (July 30, 2026)  -- Phase-2 references completion.
%%  15 bibitems carried no first-citation pointer; each now closes with
%%  "First cited in S<label>".  Nakajima1958 is cited only inside another
%%  entry's Relevance note (the Nakajima-Zwanzig pair) and is reported as a
%%  body-orphan for the author's ruling rather than silently re-cited.
%% ===================================================================
%% ===================================================================
%%  A2-GG6 v13.10  (July 29, 2026)  -- P2-N3 citation title repaired.
%%  A2's ArisakaP2N3 bibitem carried "Why Three? The Generation Count of
%%  GG-Theory from the Colour-Positivity Bound and the BI-6 Action Budget"
%%  -- a title from an EARLIER GENERATION of P2 that exists in no current
%%  version of the paper.  A reader following the citation would have looked
%%  for a preprint that is not there.  This is why the paper did not appear
%%  in the cohort-wide retitle pass: it was not carrying the old title being
%%  replaced, it was carrying an older one still.
%%  Now the canonical title: "Why Three Generations: A Three-Leg Derivation
%%  of N = 3 from BI-6, MSMF, and GDOS Morse Stability", identical to the
%%  other eighteen papers.  No theorem, ledger value or falsifier changes.
%% ===================================================================
%% ===================================================================
%%  A2-GG6 v13.9  (July 29, 2026)  -- four internal-document citations.
%%  The paper cited an internal "lessons-learned" file, three times BY LINE
%%  NUMBER: "L84 of the project's lessons-learned", "per L95 of the project's
%%  lessons-learned" (x2), "Per L95 of the project lessons".  Each sentence's
%%  substance is a real citation commitment -- A4 is the primary published
%%  authority on the no-free-parameters claim -- and each is kept, stated as
%%  the practice itself rather than as conformance to a line of a private file.
%%  Same class as A8's five (v13.17) and A1's project rules document (v13.5).
%% ===================================================================
%% ===================================================================
%%  A2-GG6 v13.8  (July 29, 2026)  -- internal-affairs sweep.
%%   * The KK-appendix parenthetical no longer justifies the canonical
%%     convention by what "an earlier version of this appendix" did.  The
%%     warning is kept -- combining radial and angular labels really does put a
%%     spurious l = +/-1 doublet a few percent above M_lock -- now stated as a
%%     route to avoid rather than as a superseded draft.
%%   * "planned for the post- phase of the programme": a DANGLING HYPHEN left
%%     when a phase number was stripped in an earlier pass, visible in the PDF.
%%     Same defect class as A1's three orphaned "at"s.  Now reads "planned as a
%%     later addition to the programme".
%%   * "this is a programme-of-work item" -> "this is a commitment".
%%  No value, equation, grade or citation changed.
%% ===================================================================
%% ===================================================================
%%  A2-GG6 v13.7  (July 29, 2026)
%%  1. N=3 honesty conformance.  Four contradictory statements in one
%%     subsection reduced to one: the trace-ratio route is the
%%     consistency leg; the forcing leg is P2-N3's pincer, itself
%%     conditional on the BI6 Budget Conjecture (underived cohort-wide).
%%  2. The general trace computation (L-N)/L imported and proved here;
%%     the phantom pointer to a non-existent A3 lemma deleted.
%%  3. L = 5 re-based on A3's N-free route (vanishing cubic and
%%     irreducible-quartic indices, both = L-5), the smallest-simple-group
%%     statement retained as gloss.
%%  4. Couplings to A3 cut: T5's existence clause made an explicit
%%     hypothesis with A3 as witness; T7's global sentence moved out of
%%     the theorem environment into a remark; the two U(1)_Qi sites and
%%     the Minimal-Matter line reworded as parallel treatments.
%%  5. DEFECT: T5 Step (b) demanded the F_B^4 coefficient vanish while
%%     the theorem's own expansion three lines above gives it 2/25.  A
%%     U(1) has no irreducible quartic; the condition now reads "match".
%%  6. The J = 2N+1 index-theorem claim withdrawn: no such derivation
%%     exists in any cohort paper; A3's definitional grading adopted.
%%  7. P2-N3 added to the bibliography and cited where its result is
%%     invoked.  Four coordinate pointers into A3 replaced by named
%%     content.  The one orphan reference cited.
%% ===================================================================
%% ===================================================================
%% v13.6 (July 24, 2026): THE CANONICAL BULK ACTION, PROMOTED. The
%%  classical bulk action of the BRST section -- previously recorded
%%  as a preliminary -- now carries a numbered statement (the
%%  Canonical Bulk Action) asserting its uniqueness at lowest
%%  derivative order given the field content forced by the stage,
%%  metric, and gauge-group theorems, with a five-step proof sketch
%%  (the Lovelock caveat, the named Minimal-Matter Lemma, the forced
%%  flux sector, and the scalar-free selection each at stated
%%  registers) and the course-pace walk cited to the assembly
%%  interlude of the A9 companion. The scalar sector of the matter
%%  Lagrangian is identified explicitly as the most general
%%  anomaly-admissible envelope, retained for the anomaly
%%  bookkeeping, with the constitutional selection the scalar-free
%%  member whose order parameter is the Wilson line; the bulk
%%  cosmological term's boundary descendant is pointed at the
%%  cosmological companion. The boundary-term sentence now points at
%%  the companion's completed Wilson-line sector instead of deferring
%%  formally. Two local definitions converted to renew-form for
%%  compatibility with the current house style file (no output
%%  change).
%% ===================================================================
%% ===== v13.5 (2026-07-20): STAGE 5C -- WAVE-2 RESIDUE CLEANUP =====
%% (1) F1: Suffix-roster rename-history clause (incl. the
%%     'rename effective of' rider) removed -> 'GRIP (A6)'.
%% (2) F2: P5-CPT bibitem title text -> the current P5 v3.42
%%     cover title (label/key untouched).
%% Physics, theorem keys, numbers, values, grades: UNCHANGED.
%% ===================================================================
%% ===== v13.4 (2026-07-20): STAGE 2 CONSUMER/ATTRIBUTION SHIP =====
%% Author-approved Wave-2 content items (audit:
%% GG-Internal-Report-RealBulk-Audit-2026-07-19.md, A2 ledger A2-R1 +
%% A2-R4 + KK/bundle attribution surface; custody anchor:
%% A1-Constitution v13.2 sec:AX4_category_axis, L-Constitution-1 at
%% candidate grade, + the AX-3 synthesis).
%% (1) L-CONSTITUTION-1 CONSUMER RESTATEMENT + HOUR-4
%% OVER-DETERMINATION (A2-R1, carrying the pricing): NEW euclidremark
%% after L-Stat-2 (lem:third-job), before ssec:spin-boundary -- the
%% spinorial register forced twice by independent clocks: (route one)
%% Theorem 0's arena (circle + clock, globally static metric) is the
%% input from which the Foundations Branch derives the boundary's
%% complex structure (T-P4-1/2/3), and A1's L-Constitution-1
%% (candidate) prices the real bulk category as the AX-4 minimum with
%% that arena as the recoverability stage; (route two) the mod-8
%% reality clock -- (1,5) at hour 4, B Bbar = -1, pseudo-real Weyl
%% module, empty Majorana condition (P5 App. G.4, textbook-reading
%% grade).  Over-determination of the GG-6 signature; REMARK at
%% candidate grade, no new theorem key.
%% (2) GKLS PEDIGREE (A2-R4, one-clause form, two sites): the POS-4
%% physical-intuition paragraph gains one pedigree sentence (the i of
%% eq:GKLS is the derived boundary quarter-turn; T-P4-1/2, agreement
%% T-P4-3); the Theorem-3 Step (c) -i[H,rho] CPTP site gains one
%% parenthetical clause.
%% (3) KK ATTRIBUTIONS (one clause each): the theta-Fourier KK-mode
%% site (e^{i n theta}, Picture 4) and the bundle-dictionary site
%% (D = d - iqA) each name the i as the boundary rendering of the
%% circle's forced quarter-turn (T-P4-1).
%% Protected byte-identical: abstract, ExecutiveSummary, the
%% spin-statistics suite statements (L-Spin-1, T-Spin-A, L-Stat-1/2,
%% T-Stat-A), the eq:GKLS display, the frozen v1.4 nineteen-paper
%% map.  Physics, theorem keys, numbers, values, grades: UNCHANGED
%% (no new numerals).  POS-4/POS-5 tikz-node and PS-GG6-4/5 token
%% censuses unchanged (P4/P5 collision guard).  v13.3 -> v13.4.
%% Script: a2_v13.4_stage2.py.
%% ===== v13.3 (2026-07-19): WAVE 1 OF THE 19-PAPER PROMOTION SHIP =====
%% Mechanical cohort-promotion sweep (17 -> 19 papers) plus the
%% standardized Part-I close (author-approved Wave-1 scope; audit:
%% GG-Internal-Report-RealBulk-Audit-2026-07-19.md, A2 ledger + App. A).
%% (1) NEW closing section of Part I, "The cohort inheritance and the
%% roadmap of the eleven Parts" (A1-Constitution Sec. 3 / P4-Real v3.2
%% architecture): subsection "The cohort inheritance" (roster-level
%% prose in A2's voice; the two Foundations members entered at roster
%% level -- GG-P4-Real fed by the Theorem-0 arena and returning the
%% origin of the boundary's i, GG-P5-CPT consuming the spinor/
%% orientation structure for the three mirrors) closing with the frozen
%% v1.4 nineteen-paper cohort map on its own page (label
%% fig:cohort-architecture-A2 kept; the old seventeen-paper map figure
%% in Part V is retired and its prose retargeted), and subsection
%% "Roadmap of the eleven Parts" (label sec:roadmap-eleven-parts-A2
%% kept; new prose walkthrough) closing with a NEW roadmap figure
%% (label fig:A2-eleven-parts-flowchart kept) in the A1 Figure-4
%% architecture.  The highlighted Part is now Part II -- the eight
%% theorems are what the title claims -- superseding the former
%% Part-VI highlight.
%% (2) COUNTS: all reader-facing cohort counts seventeen -> nineteen
%% (~30 tokens across ~25 sites), "sixteen companion papers" ->
%% eighteen, inventory arithmetic -> eleven A-papers, five P-papers,
%% three C-papers.  Protected semantic non-edits: the seventeen-layer
%% GRIP cascade (4 sites), "twelve to seventeen explicit falsifiers",
%% "sixteen additional objections".
%% (3) ROSTER/NAMING: suffix roster gains the foundations preprints
%% Real (P4) and CPT (P5); dictionary + inventory + structural-reading
%% rosters name the Foundations Branch; "CPT satellite" -> "CPT member
%% paper" (13 sites) and "its satellites" -> "its companion papers"
%% (Theorem-0 register sentence) per the promotion register.
%% (4) MACROS + BIB: \PaperPFour (GG-P4-Real) and \PaperPFive
%% (GG-P5-CPT) installed; NEW bibitem ArisakaP4Real with Relevance
%% note stating the Thm-0-arena / origin-of-i reciprocity; P5 bibitem
%% Relevance updated to member language.  No ArisakaP4Twistor key ever
%% existed in A2 (nothing to rename).
%% (5) ONE-LINE CONTENTS: \GGPart renewed per the P4-Real v3.2
%% preamble pattern (contents line carries only "Part N. <title>").
%% Physics, theorem keys, numbers, values, grades: UNCHANGED.
%% v13.2 -> v13.3.  Script: a2_v13.3_wave1.py.
%% ===== v13.2 (2026-07-18): THEOREM-0 REGISTER SENTENCE =====
%% P5 hostile-review cohort ship (author-approved; calibrated honesty,
%% uniform pricing; standing claims intact). ONE forward-visibility
%% sentence added immediately after the Theorem 0 statement (between
%% \end{euclidtheorem} and its proof): "Register, stated where the
%% theorem is stated rather than in a remark: Theorem 0 is a
%% constitutional forcing argument (Remark 0.5), and every downstream
%% 'forced' in this paper and its satellites inherits that register."
%% Remark 0.5 itself already grades the theorem honestly and is
%% unchanged. Nothing else changed. v13.1 -> v13.2.
%% Script: a2_v13.2_thm0_register.py.
%% ===== v13.1 (2026-07-18): SPIN-1/2 AND FERMI-DIRAC STATISTICS =====
%% Commissioned addition (author-approved from the internal report
%% GG-Internal-Report-Spin-and-FD-Statistics-2026-07-18.md): new
%% closing section of Part II, "Beyond the Eight Theorems: The
%% Geometric Origin of Spin-1/2 and Fermi-Dirac Statistics"
%% (sec:spin-statistics).  Candidate suite at explicit grades:
%% L-Spin-1 (frame-path memory), T-Spin-A (populated spinorial
%% register), L-Stat-1 (exchange = 2pi rotation for attractor
%% tokens), L-Stat-2 (third job of the Clifford intertwiner B),
%% T-Stat-A (spin-statistics as sibling of CPT under the P5 Wick
%% quartet), F-Stat-1 (candidate falsifier; VIP-2 2025 bound
%% beta^2/2 < 4.8e-29 verified against Sci. Rep. Nov 2025).
%% Roadmap Part-II paragraph extended by one sentence.  New bibitems
%% with Relevance notes: ArisakaP5CPT + nine external (Pauli 1940,
%% Wigner 1939, Streater-Wightman 1964, Finkelstein-Rubinstein 1968,
%% Leinaas-Myrheim 1977, Bisognano-Wichmann 1976, Guido-Longo 1995,
%% Rauch et al. 1975, VIP-2 2025).  REPAIR (flagged, provably wrong):
%% the C1-Kaxion A-list entry's URL+Relevance block had been sitting
%% inside the Douglas-Kachru B-list entry since some earlier edit;
%% moved back into the C1-Kaxion entry.  "Eight Theorems" branding
%% (T1-T8) intentionally unchanged: the new section is explicitly
%% beyond the eight, at candidate grade.
%% ===== v13.0 (2026-07-16): promotion to the v13 series (GG-v13 project) =====
%% Surgical fix from the A3 hostile-review Tier C plan (author-approved):
%% five sites expanded the axiom/postulate names off-canon ('Lorentz
%% Closure', 'Universal Equivalence Principle', 'Compositional Principle',
%% 'Ontological Generation Number', 'Mathematical Falsification');
%% aligned to the A1 canon (Locality and Causality; Unified Extremal
%% Principle; Closure and Positivity; Occam Gauge Normalisation;
%% Measurement and Falsifiability). No other changes.
%% v11.30 (2026-07-14, landscape forward pointer) -- presentation only.
%%   One-clause forward pointer appended to the "no vacuum landscape" sentence:
%%   the single admissible geometry is obliged to return one value per
%%   low-energy constant across the sky -- the second horizon problem developed
%%   in A10 and P3. Pointer only (A2 already carries the calibrated landscape
%%   treatment in Part IV); no argument, no values. Script: a2_pointer.py.
% v11.29 (July 2, 2026): cohort universal-indentation pass (author-
%   directed): indentfirst loaded (first paragraphs after headings
%   now indent); bare captionof (fig:constitutional-chain) wrapped in a minipage -- fixes the parindent leak that flattened all paragraphs after it. Per-paper stray-noindent review deferred to the
%   v2.0 pass. No content changed.
% v11.28 (July 2, 2026): cohort multi-Arisaka citation split pass
%   (charter natbib rule; author-directed 2026-07-02): 19
%   multi-key cites split into citealp/citet chains; fixes the
%   same-author-same-year comma-run rendering. No content changed.
% v11.27 (July 1, 2026): remark after eq:S1-fixed -- theta-holonomy moduli
%   space carries no discrete identification (no Z2/C/orientifold quotient);
%   load-bearing negative fact for A10's VIII-a/VIII-b closed-packet split.
%   Stationary-Measure programme, report 2026-07-01. Nothing else touched.
% ===== v11.26: COSMETIC table-font normalization -- inserted \small before
%  \begin{tabular} in 16 oversized (unsized) table floats so every table
%  sits ~10%% below the body text (matches A10 v12.43). Already-small tables untouched.
% ===== A2-GG6 v11.25 (2026-06-27): Round-2 Tier-1 -- one-line pointer that the M_6/M_Pl reduction
% integral over e^{-2r} is the scale weight of RG flow (r non-spatial), not a graviton volume. =====
% Bib cross-citation titles reconciled to canonical cover titles (cross-citation integrity), 2026-06-27.
% A10 bib-title reconciled to canonical cover title (cross-citation integrity), 2026-06-27.
% ===== A2-GG6 v11.22 (2026-06-26): ATP reduction (reduce, keep structure). KEPT Q_B/Arisaka-eq/
% U(1)_Qi + value 0.1555 eV/qubit; REMOVED ATP biochemistry (kJ/mol, Gibbs, 98.5%, 2:1 stoich,
% ATP falsifier/kill detail) -> A7/A11; Obj.22 shortened+pointed; 'bioenergetic'->'energy--information'. =====
% ===== A2-GG6 v11.21 (2026-06-26): two more capitalised/guard-shadowed GG-self holographic
% survivors: 'Holographic bulk-to-boundary projection' (App. C pi_{6->4}) -> 'Bulk-to-boundary
% projection'; '\paragraph{Holographic-RG, not Randall--Sundrum}' -> 'Renormalization-group, ...'. =====
% ===== A2-GG6 v11.20 (2026-06-26): de-contamination stragglers (author-found): 'warped (4+2) bulk'
% -> '(4+2)=6D bulk'; 'warped zero-mode profile' -> 'zero-mode profile'; 'Warped radial coordinate'
% -> 'Radial coordinate'; Part-III divider comment de-warped. No physics. =====
% ===== A2-GG6 v11.19 (2026-06-26): cohort Wave-2 de-contamination (protect-list aware). =====
% Shed GG's own 'warped/holographic' self-description (warped 6D bulk->6D bulk; OGGEP holographic
% projection/dictionary->bulk-to-boundary; holographic image->boundary image; holographic radial-as-
% RG-flow reading->radial-as-RG-flow; warp factor/depth->scale). KEPT all external AdS/CFT comparison,
% disclaimers, citations (Maldacena), holographic PRINCIPLE, 'holographic dualities' list, A7 'Neural
% Holographic Tomography'/QiHAL acronym, and Randall--Sundrum external refs. Body only. No physics.
% ===== A2 v11.18 (2026-06-25): cohort central-claim funnel (light, foundation variant). =====
% Added a modest 'place in the cohort' section (sec:cohort-funnel) leading with the paper's own
% subject, plus the shared open-system funnel (fig:cohort-funnel, generic payload). Framing kept
% deliberately light per author guidance; the paper proceeds on its own terms. No new physics.
%% =====================================================================
%%  A2-GG6 v11.16 (migrated onto ucla-arisaka-gg-11) -- 2026-06-22
%%  Single canonical style.  Stripped the now-redundant FORMATTING
%%  overrides (Overview/LoF/ExecSummary); single-page Overview+LoF via
%%  the gg-11 toggle; Preface via \GGPreface.  KEPT A2's \l@section TOC
%%  indents and its own \GGAcknowledgments text (heading centered in
%%  place).  No prose/figure/number content changed.
%% =====================================================================
%% ---------------------------------------------------------------------
%%  Arisaka-GG-A2-GG6-v11.15 (Stage 3C: pillar dictentry forward-refs) -- 2026-06-20
%%  4 QiFour-pillar dictentries 'as T-Qi4-1..4' (flat, wrong for A7's
%%  section-numbered pillars) -> 'in its QiFour pillar theorem (T-Qi4 series)'.
%% ---------------------------------------------------------------------
% ---------------------------------------------------------------------
%  Arisaka-GG-A2-GG6-v11.13 (Stage 3C cross-reference sweep) -- 2026-06-20
%  Dictionary forward-refs generalized: flat 'T-X-1 through T-X-N' / wrong specific ids -> accurate 'the T-X series' (those papers are section-numbered).
% ---------------------------------------------------------------------
%% =====================================================================
%%  A2-GG6 v11.13 (naming-convention compliance) -- 2026-06-19
%%  A2 is the convention PILOT and was already fully tagged; this pass only
%%  completes the convention KEY to the refined cohort standard:
%%   - Suffix list 11 A-series -> all 17 (added P1/P2/P3 + C1/C2/C3);
%%   - typo 'Beginning with of A2' -> 'Beginning with A2';
%%   - stale 'will propagate to the other ten' -> ongoing propagation;
%%   - Part-VII overview 'P1--P12' -> 'P1--P13' (count fix).
%%  Plus: resolved the 12 pre-existing orphan references (vonNeumann1932,
%%  Bohr1928, Mackey1963, Hilbert1899, Stinespring1955, Zwanzig1960,
%%  Nakahara2003, Schwarz1995, Sagnotti1992, Witten1998, Wightman1956,
%%  HaagKastler1964) by citing each at its natural in-text home -> 0 orphans.
%%  No physics change; all existing tags untouched.
%% =====================================================================
%% =====================================================================
%%  Arisaka-GG-A2-GG6-v11.12 (v11.12) -- stale-value fix -- 2026-06-19
%%  Corrected the one stale kaxion mass 'kaxion at ~19 ueV' -> '~8.1 ueV'
%%  (canonical value, verified vs the authoritative source C1-Kaxion /
%%  A9-SM / A6-GRIP; A3/A4/A5 already carried 8.1 ueV).  Frozen-physics
%%  stale-value exception, flagged.  No other change.
%% =====================================================================
%% =====================================================================
%%  A2-GG6 v11.11 -- 2026-06-18  (self-consistency follow-up, author-approved)
%%  Three bibliography Relevance notes cited proton stability as 'Falsifier~6';
%%  the canonical section is 'Falsifier 7 (F-GG6-7): Proton stability as a
%%  theorem' (F-GG6-6 is the Measurement-problem falsifier).  Corrected the
%%  three to Falsifier~7.  No other falsifier-number cross-refs mismatch.
%% =====================================================================
%% =====================================================================
%%  A2-GG6 v11.10 (patch 2, pre-deploy) -- 2026-06-18
%%  Independent audit catch: systematic stale 'Part~VIII' -> 'Part~VII' for
%%  the Falsifiers / Problems-Solved / Empirical-Reach / innovation-exposure
%%  refs (all live in Discussion = Part VII; Conclusions = VIII holds only
%%  the shift/anchor/closing).  18 fixes (one landscape note -> Part~IV by
%%  its 'comparison with string theory' descriptor); Part VII divider
%%  subtitle de-listed of the Common Objections (now Part X).  7 genuine
%%  Conclusions refs and 2 external A5 cites left intact.  Proton-stability
%%  falsifier NUMBER (6 vs 7) left for author decision.
%% =====================================================================
%% =====================================================================
%%  A2-GG6 v11.10  (new-standard Step 2: final review) -- 2026-06-18
%%  Reconciled stale self-references vs the actual 11-Part structure:
%%  objection count -> 53 (was 26/35/33 in 8 places); Common Objections
%%  re-located to Part X (Overview, roadmap caption, Part-VI summary,
%%  Conclusions); 'Part~VIII' -> 'Part~VII' for Problems-Solved and
%%  Falsifier~2; 'twelve falsifiers' -> 'ten'; misplaced mid-Part closing
%%  remark rewritten as an interim transition; nine-parts labels -> eleven.
%%  (Twelve Problems Solved verified correct; PS-13 is a Future Direction.)
%% =====================================================================
%% =====================================================================
%%  A2-GG6 v11.9  (GG-QA+References, new-standard Step 1) -- 2026-06-18
%%  Common Objections Part expanded 35 -> 53 Q&A (new >50 standard): 18 new
%%  hostile-reviewer objections (O-GG6-36..53) in 4 clusters -- the eight
%%  Part-II Theorems one by one, superstring pushback on the Part-IV
%%  comparison, the charge of rhetoric vs the Part-V map / Part-VI
%%  classification, and the bulk-side honesty ledger -- each cross-linked
%%  to A2's sections/theorems/tables and companion papers.  Stale closing
%%  remark (29/34 -> 53, eight clusters) reconciled.
%% =====================================================================
% ===== v11.8 (2026-06-18): References A/B split + first-citation relevance-links (author Go). =====
%  (1) Appended 'First cited in \S\ref{...}' to every cited entry's Relevance note (first-citation
%  subsection). (2) Split the bibliography into A. the Arisaka cohort papers and B. all other
%  references (each a \section* + thebibliography block). (3) Intro third paragraph now describes the
%  two groups. Mirrors A1 v11.9. v11.7 -> v11.8.
% =====================================================================
% ===== v11.7 (2026-06-18): List-of-Figures one-line pass. =====
%  Trimmed the over-long short [..] captions of Figs 1,5,6,8,9,11,12,13 to a single LoF line each
%  (full captions under the figures unchanged), so 'Overview of Contents' + 'List of Figures' fit on
%  one page. v11.6 -> v11.7.
% =====================================================================
% ===== v11.6 (2026-06-18): Fig 9 List-of-Figures fix. =====
%  Figure 9 (sm-to-gg6-flow) had no short caption, so its full 862-char caption flooded the List of
%  Figures. Added a concise short [..] caption; the full caption under the figure is unchanged.
%  (Stage-1b had mistakenly shortened Figure 4 instead.) v11.5 -> v11.6.
% =====================================================================
% ===== v11.5 (2026-06-17): Stage 1b -- roadmap -> eleven Parts + Fig 9 LoF shrink (author Go). =====
%  Roadmap section title, per-Part walkthrough (Part IX renamed; Part X, XI added; 'eight further
%  Parts'->'ten'; 'nine Parts'->'eleven'), and the figure (caption nine->eleven; Appendix->three
%  back-matter Parts; IX relabelled + X, XI nodes/arrows/phase-labels added) all updated. Figure put
%  on its own vertically-centred page (minipage+vfill, 0.85\textwidth). Fig 9's over-long List-of-
%  Figures short caption shortened. v11.4 -> v11.5.
% =====================================================================
% ===== v11.4 (2026-06-17): Stage 1a -- four-Part back-matter tail (author Go). =====
%  Part IX (\GGAppendixPart) renamed 'Technical Appendices'; \GGAcknowledgments moved to the end of
%  Part VIII (Conclusions). Common Objections promoted to its own \GGPart (Part X) with categories
%  \subsection -> \section and \bigskip spacing. References added as \GGPart (Part XI) with a
%  3-paragraph intro; \GGBibBegin dropped and natbib heading suppressed; no duplicate ToC entry.
%  Roadmap figure/prose ('nine Parts') updated in Stage 1b. v11.3 -> v11.4.
% =====================================================================
% ===== v11.3 (2026-06-17): reformat Common-Objections to 3-block house standard (author Go). =====
%  The relocated Q&A section is reformatted to the A9/A1 house style: three-block entries (bold
%  Title / bold flush Question / indented Response via objqabody) and four titled \subsection
%  categories. No-persona objections 1-7 get an explicit Response. lead; SL1-SL3 are folded in as
%  Objections 24-26 (the senior string theorist) with their critique-titles carried into the
%  question; connective paragraphs are kept as cluster prose. Content preserved verbatim. v11.2->v11.3.
% =====================================================================
% ===== v11.2 (2026-06-17): relocate Common-Objections Q&A to the end (author Go). =====
%  The Q&A \section is moved from mid-body to the final position (last section, before
%  acknowledgments); the following \GGPart[Conclusions] divider and all later sections stay in
%  place (A1 lesson: move only the section, not the Part divider). No renumbering -> the in-text
%  'Common Objection 30/33' references and \ref{sec:common-objections} remain valid. Move only;
%  content unchanged. (3-block reformat of A2's entries is a separate step.) v11.1 -> v11.2.
% =====================================================================
% ===== v11.1 (2026-06-17): incorporate bulk-side SU(5)xU(1)_B proton-stability mechanism (author Go). =====
%  Adds one paragraph after Innovation 7: B is not an SU(5) generator and the commuting per-multiplet
%  U(1)_B does NOT forbid the X,Y operator -> protection is genuine component-resolved baryon number on
%  the split boundary (X,Y bulk-only); U(1)_B anomalous -> GS inflow -> Stueckelberg-massive baryonic
%  boson (short-range; evades equivalence-principle bounds) with exact GLOBAL baryon number residual;
%  DeltaB in 3Z selection rule (forbids proton decay and n-nbar); the residual finite descent computation
%  flagged and pointed to A9 / the dedicated proton paper. Exposition only; NO physics value changed. v11.0 -> v11.1.
% =====================================================================
% ===== v11.0 (2026-06-16): HOLOGRAPHIC-RG REFRAMING, Phase R0 (author Go). =====
%  Characterization/terminology only; NO physics, NO parameter, NO theorem changed.
%   - Cover subtitle: 'Warped 6D AdS Bulk' -> 'Warped 6D Bulk' (drop 'AdS'; matches
%     the pdftitle, which already omitted it).
%   - Added the canonical 'Holographic-RG, not Randall-Sundrum' framing paragraph to
%     the Executive Summary: the 5th dim is the RG axis r=ln(E_GUT/mu), the warped
%     metric is the holographic geometrization of RG flow (de Boer-Verlinde-Verlinde),
%     NOT an RS spatial braneworld; M_lock=3.85 TeV reframed as an RG threshold scale,
%     not a spatial KK tower (reading A). Number unchanged.
%   - Version v10.6 -> v11.0; dates -> June 16, 2026. First paper of the [GG-v11] set.
%   - Pre-existing (v10.6) recoverable 'dictentries/dictentry already defined' notices
%     are inherited and left untouched (fixing risks the acronym-dictionary rendering).
% =====================================================================
% --- v10.6 (2026-06-16): adopt cohort-default Part-aware running header (sty v10.6).
%     Curated short Part labels added; running header shows 'Part N. <short>'. Preface self-labels. ---
\pdfoutput=1
%%%% v10.5 (June 12, 2026): Count-sweep (author Go): stale 'eleven-paper
%%%%   cohort/programme' phrasings updated to the seventeen-paper
%%%%   programme where the whole cohort is meant; 'eleven-paper
%%%%   A-series' retained where the A-series is meant. No other
%%%%   content changes.
%% v10.4 (June 12, 2026): Cohort-map deployment (author Go):
%%   fig:cohort-architecture-A2 (Part V) replaced by the canonical
%%   seventeen-paper cohort map (A2 highlighted); caption rewritten;
%%   the three sentences introducing the figure updated to the
%%   seventeen-paper count and the two-branch structure.  Deeper
%%   Part-V inventory/bridge rewrites (A1-v10.4-style) deferred to
%%   A2's own next content touch (disclosed residual). No other
%%   changes.
%% v10.3 (June 10, 2026): arXiv preparation pass (front-matter audit).
%%   front-matter audit: conforms; stamp bump only.
%%   Accepted variants (author decision): existing philosophical closes
%%   in place of literal 'After all'; companion-list counts as cited.
%% v10.2 (June 9, 2026): arXiv preparation pass (cohort step 3).
%%   Overfull-box sweep (all boxes >20pt resolved with layout-only fixes);
%%   no content or physics changes.
%% v10.1 (June 9, 2026): arXiv preparation pass (cohort step 1-2).
%%   \pdfoutput=1 added (line 1); version/date stamp bumped. cite keys corrected (Georgi1974->GeorgiGlashow1974, Polchinski1998v2->Polchinski1998b); bibitems added for BreuerPetruccione2002, Fujikawa1979, Langacker1981, SuperK2017; broken ref sec:master-classification-ledger -> sec:master-ledger-VI; duplicate label eq:M6-product (proof copy) renamed eq:M6-product-proof.
%%   No physics changes; production fixes only.
% v9.21 (2026-06-03): "keep KK but always qualify" (user choice). Added a one-time
%   terminology convention in Picture 3 (KK == non-spatial / warped / holographic;
%   reader should prefix "non-spatial" to every later "KK"); qualified the T8 headline.
% v9.18 (2026-06-03): terminology fix RG-time -> RG-scale (the Scale 5th dimension
%   is space-like, NOT a second Minkowski time). Adopted textbook coordinate naming
%   {time,x,y,z,scale,phase} at the canonical-metric intro; rewrote Picture 1's
%   "Why RG-time not RG-space" paragraph into "Scale not time: a deliberate choice
%   of name" -- keeps the deep insight (the arrow of time lives along the scale
%   dimension because RG flow is an irreversible semigroup) while stating clearly
%   that r is space-like (+dr^2) so GG-6 has exactly one timelike direction.
%   Also noted (per author) that scale & phase are DIMENSIONLESS by construction
%   (log of an energy ratio; an angle) -- the sharpest statement they are not spatial.
% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
% Arisaka-GG-A2-GG6 v2.0 (Phase 11 -- U(1)_Qi constitutional-status
%                                     correction.  The v4.2-inherited
%                                     and Phase-5-strengthened claim
%                                     that U(1)_Qi is "forced by
%                                     AX-3 + POS-4 + POS-1" is over-
%                                     stated.  CPTP is a structural
%                                     property of the channel, not a
%                                     gauge-covariance demand on the
%                                     GKLS generator.  The constitution
%                                     admits two consistent bulk
%                                     theories: a 3-component bulk
%                                     without U(1)_Qi and a 4-
%                                     component bulk with U(1)_Qi.
%                                     A2-GG6 adopts the 4-component
%                                     version on empirical grounds
%                                     (Q_B match to ATP, Arisaka eq.,
%                                     Qi-4 pillars), with the
%                                     constitutional admissibility
%                                     proof living in A3-BI6.  Five
%                                     passages revised + one Audit
%                                     trail addition.)
% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
% Arisaka-GG-A2-GG6 v2.0 (Phase 10 -- bibliography sort + canonical
%                                     implication chain margin fix.
%                                     93 bibitem entries sorted alpha-
%                                     betically by first-author surname
%                                     with particles ('t, von, de) de-
%                                     moted per standard convention;
%                                     Arisaka entries sub-sorted by
%                                     paper number (A1, A3, A4, A5,
%                                     A7, A9, A10); Phase-3/4/5-addi-
%                                     tions comment-block markers re-
%                                     moved.  Also: \resizebox safety
%                                     wrapper added to the Canonical
%                                     Implication Chain (3) boxed
%                                     equation in Executive Summary
%                                     to prevent right-margin over-
%                                     flow.)
% GG-6: Geometry-Gauge Locking at the 6D Bulk
% A Theorem-Driven Derivation in the Style of Euclid's Elements
% Author: Katsushi Arisaka (UCLA)
%
% PROVENANCE
%   Source file : UCLA-Arisaka-GG-2026-2_v4.2.tex
%   This file   : Arisaka-GG-A2-GG6-v2.0-Phase1.tex (May 6, 2026)
%   Conversion  : v1.0 -> v2.0 under Project Instructions v3.1 (May 2026).
%                 Mechanical identity migration only -- no scientific
%                 content edits.  Lessons L1 (style file = ucla-arisaka-gg-6),
%                 L2 (naming = Arisaka-GG-A2-GG6), and L3 (bibtex key
%                 migration to ArisakaA{N}{Suffix} canonical form) applied
%                 in this Phase 1.  Lessons L4-L8 deferred to subsequent
%                 phases.
%
% v9.15 (2026-06-03): fixed the string-landscape comparison sentence
%   "the only continuous parameter is the dimensional anchor M_6" ->
%   zero free continuous parameters; M_6 a derived combination of G_N
%   + pure numbers / a unit-system choice, not a free dial.
% v9.16 (2026-06-03): new closing section of Part III, sec:sm-to-gg6
%   "From the Standard Model to GG-6: A Graduate-Level Synthesis via Fibre
%   Bundles and the Modified Bianchi Identity" (~13 subsections, 1st-yr-grad
%   level: reviews fibre bundles, ordinary Bianchi (gauge + GR), RG-as-radial,
%   anomaly-freedom as logically separate from Bianchi, GS-modified Bianchi
%   forced by gravity, BI-6 forcing the integers, Wilson-line SU(5) not the
%   1974 GUT, completed flow + honest 5-item ledger, bridge to Part IV).
%   +3 bibitems: CallanHarvey1985 (anomaly inflow), deBoerVerlindeVerlinde2000
%   (holographic RG), HallNomura2001 (orbifold GUT). Edited the Part III->IV
%   bridge paragraph in sec:partIII-synthesis to hand off into the new section.
% v9.17 (2026-06-03): margin fixes + figure + method note in sec:sm-to-gg6.
%   (1) Eq (121) (the QED->SM->SM+gravity->GG-6 underbrace chain) wrapped in
%       \resizebox{\textwidth} to stop the right-margin overflow on p.108.
%   (2) The two-fibres comparison tabular (QED pillar | GG-6 dimension |
%       Geometric object) changed from {lll} to fixed p-columns so it fits.
%   (3) New TikZ Figure fig:sm-to-gg6-flow: four-stage flow + two-fibre panel.
%   (4) New subsection ssec:two-roads: the bottom-up (SM+GR) road complements
%       the constitutional top-down road; Newton->Maxwell->Einstein->YM->GG-6.
% v9.19 (2026-06-03): FIXED an internal inconsistency in Picture 3's "Implications
%   for collider phenomenology" paragraph (user-flagged). The old text said "radial KK
%   excitations do not exist as on-shell particles" and "not direct KK production",
%   contradicting T8 (the Kaluza-Klein lock cluster at radial endpoint r=K=35), the
%   exec summary, Objection 14, and P1-KK -- all of which commit to an OBSERVABLE
%   M_lock ~ 3.85 TeV resonance at LHC. Rewrote: two towers separated -- angular S^1_theta
%   tower at ~E_GUT (heavy), and the RADIAL lock cluster at the IR endpoint r=K=35 =
%   M_lock ~ 3.85 TeV (the observable, holographic/composite resonances = RS-KK image;
%   excited states = additional radial nodes). Restores the standing P1-KK falsifier.
%   Cohort survey: A1/A9/A10/A11/A8 already consistent; only this A2 para was wrong.
% v9.20 (2026-06-03): fixed a SECOND collider inconsistency (user-flagged) in Picture 1's
%   "Implications for empirical detection" paragraph -- it wrongly said "no KK excitations
%   along r (radial not compact, spectrum continuous not discrete)" and "look for theta-
%   direction modes, not radial". WRONG: r in [0,K=35] is a FINITE warped interval (RS1-type)
%   -> DISCRETE resonance spectrum; the RG FLOW is continuous but the SPECTRUM is discrete,
%   lowest = the lock cluster at M_lock ~ 3.85 TeV (the observable radial resonances). The
%   theta tower is the heavy one (~E_GUT). Reversed the conclusion: search targets the RADIAL
%   lock cluster near 3.85 TeV (P1-KK), not the GUT-scale theta modes. Companion to v9.19.
% v9.22 (2026-06-03): rewrote Picture 2's confusing "The KK tower along theta, not r"
%   paragraph (user-flagged). Now explicitly: (def) a traditional KK tower = momentum
%   modes m_n=n/R on a SPATIAL circle; (GG-6) has NO spatial extra dim, so two non-spatial
%   towers -- (i) angular theta Fourier tower at ~E_GUT (KK in form, unobservable) and
%   (ii) the RADIAL warped-throat lock cluster at M_lock~3.85 TeV = what "KK particles"
%   means in GG-6 (observable, P1-KK). Kept eq:theta-mode + the GU-5 conversion-factor
%   content (now under its own \paragraph). Consistent w/ v9.20-v9.21 fixes + the convention.
% v2.0 PHASE LOG
%   Phase 1 (May 6, 2026): identity migration
%                          - file renamed UCLA-Arisaka-GG-2026-2_v4.2 ->
%                            Arisaka-GG-A2-GG6-v2.0-Phase1
%                          - style file upgraded ucla-arisaka-gg-4 ->
%                            ucla-arisaka-gg-6 (canonical per L1)
%                          - duplicate Euclidean theorem-environment
%                            declarations removed (now provided by gg-6)
%                          - PaperNumber, PaperVersion, PaperStatus,
%                            PaperDate, hyperref metadata updated to the
%                            new naming convention
%                          - bibtex keys migrated per L3 (old -> new):
%                              [legacy]Axiom            -> ArisakaA1Constitution
%                              [legacy]BI6              -> ArisakaA3BI6
%                              [legacy]GG6Foundation    -> ArisakaA4Euclid
%                              [legacy]Qi4              -> ArisakaA7Qi4
%                              [legacy]SM               -> ArisakaA9SM
%                              [legacy]Cosmo            -> ArisakaA10Cosmos
%                            (the legacy paper did not cite the GG6,
%                            GDOS, Gi4, Particle, Cosmos, or Overview
%                            keys directly, so those L3 mappings are
%                            recorded in the project canon for future
%                            papers but not exercised in this conversion.)
%   Phase 2 (May 6, 2026): GS-as-GGEP echo paragraph
%                          - new \paragraph{Echo of Green--Schwarz...}
%                            inserted in Section 7 (Theorem 4 BI-6
%                            coefficient vector) between the existing
%                            "Why this coefficient vector and no other?"
%                            uniqueness paragraph and the "Looking
%                            forward." bridge paragraph.
%                          - cross-cites \citep{GreenSchwarz1984} and
%                            \citep{ArisakaA3BI6} Section 7.7 (per L5
%                            of Project Instructions v3.1: Bianchi-as-
%                            geometric / GS-as-GGEP framing).
%                          - frames the four-component BI-6 pattern as
%                            the natural generalisation of GS's two-
%                            component pattern, with four factors
%                            (Spin(1,5), SU(5), U(1)_B, U(1)_Qi) replac-
%                            ing GS's two and the OGN-5 ledger pinning
%                            the coefficients.
%                          - no scientific content edited apart from
%                            the new paragraph; no theorems, proofs,
%                            equations, or surrounding paragraphs
%                            touched.
%                          - PaperStatus and PaperDate updated.
%   Phase 11 (May 6, 2026): U(1)_Qi constitutional-status correction
%                          - In response to a substantive question
%                            from Katsushi: "Are you sure that
%                            U(1)_Qi is required in GG-6 and BI-6?"
%                            The answer, on careful re-walk of the
%                            argument, is NO.  The v4.2-inherited and
%                            Phase-5-strengthened claim that U(1)_Qi
%                            is forced by AX-3 + POS-4 + POS-1 over-
%                            states what the constitutional clauses
%                            actually require: CPTP is a structural
%                            property of the GKLS channel, not a
%                            covariance demand under a fresh U(1).
%                            A3-BI6 (the authoritative companion
%                            paper for the BI-6 anomaly proof) treats
%                            U(1)_Qi as an admissible extension, not
%                            an axiomatic forcing.  Phase 11
%                            aligns A2-GG6 with the A3-BI6 reading.
%                          - Five passages revised:
%                              (a) Abstract: "an informational gauge
%                                  force that makes life and mind
%                                  consequences..." soft-
%                                  ened to "a constitutionally optional
%                                  but empirically preferred informa-
%                                  tional gauge force...".
%                              (b) Executive Summary "Significance and
%                                  uniqueness" paragraph: changed
%                                  "forced by AX-3 + POS-4 + POS-1"
%                                  to "admits a second optional factor
%                                  U(1)_Qi for which the constitutional
%                                  clauses are consistent with both
%                                  inclusion and omission".
%                              (c) Theorem 3 Step (c): full reframe
%                                  to acknowledge the two-element
%                                  constitutional admissible class
%                                  (3-component vs 4-component bulk),
%                                  with the 4-component version
%                                  adopted on empirical grounds.
%                              (d) "The status of U(1)_Qi" paragraph
%                                  rewritten to remove the "POS-1
%                                  requires GKLS gauge-covariance"
%                                  over-claim.
%                              (e) Step (d) "No further gauge factors":
%                                  reframed as "exactly G_Bulk in the
%                                  4-component version" rather than
%                                  the unconditional claim.
%                              (f) Common Objection 4: response now
%                                  agrees with the objection in spirit
%                                  ("U(1)_Qi is not constitutionally
%                                  forced; the framework adopts it
%                                  because the data adopt it").
%                              (g) Open Problem O8: split into the
%                                  constitutional-status sub-question
%                                  (resolved in A3-BI6) and the
%                                  species-by-species ledger sub-task
%                                  (still pending in A7-Qi4).
%                          - One Audit trail addition: A3-BI6 entry
%                            now flags A3-BI6 as the authoritative
%                            source on the axiomatic status of
%                            U(1)_Qi.
%                          - Technical body unchanged: BI-6 four-
%                            component coefficient vector, OGN-5 dual-
%                            lock closure, Arisaka equation, three
%                            TikZ figures, sixteen tables, bibliography
%                            sort, Cross-Paper Coherence Map, Common
%                            Objections 1-3 and 5-7 are untouched.
%                          - PaperStatus and Phase log updated.
%   Phase 10 (May 6, 2026): bibliography reorder + chain margin fix
%                          - Bibliography: 93 \bibitem entries sorted
%                            alphabetically by first-author surname
%                            using a Python-driven mechanical sort.
%                            Particles ('t Hooft, von Neumann,
%                            de Boer) demoted per standard surname-
%                            sort convention.  Arisaka entries grouped
%                            under A and sub-sorted by paper number
%                            (A1 -> A3 -> A4 -> A5 -> A7 -> A9 -> A10
%                            in programme order).  Multi-author
%                            entries sorted by first-author surname.
%                            Comma-separated multi-author entries
%                            (Freed/Hopkins/Teleman, Ghirardi/Rimini/
%                            Weber, Gorini/Kossakowski/Sudarshan,
%                            Kachru/Kallosh/Linde/Trivedi) sort by
%                            first surname.
%                          - Phase-3/4/5-additions comment-block
%                            markers stripped from inside the
%                            bibliography body, since after sorting
%                            those markers no longer demarcate
%                            anything meaningful.
%                          - Canonical Implication Chain boxed
%                            equation in Executive Summary wrapped
%                            in \resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{$\display-
%                            style ... $} to prevent right-margin
%                            overflow caused by the long row
%                            "G_Bulk = Spin(1,5) x SU(5) x U(1)_B
%                            x U(1)_Qi".
%                          - bibitem count preserved at 93; all
%                            citation keys unchanged; all Relevance
%                            paragraphs preserved.
%                          - PaperStatus and Phase log updated.
%   Phase 9 (May 6, 2026): front-matter rewrite to A1-Constitution
%                          canonical template
%                          - title block: removed \\[4pt] / \\[3pt]
%                            spacing artefacts; single-spaced primary
%                            ("Geometry--Gauge Locking at Warped 6D
%                            Bulk") with three-line subtitle in plain
%                            noun-phrase form per project rules.
%                          - Abstract: rewritten as 200 words plain
%                            English (no boxed equations, no Cartan
%                            formulation, no SLtwoH or SLtwoO jargon);
%                            three-paragraph structure (universal
%                            thesis -> what this paper does -> closing
%                            philosophical reflection "After all, the
%                            appeal of a unified theory has never
%                            been the cleverness of the unification,
%                            but the simplicity of the foundation
%                            that produces it.").
%                          - Executive Summary: rewritten as ~900
%                            words with structured sub-sections per
%                            A1 template:
%                              opening positioning (Newton, Maxwell,
%                                Einstein, YM, GWS, GUT, KK, RS, GS);
%                              boxed central principle (M_6, G_Bulk,
%                                BI-6 vector with trace-ratio lock,
%                                OGN-5 with dual-lock identity);
%                              "Eight principal theorems" paragraph
%                                summarising T1-T8;
%                              "Significance and uniqueness" paragraph
%                                with three features and
%                                empirical predictions;
%                              "Canonical implication chain" boxed
%                                cascade from {AX, POS} -> bulk ->
%                                gauge group -> BI-6 -> OGN-5 ->
%                                Slavnov-Taylor + Arisaka eq.;
%                              closing reflection ("what makes a
%                                unification a science is not that
%                                it unifies more forces but that it
%                                can be unified wrong").
%                          - \GGKeywords macro added after the
%                            \end{ExecutiveSummary} block per A1
%                            convention (replacing the in-environment
%                            "Keywords:" plain-text line of Phase 8).
%                          - existing technical body (theorems,
%                            proofs, equations, three TikZ figures,
%                            sixteen tables, Cross-Paper Coherence
%                            Map, Open Problems, Common Objections,
%                            Scope and limitations, Conclusions,
%                            Appendices A-F/J/K/N/O, bibliography
%                            with Relevance paragraphs) unchanged.
%                          - PaperStatus and Phase log updated.
%   Phase 8 (May 6, 2026): final 26-item checks list (cycle complete)
%                          - 26-item-audit sub-agent walked the v3.1
%                            checks list one by one.  Result: 24 items
%                            GREEN, 2 YELLOW (worked examples; scope-
%                            and-limits), 1 RED (Common Objections).
%                          - three targeted fixes applied:
%                              (a) RED Item 17: new \section{Common
%                                  Objections and Responses} inserted
%                                  in Part V between "Ten Falsifiers"
%                                  and "The Empirical Reach", with
%                                  seven objection/response paragraphs
%                                  pre-empting likely particle-, gravity-
%                                  , and string-theoretic criticisms.
%                              (b) YELLOW Item 18: new \paragraph{Scope
%                                  and limitations.} inserted at the
%                                  end of Open Problems, before the
%                                  Conclusions section, stating Scope
%                                  / Limits / Dependencies as a self-
%                                  contained block.
%                              (c) YELLOW Item 8: new \paragraph{Worked
%                                  example: numerical hierarchy from
%                                  K = 35.} inserted after the proof
%                                  of Theorem 6 (Combining the Steps),
%                                  walking the cascade from M_Pl
%                                  through E_GUT, M_lock, v, m_Lambda,
%                                  Q_B, and the Kaxion frequency.
%                          - existing technical content (theorems,
%                            proofs, equations, Open Problems, Cross-
%                            Paper Coherence Map, Conclusions, three
%                            TikZ figures of Phase 7, sixteen tables)
%                            unchanged.
%                          - journal-stripped variant produced via sed
%                            on lines beginning \par\noindent\textbf
%                            {Relevance.}: shipped as Arisaka-GG-A2-
%                            GG6-v2.0-Phase8-journal.{tex,pdf}
%                            alongside the full preprint.
%                          - PaperStatus and Phase log updated.
%                          - END of v2.0 conversion cycle.
%   Phase 7 (May 6, 2026): figure-margin sanity per L8
%                          - L8-compliance sub-agent dispatched on
%                            existing figures + tables.  Pre-flight
%                            finding: A2-GG6 had ZERO TikZ figures
%                            (only 16 tables, 14 of them safely
%                            sized at 0.88-0.95 \textwidth without
%                            \resizebox).  Phase 7 reframed as a
%                            figure-addition phase.
%                          - three new \begin{figure} blocks added,
%                            each following L8 best practices:
%                            absolute coordinates `at (x, y)` for
%                            multi-row layouts; \resizebox{...} margin
%                            protection; edgelabel/.style={fill=white,
%                            inner sep=1pt} for arrow labels crossing
%                            arrow lines; right=2pt arrow labels for
%                            vertical flowchart edges (NOT sloped).
%                              Figure 1 (label fig:constitutional-chain):
%                                Constitutional implication chain
%                                from AX/POS through T1-T8 of A2-GG6
%                                to OGGEP, GDOS, descent theorems,
%                                and Gi-4 / Qi-4 pillars.  Inserted
%                                at end of "Strategy of the Derivation"
%                                section (Part I), before Part II.
%                              Figure 2 (label fig:bi6-anomaly-inflow):
%                                BI-6 four-component anomaly inflow
%                                (gravitational + SU(5) + U(1)_B +
%                                U(1)_Qi -> X_4 -> H_3 tensor sector).
%                                Inserted in Section 7 (Theorem 4),
%                                right after the theorem statement
%                                and before Lemma 4.1.
%                              Figure 3 (label fig:ogn5-cascade):
%                                OGN-5 Diophantine cascade flowchart
%                                showing T1, T3, T4 -> M, L, N ->
%                                joint dual-lock (J, K) = (7, 35)
%                                via K = LJ = M^2 + N^2 + L^2.
%                                Inserted in Section 9 (Theorem 6),
%                                right after the theorem statement.
%                          - existing 16 tables left as-is (audited
%                            and confirmed safe; widths 0.88-0.95
%                            \textwidth so no margin overflow).
%                          - PaperStatus and Phase log updated.
%   Phase 6 (May 6, 2026): cross-paper coherence audit per L7
%                          - two sub-agents dispatched in parallel:
%                              (a) companion-paper auditor verifying
%                                  every theorem-citation in A2-GG6
%                                  against the actual current theorem
%                                  numbering of each cited companion;
%                              (b) coherence-map drafter building the
%                                  outward and inward tables.
%                          - new \section{Cross-Paper Coherence Map}
%                            inserted in Part V between "Empirical
%                            Reach of GG-6" and "Open Problems and
%                            Future Directions".  Contents:
%                              (i) motivational opening paragraph;
%                              (ii) Outward map table linking T1-T8
%                                   of A2-GG6 to companion papers
%                                   (A3-BI6, A4-Euclid, A5-GDOS,
%                                   A6-Gi4, A7-Qi4, A9-SM, A10-Cosmos);
%                              (iii) Inward map table linking the
%                                    constitutional clauses of
%                                    A1-Constitution (and structural
%                                    inputs from A3-BI6) to T1-T8;
%                              (iv) Note on version and Phase numbers
%                                   paragraph clarifying that com-
%                                   panion-paper versions are inde-
%                                   pendent revision tracks and that
%                                   only A1-Constitution v4.0 Ph8 and
%                                   A3-BI6 v2.0 Ph1 are currently in
%                                   the new naming convention;
%                              (v) Audit trail paragraph documenting
%                                  the actual internal theorem and
%                                  section structure of each cited
%                                  companion paper as of May 2026;
%                              (vi) closing reflection paragraph.
%                          - existing technical content (theorems,
%                            proofs, equations, Open Problems, Falsi-
%                            fiers, Conclusions) unchanged.
%                          - PaperStatus and Phase log updated.
%   Phase 5 (May 6, 2026): hostile-reviewer pass + reference cleanup
%                          - two sub-agents dispatched in parallel:
%                              (a) hostile-reviewer agent reviewing
%                                  Theorems 1, 3, 4, 6 derivations;
%                              (b) reference-scanner agent finding
%                                  legacy "UCLA-Arisaka/G[GD]-2026-X"
%                                  paper-number references in body
%                                  prose and bibitem text bodies.
%                          - 11 hostile-reviewer recommendations applied:
%                              H1 (Thm 1 Step b CRITICAL): added smooth-
%                                 manifold requirement excluding compact
%                                 RG with broken boundary conditions.
%                              H2 (Thm 1 Step c MAJOR): added smooth
%                                 principal-bundle requirement excluding
%                                 orbifold/discrete substitutes for S^1.
%                              H3 (Thm 1 Step d MAJOR): replaced negation
%                                 argument with explicit closure-of-
%                                 Constitution argument.
%                              H4 (Thm 3 Step a CRITICAL): added Pati--
%                                 Salam exclusion via simple-not-semi-
%                                 simple Lie group requirement of POS-1
%                                 + AX-4; cited PatiSalam1974.
%                              H5 (Thm 3 Step b MAJOR): strengthened
%                                 U(1)_B argument by spelling out POS-1
%                                 layered-gauge-invariance reading.
%                              H6 (Thm 3 Step c MAJOR): tightened
%                                 U(1)_Qi argument by linking it to
%                                 boundary Hilbert-sector dimension
%                                 conservation under bulk-to-boundary
%                                 projection (AX-3).
%                              H8 (Thm 4 Lem 4.3 CRITICAL): added a
%                                 dedicated paragraph "Why this normal-
%                                 isation? --- the axiomatic fixing"
%                                 invoking POS-6 primitivity to exclude
%                                 GUT-normalisation rescalings.
%                              H9 (Thm 4 sign argument MAJOR): clarified
%                                 that the Abelian Chern--Simons descent
%                                 cancels mixed anomalies tr(R^2) F_B^2
%                                 and tr(R^2) F_{Qi}^2.
%                              H11 (Thm 6 Step 4 CRITICAL): reframed
%                                  Step 4 as paired with Step 5 via the
%                                  joint dual-lock closure J = (M^2 +
%                                  N^2 + L^2)/L = 7; honest framing
%                                  paragraph added.  The original "odd
%                                  closure" heuristic preserved as a
%                                  motivational comment with a forward
%                                  pointer to A3-BI6 Atiyah--Singer
%                                  spinor-zero-mode appendix.
%                              H13 (Thm 6 Step 5 MAJOR): replaced the
%                                  brief "uniqueness within small-
%                                  integer admissible range" assertion
%                                  with an explicit case-walk over
%                                  N in {1, 2, 3, 4} showing dual lock
%                                  closes uniquely at N = 3.
%                          - 17 running-text reference fixes applied:
%                              7 body-prose UCLA-Arisaka/GG-2026-3 ->
%                                \citep{ArisakaA5GDOS}; 1 GD-2026-3 ->
%                                \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}; 7 bibitem text-
%                                body legacy report numbers replaced
%                                with new Arisaka-GG-A*-{Suffix} names;
%                                Phase 7-9 historical-summary paragraph
%                                rewritten to clarify the v1.0->v2.0
%                                conversion.  The two GG-2026-X "Why
%                                Are We Here?" references and one
%                                GG-2026-MI master-integration
%                                reference are kept as legacy since
%                                A8-QM is in active drafting and the
%                                master integration paper has no
%                                current new-naming equivalent.
%                          - one new bibitem entry: PatiSalam1974
%                            (cited in Thm 3 Step a).
%                          - PaperStatus and Phase log updated.
%   Phase 4 (May 6, 2026): Open Problems section (L6 triage)
%                          - new \section{Open Problems and Future
%                            Directions} inserted in Part V between
%                            the existing "The Empirical Reach of
%                            GG-6" section and the Conclusions section.
%                          - twelve open problems O1-O12, each with
%                            an explicit status header per L6:
%                              Resolved (7):       O1-O7
%                              Partially resolved (3): O8-O10
%                              Genuinely open (2): O11-O12
%                            Resolved entries name the answering
%                            companion paper with explicit \citep{}.
%                            Partially resolved entries name the
%                            specific sub-task pending in the named
%                            companion paper.  Genuinely open entries
%                            list candidate research directions.
%                          - one new bibitem entry: ArisakaA5GDOS
%                            (cited in O2 as the bulk-to-boundary
%                            companion paper).
%                          - existing technical content (theorems,
%                            proofs, equations, Falsifiers, Empirical
%                            Reach paragraphs) unchanged.
%                          - PaperStatus and Phase log updated.
%   Phase 3 (May 6, 2026): L4 historical-background audit
%                          - three new \paragraph{Historical background
%                            (with citations).} blocks inserted at the
%                            heads of Section 4 (Theorem 1, Dimensional
%                            Minimality), Section 6 (Theorem 3, Six
%                            Forces), and Section 9 (Theorem 6, OGN-5
%                            Diophantine Cascade), each opening with
%                            the genuine original inventor of the
%                            relevant concept per L4:
%                              -- Bulk geometry: Riemann (1854,
%                                 Habilitationsschrift) -> Kaluza
%                                 (1921) -> Klein (1926) -> Randall--
%                                 Sundrum (1999).
%                              -- Four-factor gauge group: Maxwell
%                                 (1865, gauge freedom in A_mu) ->
%                                 Noether (1918, symmetry-conservation
%                                 identity) -> Yang--Mills (1954, non-
%                                 abelian extension) -> Glashow--
%                                 Weinberg--Salam (1961-1968, SM
%                                 assembly).
%                              -- OGN-5 ledger: Diophantus (3rd c.
%                                 CE, integer-solution constraints) ->
%                                 Lagrange (1770, four-square theorem
%                                 = K = M^2+N^2+L^2 prototype) ->
%                                 Dirac (1931, charge-quantisation-
%                                 from-topology = first physical
%                                 example).
%                          - 9 new bibliography entries with Relevance
%                            paragraphs added at the end of the
%                            bibliography:
%                              Riemann1854, Maxwell1865, Noether1918,
%                              Glashow1961, Weinberg1967, Salam1968,
%                              Diophantus250, Lagrange1770, Dirac1931.
%                          - existing technical paragraphs (theorem
%                            statements, proofs, equations, lemmas)
%                            unchanged; only new historical-opening
%                            paragraphs added.
%                          - PaperStatus and Phase log updated.
%
% v1.0 PHASE LOG (legacy, preserved verbatim)
%   Phase 5 (May 1, 2026): Body (Parts I-V + Conclusions)  -- 84 pp
%   Phase 6 (May 1, 2026): Appendices A-F, J, K, N, O      -- 105 pp
%   Phase 7 (May 1, 2026): Bibliography (75 entries with   -- 117 pp
%                          Relevance paragraphs)
%   Phase 8 (May 1, 2026): Final consistency pass v3.0     -- 117 pp
%   Phase 9 (May 1, 2026): v3.0 -> v4.0  Spin(1,5) revision
%                          - "x Gravity" replaced by Spin(1,5) throughout
%                          - canonical ordering G_tot = Spin(1,5) x SU(5)
%                            x U(1)_B x U(1)_Qi adopted to match BI-6
%                          - new Definition of Spin(1,5) and accidental
%                            isomorphism with SL(2,H)
%                          - new Subsection on Lorentzian spin structures
%                          - extended Appendix N (mathematical foundations)
%                          - added bibliographic entries
%                            (Lawson-Michelsohn, Friedrich, Baez, Manogue-Dray)
%   Phase 10 (May 1, 2026): v4.0 -> v4.1  Quaternionic Goldilocks
%                          - new Point 10 in Part IV: d=6 as algebraically
%                            forced minimal dimension via the magic-ladder
%                            argument (R, C, H, O -> d=3,4,6,10)
%                          - new Falsifier 10 in Part V: empirical exposures
%                            of the Quaternionic Goldilocks claim
%                            (generation count, single-tensor cancellation,
%                            boundary spinor structure)
%                          - "Synthesis: Eight" -> "Synthesis: Nine"
%                          - Synthesis updated to four categories
%                            (structural, foundational, methodological,
%                            algebraic)
%                          - abstract, intro, conclusions updated
%   Phase 11 (May 1, 2026): v4.1 -> v4.2  Ten-Point Split
%                          - old Point 2 ("Six Forces Unified at E_GUT")
%                            split into two distinct innovations:
%                              new Point 2: Six Forces, Not Four
%                                (the gauged U(1)_B and U(1)_Qi)
%                              new Point 3: Unification at E_GUT, Not E_Pl
%                                (the bulk's UV endpoint = "the beginning")
%                          - existing Points 3-9 renumbered to Points 4-10
%                          - corresponding Falsifier 2 split similarly;
%                            existing Falsifiers 3-9 renumbered to 4-10
%                          - "Synthesis: Nine" -> "Synthesis: Ten"
%                          - four-category structure updated:
%                              Structural (Points 1-5)
%                              Foundational (Points 6-8)
%                              Methodological (Point 9)
%                              Algebraic (Point 10)
%                          - all internal references and table caption
%                            updated; bibliography unchanged at 81 entries
% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
% ------------------------------------------------------------
% v15.33, August 19, 2026.  The shared bulk showcase plate.
%%   ADOPTED, at the author's direction: one full-page showcase
%%   plate carried BYTE-IDENTICALLY by A2, A5, A8, A9, A10 and
%%   P1 -- the cohort-map precedent.  It is the integration of
%%   three existing figures: A1 Figure 1 supplies the logic
%%   (two necessities, AX-2 building the fiber, AX-3 projecting
%%   to the registered world), A10 Figure 13 supplies the
%%   tapering throat and the projection arrow, and A2 Figure 8
%%   supplies the calibrated scale axis.  The axis now carries
%%   eight ticks with mu = E_GUT e^-r beside each, E_GUT =
%%   E_Pl e^-2pi at r = 0, E_Pl declared OFF the diagram at
%%   r = -2pi, the lock at r = 29.41 and the OGN-5 depth at
%%   r = K = 35.  Every number was computed, not carried over.
%%   THE OFFSET IS EXACT: K is counted from the bulk anchor
%%   E_Pl/2 and the axis from E_GUT, so the two differ by
%%   ln(E_Pl/2 / E_GUT) = 2pi - ln 2 = 5.590 and
%%   r_lock = K - 2pi + ln 2 = 29.410.  That relation is what
%%   reconciles A2's "lock at r = K" with A10's "lock crossing
%%   at r = 29.4"; both name 3.85 TeV.
%%   The plate is pure TikZ and adds NO asset to the arXiv
%%   package.  Caption ABOVE, per the frozen float standard.
%%   The drawn taper is e^-r/13.64 -- the true e^-r slowed so
%%   the throat stays visible -- and the plate says so.
%%   NEW PROSE: the plate's labels and its caption, listed in
%%   the report for the author to review or rewrite.
%%   ALSO, and it is a printed number: Figure 8's fourth
%%   top-axis label read "mu ~ M_lock = 3.85 TeV" above
%%   r = K = 35.  The axis's own dictionary mu = E_GUT e^-r
%%   gives 14.4 GeV there, and THE FIGURE'S OWN CAPTION SAYS
%%   SO two lines down.  The label was off by 267x.  It now
%%   agrees with the caption.  The r ~ 20 label, "~10^8 GeV"
%%   for a true 4.70e7, was corrected in the same pass.
%%   3.85 TeV sits at r = 29.41 on this axis, which is where
%%   the new showcase plate marks it.
%%   The four inline sizing notes that stood over the old
%%   showcase 1 go with the block they described; they are
%%   kept here verbatim so nothing is lost:
%%     "showcase 1 of 3: the arena"
%%     "1.06\textwidth -> scale 0.9647 -> 8.68 pt of rendered
%%      type, matched to the cascade plate on the next page and
%%      above this plate's own in-paper 7.70 pt.  Never smaller
%%      than its in-paper self."
% ------------------------------------------------------------
%% ---- vv15.34 (August 19, 2026) ----
%% The front-matter showcase pages given breathing room.
%% A showcase page's free height is now distributed by weighted stretch
%% glue -- a sixth at the top, a third above the plate, a third below it,
%% a sixth at the foot -- instead of pooling above the headline and below
%% the caption, which left a broad band of white at each end of the page
%% and crowded the three elements into the middle third.
%% Three source forms were found in the cohort and each is handled.  A
%% minipage frame becomes a minipage of EXPLICIT height with the [s]
%% inner alignment, because a minipage is a vbox of natural height and
%% glue inside one does not stretch; the height is \textheight minus
%% \topskip.  A \begingroup frame keeps its page-level glue and changes
%% only the weights.  An unframed page -- there were eight, five of them
%% showcase tables carrying a longtable, which cannot live inside a
%% minipage -- gains page-level glue for the first time, which is why it
%% had been printing hard against the top of the text block.
%% 3 showcase pages in this paper.  Layout only: not one word,
%% number, figure or table row is changed by this ship.
\documentclass[11pt,letterpaper]{article}
\usepackage{ucla-arisaka-gg-11}
\usepackage{indentfirst} %% (May 28, 2026): STABLE FREEZE. The 65-iteration v7.x polish cycle (May 14 - May 28, 2026; ->) is endorsed by the author and frozen as the stable reference version of the bulk-side derivation paper of the GG-Theory cohort. Full iteration history is recorded in the project memory files project_a2_gg6_v72.md through project_a2_gg6_v765.md and need not be repeated here. Highlights: v9.sty style migration; Part IV GG-Theory vs Superstring Theory; Part V Forward/Backward Map; Part VI Constitutional-Axiom Classification with GG-6 at the apex (Copernican move); Discussion/Conclusions Option A restructure; 33 Common Objections + 10 Falsifiers + 13 Problems Solved; L84 geometric-origin-of-anomaly framing (magnitudes geometric, signs from anomaly cancellation); L91 Plain-English philosophical close; nine-paragraph ES restored to template with GU-5 paired with OGN-5 inline; Companion-papers paragraph cut from ES so Keywords fit at the bottom of page 4; cohort-derived empirical-anchor framing (M_lock attributed to P1-KK, alpha^-1=137 to A4-Euclid, Omega_m=1/pi to A10-Cosmos, Q_B=0.1555 eV/qubit to A7-Qi4); BRST theorem labeled (local form) with explicit deferral of global to A3-BI6; Falsifier 6/8/10 honesty notes; naming convention with T/L/C/D/R/P/O/F/I/PS prefixes piloted; A6 renamed Gi4 -> GRIP; Dictionary of programme-defined acronyms (45 entries, 10 categories); Part IX Orientation block; figure refinement passes; bibliography audit (94 bibitems including new entries Bohr 1913, Atiyah-Singer 1963, Hurwitz 1898, Cartan 1922, Kibble 1961, Klinkhamer-Manton 1984, Planck 2018). Three-pass pdflatex compiles clean. The artefact is identical in content to endorsed by the author.
\setcitestyle{authoryear,round,comma} %% Foundation-block retrofit (May 2026): new citation convention (Arisaka, 2026, A*-Suffix)
\usepackage{pdflscape} %% (May 26, 2026): landscape-oriented Figure 7
\usepackage{amsthm}
\usetikzlibrary{decorations.pathreplacing} %%: needed for brace in composite gauge-group figure

%% v7.2: halved TOC indents per Project Instructions v9 (memory: feedback_toc_indents_halved).
%% Overrides the v9.sty defaults (1.5em / 4.25em / 8.1em) to (0.75em / 2.1em / 4.05em)
%% so the full TOC remains readable for a 200+ page paper.
\makeatletter
\renewcommand{\l@section}{\@dottedtocline{1}{0.75em}{2.75em}}%
\renewcommand{\l@subsection}{\@dottedtocline{2}{2.10em}{3.85em}}%
\renewcommand{\l@subsubsection}{\@dottedtocline{3}{4.05em}{4.75em}}%
\makeatother

%% ---- v13.3: one-line Part entries (cohort standardization, July 19,
%%      2026; P4-Real v3.2 preamble pattern).  \GGPart renewed verbatim
%%      from ucla-arisaka-gg-11.sty except that the contents line now
%%      carries only "Part N. <title>"; the " --- <description>" tail is
%%      no longer written to the .toc, so every Part entry fits on one
%%      line in both the Overview of Contents and the Contents.  Part
%%      title pages are unchanged (full title + description).
\makeatletter
\renewcommand{\GGPart}[3][]{%
  \clearpage
  \refstepcounter{part}%
  \def\gg@parthdr{#1}\ifx\gg@parthdr\@empty\def\gg@parthdr{#2}\fi
  \addcontentsline{toc}{part}{\protect\textbf{Part \thepart}. #2}%
  \markboth{Part \thepart.\ \gg@parthdr}{Part \thepart.\ \gg@parthdr}% running pointer
  \thispagestyle{plain}%
  \begin{center}
    \vspace*{1.2em}
    {\Large\bfseries Part \thepart}\\[0.45em]
    {\huge\bfseries #2}\\[0.35em]
    {\large #3}
  \end{center}
  \vspace{0.5em}
  \GGThickLine
  \vspace{0.8em}
}
\makeatother


%% R4 (v7.27) — Override \GGOverviewOfContents + \GGListOfFigures so both
%%              fit on the same page (Overview at top, LoF below, no
%%              \clearpage between them).  Mirrors A1 v8.0 R4.
\GGfrontmatteronepagetrue
%% v11.16: \GGOverviewOfContents (centered) provided by ucla-arisaka-gg-11;
%% single-page Overview+List-of-Figures via the gg-11 toggle above.

%% v11.16: \GGListOfFigures (centered) provided by ucla-arisaka-gg-11.
%% v11.17: \GGAcknowledgments now provided by ucla-arisaka-gg-11
%% (single canonical Acknowledgments, cohort-universal).

\PaperSeries{GG}
\PaperNumber{Arisaka-GG-A2-GG6}
\PaperStatus{Preprint}
%% ===================================================================
%%  A2-GG6 v13.12  (July 31, 2026)  -- the route to N, the generation
%%  count, and the units.
%%  (1) A3-BI6 v13.16 derives the colour index from the dual lock and
%%      the block embedding (T-BI6-10.2a), free of the observed 3+2
%%      split. A2 still ran the retired trace-ratio route in thirteen
%%      places, Step 3 among them, and conceded in its own voice that
%%      it had not forced N from colour-free premises. The concession
%%      is withdrawn; the trace ratio is kept, algebra intact, as the
%%      independent check. Two sites had routed the COLOUR count to
%%      P2-N3's generation pincer; both are re-cut.
%%  (2) The two appendices claimed the Atiyah-Singer index gives the
%%      OGN-5 integer N and identified it with the generation count,
%%      via a heuristic n_zero = M.N.1 that read the count off the
%%      ledger. The index leg is separate: the integer is N_g, the
%%      heuristic is withdrawn, and the claim is routed to P2-N3 and
%%      A9-SM. A2 no longer claims to derive the generation count.
%%  (3) Four sites called G_N the one overall unit scale. A2's own
%%      comparison table already carries the canonical position --
%%      GU-5 = {c, G_N, hbar; k_B, Q_B} as conversion factors, three
%%      bulk and two boundary -- and is the authority used here.
%%  Also: the cascade artwork re-inherited from A1-Constitution v13.9
%%  (both figures), its captions, the notation ruling N_c/N_g/N_f, a
%%  sentence duplicated verbatim in Step 4's framing, and the cover
%%  date, which had drifted six weeks from PaperDate.
%% ===================================================================
%% ===================================================================
%%  A2-GG6 v13.13  (July 31, 2026)  -- a clause of v13.12 that is
%%  false.
%%  v13.12 said in three places that P2-N3's upper bound is
%%  conditional on the BI-6 Budget Conjecture, 'which is not derived
%%  in any paper of the cohort'. P2-N3 v14.3 derives it: the cap is
%%  the capacity theorem Cap = pi N_g with exact saturation, backed by
%%  the integrality theorem L-INT and by two obstruction theorems
%%  showing the conjectural framing could not have been discharged as
%%  posed; one residue, R-INT, is declared and is met on the benchmark
%%  background by the inflow companion. The conditionality is named
%%  and narrow, and is now stated that way. The P2-N3 bibitem also
%%  still wrote the pincer in bare N and called it a forcing of N = 3;
%%  it is the generation count N_g, a different quantity.
%% ===================================================================
% ------------------------------------------------------------
%% v15.26 -> v15.27, August 15, 2026.  THE GATE-CLOSING PASS.
%   One pass across A1-A7 so that `at v15' and `passes the v15
%   gate' mean the same thing before the first arXiv submission.
%   These seven were migrated before the current toolchain and
%   each failed at least one absolute section 4 item.
%   SPELLING (section 9 decision 1, "total, in printed text"):
%     3 printed British form(s) changed here.  The raw guard
%     reported 91 across the seven; 51 were NOT defects and were
%     hand-classified one site at a time -- 33 correct American
%     English now permanently in PROTECT, 12 published titles now
%     frozen by exact text (correcting a title is a
%     misquotation), and 6 `cancellable'/`cancellability', held at
%     the doubled l because American English keeps it in
%     `cancellation', the -able form is listed both ways, and it
%     is a defined term.  The -ed/-ing forms ARE swept.
%     Edited BY OFFSET, not by text anchor: these papers hard-wrap
%     their source and anchors copied from a flattened scan do not
%     exist -- eight failed that way on the first run, and the
%     same defect hit A8's rider an hour earlier.  The sites come
%     from the guard itself, which already excludes comments,
%     labels, PROTECT and the frozen titles.
%   FLOAT STANDARD: none -- the float audit was already clean.
%   PALETTE: nothing to change.  0 violations.
%   NEW PROSE is listed by table and page in GG-Report-362 and is
%   a draft for the author to accept or rewrite.  Caption
%   EXTENSIONS keep every existing sentence verbatim -- section
%   14.2 reserves rewriting a caption's CLAIM, and none is.
%   NO NUMBER, NO CLAIM AND NO GRADE CHANGES ANYWHERE.
% ------------------------------------------------------------
%% ------------------------------------------------------------
%% v15.27 -> v15.28, August 15, 2026.  THE THREE-PAGE FRONT-MATTER
%% SHOWCASE.  Second of the twenty-four.
%%   THE ARENA (Figure 8, the bulk along its own RG-scale axis, with
%%   the lock cluster at r = K = 35 and 3.85 TeV printed on it) --
%%   A2's own version of "the program in one diagram", and better
%%   for the purpose than importing A1's Figure 1, because it carries
%%   a number a reader can hold.
%%   THE RESULT (Figure 7, the OGN-5 cascade): 35 = 5 x 7 = 1+9+25 is
%%   arithmetic a reader checks in ten seconds, and after the cascade
%%   closes no continuous dimensionless parameter survives.
%%   THE EXPOSURE: Part VII states ten falsifiers as ten prose
%%   subsections and nowhere gathers them.  This page is that table.
%%   Every cell is Part VII's own wording, shortened; no claim, no
%%   threshold and no status is altered.
%%   SIZED BY MEASUREMENT.  Natural: cascade 435.61871 x 198.18140,
%%   bulk 516.13187 x 227.52620.  Both wide and short, so height
%%   never binds and the choice is a type size.  THE RULE USED, and
%%   worth stating: match the two showcase plates to each other in
%%   RENDERED TYPE, and never print one smaller than its in-paper
%%   self.  Node font is 9 pt, so the cascade at 0.92\textwidth gives
%%   8.93 pt (its in-paper size) and the bulk at 1.06 gives 8.68
%%   (in-paper 7.70).  BOTH ARE ABOVE THE HOUSE BAND OF 7.40-8.18,
%%   AND SO IS THE CASCADE PLATE IN THE BODY ALREADY: a pre-existing
%%   condition of A2's figures, flagged and not changed, because
%%   resizing an in-paper plate reflows 405 pages.
%%   A2 SETS \tabcolsep TO 6 pt, not the 2 pt A1 uses -- measured,
%%   after the last pass sized a table from the charter's nominal 6
%%   in a paper that used 2 and was wrong by 40 pt of gutter.
%% ------------------------------------------------------------
\PaperVersion{v20.0}
\PaperDate{August 21, 2026}
%% v9.23 (2026-06-04): two cohort-consistency fixes flagged by the P1-KK audit.
%%   (1) KK-spectrum appendix (appsec:kk-spectrum): the old combined formula
%%       M_{n,l}^2 ~ e^{-2K}(xi_n^2+l^2)mu^2 warped the angular l=+/-1 modes into a
%%       ~3.96 TeV doublet, contradicting this paper's own Option-A main text
%%       (theta tower at E_GUT). Rewritten as two separate towers: radial
%%       (warped -> lock cluster at M_lock) and angular (unwarped, ~|l|E_GUT).
%%       The observable cluster is radial + multi-field, not an angular doublet.
%%       Also removed the numerically wrong M_{1,0}~3.83 e^{-K} E_GUT (~55 GeV)
%%       worked numbers; M_lock=1/2 M_Pl e^{-K}=3.85 TeV comes from the scale chain.
%%   (2) kk-radial appendix: removed the dangling claim that the "factor J=7"
%%       reduction from the ~29 TeV pure-Bessel estimate to 3.85 TeV is "derived
%%       in A9-SM" (it is not). Stated instead that M_lock follows directly from
%%       the scale chain (S5+T6); the 2*xi_1~7.66 prefactor ratio is numerical
%%       proximity to J=7, not an independent integer correction.

\hypersetup{
 pdftitle = {Arisaka-GG-A2-GG6: Geometry-Gauge Locking at the 6D Bulk},
 pdfauthor = {Katsushi Arisaka},
 pdfsubject = {Theorem-driven derivation of six-dimensional geometry-gauge locking,
 BI-6 anomaly cancellation, OGN-5 integer ledger, and complete 6D QFT
 at E_GUT, in the style of Euclid's Elements. Foundational paper of
 the GG6 Trio (A2-GG6 + A3-BI6 + A4-Euclid) within the GG-Theory
 program.},
 pdfkeywords= {GG-Theory, GG-6, BI-6, geometry-gauge locking, 6D bulk,
 Green-Schwarz mechanism, anomaly cancellation, OGN-5,
 SU(5) unification, Spin(1,5), six-force unification, BRST,
 Slavnov-Taylor identity, proton stability, U(1)_B, U(1)_Qi, MSMF,
 Euclidean axiomatic structure, Arisaka-GG-A2-GG6}
}

%% Paper-specific macros (additions to the v3 style file)
\providecommand{\EGUT}{\ensuremath{E_{\mathrm{GUT}}}}
\providecommand{\EPl}{\ensuremath{E_{\mathrm{Pl}}}}
%% \providecommand{\LGI}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{LGI}}} (no-op; style file has sans-serif version)
%% \providecommand{\DGI}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{DGI}}} (no-op; style file has sans-serif version)
%% \providecommand{\GGI}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{GGI}}} (no-op; style file has sans-serif version)
\providecommand{\PLA}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{PLA}}}
\providecommand{\PLT}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{PLT}}}
\providecommand{\FEP}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{FEP}}}
\providecommand{\MEPP}{\ifmmode\mathsf{MEPP}\else\textsf{MEPP}\fi}
\providecommand{\POVM}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{POVM}}}
\providecommand{\SO}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{SO}}}
\providecommand{\Mlock}{\ensuremath{M_{\mathrm{lock}}}}
\providecommand{\UoneEM}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{U}(1)_{\mathrm{EM}}}}
\providecommand{\UoneY}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{U}(1)_Y}}
%% \providecommand{\QGL}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{QGL}}} (no-op; style file has sans-serif version)
%% \QB now defined in ucla-arisaka-gg-6.sty (sans-serif Q_B)
\providecommand{\ket}[1]{\ensuremath{\left|#1\right\rangle}}
\providecommand{\bra}[1]{\ensuremath{\left\langle#1\right|}}
\providecommand{\braket}[2]{\ensuremath{\left\langle#1\middle|#2\right\rangle}}
%% \providecommand{\GG}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{GG\text{-}6}}} (no-op; style file has sans-serif version)
%% \providecommand{\GGTheory}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{GG\text{-}Theory}}} (no-op; style file has sans-serif version)
%% \GGConstitution macro now lives in ucla-arisaka-gg-6.sty (v5.2);
%% the local definition that was added in A2 v5.0 is no longer needed.
%% \providecommand{\BIsix}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{BI\text{-}6}}} (no-op; style file has sans-serif version)
%% \providecommand{\OGNfive}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{OGN\text{-}5}}} (no-op; style file has sans-serif version)
%% \providecommand{\GiFour}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Gi\text{-}4}}} (no-op; style file has sans-serif version)
%% \providecommand{\QiFour}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Qi\text{-}4}}} (no-op; style file has sans-serif version)
%% \providecommand{\QiQUA}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Qi\text{-}QUA}}} (no-op; style file has sans-serif version)
%% \providecommand{\QiEP}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Qi\text{-}EP}}} (no-op; style file has sans-serif version)
%% \providecommand{\QiCON}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Qi\text{-}CON}}} (no-op; style file has sans-serif version)
%% \providecommand{\QiHAL}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Qi\text{-}HAL}}} (no-op; style file has sans-serif version)

%% --- Spin(1,5) macros (introduced in v4.0, Phase 9) ---
\providecommand{\Spinone}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Spin}(1,5)}}
\providecommand{\Spinplus}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{SO}^{+}(1,5)}}
\providecommand{\SLtwoH}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{H})}}
\providecommand{\SLtwoC}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})}}
\providecommand{\SLtwoR}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{R})}}
\providecommand{\Octonion}{\ensuremath{\mathbb{O}}}
\providecommand{\Quaternion}{\ensuremath{\mathbb{H}}}
\providecommand{\R}{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}
\providecommand{\C}{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}
\providecommand{\Z}{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}

%% Theorem-environment style for the Euclidean structure of Part II.
%% v2.0 Phase 1: the eight Euclidean theorem environments
%% (euclidpostulate, euclidaxiom, euclidtheorem, euclidlemma,
%% euclidcorollary, euclidproposition, eucliddefinition, euclidremark)
%% and the structheorem environment are now provided by the canonical
%% style file ucla-arisaka-gg-6.sty per Project Instructions v3.1, L1.
%% The redundant \newtheorem declarations from the v4.2 preamble have
%% been removed to avoid the "command already defined" clash.  The
%% \qedsymbol = $\blacksquare$ assignment is also provided by gg-6.

%% Paper-specific formatting (JHEP-standard typography)
\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}
\setlength{\parindent}{1.5em}


%% --- Sans-serif paper-code macros (programme-wide v7.1 sweep, May 13, 2026)
%% Programme-defined names rendered in sans-serif (per L21/L23) and with
%% full GG- prefix throughout the body.  The \AFull... variants prepend
%% Arisaka- and are used for explicit listings of preprint titles.
\providecommand{\AOne}{\textsf{GG-A1-Constitution}}
\providecommand{\ATwo}{\textsf{GG-A2-GG6}}

%% v7.44 -- Global naming convention macros (cohort-wide, paper-local define here)
%% Format: \GTID{Suffix}{N} renders as "T-Suffix-N".  Use suffix "GG6" for the
%% present paper.  Suffix list for the cohort: Constitution / GG6 / BI6 /
%% Euclid / GDOS / Gi4 / Qi4 / QM / SM / Cosmos / Origin.
\providecommand{\GTID}[2]{\ifmmode\mathsf{T\text{-}#1\text{-}#2}\else\textsf{T-#1-#2}\fi}%% Theorem
\providecommand{\GLID}[2]{\ifmmode\mathsf{L\text{-}#1\text{-}#2}\else\textsf{L-#1-#2}\fi}%% Lemma
\providecommand{\GCID}[2]{\ifmmode\mathsf{C\text{-}#1\text{-}#2}\else\textsf{C-#1-#2}\fi}%% Corollary
\providecommand{\GDID}[2]{\ifmmode\mathsf{D\text{-}#1\text{-}#2}\else\textsf{D-#1-#2}\fi}%% Definition
\providecommand{\GRID}[2]{\ifmmode\mathsf{R\text{-}#1\text{-}#2}\else\textsf{R-#1-#2}\fi}%% Remark
\providecommand{\GPID}[2]{\ifmmode\mathsf{P\text{-}#1\text{-}#2}\else\textsf{P-#1-#2}\fi}%% Prediction
\providecommand{\GOID}[2]{\ifmmode\mathsf{O\text{-}#1\text{-}#2}\else\textsf{O-#1-#2}\fi}%% Objection
\providecommand{\GFID}[2]{\ifmmode\mathsf{F\text{-}#1\text{-}#2}\else\textsf{F-#1-#2}\fi}%% Falsifier
\providecommand{\GIID}[2]{\ifmmode\mathsf{I\text{-}#1\text{-}#2}\else\textsf{I-#1-#2}\fi}%% Innovation
\providecommand{\GPSID}[2]{\ifmmode\mathsf{PS\text{-}#1\text{-}#2}\else\textsf{PS-#1-#2}\fi}%% Problem-Solved

\providecommand{\AThree}{\textsf{GG-A3-BI6}}
\providecommand{\AFour}{\textsf{GG-A4-Euclid}}
\providecommand{\AFive}{\textsf{GG-A5-GDOS}}
\renewcommand{\ASix}{\textsf{GG-A6-GRIP}}
\providecommand{\ASeven}{\textsf{GG-A7-Qi4}}
\providecommand{\AEight}{\textsf{GG-A8-QM}}
\providecommand{\ANine}{\textsf{GG-A9-SM}}
\providecommand{\ATen}{\textsf{GG-A10-Cosmos}}
\providecommand{\AEleven}{\textsf{GG-A11-Origin}}
\providecommand{\PaperPOne}{\textsf{GG-P1-KK}}
\providecommand{\PaperPTwo}{\textsf{GG-P2-N3}}
\providecommand{\PaperCOne}{\textsf{GG-C1-Kaxion}}
\providecommand{\PaperPFour}{\textsf{GG-P4-Real}}%% v13.3: Foundations Branch member (canonical form, Cohort-Map-19 v1.4)
\providecommand{\PaperPFive}{\textsf{GG-P5-CPT}}%% v13.3: Foundations Branch member (canonical form, Cohort-Map-19 v1.4)
\providecommand{\AFullOne}{\textsf{Arisaka-GG-A1-Constitution}}
\providecommand{\AFullTwo}{\textsf{Arisaka-GG-A2-GG6}}
\providecommand{\AFullThree}{\textsf{Arisaka-GG-A3-BI6}}
\providecommand{\AFullFour}{\textsf{Arisaka-GG-A4-Euclid}}
\providecommand{\AFullFive}{\textsf{Arisaka-GG-A5-GDOS}}
\renewcommand{\AFullSix}{\textsf{Arisaka-GG-A6-GRIP}}
\providecommand{\AFullSeven}{\textsf{Arisaka-GG-A7-Qi4}}
\providecommand{\AFullEight}{\textsf{Arisaka-GG-A8-QM}}
\providecommand{\AFullNine}{\textsf{Arisaka-GG-A9-SM}}
\providecommand{\AFullTen}{\textsf{Arisaka-GG-A10-Cosmos}}
\providecommand{\PaperFullPOne}{\textsf{Arisaka-GG-P1-KK}}
\providecommand{\PaperFullPTwo}{\textsf{Arisaka-GG-P2-N3}}
\providecommand{\PaperFullCOne}{\textsf{Arisaka-GG-C1-Kaxion}}

%% v7.52 GU-5 macros (Geometric Universal Five Constants).
\providecommand{\GUfive}{\ifmmode\mathsf{GU\text{-}5}\else\textsf{GU-5}\fi}
\providecommand{\GUfiveSet}{\ensuremath{\{c,\,G_N,\,\hbar\,;\,k_B,\,Q_B\}}}
\providecommand{\kB}{\ensuremath{k_B}}
%% v7.56 -- paper-local fallbacks for A1-imported figure 3 (OGGEP).
\providecommand{\Dmap}{\mathcal{D}}
\providecommand{\Bulk}{\mathrm{Bulk}}
\providecommand{\Bdy}{\mathrm{Bdy}}
\providecommand{\Op}{\mathsf{Op}}
%% v7.54 -- paper-local: do NOT force a \newpage at the start of
%% the ExecutiveSummary environment.  This lets the ES flow directly
%% after the Abstract on page 2.
%% v11.16: ExecutiveSummary env (centered) provided by ucla-arisaka-gg-11.

%% float placement: the LaTeX defaults (topfraction .7,
%% floatpagefraction .5) let a single plate claim a page of its own
%% and leave half of it blank.
\renewcommand{\topfraction}{0.92}
\renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{0.55}
\renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.08}
\renewcommand{\floatpagefraction}{0.80}
\setcounter{topnumber}{3}
\setcounter{totalnumber}{5}
\begin{document}
%% ---- v15.19 (August 10, 2026) ----
%% Stage 2 complete: pointers, promises, and the reader-facing register.
%%   * Table 25's fourteen pointers into A1 were on the pre-renumbering
%%     scheme.  A1 v15.21 carries the axioms at S4.x and the postulates
%%     at S5.x; the table printed S2.x and S3.x.  The two S1.5 rows
%%     (working definitions) were already correct and are unchanged.
%%   * Seven body pointers read "A1-Constitution S4 POS-n"; S4 is A1's
%%     axioms Part.  Now S5.3 through S5.9, one per postulate.
%%   * A3 pointers: BI-6 is A3 S5 (structural proof), not S3; OGN-5 is
%%     A3 S9, not S7 (S7 is the benchmark spectrum).
%%   * A2's own self-pointers named S8/S10/S15 for Theorems 1/3/8, which
%%     live in S12/S14/S19.  Resolved from the .aux, not from memory.
%%     The same three rows printed the tag backwards (T1-GG6) against
%%     the paper's own stated convention (T-GG6-1); corrected.
%%   * "Part VI S8.4", twice: that section does not exist.  The four-fold
%%     exclusion is Section 60; both sites now \ref it.
%%   * The Necessity/Sufficiency lemmas live in Section 40 but printed as
%%     33.1-33.12 against no parent.  Renumbered 40.x (37 sites).
%%   * "Theorem 33" does not exist; the result is unnumbered.  Named by
%%     section instead.
%%   * The stale five-Part architecture at the close of Part II assigned
%%     Part IV the ten innovations and Part V the falsifiers; both are
%%     Part VII.  Rewritten to name Parts IV-XI correctly.
%%   * Forward promises repaired: the Four Pictures are used again in two
%%     later places, not three (four were listed); Part VI's closing sent
%%     the reader to "Part VIII (Comparison and Falsifiability)" for
%%     falsifiers that are in Part VII; Part VII's introduction claimed
%%     to contain the common objections, which are Part X.
%%   * referee / reviewer, 31 reader-facing sites, gone.  Each objection
%%     keeps its community identity -- the phenomenology referee became
%%     the phenomenologist, the senior referee the senior theorist, the
%%     bio reviewer a biologist -- and the appendix "Senior-reviewer
%%     audit" became "Senior-specialist audit".  "as of submission"
%%     became "as of writing".
%% METHOD NOTE.  The 33.x -> 40.x renumbering was run as a bare
%% \b33\.\d sweep and silently rewrote the r = ln(E_GUT/M_Z) = 33.2
%% introduced in Stage 1, in both the body and this banner.  Caught by
%% classifying every 40.x hit against a lemma-context pattern after the
%% run, not by the gate.  Both sites reverted.  A digit sweep must be
%% scoped by meaning; this is the same lesson as the cohort's 17->22
%% count sweep, arriving from a new direction.
%% No axiom, theorem, value or falsifier was changed.
%% ---- v15.18 (August 10, 2026) ----
%% Self-consistency of the radial reading, plus Stage 2 (first pass).
%%
%% THE RADIAL READING, now consistent.  The author fixed two anchors:
%% r = ln(E_GUT/mu), and M_lock = 3.85 TeV.  Both survive, and so does
%% the ledger, because the paper was conflating two different things:
%%   * the BOUNDARY RG SCALE is anchored at E_GUT: mu(r) = E_GUT e^-r,
%%     so the IR end of the interval is E_GUT e^-K = 14 GeV;
%%   * the KK RESONANCE MASSES of that same interval are anchored at the
%%     BULK scale M_6 = M_Pl/sqrt(pi), giving
%%     M_lock = M_6 e^-K x O(1) = 3846 GeV = 3.85 TeV.
%% The radial DEPTH is the ledger integer K = 35 in both readings; only
%% the anchor differs, and the two anchors stand in the fixed pure-number
%% ratio M_6/E_GUT = e^(2pi)/sqrt(pi) = 302.  Both statements were
%% already in the paper, correctly, in different places; eight sentences
%% that EQUATED them are corrected, and the distinction is now stated
%% once, where it first matters, as "Two anchors, and why they differ".
%% Nothing was given up: not the convention, not M_lock, not K = 35.
%%
%% STAGE 2, first pass -- the production-history leak and the counts.
%%   * Nine internal working-note codes cited as if published: the L84
%%     reading -> the geometry-first reading; the L99 ordering; the L88
%%     Problems-Solved convention; Per L96.  None was resolvable.
%%   * "(Project Instructions: M_lock = 3.85 TeV)" -- the private charter
%%     cited in reader-facing text as the warrant for a prediction.
%%   * "in Phase 2B of the manuscript".
%%   * Six sites narrating the paper's own production: "the polish
%%     iteration relocated it upward", "earlier A2 versions", "ship
%%     version as of the v9 inventory (May 25, 2026)" x4, "internal
%%     restructure pending".
%%   * Counts: eighteen -> twenty-one companion papers; the eight bridge
%%     sections called "eleven" twice; twelve Problems Solved plus one
%%     future direction (P13 was numbered into the PS series).
%%   * The label sec:common-objections sits on the Part divider, so
%%     \S\ref returned the Part counter and printed "SS X" -- an
%%     apparent unresolved reference, 11 times, including once inside
%%     the bibliography. All now read "Part X".
%% No axiom, theorem, value or falsifier was changed.
%% ---- v15.17 (August 10, 2026) ----
%% Stage 1 of the A2 revision plan: the physics.  Author sign-off of
%% 10 August, including the ruling that the radial coordinate is
%% r = ln(E_GUT/mu) -- GG-Theory starts at E_GUT, not at M_Pl.
%%   (1.1) The electroweak vev printed the retired form
%%         v = M_lock p^{2/5}, p = 2/3, "which evaluates to 246 GeV".
%%         It evaluates to 3274 GeV.  Replaced with the cohort form
%%         v = M_lock (2/L)^N = M_lock (2/5)^3 = 246.3 GeV, which A1
%%         adopted at its own v15.17.  A2 was the last paper carrying it.
%%   (1.3) Three arithmetic errors in one sentence: ln(E_GUT/M_Z) is
%%         33.2 not 32; ln(E_GUT/M_lock) is 29.4 not 28.7; and
%%         E_GUT e^-K is 14 GeV, not the 7.1 GeV printed.
%%   (1.4) The Planck-to-bulk reduction.  A4-Euclid OWNS this result and
%%         states int dtheta int e^-2r dr = pi(1-e^-2K), G_N = 1/(pi M_6^2),
%%         M_6 = M_Pl/sqrt(pi) = 0.564 M_Pl.  A2 printed (pi/2) and
%%         sqrt(2/pi) = 0.798 M_Pl -- the pi already contains the 1/2
%%         from the radial integral, so the 1/2 was counted twice.  Two
%%         further equations dropped the theta-circle measure entirely
%%         and equated mass-squared to mass-to-the-fourth; both repaired,
%%         and G_N is 1/M_6^2, not 1/M_6^4.
%%   (1.5) Step 3 explicitly retires the trace ratio as a route to N
%%         ("it is not used to fix N ... it serves instead as the
%%         independent check").  The N = 2 exclusion still credited it.
%%         Re-credited to the block-embedding root of Lemma N-equals-3.
%%   (1.6) Seesaw: v^2/Lambda_R at 10^14 GeV is 0.605 eV, not the 0.06
%%         printed, and above the cosmological bound.  10^14 -> 10^15.
%%   (1.7) The Necessity theorem's "no proper subset" clause is
%%         falsified by the paper's own Lemma 40.11, which states that
%%         removing POS-7 costs no Theorem as a proposition.  Restated
%%         to match the synthesis paragraph, which already had it right.
%%   (1.8) Table 24 claimed 1 free continuous parameter where
%%         Proposition 3 claims zero and calls the unit scale a
%%         convention.  Table corrected to 0.
%%   (1.9) m_Lambda = M_lock^2/M_Pl gives 1.2 meV with the non-reduced
%%         M_Pl the same page pins; the canonical 6 meV needs the
%%         REDUCED Planck mass, now named explicitly.  L was defined as
%%         the fundamental-representation dimension then illustrated
%%         with SO(10) via the 16 and E_6 via the 27; corrected to the
%%         10 and to L = 27.  e^-K called "exactly" the
%%         Planck-to-electroweak ratio is 31x off; "of the order of".
%%         The Yukawa worked example contradicted itself in sign.
%% FLAGGED, NOT CHANGED -- needs the author.  With r = ln(E_GUT/mu) now
%% fixed, r = K = 35 is E_GUT e^-35 = 14.4 GeV, while M_lock =
%% (1/2) M_Pl e^-K = 3.85 TeV sits at r = 29.41.  The two exponentials
%% have different anchors and the gap is exactly 2pi - ln2 = 5.590.
%% Roughly fifteen sentences identify the IR endpoint r = K with
%% mu = M_lock; on the confirmed convention they cannot both hold.
%% See GG-Report-284 section 3.  No value was changed on this point.
%% ---- v15.13 (August 8, 2026) ----
%% Two items closed.
%% (1) Spelling: 27 further sites taken to the American standard.  The
%%     earlier passes worked from a pair list built out of
%%     spelling_audit.py, which only reports words spelt BOTH ways --
%%     so words this paper always spelt the British way (renormalisation,
%%     factorisation, quantisation, geometrisation) were invisible and
%%     survived.  A rule over the -ise/-isation family replaces the list.
%%     Five cited titles are PROTECTED and unchanged: Dirac 1931,
%%     Faraday 1845, Stueckelberg-Petermann 1953 (French), Symanzik 1970,
%%     and Lorentz 1892's "Archives n\'eerlandaises" (French).
%% (2) tab:spin-ledger captioned below its grid; moved above.
%% ---- v15.12 (August 8, 2026) ----
%% The printed version stamp is corrected.  \PaperVersion still read
%% v15.7 and \PaperDate August 7 while the file had moved on, so the
%% front cover carried a version several ships behind its own
%% filename.  The stamp is a CALL to a macro defined in the style
%% file, not a definition in the paper, which is why a search for
%% the definition found nothing and the drift went unnoticed.
%% stamp_check.py now asserts filename version == printed version
%% and is part of the gate.  No other change.
%% ---- v15.11 (August 8, 2026) ----
%% (1) Spelling completed to the cohort's American standard: 25
%%     remaining minority spellings corrected (normalisation,
%%     realise, generalise, behaviour, color and the rest).
%%     PROTECTED and deliberately unchanged: Stueckelberg &
%%     Petermann (1953) "La normalisation des constantes...", which
%%     is French, and Symanzik (1970) "Small distance behaviour in
%%     field theory", which is that paper's title.  toward/towards
%%     and canceled/cancelled are both acceptable American usage and
%%     are left alone rather than swept to a preference.
%% (2) Eleven dated page-count parentheticals removed from the
%%     bibliography -- "(May 20, 2026, 541 pp)" and its siblings.
%%     Every one was wrong (A11-Origin is 473 pp, not 541; A5-GDOS
%%     404, not 283), they are internal version history in
%%     reader-facing text, and no other paper in the cohort states
%%     them. A2 was the only paper carrying any.
%% ---- v15.10 (August 8, 2026) ----
%% Cohort integrity pass, closing the open list.
%% (1) Bibliography completed to the full twenty-two-paper cohort:
%%     6 entries added, taken verbatim from A1-Constitution, each with
%%     the prose that cites it -- the Predictions-Branch sentence gains
%%     its fourth member and a new "The White-Paper Branch" paragraph
%%     mirrors the Foundations-Branch one, so no entry is an orphan.
%% (2) No other change.
%% ---- v15.9 (August 7, 2026) ----
%% Spelling: "programme" and "fibre" eliminated in favor of "program"
%% and "fiber" (28 sites), including label and cross-reference names.
%% Two occurrences are PROTECTED as other authors' words and are
%% deliberately unchanged: Lakatos (1970), "Falsification and the
%% methodology of scientific research programmes", which is that paper's
%% actual title, and Klein's "Erlangen Programme".  The cohort's own
%% cited titles ARE corrected: A1-Constitution's title page reads
%% "GG-Theory Program", so citing it as "Programme" was a misquotation.
%% ---- v15.8 (August 7, 2026) ----
%% Two defects found by reading the printed pages.  (1) The float on
%% page 27 held a caption, a label and no picture: the plate was lost
%% before v13.18 and only the caption survived, so the page printed
%% "Figure 3" over white space.  The picture that caption describes is
%% the acronym hierarchy the paper already carries in the Summary of
%% Abbreviations, so the empty float is removed and the paragraph that
%% promised it now points at that copy rather than duplicating it.
%% Figures renumber 3..14.  (2) tab:two-pillars carried no rules at all;
%% booktabs rules added per the table standard and the hand-inserted
%% row spacing they replace removed.
% ---- v13.14 (August 2, 2026) ----
% New Part III section 'The Pair, Read Together: What the Two
% Fibres Jointly Buy' (sec:pair-read-together), between Picture 4
% and the Synthesis: explicitly not a fifth picture (the
% four-not-five argument preserved); the exact statement (holonomy
% requires closed loops; an interval has none; the circle
% remembers, the interval forgets; the pair minimal for a world);
% the six payoffs now in print across the cohort (deterministic
% breaking, the guarded proton, the birth of matter, the
% measurement arrow, the origin's chronology, time itself); the
% GU-5 tie (hbar the circle's constant, G_N the interval's); the
% bulk-in-one-sentence upgraded. Cross-refs ssec:two-fibres and
% sec:necessity-sufficiency. Part of the two-fibre deployment
% campaign (GG-Report-151/152/154).


%% ===============================================================
%%  TITLE PAGE
%% ===============================================================
\GGTitlePage
 {\GGTheory{} with \GG{}}
 {Geometry--Gauge Locking at the 6D Bulk (\GG{})\\
 at the Heart of Grand Geometric Theory (\GGTheory{})}
 {August 10, 2026}
\thispagestyle{empty}

\vspace{12pt}
\begin{abstract}
\noindent
Gravity is the shape of spacetime. The other three forces are not:
they are rules attached on top of spacetime rather than properties of
it, and physics has kept these two kinds of law in separate boxes for
a hundred years. This paper closes the gap by making them two faces of
one geometric object.

The construction adds two directions to the familiar four, and neither
is a place. One is scale --- a dial saying at what energy the world is
being examined. The other is an angle on a circle, the one that
electric charge and its relatives already turn. Both are pure numbers
carrying no length, so nothing here is a hidden room of space.

On that six-dimensional stage the forces become a single connected
structure, and one topological identity locks the parts of it together.
What the identity leaves is unexpected: every pure number a physicist
would ordinarily have to measure and insert by hand collapses into five
whole numbers --- one, three, five, seven and thirty-five --- which
satisfy two independent arithmetic conditions at once, and do so at no
other values. Nothing is left to choose except the units.

Six forces follow rather than four. Two of them are new: one that
forbids the proton from ever decaying, and one that carries information
and sets an exchange rate between energy and what a system knows.

The framework shares its central mechanism with string theory and parts
company at four specific decisions, each written down and each carrying
a consequence a measurement can reach. Ten such measurements are
declared here in advance, with the outcome that would end the framework
named beside each. A theory with nothing left to adjust cannot be
repaired when an experiment disagrees with it, and that is not its
weakness. It is the only thing that makes a claim about the world worth
making.
\end{abstract}


%% ===============================================================
%%  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
%% ===============================================================
\begin{ExecutiveSummary}
\paragraph{Why this paper exists.} Physics keeps two kinds of law in two
different boxes. Gravity is geometry: energy bends spacetime, and things fall
because the shape they move through is curved. The strong, weak and
electromagnetic forces are not described that way at all. They are internal
symmetries --- bookkeeping attached to each point of spacetime rather than a
property of the spacetime itself. A century of work has made both boxes
extraordinarily accurate and has not merged them. The charter of this program
\citep{ArisakaA1Constitution} sets out eleven clauses, four axioms and seven
postulates, that any admissible theory has to satisfy; none of them mentions a
dimension count, a gauge group, or any measured quantity. This paper asks what
those clauses leave standing. The answer is a single six-dimensional geometry in which the two boxes are one object --- the bulk this program calls \GG{} --- and it is reached in eight theorems with nothing supplied from experiment along the way.

\paragraph{The stage: four directions, and two that are not places.} The arena
is
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;\cM_6 = \cM_4 \times I_r \times S^1_\theta,\qquad
ds_6^2 = e^{-2r}\,\eta_{\mu\nu}\,dx^\mu dx^\nu + dr^2 + d\theta^2,\;}
\end{equation}
with $r \in [0, K]$ and $\theta \in [0, 2\pi)$. Four of the six directions are
the familiar ones. The fifth is not a place but a magnification setting: the coordinate $r = \ln(\EGUT/\mu)$ is the logarithm of the ratio between the unification energy $\EGUT$ and the energy $\mu$ at which one is looking, so moving
along it is not traveling anywhere but changing the scale at which the world is
being examined, and the exponential factor in the metric is the geometrized
renormalization-group flow. The sixth is a closed circle whose only content is a
phase. Both are dimensionless by construction, which is the sharpest available
statement that neither is a spatial extra dimension: there is no light cone
along them, no tower of gravitational modes, and no adjustable radius. A reader
who knows the warped braneworld of Randall and Sundrum should read the metric
above as a different object with a familiar shape.

\paragraph{One structure where there were two.} On this arena gravity and the
gauge forces are two faces of one composite connection, whose curvature lives in
\begin{equation}
G_\Bulk = \Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi .
\end{equation}
The four factors enter a single topological identity --- a modified Bianchi
identity, the six-dimensional descendant of the mechanism Green and Schwarz
introduced in ten --- with the coefficient vector $(a,b,c,d) = (1, -1, -2/5,
-2/5)$. Three of those four magnitudes are representation theory rather than
fitting, and the fourth is a sign forced by requiring that the quantum
inconsistencies cancel rather than double. The full anomaly proof, local and
global, is carried by the companion \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}.

\paragraph{Where the free parameters go.} The identity closes on a ledger of
five integers,
\[
(M, N, L;\, J, K) = (1, 3, 5;\, 7, 35),
\qquad K = LJ = M^2 + N^2 + L^2 ,
\]
and after it closes no continuous dimensionless parameter survives anywhere in
the bulk. The closure is worth seeing rather than being told about, because it
is the strongest structural claim here. One condition comes from the trace
structure of the unified block and is satisfied by an endless family, $L = 5k$
and $N = 3k$. A second, of entirely different provenance, comes from the ledger
identity above and requires $N = L - \sqrt{L-1}$. Imposing either on the other
gives $4k^2 - 5k + 1 = 0$, whose only positive integer root is $k = 1$. Two
constraints that were never designed together agree at one pair of integers and
nowhere else. What remains dimensionful is a choice of units rather than a
parameter, and the companion \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid} traces that choice back to
the five constants any laboratory needs.

\paragraph{Six forces, and two of them are new.} The bulk projects onto a
four-dimensional boundary carrying six force sectors rather than four. One
addition is a gauged baryon number, which makes proton stability a theorem
instead of an accident: there is no operator in the theory that would mediate
the decay. The other is an informational sector, empirically preferred rather
than constitutionally forced, and it fixes an exchange rate between energy and
information, $\QB \approx 0.1555$~eV per bit, that the companion
\citep{ArisakaA7Qi4} checks against the energy carried by a single biological
phosphate bond. How the projection itself works --- how a six-dimensional
description becomes the four-dimensional one an instrument registers --- is the
subject of \citep{ArisakaA5GDOS}, and is not derived here.

\paragraph{What is different, and what is shared.} This framework and the
superstring program share their central mechanism and part company at four
decisions, each of which can be stated in a sentence. Whether the extra
dimensions are places: here they are a scale and a phase, and so carry no moduli
to stabilize. Where the four-dimensional description stops: here at
$\EGUT \approx 2.28 \times 10^{16}$~GeV rather than at the Planck scale, so
there is no four-dimensional theory left to quantize above it. Whether a vast
space of solutions is tolerated: here the ledger closes to one point, and it
closes by arithmetic rather than by a preference for the smallest answer.
And whether the map to what an observer registers preserves all the information:
here it does not, and the irreversibility is a clause of the charter rather than
an inconvenience. None of this makes the string program mistaken. It makes the
two programs answerable, on four questions, by measurement.

\paragraph{What this paper does not do.} The arena and the ledger are not the
electron, the cosmos, or a theory of measurement. The generation count is not
fixed by the cascade and belongs to \citep{ArisakaP2N3}; the boundary dynamics
belong to \citep{ArisakaA5GDOS}; the cosmological inventory, including
$\Omega_m = 1/\pi$, belongs to \citep{ArisakaA10Cosmos}. A reader who accepts
everything in Part~II is not thereby committed to any of them. Within this
paper, results are graded where they appear --- derived, derived under a named
condition, or open --- and the grading is kept separate in every table rather
than blurred into a summary claim.

\paragraph{Where it can fail.} Ten measurements are declared in Part~VII, each
with the outcome that would end the claim it tests. Three carry numbers a reader
can hold: a resonance cluster near $\Mlock \approx 3.85$~TeV, whose production channel and quantum numbers are specified in \citep{ArisakaP1KK}; a dark-matter signature with a frequency splitting of exactly one part in thirty-five \citep{ArisakaC1Kaxion}; and a
fine-structure constant whose integer part is $2^J + N^2 = 137$ built from two
members of the ledger. A framework with nothing left to adjust has no way to
absorb a disagreement, which is what makes these ten load-bearing rather than
decorative.

\paragraph{A closing thought, for any reader.} The oldest question in physics is
not what the world is made of but how much of it had to be this way. Every
constant we measure is a small confession that something was left unexplained,
and the history of the subject is a history of such confessions being withdrawn
one at a time --- the fall of a body, the color of a flame, the mass of a star
--- each turning out to follow from something more general than itself. What is
proposed here is that the confessions can be withdrawn together, and that the
numbers of nature are not a list the universe was handed but the only
arithmetic a consistent world permits. A soap film on a wire loop does not
choose its shape from a catalog of possible shapes; there is no catalog, and
the film is simply what the constraints leave. Whether the universe is like the
film is not something any argument can settle. It is something a measurement can
end, and this paper names ten of them.
\end{ExecutiveSummary}


\GGKeywords{unified field theory; geometry--gauge equivalence; six-dimensional
bulk; scale and phase as non-spatial dimensions; renormalization group as
geometry; composite gauge--gravity connection $\Spinone \times \SUfive \times
\UoneB \times \UoneQi$; modified Bianchi identity; Green--Schwarz anomaly
cancellation; five-integer ledger $(1,3,5;\,7,35)$; theories without free
parameters; gauged baryon number and proton stability; energy--information
conversion; comparison with superstring theory; registered falsifiers}

% ================= FRONT-MATTER SHOWCASE, v15.28 ==============
% Second of the twenty-four, on the pattern fixed by A1-Constitution
% v15.23 and corrected by v15.24.  Front matter after the Keywords
% and before the Contents; one page, one idea, under a spoken
% headline; unnumbered captions so the lists are not doubled; the
% falsifier page a bare longtable with the counter stepped back.
% The plates live in saveboxes filled ONCE here and used twice --
% here and in the body -- so the copies cannot drift.
% ==============================================================
\newsavebox{\GGscBulk}
\newsavebox{\GGscCasc}
\sbox{\GGscBulk}{\begin{tikzpicture}[
 font=\small,
 every node/.style={inner sep=2pt},
 slice/.style={draw=blue!55!black, fill=blue!8, line width=0.4pt},
 slicelab/.style={font=\scriptsize, anchor=south, text=blue!55!black},
 arr/.style={->, line width=0.80pt, draw=black!70},
 faintarr/.style={->, draw=black!45},
 volcano/.style={dashed, draw=orange!70!black, line width=0.85pt},
 energylab/.style={font=\scriptsize, anchor=south},
 branelab/.style={font=\bfseries\footnotesize}
]

%% --- Top energy-scale axis ---------------------------------------
\draw[arr] (-0.5, 4.4) -- (12.5, 4.4);
\node[energylab] at (0, 4.5) {$\mu = \EGUT \approx 2.28\!\times\!10^{16}$ GeV};
\node[energylab] at (4, 4.5) {$\mu \sim 10^{12}$ GeV};
\node[energylab] at (8, 4.5) {$\mu \approx 4.7\times10^{7}$ GeV};
\node[energylab] at (12, 4.5) {$\mu = \EGUT\,e^{-K} \approx 14.4$ GeV};

\node[font=\scriptsize] at (6, 5.50) {energy scale $\mu = \EGUT\,e^{-r}$};

%% --- The four 4D slices, widths shrinking by scale profile ---------
%% At r = 0 (UV), the slice is full width.
%% At r = K (IR), the slice is e^{-K} times smaller.
%% For graphic clarity we use a milder visual ratio.
\node[slicelab] at (0, 2.9) {$\cM_4$ slice (shrinks with $e^{-r}$)};

\draw[slice] (-0.7, 0.6) rectangle (0.7, 2.6); %% r = 0
\draw[slice] (3.6, 1.3) rectangle (4.4, 2.3); %% r ~ 10
\draw[slice] (7.7, 1.6) rectangle (8.3, 2.0); %% r ~ 20
\draw[slice] (11.85, 1.78) rectangle (12.15, 1.92); %% r ~ K = 35

%% Connectors between slices (suggest the radial direction)
\draw[faintarr] (0.7, 1.6) -- (3.6, 1.8);
\draw[faintarr] (4.4, 1.8) -- (7.7, 1.8);
\draw[faintarr] (8.3, 1.8) -- (11.85, 1.85);

%% --- Lower radial axis with K = 35 endpoint ----------------------
\draw[arr] (-0.5, 0) -- (12.5, 0);
\node[font=\normalsize, anchor=north] at (0, -0.05) {$r = 0$};
\node[font=\normalsize, anchor=north] at (4, -0.05) {$r \approx 10$};
\node[font=\normalsize, anchor=north] at (8, -0.05) {$r \approx 20$};
\node[font=\normalsize, anchor=north] at (12, -0.05) {$r = K = 35$};
\node[font=\normalsize\itshape, anchor=north] at (6, -0.75) {RG-scale coordinate $r = \ln(\EGUT/\mu)$};

%% --- UV and IR boundary labels -----------------------------------
\node[branelab, anchor=south east, fill=white, inner sep=2pt] at (-0.5, 3.6) {UV boundary};
\node[branelab, anchor=south west, fill=white, inner sep=2pt] at (12.55, 3.6) {IR boundary};

%% --- Lock-cluster star at r = K -----------------------------------
\node[star, star points=5, star point ratio=0.45, draw=red!70!black,
 fill=red!16, minimum size=0.55cm, line width=0.4pt]
 at (12, 1.85) {};
\node[font=\normalsize\bfseries, anchor=west, text=red!70!black] at (12.45, 1.85)
 {lock at $r = K$};

%% --- theta-circle fibre attached at one representative r ---------
\node[draw=green!50!black, fill=green!12, circle, minimum size=0.95cm,
 line width=0.4pt] (Sth) at (6, -1.8) {};
\node[font=\normalsize] at (6, -1.8) {$S^1_\theta$};
\draw[faintarr] (Sth.north) -- (6, -0.3);
\node[font=\normalsize, anchor=west] at (6.55, -1.8) {topological fiber, $\theta \in [0, 2\pi)$};

%% --- Volcano-potential overlay (dashed) --------------------------
\draw[volcano] plot[smooth, samples=60, domain=-0.4:12.4]
 (\x, {0.55 + 1.40*exp(-1.40*\x) + 0.16*tanh(0.65*(\x-9))});
\node[font=\normalsize\itshape, text=orange!70!black, anchor=south] at (8, 0.55)
 {volcano potential (Picture 3)};

%% --- Warp-factor annotation in the middle -----------------------
\node[font=\normalsize\itshape, anchor=south] at (6, 3.1) {scale profile $e^{-r}$ governs the 4D slice width};

\end{tikzpicture}}
\sbox{\GGscCasc}{\begin{tikzpicture}[
 font=\small,
 every node/.style={inner sep=3pt},
 source/.style={draw=red!55!black, rounded corners=2pt, fill=red!12, minimum width=2.4cm,
 minimum height=0.55cm, align=center, font=\footnotesize},
 cascade/.style={draw=red!55!black, rounded corners=2pt, fill=blue!10, minimum width=1.6cm,
 minimum height=0.55cm, font=\bfseries},
 lock/.style={draw=red!55!black, circle, fill=green!18, minimum size=1.05cm,
 line width=0.52pt, font=\bfseries},
 idbox/.style={draw=red!55!black, rounded corners=2pt, fill=yellow!18, minimum width=3.6cm,
 minimum height=1.5cm, align=center, font=\scriptsize},
 chkbox/.style={draw=red!55!black, dashed, rounded corners=2pt, fill=black!4,
 minimum width=8.2cm, minimum height=0.55cm, align=center, inner xsep=6pt,
 font=\scriptsize},
 arr/.style={->, line width=0.38pt, draw=black!70},
 chk/.style={->, dashed, draw=black!45}
]

%% Stage 1: the two integers fixed with no color count in play
\node[source] (T1) at (0, 3.3) {Theorem 1 \\ (dim.\ minimality)};
\node[cascade] (M) at (5.0, 3.3) {$M = 1$};
\node[source] (T3) at (0, 1.9) {T-BI6-9.0 \\ (single-tensor \\ Green--Schwarz)};
\node[cascade] (L) at (5.0, 1.9) {$L = 5$};
\draw[arr] (T1.east) -- (M.west)
 node[midway, above, font=\footnotesize\itshape] {compact};
\draw[arr] (T3.east) -- (L.west)
 node[midway, above, font=\footnotesize\itshape] {free of $N$};

%% Stage 2: the dual lock is what determines the color index
\node[idbox] (id) at (5.0, -0.2)
 {dual lock \\[2pt]
  $K = LJ = M^2{+}N^2{+}L^2$ \\[1pt]
  $J = 2N{+}1$ \\[2pt]
  $\Longrightarrow\ N = L \pm \sqrt{L - M^2}$};
\node[cascade] (N) at (9.2, -0.2) {$N = N_c = 3$};
\draw[arr] (L.south) -- (id.north);
\draw[arr] (M.east) to[out=0, in=70] ([xshift=-4mm]id.north east);
\draw[arr] (id.east) -- (N.west)
 node[midway, above, font=\footnotesize\itshape] {$N < L$};

%% Stage 3: what follows once N is fixed
\node[lock] (J) at (11.8, 1.3) {$J = 7$};
\node[lock] (K) at (11.8, -1.7) {$K = 35$};
\draw[arr] (N.east) to[out=0, in=215] (J.south west);
\draw[arr] (N.east) to[out=0, in=145] (K.north west);
\node[anchor=north, font=\scriptsize, gray] at (11.8, 0.62) {$J = 2N + 1$};
\node[anchor=north, font=\scriptsize, gray] at (11.8, -2.42)
 {$K = LJ = M^2{+}N^2{+}L^2$};
\node[anchor=south, font=\small\bfseries] at (11.8, 2.1)
 {Closure consequences};

%% the trace ratio: a check on a ledger already determined
\node[chkbox] (tr) at (3.8, -2.9)
 {trace ratio $(L-N)/L = 2/5$ \;---\; \emph{independent check, not a route
  to $N$}};
\draw[chk] (tr.east) to[out=0, in=-90] (N.south);

\end{tikzpicture}}
\defcitealias{ArisakaA1Constitution}{\mbox{GG-A1-Constitution}}
\defcitealias{ArisakaA3BI6}{\mbox{GG-A3-BI6}}
\defcitealias{ArisakaA7Qi4}{\mbox{GG-A7-Qi4}}
\defcitealias{ArisakaA8QM}{\mbox{GG-A8-QM}}
\defcitealias{ArisakaA9SM}{\mbox{GG-A9-SM}}
\defcitealias{ArisakaA11Origin}{\mbox{GG-A11-Origin}}
\defcitealias{ArisakaP1KK}{\mbox{GG-P1-KK}}
\defcitealias{ArisakaC1Kaxion}{\mbox{GG-C1-Kaxion}}
%% v11.5 (August 17, 2026): THE DEFINITION IS IN THE STYLE FILE NOW.
%% The comment above is the record of why it was here -- the style
%% file is shared, and changing it meant rebuilding every arXiv
%% package.  That was done, so what is left is what this paper sets.

%% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GG-BULK-ONE-DIAGRAM v1.0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
%% Shared showcase plate, byte-identical in A2, A5, A8, A9, A10
%% and P1.  Pure TikZ: it adds no asset to the arXiv package.
%% Every macro it defines is \def'd under the \GGbd prefix and
%% scoped to the picture, so it cannot clash with a host paper.
%% Caption ABOVE, per the frozen float standard.
\clearpage
%% Self-filling showcase frame (Report 462): a minipage of EXPLICIT
%% height with the [s] inner alignment, so the interior glue stretches,
%% and 1 : 2 : 2 : 1 weights -- top, above the plate, below it, bottom.
%% The height is \textheight MINUS \topskip; see the report for why.
\noindent\begin{minipage}[t][\dimexpr\textheight-\topskip\relax][s]{\textwidth}
\vspace*{\stretch{1}}
\centering
\GGShowcaseHead{A Six-Dimensional Bulk Whose Fifth Dimension Is Scale\\[2pt]
and Whose Sixth Is Phase}
\par\vspace*{\stretch{2}}
{\small\captionof*{figure}{\textbf{The whole program in one diagram, with the scale axis
carrying numbers.} The bulk $\cM_4\times I_r\times S^1_\theta$ is a fiber bundle: over every
point of the Lorentzian stage sit the two \emph{non-spatial} fibers, scale and phase. \AX{2}
(\GGEP) acts \emph{upward} and builds them; \AX{3} (\OGGEP) acts \emph{downward}, and
registration is the projection that erases $(r,\theta)$ --- the origin of quantum behavior.
The vertical axis is calibrated: $\EGUT=\EPl e^{-2\pi}$ at $r=0$, the \OGNfive{} depth
$r=K=35$ at the infrared boundary, and the lock at $r=29.41$, which is $K-2\pi+\ln 2$
exactly.}}
\par\medskip
\par\vspace*{\stretch{2}}
\resizebox{0.95\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tikzpicture}[
  font=\fontsize{11}{13.2}\selectfont,
  every node/.style={inner sep=2pt},
  box/.style={rounded corners=2pt, align=center, inner sep=6pt, line width=0.712pt},
  lbox/.style={rounded corners=2pt, align=left, inner sep=5pt, line width=0.712pt,
               font=\fontsize{8.8}{10.6}\selectfont},
  tick/.style={line width=0.712pt, black!70},
  slice/.style={draw=blue!60!black, fill=blue!16, line width=0.712pt},
  fiber/.style={draw=violet!65!black, line width=0.845pt},
  note/.style={font=\fontsize{8.8}{10.6}\selectfont, align=left},
  rnote/.style={font=\fontsize{8.8}{10.6}\selectfont, align=left, text width=4.85cm},
  sml/.style={font=\fontsize{8.8}{10.6}\selectfont},
  tny/.style={font=\fontsize{6.6}{7.9}\selectfont},
  rlab/.style={font=\sffamily\fontsize{9.6}{11.5}\selectfont},
  mulab/.style={font=\sffamily\fontsize{8.8}{10.6}\selectfont}
]
%% ---- geometry constants ------------------------------------------
\def\GGbdTop{21.0}          % y at r = 0
\def\GGbdSc{0.455000}       % cm per unit r  (15.9 cm for r = 0..35)
\def\GGbdXc{6.8}             % throat centre
\def\GGbdWz{4.05}             % drawn half-width at r = 0
\def\GGbdWk{13.64}           % drawn half-width = wz * exp(-r/13.64)
\def\GGbdXR{11.9}            % right annotation column
\def\GGbdY#1{\GGbdTop-\GGbdSc*(#1)}
\def\GGbdW#1{\GGbdWz*exp(-(#1)/\GGbdWk)}

%% ================= TOP: the two necessities ========================
\node[box, draw=black!60, fill=black!8, text width=15.8cm] (need) at (\GGbdXc,23.15)
 {\textbf{Two structures no local, causal, interacting, charged quantum theory can avoid}\\[2pt]
  a renormalization \emph{scale}\qquad and\qquad a gauge \emph{phase}};
\draw[-{Stealth[length=3.4mm,width=2.6mm]}, line width=0.956pt, black!75]
      (\GGbdXc,22.28) -- (\GGbdXc,21.42);
\node[right, note, fill=white, inner sep=2pt] at (\GGbdXc+0.30,21.88)
 {\AX{2} (\GGEP): \emph{geometrize} each necessity --- this \textbf{builds} the two fibers};

%% ================= THE THROAT =====================================
\filldraw[fill=blue!8, draw=blue!60!black, line width=0.845pt]
  plot[domain=0:35,samples=90,variable=\r] ({\GGbdXc-\GGbdW{\r}},{\GGbdY{\r}})
  -- plot[domain=35:0,samples=90,variable=\r] ({\GGbdXc+\GGbdW{\r}},{\GGbdY{\r}}) -- cycle;
\draw[draw=red!65!black,line width=0.956pt] ({\GGbdXc-\GGbdWz},{\GGbdY{0}}) -- ({\GGbdXc+\GGbdWz},{\GGbdY{0}});

\foreach \r in {0,10,20,29.41,35}{
  \pgfmathsetmacro{\w}{\GGbdWz*exp(-\r/\GGbdWk)}
  \pgfmathsetmacro{\y}{\GGbdTop-\GGbdSc*\r}
  \pgfmathsetmacro{\sk}{0.17+0.145*\w}
  \draw[slice] ({\GGbdXc-\w},\y) -- ({\GGbdXc+\w},\y) -- ({\GGbdXc+\w+\sk},{\y+0.45*\sk})
               -- ({\GGbdXc-\w+\sk},{\y+0.45*\sk}) -- cycle;
}
\node[blue!45!black, align=center] at (\GGbdXc,{\GGbdY{4.6}})
 {\textbf{the 6D bulk}\\[1pt] $\cM_4\times I_r\times S^1_\theta$};

%% ================= THE SCALE AXIS =================================
\draw[-{Stealth[length=3.2mm,width=2.4mm]}, line width=0.956pt, black!75]
      (0,{\GGbdY{-1.6}}) -- (0,{\GGbdY{38.2}});
\node[rotate=90, anchor=south, black!75] at (-4.05,{\GGbdY{17.5}})
 {$I_r$ : the \emph{scale} dimension\ \ $r=\ln(\EGUT/\mu)$};
\node[black!70, rlab, anchor=south east] at (-0.12,{\GGbdY{-2.1}}) {UV};
\node[black!70, rlab, anchor=north east] at (-0.12,{\GGbdY{38.6}}) {IR};
\node[anchor=south west, black!62, align=left,
      font=\sffamily\fontsize{7.4}{8.9}\selectfont] at (-4.30,{\GGbdY{-3.0}})
 {\textsf{boundary energy scale}\\ $\mathsf{\mu=E_{GUT}\,e^{-r}}$\ \ \textsf{[GeV]}};

\foreach \r/\lab/\mulab in {0/{0}/{$\mathsf{2.28\times10^{16}}$},
                            5/{5}/{$\mathsf{1.53\times10^{14}}$},
                            10/{10}/{$\mathsf{1.03\times10^{12}}$},
                            15/{15}/{$\mathsf{6.97\times10^{9}}$},
                            20/{20}/{$\mathsf{4.70\times10^{7}}$},
                            25/{25}/{$\mathsf{3.16\times10^{5}}$},
                            29.41/{29.41}/{$\mathsf{3.85\times10^{3}}$},
                            35/{35}/{$\mathsf{14.4}$}}{
  \draw[tick] (-0.17,{\GGbdY{\r}}) -- (0.17,{\GGbdY{\r}});
  \node[anchor=east, rlab, black!80] at (-0.30,{\GGbdY{\r}}) {$\mathsf{r=\lab}$};
  \node[anchor=east, mulab, black!62] at (-2.00,{\GGbdY{\r}}) {\mulab};
}

%% ---- the UV edge --------------------------------------------------
\node[anchor=north west, rnote, text=red!60!black] at (\GGbdXR,{\GGbdY{-1.1}})
 {\textbf{UV boundary}, $r=0$:
  $\mu=\EGUT=\EPl\,e^{-2\pi}=2.28\times10^{16}$ GeV.
  \emph{The geometry begins here.} $\EPl$ sits at
  $r=-2\pi$, off the diagram.};

%% ---- what a slice is -----------------------------------------------
\node[anchor=east, note, text=blue!45!black] at (4.85,{\GGbdY{12.6}})
 {each $\cM_4$ slice is not a surface\\
  in space --- it is the \emph{whole} 4D\\
  effective theory at the scale $\mu(r)$};
\draw[blue!45!black, line width=0.594pt] (4.95,{\GGbdY{12.6}}) -- ({\GGbdXc-\GGbdW{13.8}-0.05},{\GGbdY{13.8}});

%% ---- the phase fibre ---------------------------------------------
\coordinate (fp) at ({\GGbdXc+\GGbdW{9.6}-0.62},{\GGbdY{9.6}});
\fill (fp) circle (1.6pt);
\draw[fiber] (fp) ellipse [x radius=0.76, y radius=0.30];
\draw[fiber,-{Stealth[length=2.2mm]}] ($(fp)+(0.76,0)$)
      arc [start angle=0, end angle=310, x radius=0.76, y radius=0.30];
\draw[violet!65!black, line width=0.594pt] ($(fp)+(0.78,0.05)$) -- (\GGbdXR-0.15,{\GGbdY{9.6}});
\node[anchor=north west, rnote, text=violet!65!black] at (\GGbdXR,{\GGbdY{8.9}})
 {$S^1_\theta$ : the \emph{phase} dimension --- compact,
  unitary, one Abelian holonomy
  $\oint A_\theta\,d\theta\in U(1)$. Attached at
  \emph{every} $r$; one copy drawn.};

%% ---- the lock ------------------------------------------------------
\node[star, star points=5, star point ratio=0.45, draw=red!70!black,
      fill=red!16, minimum size=0.72cm, line width=0.712pt] (lk)
      at (\GGbdXc,{\GGbdY{29.41}}) {};
\draw[red!70!black, line width=0.594pt] (lk.east) -- (\GGbdXR-0.15,{\GGbdY{29.41}});
\node[anchor=west, rnote, text=red!70!black] at (\GGbdXR,{\GGbdY{29.41}})
 {\textbf{the lock}, at $r=29.41$:
  $\Mlock=\tfrac12\EPl\,e^{-K}=3.85$ TeV, the
  Kaluza--Klein lock cluster.};

%% ---- the IR boundary ------------------------------------------------
\draw[blue!45!black, line width=0.594pt] ({\GGbdXc+\GGbdW{35}},{\GGbdY{35}}) -- (\GGbdXR-0.15,{\GGbdY{35}});
\node[anchor=west, rnote, text=blue!45!black] at (\GGbdXR,{\GGbdY{35}})
 {\textbf{IR boundary}, $r=K=35$: the \OGNfive{} integer
  scale depth, $\mu=14.4$ GeV. \emph{The bulk ends here};
  the cosmological descent runs on to
  $r_{\mathrm{GGA}}\simeq64.5$.};

%% ---- the calibration box ---------------------------------------------
\node[lbox, draw=olive!60!black, fill=yellow!12, text width=4.35cm, anchor=north west]
      at (0.28,{\GGbdY{15.3}})
 {\textbf{Why the lock sits at $r=29.41$, not at $35$}\\[4pt]
  $K=35$ is counted from the \emph{bulk} anchor
  $\tfrac12\EPl$; this axis is anchored at $\EGUT$. They
  differ by\\[4pt]
  \hspace*{0.1cm}$\ln\!\bigl(\tfrac12\EPl/\EGUT\bigr)=2\pi-\ln 2=5.590$,\\[4pt]
  \hspace*{0.1cm}$r_{\mathrm{lock}}=K-2\pi+\ln 2=29.410$.\\[4pt]
  One energy, two readings. Exact, not fitted.};

%% ---- the honesty note about the drawing ------------------------------
\node[lbox, draw=black!50, fill=black!8, text width=4.35cm, anchor=south west]
      at (0.28,{\GGbdY{36.3}})
 {\textbf{The taper is compressed.} Drawn half-width
  $e^{-r/13.64}$: the true $e^{-r}$ slowed $13.64\times$
  so the throat stays visible. To scale, the slice at
  $r=35$ would be $6.3\times10^{-16}$ of the one at
  $r=0$.};

%% ================= OGGEP PROJECTION ==================================
\draw[-{Stealth[length=5mm,width=4mm]}, line width=2.0pt, red!70!black]
      (\GGbdXc,{\GGbdY{36.6}}) -- (\GGbdXc,{\GGbdY{40.9}});
\node[anchor=west, note, text=red!60!black] at (\GGbdXc+0.35,{\GGbdY{38.9}})
 {\AX{3} (\OGGEP): registration $=$ the projection $\pi$ that erases $(r,\theta)$};

%% ================= BOTTOM: the registered world ======================
\node[box, draw=blue!55!black, fill=blue!10, text width=15.8cm] (bdy) at (\GGbdXc,{\GGbdY{43.4}})
 {\textbf{The registered 4D world: open, and therefore quantum}\ \ (\GDOS)\\[2pt]
  superposition \& interference are the unread phase $S^1_\theta$\\[1pt]
  measurement \& irreversibility are the coarse-grained scale $I_r$};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\par\vspace*{\stretch{1}}
\end{minipage}
\clearpage
%% <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< GG-BULK-ONE-DIAGRAM v1.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

% ---- showcase 2 of 3: what the arena forces ----------------------
% 0.92\textwidth -> scale 0.9921 -> 8.93 pt, this plate's in-paper
% size exactly; enlarging it would print the type at over 10 pt.
%% Self-filling showcase frame (Report 462): a minipage of EXPLICIT
%% height with the [s] inner alignment, so the interior glue stretches,
%% and 1 : 2 : 2 : 1 weights -- top, above the plate, below it, bottom.
%% The height is \textheight MINUS \topskip; see the report for why.
\noindent\begin{minipage}[t][\dimexpr\textheight-\topskip\relax][s]{\textwidth}
\vspace*{\stretch{1}}
\centering
\GGShowcaseHead{Five Integers, Forced ---\\[2pt]
and No Free Parameter Left in the Bulk}
\par\vspace*{\stretch{2}}
\makebox[\textwidth]{\resizebox{0.92\textwidth}{!}{\usebox{\GGscCasc}}}
\par\bigskip
\par\vspace*{\stretch{2}}
\captionof*{figure}{\textbf{The \OGNfive{} Diophantine cascade.} Two theorems force $(M, L) = (1, 5)$ without reference to any color count (left column); the dual lock together with the block embedding $N < L$ then determines $N = N_c = 3$, and the pair $(J, K) = (7, 35)$ follows from the closure-index clause and the identity $K = LJ = M^2 + N^2 + L^2 = 35$ (right column). The double equality $35 = 5 \times 7 = 1 + 9 + 25$ is the axiomatic fingerprint of \OGNfive{}: it is not a coincidence but the content of the dual lock, and every numerical prediction of the program descends from these five integers. Solid arrows mark the forcing chain; the one dashed arrow carries the check. After the cascade closes, no continuous dimensionless parameter survives in the bulk theory. Full version, and the proof of each of the five steps: Figure~\ref{fig:ogn5-cascade} in Part~II, p.~\pageref{fig:ogn5-cascade}.}
\par\vspace*{\stretch{1}}
\end{minipage}
\clearpage%% Self-filling showcase frame (Report 462): this page carried no
%% frame at all, which is why it printed hard against the top.  The
%% glue is page-level -- a longtable cannot live inside a minipage.
\null\vspace*{\stretch{1}}


% ---- showcase 3 of 3: how it dies --------------------------------
{\centering\GGShowcaseHead{Ten Falsifiers, and the Measurement That Ends Each One}}
\par\vspace*{\stretch{1}}
{\scriptsize\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.10}
\begin{longtable}{@{}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.185\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.245\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.335\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.1584\textwidth}@{}}
\caption*{\textbf{Ten falsifiers, and the measurement that ends each one.} Part~VII states these as ten prose subsections and nowhere gathers them; this is that table. Each row carries what is being watched, the outcome declared in advance that would end the claim, and where the test lives: a companion paper, a named experiment, or a dash where the exposure is real but no single instrument owns it. The structural claim itself is the falsifier's own title, in the first column. Three rows carry numbers a reader can hold: the lock cluster near $3.85$ TeV, $\QB \approx 0.1555$ eV/qubit, and $\alpha^{-1}(0) = 2^J + N^2 = 137$. A framework with nothing left to adjust has no way to absorb a disagreement. Stated in full, one subsection each, in Sec.~\ref{sec:eight-falsifiers}, p.~\pageref{sec:eight-falsifiers}.}\\
\toprule
\textbf{Falsifier} & \textbf{What is watched} & \textbf{Dies if} & \textbf{Tested in}\\
\midrule
\textbf{F-1}\newline Geometrize gauge, do not quantize gravity & Gravitational decoherence; Planck-scale Lorentz violation; gravitational corrections at colliders & Gravity is required as a quantum sector distinct from the composite connection $\cA$, below $\EPl$ & ---\\\addlinespace[0.22em]
\textbf{F-2}\newline Six forces, not four & Proton stability; $\QB \approx 0.1555$ eV/qubit; no further long-range gauge-mediated force & A third Abelian factor, or a new long-range gauge force beyond $\UoneB \times \UoneQi$ & \citetalias{ArisakaA7Qi4}, \citetalias{ArisakaA11Origin}\\\addlinespace[0.22em]
\textbf{F-3}\newline Unification at $\EGUT$, not $\EPl$ & The running of $\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \alpha_3$ and any intermediate threshold corrections & The couplings unify near $\EPl$ or at TeV, or do not converge at all; or unification requires MSSM thresholds & ---\\\addlinespace[0.22em]
\textbf{F-4}\newline 6D anomaly cancellation, not 10D or 11D & The rank-one Green--Schwarz factorization, local and global, on the \GG{} background class & 6D needs several tensor sectors, or is incompatible with $(1,-1,-2/5,-2/5)$, or a residual anomaly survives inflow & \citetalias{ArisakaA3BI6}\\\addlinespace[0.22em]
\textbf{F-5}\newline No SUSY, no fundamental strings & Collider searches for superpartners; evidence for string-scale excitations & Superpartners below the TeV naturalness scale with a structural role at $\EGUT$; or a fundamental extended object & LHC: none to TeV\\\addlinespace[0.22em]
\textbf{F-6}\newline Measurement from \OGGEP{} & Weak measurement; precision Bell tests; objective-collapse and macroscopic-superposition tests & CPTP evolution fails macroscopically in a way the Nakajima--Zwanzig\,$+$\,GKLS structure cannot carry & \citetalias{ArisakaA8QM}\\\addlinespace[0.22em]
\textbf{F-7}\newline Proton stability as a theorem & The proton lifetime in $p \to e^+\pi^0$, $\mu^+\pi^0$, $\nu K^+$ & One decay in any channel above background & Super-K, Hyper-K, DUNE\\\addlinespace[0.22em]
\textbf{F-8}\newline Life and mind from $\UoneQi$ & The per-qubit energetics of biological molecular machinery & $\QB$ differs beyond the stated uncertainty, or the four-current lock $J_E/\QB = J_e = J_B = J_{Qi}$ fails in a controlled system & \citetalias{ArisakaA7Qi4}, \citetalias{ArisakaA11Origin}\\\addlinespace[0.22em]
\textbf{F-9}\newline The Constitution as the starting point & The internal consistency of the eight-Theorem chain of Part~II & A step not forced by the clauses cited; a theory meeting all eleven clauses outside \GG{}'s class; or extra clauses needed & \citetalias{ArisakaA1Constitution}\\\addlinespace[0.22em]
\textbf{F-10}\newline Quaternionic Goldilocks: $d = 6$ forced & The generation count: the Atiyah--Singer index of the bulk Dirac operator, claimed to evaluate to $N = 3$ & A fourth chiral generation & \citetalias{ArisakaA9SM}\\\addlinespace[0.22em]
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}}
%% A \caption* inside a longtable steps the table counter even
%% though it prints no number.  A1-Constitution v15.23 shipped
%% with every table in the paper numbered one too high because
%% of it, and the author found it, not the gate.  Put it back.
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\par\vspace*{\stretch{1}}
\clearpage
% ================= end front-matter showcase ====================




%% ===============================================================
%%  TWO-LEVEL TABLE OF CONTENTS (v9 convention per L68)
%%  Page ~4: \GGOverviewOfContents (Part-level Overview) + \GGListOfFigures
%%  Page ~5+: \GGTableOfContents (full sectioned TOC)
%% ===============================================================
\GGOverviewOfContents
\GGListOfFigures
\GGListOfTables
\GGTableOfContents


%% ===================================================================
%%  PART I — FOUNDATIONS
%% ===================================================================
%% ===============================================================
%%  PREFACE -- compelling entrance for the entire paper
%%  Added in v5.x (May 2026) per user request: a global
%%  introduction that captures the reader's mind before Part I.
%%  Three paragraphs in the Arisaka register.
%% ===============================================================
\GGPreface

For a hundred years, physicists have known that gravity is
different. Einstein wrote it down in 1915: gravity is not a force
pulling objects toward each other across empty space; it is the
curvature of spacetime itself. Mass tells spacetime how to bend,
and bent spacetime tells mass how to move. The picture is so
geometric that it can be drawn on a tabletop with a bowling ball
and a rubber sheet.

The other three forces of nature --- the strong nuclear force, the
weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force --- were not so lucky.
They were written down differently. In the Standard Model the
three non-gravitational forces are described by gauge fields living
on top of a fixed spacetime background, with their own internal
symmetries that have nothing visible to do with the bending of
spacetime. The result is a strange asymmetry: gravity is geometry;
everything else is something internal painted on top of geometry.
For seventy years physicists have wondered why the four forces of
nature should be split into two ontologically different categories.

This paper proposes that they should not be. The move is to lift physics into six dimensions --- four for spacetime, and two more that are not places at all --- and to ask what happens to the gauge fields when they are read as geometric objects on that larger arena. The two additions deserve a word straight away, because the usual mental picture is the wrong one. They are not small rolled-up rooms of space hiding below the resolution of our instruments. One of them is \emph{scale}: a direction along which nothing moves, and traveling along it means examining the world at a different energy. The other is a \emph{phase} angle on a circle, the one an electric charge already turns. Both are pure numbers with no unit of length, which is why nothing has to be curled up small to explain why we do not bump into it. The answer is
a single geometric structure on a six-dimensional manifold. Eight
theorems carry the argument from start to finish. The dimension
count is forced; the metric is forced; the gauge group is forced;
the anomaly polynomial is forced; the integer ledger that fixes
every otherwise-free dimensionless parameter is forced. No new
Lagrangian, no supersymmetry, no fundamental strings, no free parameter at all --- the sole dimensionful datum is the overall unit scale (set by $G_N$, with $M_6$ a derived combination), a choice of unit system rather than a parameter.

We invite the reader to walk the eight theorems in order. If even
one fails, the whole chain breaks. Each theorem carries its own
empirical anchor --- the scale depth $K = 35$, the trace-ratio lock
$5{:}2$, the lock cluster $M_{\mathrm{lock}} \approx 3.85$~TeV --- so
that the framework is exposed at eight separate places. In a science
that lives by its falsifiers, that exposure is the point.

\clearpage

\GGPart[Foundations]{Foundations}{Definitions, Axioms, and Postulates of \GGTheory}


\noindent
Euclid did not open the \emph{Elements} with a triangle. He opened by saying
what a point is, what a line is, and which five things he intended to assume
without proof --- and only then did he prove anything. Twenty-three centuries
later, physics still does not open that way. A modern theory arrives as a
Lagrangian and a list of measured numbers, and its real commitments sit
unstated inside that choice, visible only to someone who already knows where
to look.

Part~I writes the commitments down first. Four axioms say what kind of object
a physical theory is allowed to be at all; seven postulates then filter which
candidates survive. Together they are what this paper calls the
\GGConstitution{}, and everything after Part~I is a derivation from them.

Two things about that list are worth noticing before you meet it. The first is
that most of its clauses are refusals rather than additions. They do not say
what the world contains; they say what a theory of the world may not help
itself to --- an unobserved coordinate, a knob with no reason to sit where it
sits, a rule for reading a detector that arrives after the fact. The second is
that the refusals are meant to bite. A constitution that forbids nothing
selects nothing, and a framework that survives every conceivable filter has
told you nothing about which world you are in.

Three pieces of apparatus are worth knowing about before you start, because nothing later points back at them: Appendix~\ref{app:abbrev} lists every abbreviation this program uses, Appendix~\ref{app:dictionary} says where each of its coined names came from, and Appendix~\ref{app:glossary-symbols} is the symbol glossary, ordered by construction rather than alphabetically. You will meet three technical ideas here, each stated plainly before it is stated precisely: a \emph{candidate theory}, which is the arena a physicist
proposes; \emph{admissibility}, which is the test a candidate has to pass; and
the \emph{bulk-to-boundary dictionary}, which is the rule connecting what the
theory says exists to what an instrument can register. Nothing in Part~I is
six-dimensional yet. The dimension is a conclusion, and it arrives in Part~II.

\section{The Constitutional Question and the Euclidean Method}
\label{sec:constitutional-question}

Modern physics rests on two profoundly successful revolutions: quantum mechanics \citep{Born1926, Heisenberg1925, Schrodinger1926} (with its later axiomatic, measurement-theoretic, and complementarity foundations, \citealp{vonNeumann1932, Bohr1928, Mackey1963}) and general relativity \citep{Einstein1905, Einstein1915}. Their synthesis gave quantum field theory, the Standard Model \citep{YangMills1954, tHooftVeltman1972}, and precision cosmology --- arguably the greatest intellectual edifice ever built. Yet at its foundations, six lacunae remain unresolved: the measurement problem; the ontological heterogeneity of gravity (geometric) versus the gauge interactions (internal symmetries attached on top); the trade-off between unification and predictivity; the apparent accidentalness of proton stability; the unexplained number of fermion generations; and the absence of a foundational treatment of open systems.

The diagnosis of the present program is constitutional, not technical. These problems are not solved by adding new particles, dimensions, or symmetries; they are solved by writing down the axiomatic layer that was missing. The companion paper \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution} formulates that layer as the \GGTheory\ Constitution: four axioms and seven postulates that any candidate theory must satisfy before it enters the competition. The present paper shows that those eleven clauses are so restrictive that they \emph{force} a unique six-dimensional geometric--gauge construction we call \GG, with all parameters frozen by a five-integer Diophantine ledger we call \OGNfive, and with the entire quantum gauge content rendered anomaly-free at one stroke by a single tensor sector we call $\BIsix$.

\paragraph{The Euclidean method.} The structure of this paper is itself a stylistic statement. Following Euclid's \emph{Elements} \citep{Euclid300BCE} and the modern axiomatic method of \citet{Hilbert1899}, we present the entire derivation as a sequence of explicit Definitions, Postulates, Lemmas, Theorems, and Corollaries, with proofs marked in the manner $\blacksquare$. This is not pedantry. It is the only honest way to present a program that claims to derive physics from a small set of constitutional clauses: every step must be explicitly forced, with the forcing visible. A reader who agrees with our Definitions and Postulates and follows our reasoning has only one place to disagree --- the proof step they reject --- and we wish to make that step easy to find.

\section{This paper's place in the cohort: one link of the open-system chain}
\label{sec:cohort-funnel}

This paper builds the six-dimensional bulk, the geometry--gauge locking, and the \OGNfive{} integer ledger; that construction is its own subject and stands on its own. For readers following the whole \GGTheory{} cohort, it is also one link of a single open-system chain that the consequence papers cash out. Because no physical system is closed, the four-dimensional world is a lawful projection (\OGGEP{}) of the six-dimensional bulk, and that projection is observation itself; its dynamics is the boundary law \GDOS{} --- the Geometric Dynamics of Open Systems, the law obeyed by anything that is part of a larger system rather than sealed off from it --- forced by the geometric \GiFour{} and quantum-information \QiFour{} pillars, so that the laws, the particles, and the contents of the universe are \emph{observables} of the projection rather than free inputs. In that chain, the present paper supplies the six-dimensional bulk and the integer ledger on which the projection acts and from which its discrete exponents are read. The funnel of \figref{fig:cohort-funnel} is shared, in structure, with the companion papers \ANine{}, \ATen{}, and \AEleven{}; here it is offered only as orientation, and the rest of this paper proceeds on its own terms.

\begin{figure}[hbt!]
\centering
\resizebox{0.681\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tikzpicture}[
 node distance=17mm,
 every node/.style={font=\sffamily\footnotesize, align=center},
 box/.style={draw=black!55, line width=0.53pt, rounded corners=2pt,
  minimum width=104mm, minimum height=11mm},
 arrow/.style={-{Stealth[length=2.4mm]}, line width=0.48pt, draw=black!70},
 elab/.style={font=\sffamily\scriptsize\itshape, fill=white, inner sep=1.5pt}
]
\node[box, fill=violet!10, draw=violet!55!black] (open) {\textbf{Every physical system is open}\\ a particle, the universe, a living cell --- none can be isolated from its environment};
\node[box, fill=blue!8, draw=blue!55!black, below of=open] (oggep) {\textbf{\OGGEP{}} (\AX{3}): the lawful projection \;6D bulk $\to$ 4D boundary\\ \textit{this projection is observation itself} \;\; {\scriptsize[\AOne{}, \AEight{}]}};
\node[box, fill=yellow!14, draw=olive!55!black, below of=oggep] (gdos) {\textbf{\GDOS{}}: the dynamics of the open-system projection\\ \textit{an observable is the value at a stationary seam} \;\; {\scriptsize[\AFive{}]}};
\node[box, fill=orange!12, draw=orange!55!black, line width=0.88pt, below of=gdos] (obs) {\textbf{The laws, the particles, and the contents of the universe}\\ \textbf{are registered observables} of this one projection --- \textit{not free inputs}};
\node[box, fill=green!12, draw=green!55!black, below of=obs] (pill) {\textbf{\GDOS{} is forced} by the \GiFour{} pillars {\scriptsize[\ASix{}]} and the \QiFour{} pillars {\scriptsize[\ASeven{}]}};
\node[box, fill=orange!16, draw=orange!60!black, line width=0.88pt, below of=pill] (concl) {$\Rightarrow$ \textbf{they are determined}\\ {\footnotesize read off one geometry --- the work of the consequence papers \ANine{}--\AEleven{}}};
\draw[arrow] (open)  -- node[elab,right]{no closed 4D theory exists}            (oggep);
\draw[arrow] (oggep) -- node[elab,right]{the projection must be a definite law}  (gdos);
\draw[arrow] (gdos)  -- node[elab,right]{apply at every stratum}                (obs);
\draw[arrow] (obs)   -- node[elab,right]{and the law is not arbitrary}           (pill);
\draw[arrow] (pill)  -- node[elab,right]{projection forced $\Rightarrow$ observables forced} (concl);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption[The open-system chain shared across the \GGTheory{} cohort.]{\textbf{The open-system chain shared across the \GGTheory{} cohort.} Because no physical system is closed, the four-dimensional world is a lawful projection (\OGGEP{}, \AX{3}) of the six-dimensional bulk, and that projection is observation itself; its dynamics is \GDOS{}, forced by the \GiFour{} and \QiFour{} pillars, so the laws and contents of the universe are observables rather than free inputs. The same funnel opens the consequence papers \ANine{}, \ATen{}, and \AEleven{}, with a paper-specific payload; within it the present paper establishes the six-dimensional bulk and the \OGNfive{} ledger.}
\label{fig:cohort-funnel}
\end{figure}

\section{Definitions and the Admissibility Predicate}
\label{sec:definitions}

We begin with three definitions that fix the formal arena in which the entire derivation takes place.

\begin{eucliddefinition}[Candidate theory]
\label{def:candidate-theory}
A candidate theory $\cT$ is a tuple
\begin{equation}
\cT = (\cM,\, \cP,\, \cA,\, \cD,\, \cS,\, \cO),
\label{eq:candidate-theory}
\end{equation}
where $\cM$ is the underlying manifold or stratified bulk--boundary stage; $\cP$ is a bundle/principal-bundle structure over $\cM$; $\cA$ is the composite connection data; $\cD$ is an operational dictionary that produces boundary observations from bulk data; $\cS$ is the dynamical law (an action principle, or an equivalent variational/extremal structure); and $\cO$ is the family of registered observables and pre-declared falsifiers.
\end{eucliddefinition}

\begin{eucliddefinition}[Composite connection]
\label{def:composite-connection}
The connection data of a candidate theory is the pair
\begin{equation}
\cA = \omega[g] \oplus A^{\mathrm{gauge}}, \qquad
\cF = \dd \cA + \cA \wedge \cA,
\label{eq:composite-connection}
\end{equation}
where $\omega[g]$ is the spin connection on the tangent bundle of $\cM$ (encoding gravity) and $A^{\mathrm{gauge}}$ is a gauge connection on a principal bundle $\cP$ over $\cM$ (encoding the internal gauge interactions). The two components are not separate fundamental sectors but two facets of one primitive object $\cA$, with curvature $\cF$. Free motion is parallel transport in $\cA$; forces are the curvature of $\cA$; charge and topological information are encoded in the holonomy of $\cA$.
\end{eucliddefinition}

\begin{eucliddefinition}[Admissibility]
\label{def:admissibility}
A candidate theory $\cT$ is \emph{admissible} iff it satisfies all four axioms and all seven postulates of the \GGTheory\ Constitution:
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;\Admissible(\cT) := \big(\cT\models \mathrm{AX}\text{-}1,\ldots,\mathrm{AX}\text{-}4\big)\,\wedge\,\big(\cT\models \mathrm{POS}\text{-}1,\ldots,\mathrm{POS}\text{-}7\big).\;}
\label{eq:admissibility}
\end{equation}
The symbol $\models$ denotes that the full content of the constitutional clause is satisfied --- not merely that a slogan associated with it can be heuristically identified.
\end{eucliddefinition}

\begin{euclidremark}
The admissibility predicate \eqref{eq:admissibility} is more powerful than it appears at first glance. It implies that physical derivation proceeds in two stages. First, one solves the axiomatic filtering problem: which candidate theories remain admissible? Only then does one compute phenomenology within the (drastically reduced) space of admissible theories. The principal claim of the present paper is that the admissible space is a single point: the \GG{} stage with $\BIsix$ and $\OGNfive$.
\end{euclidremark}


\section{The Four Axioms}
\label{sec:axioms}

We restate the four axioms in fixed format. The full motivation of each axiom is in the companion paper \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution}; we list them here only as the primitive inputs of the present derivation.

\begin{euclidaxiom}[\AX{1}: $\LC$ --- Locality and Causality]
\label{ax:LC}
Admissible evolution is local and causal in the operational sense: registered boundary updates are retarded; no admissible effective kernel depends on data outside the causal past of the registration event. In symbols, the response kernel $K(x,y)$ vanishes whenever $x \notin J^+(y)$:
\begin{equation}
K(x,y) = 0 \quad \text{if } x \notin J^+(y).
\label{eq:retarded-kernel}
\end{equation}
For relativistic fields this is the microcausality requirement $[\cO_1(x), \cO_2(y)]_\mp = 0$ for spacelike separation; for open-system evolution it is the forward-semigroup requirement that the effective map from $s$ to $t$ exist only for $t \ge s$.
\end{euclidaxiom}

\paragraph{Physical intuition (\AX{1}, undergraduate register).} This is Einstein's no-faster-than-light principle, written in a form that survives open-system evolution. Two events can influence each other only along light-cone-respecting paths; the future cannot reach into the past. Think of light cones in special relativity: an event at point $y$ can only affect another event at point $x$ if $x$ lies in the forward light cone of $y$ (so a light signal could plausibly travel from $y$ to $x$). \AX{1} promotes this familiar relativistic constraint to the foundational level: every law of admissible physics --- whether closed or open, classical or quantum, microscopic or coarse-grained --- inherits the same causal arrow.

\begin{euclidaxiom}[\AX{2}: $\GGEP$ --- Geometry--Gauge Equivalence Principle]
\label{ax:GGEP}
The primitive field of any admissible theory is a composite geometry $\oplus$ gauge connection $\cA$ as in Definition~\ref{def:composite-connection}. Gravity and gauge structure are not separate fundamental sectors but two projections of one primitive object. Any dynamical law must therefore be expressible in terms of geometric invariants of $\cA$, not in terms of two ontologically independent sectors glued together.
\end{euclidaxiom}

\paragraph{Physical intuition (\AX{2}, undergraduate register).} Modern physics has two great geometric ideas: Einstein's general relativity, in which gravity is the curvature of spacetime, and Yang--Mills gauge theory, in which the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces arise from curvatures of internal symmetry bundles attached to spacetime. \AX{2} states that these are not two separate ideas but one. The primitive object is a single composite connection $\cA = \omega \oplus A$ in which $\omega$ describes how spacetime is curved (gravity) and $A$ describes how internal directions are twisted (gauge). Both descend from one geometric object, like two facets of the same crystal seen from different angles. An undergraduate who has met both general relativity and Yang--Mills can read \AX{2} as the statement that the Christoffel symbols of GR and the Lie-algebra-valued one-forms of Yang--Mills are pieces of the same fundamental connection, just projected onto different sub-bundles.

\begin{euclidaxiom}[\AX{3}: $\OGGEP$ --- Operational/Open Geometry--Gauge Equivalence Principle]
\label{ax:OGGEP}
A bulk theory is incomplete unless it supplies a bulk $\to$ boundary registration map (the open-system machinery that makes this precise, and the derivation of the boundary master equation from bulk dynamics, is Appendix~\ref{app:nz}) \citep{Witten1998} producing operational observables: a boundary state space, admissible evolution maps/channels, and measurement instruments. Formally, \AX{3} requires the existence of a dictionary
\begin{equation}
\cD:\;\Bulk \to (\cH_\partial,\, \rho_\partial,\, \Phi_{t,s},\, \{\cI_\alpha\}),
\label{eq:OGGEP-dictionary}
\end{equation}
where $\rho_\partial$ is a boundary density operator, $\Phi_{t,s}$ is an admissible (CPTP) evolution channel, and $\cI_\alpha$ are POVM-valued instruments implementing registered measurements. Operational meaning is therefore axiomatic rather than interpretational.
\end{euclidaxiom}

\paragraph{Physical intuition (\AX{3}, undergraduate register).} A theory is not complete if it tells you only what the world is made of and how it evolves; it must also tell you, explicitly, how to register an observation. Quantum mechanics learned this the hard way: the Schr\"odinger equation alone does not say what happens when a detector clicks --- the Born rule and a measurement postulate had to be added by hand. \AX{3} builds the measurement recipe into the framework from the start. The bulk theory in six dimensions is paired with an explicit dictionary $\cD$ that projects bulk content onto a four-dimensional registered boundary, with states, evolution channels, and measurement instruments all specified by the dictionary itself. An undergraduate can read \AX{3} as the requirement that the bridge between mathematical symbols and detector clicks is part of the theory, not a separate philosophical commentary on the theory. \figref{fig:OGGEP_holographic} draws the bridge: the closed six-dimensional evolution on the left, the registered four-dimensional package on the right, and the dictionary $\Dmap$ between them.


\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centering
\resizebox{0.701\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tikzpicture}[
 font=\sffamily\footnotesize,
 every node/.style={align=center, rounded corners=2pt, inner sep=3pt},
 bulkbox/.style={fill=red!10, draw=red!55!black, line width=0.7pt,
 text width=42mm, minimum height=22mm},
 bdybox/.style={fill=blue!10, draw=blue!55!black, line width=0.7pt,
 text width=42mm, minimum height=22mm},
 midbox/.style={fill=yellow!18, draw=olive!55!black, line width=0.7pt,
 text width=40mm, minimum height=11mm},
 eqbox/.style={fill=gray!6, draw=black!30, line width=0.4pt,
 rounded corners=2pt, inner sep=4pt},
 arrow/.style={-{Stealth[length=3mm]}, line width=0.85pt, draw=black!65},
 arrowctr/.style={-{Stealth[length=2.8mm]}, line width=0.7pt, draw=olive!60!black},
]

\node[bulkbox] (bulk) at (-4.2, 0) {%
 \textbf{Bulk package} \\[2pt]
 $\bigl(\cM_6,\,g,\,\cA\bigr)$ \\[1pt]
 closed unitary $U_\Bulk$ \\[1pt]
 $\rho_\Bulk$ on $\cH_\Bulk$};

\node[bdybox] (bdy) at (4.2, 0) {%
 \textbf{Operational package} \\[2pt]
 $\bigl(\cH_\Bdy,\,\rho_\Bdy\bigr)$ \\[1pt]
 CPTP channels $\Phi_{t,s}$ \\[1pt]
 instruments $\{\cI_\alpha\}$};

\node[midbox] (D) at (0, 2.1) {%
 $\Dmap : \mathbf{Bulk} \to \mathbf{Op}$ \\[1pt]
 \footnotesize CPTP, gauge-covariant};

\draw[arrow] (bulk.east) -- node[above, font=\scriptsize\itshape,
 fill=white, inner sep=1pt, yshift=1pt]
 {bulk-to-boundary export}
 (bdy.west);
\draw[arrowctr] (bulk.north east) to[bend left=18] (D.west);
\draw[arrowctr] (D.east) to[bend left=18] (bdy.north west);

\node[eqbox, font=\footnotesize\itshape] at (0, -2.0)
 {Stinespring dilation: $\Phi(\rho_\Bdy) = \Tr_E[U(\rho_\Bdy \otimes \sigma_E)U^\dagger]$};
\node[eqbox, font=\footnotesize\itshape] at (0, -2.85)
 {Born rule: $p_\alpha = \Tr(E_\alpha\,\rho_\Bdy)$};

\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption[Bulk-to-boundary projection of \OGGEP{} via the functor $\Dmap$]{The \OGGEP{} bulk-to-boundary projection from the bulk package $(\cM_6, g, \cA)$ with closed unitary evolution $U_\Bulk$ (left, red) to the operational package $(\cH_\Bdy, \rho_\Bdy, \Phi_{t,s}, \{\cI_\alpha\})$ on the 4D boundary (right, blue), realized by the bulk-to-boundary functor $\Dmap : \mathbf{Bulk} \to \mathbf{Op}$ (center, yellow) that is CPTP and gauge-covariant. Every laboratory measurement is a Stinespring dilation of some CPTP channel followed by a pointer readout, with the Born rule $p_\alpha = \Tr(E_\alpha \rho_\Bdy)$ supplied by the trace of the dilation. Openness must be the foundational law --- and closure becomes its closed-system limit. This figure is identical to Figure~5 of \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution}.}
\label{fig:OGGEP_holographic}
\end{figure}

\begin{euclidaxiom}[\AX{4}: $\MSMF$ --- Maximum Symmetry, Minimum Freedom]
\label{ax:MSMF}
Among theories satisfying \AX{1} through \AX{3} and the seven postulates, nature selects those with maximal admissible symmetry and minimal non-forced continuous freedom:
\begin{equation}
\cT_\star = \arg\,\mathrm{lexmax}_{\cT \in \mathfrak T_{\mathrm{adm}}}\;\big(S(\cT),\, -F(\cT)\big),
\label{eq:msmf-lexicographic}
\end{equation}
where $S(\cT)$ is a symmetry score, $F(\cT)$ a freedom score, and $\mathfrak T_{\mathrm{adm}}$ the admissible theory space. Continuous parameters survive only when forced by the constitution itself --- via Newton's constant $G_N$, topological/integrality classes, anomaly cancellation, or operational necessity. \AX{4} is the axiom that converts a merely possible higher-dimensional model into a near-unique one.
\end{euclidaxiom}

\paragraph{Physical intuition (\AX{4}, undergraduate register).} Among the admissible theories surviving \AX{1} through \AX{3}, nature is asked to pick the one with the most symmetry and the fewest knobs that can be freely turned. An undergraduate can think of this by analogy with the principle of least action: nature picks the path that minimizes the action functional. \AX{4} is the meta-version of the same idea applied not to paths within a theory but to theories themselves: among all candidate theories that satisfy the other constitutional clauses, nature picks the one with maximum symmetry and minimum continuous freedom. That clause does most of the work in collapsing the otherwise-vast space of possible higher-dimensional models down to a single one (the 6D bulk of the present paper) with an integer ledger replacing all continuous dials. Table~\ref{tab:axioms} sets the four axioms side by side in a fixed format, each with its minimal mathematical kernel, so that they can be compared rather than merely read.

\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption[The four axioms in fixed mathematical format.]{The four axioms, stated in a fixed format so they can be compared rather than merely read. The third column gives the minimal mathematical kernel each axiom needs --- the least structure that makes it a statement rather than a slogan --- and the fourth gives what it forces. Reading the fourth column alone is the fastest way to see why four axioms are needed and not three: each forces something none of the others can. The order is the order of logical dependence, and it is not adjustable.}
\label{tab:axioms}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{3pt}%
\small
\begin{tabular}{>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.10\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.20\textwidth}p{0.32\textwidth}p{0.32\textwidth}}
\toprule
\textbf{AX} & \textbf{Name} & \textbf{Mathematical kernel} & \textbf{What it forces} \\
\midrule
\AX{1} & $\LC$ & Retarded kernels; microcausality; forward semigroups & No acausal effective laws; no advanced hidden inputs \\
\AX{2} & $\GGEP$ & Composite connection $\cA = \omega \oplus A$, curvature $\cF$ & Geometry and gauge descend from one primitive object \\
\AX{3} & $\OGGEP$ & Operational dictionary $\cD$ producing states, channels, instruments & Measurement is internal to the theory, not an external postulate \\
\AX{4} & $\MSMF$ & Lexicographic max-symmetry / min-freedom & Continuous moduli are heavily constrained \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}


\section{The Seven Postulates}
\label{sec:postulates}

The postulates refine admissibility. They are ordered not because later ones are less important, but because each acts as an additional filter on the theory space already shaped by the previous clauses. Like the four axioms, they are stated here in compact form; the full motivation is in \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution}.

\begin{euclidpostulate}[\POS{1}: $\GI$ --- Gauge Invariance, Layered]
\label{pos:GI}
Gauge invariance is layered across scales and descriptions. At the action level, local gauge invariance ($\LGI$) requires invariance under local gauge transformations. At the generator/channel level, dynamical/open gauge invariance ($\DGI$) requires covariance of the open-system generator under the gauge action: $\cL(U\rho U^{-1}) = U\cL(\rho)U^{-1}$. At the global level, gauge-bookkeeping invariance ($\GGI$) requires that macroscopic ledgers and registered invariants not depend on arbitrary basis choices.
\end{euclidpostulate}


\paragraph{Physical intuition (\POS{1}, undergraduate register).} The mathematics of physics carries redundancies that the world does not see. Maxwell's vector potential $A_\mu$ can be shifted by the gradient of an arbitrary scalar without changing the electric and magnetic fields you would measure --- two different potentials describe the same physical situation. Gauge invariance is the requirement that physical predictions depend only on what is left after these redundancies are modded out. \POS{1} states this requirement at three nested levels: at the level of the action (so the equations of motion respect gauge symmetry), at the level of open-system generators (so dissipative evolution respects the same symmetry), and at the global ledger level (so the bookkeeping of conserved charges does not depend on how one chooses a basis). Full historical lineage --- from Maxwell through Weyl, Yang--Mills, Glashow--Weinberg--Salam, 't Hooft--Veltman, BRST, and Hosotani --- is in \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution} \S5.3.
\begin{euclidpostulate}[\POS{2}: $\UEP$ --- Unified Extremal Principle]
\label{pos:UEP}
A single variational engine governs all dynamics. Closed-system least action in the bulk and open-system least-time / free-energy descent at the boundary are different projections of one underlying extremal structure: $\delta S_{\Bulk} = 0$ implies $\delta F_{\Bdy} = 0$ under the dictionary $\cD$.
\end{euclidpostulate}


\paragraph{Physical intuition (\POS{2}, undergraduate register).} Classical mechanics taught us that a particle takes the path of least action; the equations of motion fall out of $\delta S = 0$. \POS{2} states that the same variational principle governs not only conservative closed systems (whose state evolves toward extremals of an action functional) but also open dissipative systems (whose state evolves toward extremals of a free-energy / entropy-production functional). The two views are not independent --- they are projections of a single underlying extremal structure onto the bulk and the boundary. An undergraduate familiar with Hamilton's principle in mechanics can think of \POS{2} as Hamilton's principle generalized so the same logic works in 6D bulk gravity and in 4D open-system dynamics simultaneously. Full lineage --- Lagrange, Hilbert, Noether, Onsager, Prigogine, Friston --- is in \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution} \S5.4.
\begin{euclidpostulate}[\POS{3}: $\AF$ --- Anomaly Freedom by Inflow]
\label{pos:AF}
Admissible chiral gauge theories must cancel all gauge, gravitational, and mixed anomalies, including by \emph{inflow} --- the mechanism in which an anomaly that cannot be canceled within a boundary theory is canceled instead by a compensating flow of the offending quantity into that boundary from the higher-dimensional bulk --- when the anomaly polynomial $I_{2n+2}$ admits a Green--Schwarz factorization through a single tensor sector. Theories whose anomaly polynomial does not factorize this way are inadmissible.
\end{euclidpostulate}


\paragraph{Physical intuition (\POS{3}, undergraduate register).} In \GGTheory, an anomaly is \emph{not} a classical symmetry that breaks when you quantize the theory; the classical-versus-quantum axis is not where anomaly cancellation lives. An anomaly is, instead, a failure of \emph{geometric smoothness} tied to a \emph{local conservation law}: the differential geometry of the composite gauge--gravity connection fails to support the conservation law that one of its symmetries would otherwise imply. The relevant object is the anomaly polynomial $I_8$ (or, after Green--Schwarz factorization, $X_4$), which encodes precisely this geometric obstruction. \POS{3} requires admissible chiral gauge theories to cancel all such geometric obstructions, including by the Green--Schwarz \emph{inflow} mechanism in which the anomaly polynomial factorizes through a single tensor sector so that a topological counterterm renders the global differential geometry smooth. Quantization in the framework occurs only later, at the \AX{3} (\OGGEP{}) boundary projection, where an open-system register (Hilbert spaces, density operators, measurement instruments) is built via the CPTP dictionary $\cD$; the bulk anomaly-cancellation condition is geometric and applies before that projection. An undergraduate can read \POS{3} as the requirement that the bulk's differential geometry support all the local conservation laws its symmetries imply, smoothly and globally --- with no obstruction left over. Full lineage --- Adler--Bell--Jackiw, Wess--Zumino, Alvarez-Gaume--Witten, Green--Schwarz, Bardeen--Zumino, Stora--Zumino, Sagnotti, Witten --- is in \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution} \S5.5.
\begin{euclidpostulate}[\POS{4}: $\CP$ --- Closure and Positivity]
\label{pos:CP}
State evolution must remain physical. Quantum boundary evolution must be completely positive and trace-preserving (CPTP) \citep{Stinespring1955, Zwanzig1960}; after coarse-graining and Markovianization, the generator takes GKLS form
\begin{equation}
\cL(\rho) = -\ii [H,\rho] + \sum_k \big(L_k \rho L_k^\dagger - \tfrac12 \{L_k^\dagger L_k, \rho\}\big).
\label{eq:GKLS}
\end{equation}
Classical boundary evolution must be a positivity-preserving Markov semigroup.
\end{euclidpostulate}


\paragraph{Physical intuition (\POS{4}, undergraduate register).} Probabilities have to be non-negative and they have to add up to one. \POS{4} promotes this elementary requirement to a constitutional axiom for open quantum dynamics: every admissible evolution of a quantum state must preserve total probability (trace) and must remain positive under any extension to an enlarged system (complete positivity, CPTP). When such an evolution is also Markovian (memoryless), its generator is forced into the canonical GKLS form quoted in the postulate. An undergraduate familiar with the unitarity of Schr\"odinger evolution can read \POS{4} as the natural generalization of unitarity to dissipative open systems: closed systems are unitary, open systems are CPTP, and both classes of evolution are required to keep probabilities sensible. Full lineage --- von Neumann, Stinespring, Nakajima--Zwanzig, Lindblad, Gorini--Kossakowski--Sudarshan, Mackey --- is in \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution} \S5.6. The $\ii$ of the GKLS generator \eqref{eq:GKLS} carries its own pedigree: it is the derived boundary quarter-turn, not a primitive --- its two real sources are T-P4-1/2 of \citealp{ArisakaP4Real}, with their forced agreement T-P4-3.
\begin{euclidpostulate}[\POS{5}: $\RG$ --- RG Compatibility and Scale Covariance]
\label{pos:RG}
Coarse-graining must commute with the operational dictionary, in the sense that the diagram
\begin{equation}
\cD \circ \mathcal G_{\Bulk} = \mathcal G_{\Bdy} \circ \cD
\label{eq:RG-commutativity}
\end{equation}
is satisfied, where $\mathcal G$ denotes the relevant coarse-graining/RG map. Predictions must be stable under resolution changes. In the geometric realization of the present paper, this postulate is what justifies identifying the radial bulk coordinate with the logarithmic renormalization scale.
\end{euclidpostulate}


\paragraph{Physical intuition (\POS{5}, undergraduate register).} When you zoom out and look at a physical system at coarser resolution, you should get a consistent theory --- one with possibly different effective parameters but the same physical content. The renormalization-group idea is exactly that: physical predictions must be stable as you change the scale at which you describe the system. \POS{5} promotes RG covariance to a constitutional axiom: the operation of coarse-graining must commute with the operational dictionary that projects bulk content to boundary content. In the 6D bulk of the present paper, this requirement has a beautiful geometric realization: the radial direction $r$ of the bulk \emph{is} the logarithmic renormalization scale, so moving inward in $r$ corresponds to flowing the boundary theory toward lower energies. An undergraduate familiar with the running of the QED coupling $\alpha(\mu)$ can read \POS{5} as the requirement that this running is geometric --- it lives in the radial direction of a higher-dimensional space. Full lineage --- Stueckelberg--Petermann, Gell-Mann--Low, Callan--Symanzik, Wilson--Fisher, Randall--Sundrum, Maldacena --- is in \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution} \S5.7.
\begin{euclidpostulate}[\POS{6}: $\OGN$ --- Occam Gauge Normalization]
\label{pos:OGN}
Among constitutionally consistent normalizations, nature selects minimal rational/integer normalizations. Arbitrary continuous rescalings and basis drifts are inadmissible. Charges, gauge kinetic terms, and topological couplings must be frozen by rational/integer data whenever possible. \POS{6}, together with \AX{4}, is the principal anti-landscape clause of the constitution.
\end{euclidpostulate}


\paragraph{Physical intuition (\POS{6}, undergraduate register).} Where physics has a continuous freedom that can be replaced by a discrete (integer-valued) freedom, the integer version wins. The cleanest historical example is Dirac's: the mere existence of a single magnetic monopole anywhere in the universe forces every electric charge to be an integer multiple of a minimum unit. \POS{6} generalizes this lesson: among constitutionally admissible normalizations of charges, gauge couplings, and topological data, nature picks the minimal rational/integer one and excludes the continuous moduli that fill out a landscape. No clause does more against a landscape: it is the postulate that, together with \AX{4}, collapses the dimensionless free parameters of the bulk theory to the five integers of the \OGNfive\ ledger. An undergraduate can read \POS{6} as the demand that nature prefers integer ledgers when integer ledgers are available --- the kind of principle that explains why electric charges come in integer multiples of $e$, why magnetic quantum numbers are integer, and why anomaly coefficients in this paper are rational rather than continuous. Full lineage --- Lagrange, Hilbert, Dirac, Wu--Yang, Atiyah--Singer, Manogue--Dray --- is in \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution} \S5.8.
\begin{euclidpostulate}[\POS{7}: $\MF$ --- Measurement and Falsifiability]
\label{pos:MF}
Every scientific claim must compile to a registered observable and a pre-declared kill criterion: there must exist an instrument/protocol $\cI_C$ and a falsifier set $\cK_C$ such that data landing in $\cK_C$ force rejection of the claim. \POS{7} inserts Popperian discipline inside the mathematics.
\end{euclidpostulate}


\paragraph{Physical intuition (\POS{7}, undergraduate register).} Karl Popper drew the demarcation between scientific and non-scientific claims at the question: \emph{how could this claim be shown to be wrong?} A claim that cannot, even in principle, be wrong is not a scientific claim. \POS{7} promotes Popper's epistemological criterion to a constitutional axiom: every claim the framework makes must compile to a registered observable (an instrument $\cI_C$) and a pre-declared kill criterion (a falsifier set $\cK_C$) such that if the data lands in $\cK_C$ the claim is rejected. Part~VII of the present paper supplies ten such instruments and kill criteria, one for each major prediction. An undergraduate can read \POS{7} as the requirement that every theoretical claim must be paired, in advance, with the experiment that would refute it --- and the framework's empirical exposure is precisely the list of such pre-declared refutation experiments. Full lineage --- Bohr, von Neumann, Popper, Wightman, Mackey, Haag--Kastler --- is in \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution} \S5.9. Table~\ref{tab:postulates} gathers the seven, each with the mathematical cue that identifies it and the class of theories it excludes.
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption[The seven postulates and their primary exclusion power.]{The seven postulates, each with the mathematical cue that identifies it and the class of theories it excludes. The exclusion column is the working one: a postulate earns its place in a constitution by what it forbids, not by what it permits, and a postulate that forbids nothing is a definition wearing a postulate's name. Read down that column and the constitution becomes a filter --- a candidate theory either survives every row or is disqualified by a named one.}
\label{tab:postulates}
\small
\begin{tabular}{>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.079\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.10\textwidth}p{0.359\textwidth}p{0.359\textwidth}}
\toprule
\textbf{POS} & \textbf{Name} & \textbf{Mathematical cue} & \textbf{Primary exclusion power} \\
\midrule
\POS{1} & $\GI$ & Local invariance, channel covariance, global ledger invariance & Excludes gauge-breaking actions, generators, and bookkeeping conventions \\
\POS{2} & $\UEP$ & Compatible extremal functionals in bulk and boundary & Excludes unrelated variational laws across scales \\
\POS{3} & $\AF$ & Anomaly polynomial cancellation / inflow admissibility & Excludes inconsistent chiral gauge sectors \\
\POS{4} & $\CP$ & CPTP maps or positive Markov semigroups & Excludes unphysical reduced dynamics \\
\POS{5} & $\RG$ & Coarse-graining commutes with operational map & Excludes scale-unstable predictions \\
\POS{6} & $\OGN$ & Minimal rational/integer normalization data & Excludes continuous basis drift and arbitrary rescaling freedom \\
\POS{7} & $\MF$ & Instrument $+$ kill criterion contract & Excludes unfalsifiable or non-registerable claims \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}


\section{Pre-Model Consequences of the Constitution}
\label{sec:pre-model}

Even before any specific bulk theory is selected, the eleven clauses of the Constitution have substantive consequences for any admissible theory. We collect these as a single proposition; the proof is essentially the unpacking of the axiomatic definitions.

\begin{euclidproposition}[Pre-model consequences of the Constitution]
\label{prop:pre-model}
Let $\cT$ be admissible in the sense of Definition~\ref{def:admissibility}. Then the following are forced before one commits to a specific bulk Lagrangian or low-energy spectrum:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\alph*),leftmargin=2em]
\item The primitive field content is expressible through a composite connection $\cA$ and its curvature invariants $\cF$ (\AX{2}).
\item The theory provides an operational map $\cD$ to a boundary/open-system description producing CPTP channels and POVM-instruments (\AX{3}, \POS{4}).
\item Any chiral gauge realization passes an anomaly-cancellation filter, possibly via Green--Schwarz inflow through a single tensor sector (\POS{3}).
\item Any reduced quantum dynamics is CPTP, hence GKLS-compatible in the Markovian limit (\POS{4}).
\item The coarse-graining/RG structure is representable geometrically or operationally in a way compatible with the dictionary (\POS{5}).
\item Normalization freedom is constrained to a discrete or rational remnant whenever constitutionally possible (\AX{4} + \POS{6}).
\item Every claim of the theory compiles to a registered observable with a pre-declared kill criterion (\POS{7}).
\end{enumerate}
\end{euclidproposition}

\begin{proof}
Item (a) is \AX{2}. Item (b) is \AX{3} together with \POS{4}. Item (c) is \POS{3}. Item (d) is \POS{4}. Item (e) is \POS{5}. Item (f) follows from \AX{4} together with \POS{6}. Item (g) is \POS{7}.
\end{proof}

\begin{euclidremark}[Why this proposition matters]
Proposition~\ref{prop:pre-model} is more than a restatement of the constitution. It establishes that the search for an admissible bulk theory does not start from the unconstrained landscape of all possible higher-dimensional Lagrangians. Many theories are eliminated \emph{a priori} by the Constitution, before any model-building begins. The remainder of the present paper proves that this elimination is in fact strong enough to leave only one candidate standing: the six-dimensional bulk \GG\ with the gauge content $\Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$, the modified Bianchi identity $\BIsix$, and the $\OGNfive$ integer ledger.
\end{euclidremark}


\section{The Strategy of the Derivation}
\label{sec:strategy}

The remainder of the paper is organized around a single question: what is the minimal admissible realization of \AX{2} (\GGEP) consistent with all seven postulates? We prove in Part~II that the answer is unique up to overall normalization, and that the resulting theory is the six-dimensional bulk \GG.

The proof strategy proceeds in eight steps, each step a numbered Theorem of Part~II:

\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=2em]
\item \textbf{Theorem 1 (Dimensional minimality)}: The minimal admissible bulk realizing \AX{2} with a four-dimensional registered boundary, a geometrized RG-flow direction, and a compact Abelian holonomy direction is six-dimensional. $\cM_6 = \cM_4 \times I_r \times S^1_\theta$.
\item \textbf{Theorem 2 (Canonical metric)}: \AX{4} (\MSMF{}) plus \POS{5} plus \POS{6} force the metric on $\cM_6$ to take the canonical form
$ds_6^2 = e^{-2r}\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu + dr^2 + d\theta^2$
in natural \GG\ units, with no continuous parameters $k$, $R_\theta$, or $r_c$.
\item \textbf{Theorem 3 (Six forces)}: \AX{2} plus \POS{1} plus \POS{3} plus minimal unification force the bulk gauge group to be $\Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$, projecting on the boundary to six forces (strong, electromagnetic, weak, baryonic, informational, gravity) with three abelian gauge invariances ($\UoneEM \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$).
\item \textbf{Theorem 4 ($\BIsix$ coefficient vector)}: \AX{4} plus \POS{3} plus \POS{6} plus equal Abelian treatment force the modified Bianchi identity coefficients to be the unique primitive rational vector $(a, b, c, d) = (1, -1, -2/5, -2/5)$.
\item \textbf{Theorem 5 (Single-tensor anomaly factorization)}: The anomaly polynomial $I_8$ admits the Green--Schwarz factorization $I_8 = \tfrac12\, X_4 \wedge X_4$ with $X_4$ the same four-form appearing in $\BIsix$.
\item \textbf{Theorem 6 ($\OGNfive$ Diophantine cascade)}: \AX{4} plus \POS{6} force the five \OGN{} integers $(M, N, L; J, K) = (1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$ as a five-step Diophantine cascade. Step~3 determines $N = N_c = 3$ from the dual lock together with the block embedding $N < L$, with the trace ratio of Theorem~4 as the independent check.
\item \textbf{Theorem 7 (BRST consistency and homogeneous Slavnov--Taylor identity)}: The gauge-fixed quantum theory satisfies a homogeneous Slavnov--Taylor identity $\cS(\Gamma_{\mathrm{full}}) = 0$, with the Green--Schwarz term canceling the one-loop fermion anomaly exactly.
\item \textbf{Theorem 8 (Arisaka equation and Quadruple Gauge Locking)}: The three abelian gauge invariances $\UoneEM \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$ together with $\BIsix$ inflow under \OGGEP\ bulk-to-boundary projection force the boundary current locking $J_E/\QB = J_e = J_B = J_{Qi}$, a law we call Quadruple Gauge Locking ($\QGL$).
\end{enumerate}

Each step is forced by the previous step plus a constitutional clause; each step is presented in Part~II as a numbered Theorem with explicit proof. The chain is what we call the Geometry--Gauge Locking Theorem of \GGTheory:
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;\mathrm{AX/POS} \;\Longrightarrow\; \GGEP \;\Longrightarrow\; \GG\ \&\ \BIsix\ \&\ \OGNfive \;\Longrightarrow\;\text{6D BRST-consistent QFT at } \EGUT.\;}
\label{eq:master-chain}
\end{equation}

\paragraph{What this paper does \emph{not} do.} The present paper stops at the bulk theorem. The bulk-to-boundary projection that produces 4D quantum mechanics, 4D general relativity, and the low-energy Standard Model is the subject of the companion paper \AFive{}. The local and global anomaly freedom proof for $\BIsix$ in the Wu--Chern--Simons / differential-cohomology framework is the subject of the companion paper \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}. The historical lineage from Euclid through Riemann to Maxwell to Randall--Sundrum, together with the parameter-free reconstruction of GU-5 (the Geometric Universal Five Constants $\{c, G_N, \hbar; k_B, Q_B\}$), is the subject of the companion paper \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid}. Together, these four papers --- the Constitution, the formal derivation (this paper), the anomaly proof, and the historical/foundational paper --- comprise the technical core of the \GGTheory\ program.

\paragraph{Visual summary: the axiomatic implication chain.} Before we enter the technical heart of the paper in Part~II, it is worth having the backbone of the entire \GGTheory\ program in view. Figure~\ref{fig:abbrev-flow}, in the Summary of Abbreviations, draws it: how the four axioms and seven postulates of \AOne{} descend through the eight Theorems of \ATwo{} (Part~II below), through the \OGGEP{} bulk--boundary correspondence, through the \GDOS{} open-system runtime, through the descent theorems T7--T9, and finally to the two Pillars (\GiFour{} and \QiFour{}) that connect to empirical physics, life, and mind. That chart is the master diagram which the rest of the paper executes step by step, and a reader who wants the whole descent on one page before starting Part~II should turn to it now.


\section{The cohort inheritance and the roadmap of the eleven Parts}
\label{sec:inheritance-and-roadmap-A2}

\noindent
Before the eight Theorems begin (Part~II), it is useful to lay out
two reader-orientation maps on the same opening: a panorama of the
twenty-two-paper cohort in which this paper stands
(\S\ref{sec:cohort-inheritance-A2},
Figure~\ref{fig:cohort-architecture-A2}), and a panorama of the
eleven Parts of the present paper
(\S\ref{sec:roadmap-eleven-parts-A2},
Figure~\ref{fig:A2-eleven-parts-flowchart}). A reader of any later
Part should be able to flip back to this Section and orient
themselves in both directions: which cohort companion carries which
imported result, and where the present argument stands in the
eleven-Part arc.

\subsection{The cohort inheritance}
\label{sec:cohort-inheritance-A2}

This paper is the bulk-side anchor of the twenty-two-paper
\GGTheory{} cohort --- eleven A-papers, six P-papers, three C-papers and two white papers --- and its place in the descent is specific. Upstream it
consumes exactly one document: the constitutional charter
\citep{ArisakaA1Constitution}, whose four axioms and seven
postulates are the premises of every theorem in Part~II.
Downstream, its eight Theorems are consumed by every companion that
builds on the 6D bulk. The anomaly ledger behind Theorem~6 is
proved in full in \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}; the historical lineage and
the parameter-free reconstruction of the universal constants are
\citep{ArisakaA4Euclid}; the boundary law that projects the bulk
built here onto the observed four dimensions is
\citep{ArisakaA5GDOS}, with its geometric backbone
\citep{ArisakaA6Gi4} and its quantum-information backbone
\citep{ArisakaA7Qi4}. The three textbook recasts read their
geometry off the present construction: quantum mechanics in
\citep{ArisakaA8QM}, the twenty-eight Standard-Model parameters in
\citep{ArisakaA9SM}, the cosmological inventory in
\citep{ArisakaA10Cosmos}; the closing capstone
\citep{ArisakaA11Origin} carries the cascade from quarks to
consciousness. Of the phenomenology branches, \citep{ArisakaP1KK}
carries the 3.85~TeV lock cluster, \PaperPTwo{} the
three-generation pincer that Part~II cites as the independent
forcing of $N = 3$, \PaperPThree{} \citep{ArisakaP3Electron} the electron as the unique
ground state, and \PaperPSix{} \citep{ArisakaP6Proton} the proton as the
ground geometric attractor of matter, its decay forbidden by the
geometry rather than merely unobserved; the observational companions
are \citep{ArisakaC1Kaxion}, \PaperCTwo{} \citep{ArisakaC2Hubble} (the
two Hubble constants), and \PaperCThree{} \citep{ArisakaC3BH}
(Bekenstein--Hawking entropy).

On the map's left flank stands the Foundations Branch --- the two
member papers whose subject is the boundary's complex structure ---
and the present paper's relationship to it is the most reciprocal
in the cohort. \PaperPFour{} \citep{ArisakaP4Real} begins from the
arena that Theorem~0 forces: four-dimensional spacetime plus the
scale interval and the compact phase circle, with the globally
static metric. From that arena's two real structures --- the circle
and the causal clock --- it derives the single imaginary unit of
boundary physics, at quasi-free grade: the origin of $i$ is what
the bulk built here returns to its observers. On the map this
exchange is the solid edge labeled ``Thm~0'': the present paper
feeds \PaperPFour{} its stage, and \PaperPFour{} hands back the
reason the boundary's quantum theory is complex. \PaperPFive{}
\citep{ArisakaP5CPT} consumes the same bulk one step further along:
from the spinor and orientation structure of \GG{} --- the three
real factors whose orientation reversals are C, P, and T --- it
derives the three mirrors of matter, the CPT theorem at quasi-free
grade, and the matter--antimatter door; it is cited throughout the
spin--statistics section that closes Part~II
(\S\ref{sec:spin-statistics}). Both carry P-series designators;
their place at the spine's flank, not the phenomenology rows, marks
their foundational role.

This subsection is the panorama only. The full two-way handoff ---
each theorem paired backward with the constitutional clauses that
force it and forward with the companions that consume it, together
with the comprehensive cohort inventory --- is the business of
Part~V. A reader needs none of the companions in hand: every
imported statement in this paper is restated where it is used, with
its hypotheses, and the eight Theorems of Part~II are
self-contained. The twenty-two-paper map, identical in every paper of
the cohort, is Figure~\ref{fig:cohort-architecture-A2}, which
closes this subsection.

%% ===================================================================
%%  The nineteen-paper cohort map (frozen v1.4 geometry), on its own
%%  page at the close of the cohort-inheritance subsection.  Verbatim
%%  copy of the v1.4 master (A1-Constitution Figure 3): no
%%  self-reference markers anywhere, so the figure is identical and
%%  simple for replication in all nineteen papers.  Only the internal
%%  node names MP4/MP5 differ from the master (collision avoidance).
%% ===================================================================

\begin{figure}[p]
\centering
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{%
%% v22 type scaling, local to this group: the picture sets node text
%% in \footnotesize (the root in \small) and its edge and branch labels
%% in \scriptsize, so redefining the three commands here enlarges box
%% type by 15%% and everything outside a box by 20%% without touching a
%% single node.
\renewcommand{\footnotesize}{\fontsize{10.35}{12.4}\selectfont}%%
\renewcommand{\small}{\fontsize{11.5}{13.8}\selectfont}%%
\renewcommand{\scriptsize}{\fontsize{9.6}{11.5}\selectfont}%%
\begin{tikzpicture}[
 font=\sffamily\footnotesize,
 every node/.style={align=center, rounded corners=2pt, inner sep=3.45pt},
 root/.style={fill=violet!18, draw=violet!70!black, line width=1.0pt,
 minimum width=80.5mm, minimum height=16.1mm,
 font=\sffamily\bfseries\small},
 bulk/.style={fill=red!10, draw=red!60!black, line width=0.6pt,
 minimum width=41.4mm, minimum height=14.95mm},
 hist/.style={fill=red!5, draw=red!50!black, line width=0.5pt,
 minimum width=41.4mm, minimum height=14.95mm,
 dash pattern=on 2pt off 2pt},
 gdos/.style={fill=yellow!18, draw=olive!55!black, line width=0.6pt,
 minimum width=52.9mm, minimum height=14.95mm},
 pillars/.style={fill=green!12, draw=green!55!black, line width=0.6pt,
 minimum width=41.4mm, minimum height=14.95mm},
 qm/.style={fill=blue!10, draw=blue!55!black, line width=0.6pt,
 minimum width=41.4mm, minimum height=14.95mm},
 a11/.style={fill=yellow!12, draw=orange!55!black, line width=0.6pt,
 minimum width=52.9mm, minimum height=14.95mm},
 pred/.style={fill=cyan!10, draw=cyan!60!black, line width=0.6pt,
 minimum width=41.4mm, minimum height=14.95mm},
 predthis/.style={fill=cyan!14, draw=cyan!50!black, line width=1.1pt,
 minimum width=41.4mm, minimum height=14.95mm},
 cosmo/.style={fill=teal!10, draw=teal!60!black, line width=0.6pt,
 minimum width=41.4mm, minimum height=14.95mm},
 fnd/.style={fill=violet!8, draw=violet!55!black, line width=0.6pt,
 minimum width=43.7mm, minimum height=14.95mm},
 wht/.style={fill=brown!12, draw=brown!65!black, line width=0.6pt,
 minimum width=43.7mm, minimum height=14.95mm},
 branchframe/.style={rounded corners=4pt, line width=0.6pt, inner sep=4pt},
 arrow/.style={-{Stealth[length=2.4mm]}, line width=0.55pt, draw=black!70},
 arrowdash/.style={-{Stealth[length=2.4mm]}, line width=0.55pt,
 draw=black!60, dashed},
 arrowrt/.style={-{Stealth[length=2.6mm]}, line width=0.85pt,
 draw=violet!70!black},
 edgelabel/.style={font=\scriptsize\itshape, fill=white,
 inner sep=1pt, draw=none, rounded corners=0pt},
 branchlabel/.style={font=\sffamily\scriptsize\bfseries,
 inner sep=2pt, rounded corners=0pt},
]

%% --- Row 0: axiomatic root ---
\node[root] (A1) at (0, 0)
 {\AOne{} \\[1pt] \footnotesize 4 axioms + 7 postulates};

%% --- Row 1: GG6 Trio ---
\node[bulk] (A2) at (-50mm, -25mm)
 {\textbf{\ATwo{}} \\[-1pt] \footnotesize 6D bulk};
\node[bulk] (A3) at (0, -25mm)
 {\textbf{\AThree{}} \\[-1pt] \footnotesize \BIsix{} anomaly proof};
\node[hist] (A4) at (50mm, -25mm)
 {\textbf{\AFour{}} \\[-1pt] \footnotesize Historical lineage};

%% --- Row 2: A5-GDOS, the boundary law ---
\node[gdos] (A5) at (0, -48mm)
 {\textbf{\AFive{}} \\[-1pt] \footnotesize \GDOS{} boundary law};

%% --- Row 3: pillars ---
\node[pillars] (A6) at (-32mm, -69mm)
 {\textbf{\ASix{}} \\[-1pt] \footnotesize \GiFour{} pillars};
\node[pillars] (A7) at (32mm, -69mm)
 {\textbf{\ASeven{}} \\[-1pt] \footnotesize \QiFour{} pillars};

%% --- Row 4: 4D-Physics Trio ---
\node[qm] (A8) at (-58mm, -91mm)
 {\textbf{\AEight{}} \\[-1pt] \footnotesize 4D QM reformulation};
\node[qm] (A9) at (0, -91mm)
 {\textbf{\ANine{}} \\[-1pt] \footnotesize 28 SM parameters};
\node[qm] (A10) at (58mm, -91mm)
 {\textbf{\ATen{}} \\[-1pt] \footnotesize $\Omega_m = 1/\pi$};

%% --- Row 5: Closing capstone ---
\node[a11] (A11) at (0, -113mm)
 {\textbf{\AEleven{}} \\[-1pt] \footnotesize Closing capstone \\
 \footnotesize universal identity, GRIP cascade};

%% --- Row 6: Predictions Branch (P-series) ---
%% v22: four predictions on the row at 50mm pitch.
\node[pred] (P1) at (-75mm, -138mm)
 {\textbf{\PaperPOne{}} \\[-1pt] \footnotesize $\Mlock \approx 3.85$~\TeV{}};
\node[pred] (P2) at (-25mm, -138mm)
 {\textbf{\PaperPTwo{}} \\[-1pt] \footnotesize Three generations};
\node[pred] (P3) at (25mm, -138mm)
 {\textbf{\PaperPThree{}} \\[-1pt] \footnotesize Electron as ground state};
\node[pred] (P6) at (75mm, -138mm)
 {\textbf{\PaperPSix{}} \\[-1pt] \footnotesize The guarded proton};

%% --- Row 7: Cosmology & Astrophysics Branch (C-series) ---
\node[cosmo] (C1) at (-50mm, -160mm)
 {\textbf{\PaperCOne{}} \\[-1pt] \footnotesize Kaxion dark matter};
\node[cosmo] (C2) at (0, -160mm)
 {\textbf{\PaperCTwo{}} \\[-1pt] \footnotesize Two Hubble constants};
\node[cosmo] (C3) at (50mm, -160mm)
 {\textbf{\PaperCThree{}} \\[-1pt] \footnotesize BH entropy $A/4$};

%% --- Foundations Branch column (v1.3: MP5 raised so its centre
%%     height matches the A11 row). MP4 and MP5 form a single
%%     left-flank column at x = -96mm: MP4 at y = -64mm (unchanged),
%%     MP5 at y = -113mm, level with GG-A11-Origin, so the column
%%     brackets the A8 row with a compact gap.
\node[fnd] (MP4) at (-96mm, -64mm)
 {\textbf{\PaperPFour{}} \\[-1pt] \footnotesize The origin of $i$};
\node[fnd] (MP5) at (-96mm, -113mm)
 {\textbf{\PaperPFive{}} \\[-1pt] \footnotesize Mirrors \& matter (CPT)};

%% --- White-Paper Branch column (v22): the right flank, at the mirror
%%     positions of the Foundations column.  The left flank feeds the
%%     spine; this one reads it, so every edge into it is dashed.
\node[wht] (W1) at (96mm, -64mm)
 {\textbf{\PaperWOne{}} \\[-1pt] \footnotesize Conservation without symmetry};
\node[wht] (W2) at (96mm, -113mm)
 {\textbf{\PaperWTwo{}} \\[-1pt] \footnotesize Sixteen open problems};

%% --- Branch frames (background layer) ---
\begin{scope}[on background layer]
\node[branchframe, draw=cyan!60!black, fill=cyan!4,
 fit=(P1)(P2)(P3)(P6)] (PFRAME) {};
\node[branchframe, draw=teal!60!black, fill=teal!4,
 fit=(C1)(C2)(C3)] (CFRAME) {};
\end{scope}
\node[branchlabel, text=cyan!40!black, anchor=east]
 at ([xshift=-3mm]PFRAME.west) {Predictions\\Branch\\(P-series)};
\node[branchlabel, text=teal!40!black, anchor=east]
 at ([xshift=-3mm]PFRAME.west |- CFRAME) {Cosmology \&\\Astrophysics\\Branch\\(C-series)};
%% Foundations column label (v1.3): interior placement, in the gap
%% between MP4 and MP5, anchored east so it sits immediately LEFT of
%% the vertical MP4->MP5 edge; house style (small violet) kept. The
%% "shared i" edge label occupies the RIGHT side of the same edge.
\node[branchlabel, text=violet!40!black, anchor=east]
 at ($($(MP4.south)!0.5!(MP5.north)$)+(-1.5mm,0)$) {Foundations\\Branch};
%% v22: the mirror label, held to the RIGHT of the W1->W2 edge --
%% \ATen{}'s grown border reaches x = 78.7mm and an east-anchored
%% label would run into it.
\node[branchlabel, text=brown!45!black, anchor=west]
 at ($($(W1.south)!0.22!(W2.north)$)+(1.5mm,0)$) {White-Paper\\Branch\\(W-series)};

%% --- Edges: A1 -> GG6 Trio ---
\draw[arrowrt] (A1.south) -- node[edgelabel,pos=0.55] {\AX{2}} (A2.north);
\draw[arrowrt] (A1.south) -- node[edgelabel,pos=0.55] {\POS{3}} (A3.north);
\draw[arrowdash] (A1.south) -- (A4.north);

%% --- Edges: GG6 Trio -> A5 ---
\draw[arrow] (A2.south) -- (A5.north west);
\draw[arrow] (A3.south) -- node[edgelabel,pos=0.55] {\AX{3}} (A5.north);
\draw[arrow] (A4.south) -- (A5.north east);

%% --- Edges: A5 -> pillars ---
\draw[arrow] (A5.south) -- (A6.north);
\draw[arrow] (A5.south) -- (A7.north);

%% --- Edges: A5 + pillars -> 4D-Physics Trio ---
\draw[arrow] (A6.south) -- (A8.north);
\draw[arrow] (A5.south).. controls (0, -72mm) and (0, -80mm).. (A9.north);
\draw[arrow] (A7.south) -- (A10.north);

%% --- Edges: 4D-Physics Trio -> A11 ---
\draw[arrow] (A8.south) -- (A11.north west);
\draw[arrow] (A9.south) -- (A11.north);
\draw[arrow] (A10.south) -- (A11.north east);

%% --- Edges: parents -> branch frames ---
\draw[arrowdash] (A9.south west).. controls (-40mm, -105mm)
 and (-84mm, -122mm).. (PFRAME.north west);
\draw[arrowdash] (A9.south east).. controls (40mm, -105mm)
 and (84mm, -122mm).. (PFRAME.north east);
%% v22 RE-ROUTE.  The old line descended through what is now the
%% GG-W2-Holonomy node, and there is no corridor left inboard of it.
%% A polyline rather than a Bezier: a bounding box contains control
%% points, and at the clearance this edge needs those would have sat
%% 24mm beyond any ink, scaling the whole plate down for nothing.
\draw[arrowdash, rounded corners=7pt] (A10.east) -- (127mm,-91mm)
 -- (127mm,-160mm) -- (CFRAME.east);
%% sister import inside the Predictions frame
\draw[arrowdash, draw=cyan!50!black]
 (P2.east) -- node[edgelabel,pos=0.5] {$N{=}3$} (P3.west);
% v22: the second sister import.  \PaperPSix{} says it of
% \PaperPThree{} -- "the sister paper supplies the method this paper
% runs."  Three letters, because a white-filled label wide enough to
% say "method" masks the whole arrow it annotates.
\draw[arrowdash, draw=cyan!50!black]
 (P3.east) -- node[edgelabel,pos=0.5] {GGA} (P6.west);

%% --- Foundations Branch edges (rerouted v1.3 for the raised MP5) ---
%% A2 -> MP4 (solid; Thm 0 arena feed) -- unchanged from v1.0
\draw[arrow] (A2.west) .. controls (-88mm,-30mm) ..
 node[edgelabel,pos=0.55] {Thm~0} (MP4.north);
%% MP4 -> A8 (solid; the origin of i). Departs the east side (MP4.south
%% carries the column edge to MP5) and lands on A8's top border,
%% 6mm left of the A6->A8 arrowhead, staying left of A6 throughout.
\draw[arrow] ([yshift=-3mm]MP4.east) .. controls (-69mm,-74mm) ..
 node[edgelabel,pos=0.45] {origin of $i$} ([xshift=-6mm]A8.north);
%% MP4 -> A2 (dashed deployment: complex-structure machinery), nudged
%% 3mm up the east side so the two east-side departures stay distinct.
\draw[arrowdash] ([yshift=3mm]MP4.east) .. controls (-70mm,-52mm) .. (A2.south west);
%% MP4 -> MP5 (v1.3: SOLID, per the reading conventions -- forced
%% descent, labelled). A short straight vertical between the pair;
%% the "shared i" label sits on the right side of the edge, the
%% Foundations Branch label on the left.
\draw[arrow] (MP4.south) --
 node[edgelabel, pos=0.5, anchor=west, xshift=1mm] {shared $i$}
 (MP5.north);
%% A9 -> MP5 (solid; ledger phases). Leaves A9's west side, dips
%% through the corridor below the A8 row and enters MP5.east
%% horizontally at the A11 row height. Exactly one clean crossing
%% (the A8->A11 spine edge, near x = -40mm); stays above the dashed
%% A9->PFRAME.north-west edge throughout.
\draw[arrow] (A9.west) .. controls (-40mm,-97mm) and (-58mm,-113mm) ..
 node[edgelabel,pos=0.6] {$\delta,\ \alpha_{31}$} (MP5.east);
%% MP5 -> A10 (solid; eta_B). The one long edge: runs left-to-right
%% through the clear corridor BELOW the A11 node (above the
%% Predictions frame), then climbs into A10's bottom border right of
%% the A10->A11 arrowtail; it leaves MP5.south vertically. Controls
%% lifted 5mm with the raised MP5 so the dip still clears A11's
%% bottom border. One clean crossing with each of the two dashed
%% A9->Predictions-frame edges.
\draw[arrow] (MP5.south) .. controls (-96mm,-128mm) and (55mm,-130mm) ..
 node[edgelabel,pos=0.5] {$\eta_B$} ([xshift=8mm]A10.south);
%% MP5 -> A8 (dashed; Wick-quartet/statistics feed for T-A8.12): with
%% MP5 level with A11 this is now a short straight upward edge from
%% the column's top-right corner into A8's bottom border, 8mm left
%% of the A8->A11 arrowtail. No crossings.
\draw[arrowdash] (MP5.north east) -- ([xshift=-8mm]A8.south);
%% --- White-Paper Branch edges (v22) ---
%% A3 -> W1: \AThree{} is \PaperWOne{}'s heaviest spine source and its
%% thematic terminus -- the \BIsix{} anomaly proof is where its
%% Green--Schwarz / Hopkins--Singer ladder ends.
\draw[arrowdash] ([xshift=8mm]A3.south) .. controls (58mm,-43mm) ..
 node[edgelabel,pos=0.55] {\BIsix{}} (W1.west);
%% A10 -> W2: \ATen{} is \PaperWTwo{}'s heaviest source of any kind.
%% At +15%% those two boxes overlap in x (never in y), so this is drawn
%% off A10's south-east corner, clear of the W1->W2 arrowhead.
\draw[arrowdash] (A10.south east) .. controls (84mm,-101mm) ..
 ([xshift=-6mm]W2.north);
%% W1 -> W2, solid and labelled: the mirror of the shared-i edge on the
%% left flank.  \PaperWTwo{} states the dependency itself -- it takes
%% "the structure that the arc arrives at, protection by topology
%% rather than by symmetry".
\draw[arrow] (W1.south) --
 node[edgelabel, pos=0.80, anchor=west, xshift=1mm]
 {symmetry $\to$ topology} (W2.north);

%% Centring pad, retired (v22): it cancelled a Bezier phantom that the
%% polyline above no longer creates; the bbox is now the ink.
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption[The twenty-two-paper cohort map.]{The
twenty-two-paper cohort map of \GGTheory{}. The constitutional root
\AOne{} (violet, top) supplies the four axioms and seven postulates
from which the rest of the cohort descends: the GG6 Trio (\ATwo{},
\AThree{}, \AFour{}, red) realizes the bulk geometry; \AFive{}
(yellow) the boundary law; the \GDOS{} Trio pillars (\ASix{},
\ASeven{}, green) the geometric and quantum-information runtime; the
4D-Physics Trio (\AEight{}, \ANine{}, \ATen{}, blue) the textbook
readouts; and the closing capstone \AEleven{} (gold) the
quarks-to-consciousness identity cascade. Two framed branches carry
the phenomenology --- the \textbf{Predictions Branch} (cyan), whose
four papers hand their results along the row by the internal arrows
(\PaperPTwo{}'s $N{=}3$ into \PaperPThree{}, and that paper's
ground-attractor method, \textsf{GGA}, on into \PaperPSix{}), and the
\textbf{Cosmology \& Astrophysics Branch} (teal). The spine is
flanked by two columns of two, which do opposite jobs. On the left the
\textbf{Foundations Branch} (violet) feeds it: \PaperPFour{}, fed by
\ATwo{}'s Theorem~0 arena, manufactures the $i$ that \AEight{}
consumes, and \PaperPFive{} is the \ANine{}--\ATen{} interface, fed by
the ledger phases and feeding the $\eta_B$ chain across the width of
the map, with the shared-$i$ edge descending solid between them. On
the right the \textbf{White-Paper Branch} (brown) reads it:
\PaperWOne{} walks the century from Noether to Hopkins--Singer, and
\PaperWTwo{} dissects the structure that arc arrives at ---
protection by topology rather than by symmetry --- across sixteen open
problems. The white papers derive nothing new, carrying every result
at its parent's declared grade; the single dashed feed drawn into each
names its heaviest source, not its only one. \emph{Reading
conventions:} solid arrows mark axiom-forced descent and carry an edge
label naming the driving axiom or postulate where most illustrative;
dashed arrows mark the deployment of derived results, or historical
links inherited without being constitutionally forced.}
\label{fig:cohort-architecture-A2}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{The White-Paper Branch.} The right flank mirrors the left
and does the opposite job: where the Foundations Branch feeds the spine,
the White-Paper Branch reads it. \PaperWOne{} \citep{ArisakaW1Symmetry}
is the diachronic one --- it walks the century of symmetry and
conservation in the order it was found and shows the conviction that
symmetry causes conservation loosening at seven historical steps, until
what remains conserved is an integer with nowhere to move.
\PaperWTwo{} \citep{ArisakaW2Holonomy} is the synchronic one --- it
takes one exact statement, that a holonomy requires a closed loop and
the radial interval has none, so the circle remembers and the interval
forgets, and follows it to sixteen questions physics has not closed.
Neither derives anything new: both carry every result at its parent's
declared grade, which is what makes them white papers rather than a
third phenomenology branch.


\subsection{Roadmap of the eleven Parts}
\label{sec:roadmap-eleven-parts-A2}

The rest of the paper is organized into ten further Parts, and the
walk through them is plotted in
Figure~\ref{fig:A2-eleven-parts-flowchart}. The present Part ---
the foundations --- is nearly done: the constitutional question and
the Euclidean method, the definitions and the admissibility
predicate, the four axioms, the seven postulates, the strategy of
the derivation, and the cohort the paper stands in. Everything
after this page is the derivation itself, and the itinerary below
says where each piece lives.

Part~II is the heart, and it is highlighted in the roadmap because
it is what the title claims. Theorem~0 opens it by forcing the
arena: granting only locality--causality and geometry--gauge
equivalence, the bulk must be four-dimensional spacetime plus a
scale and a phase --- six dimensions, with neither of the two extra
directions spatial. Theorems~1 through~8 then fix everything the
arena leaves open: the dimension count, the canonical metric, the
four-factor composite gauge group, the \BIsix{} coefficient vector,
the single-tensor anomaly factorization, the \OGNfive{} integer
cascade $(1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$, BRST consistency, and the Arisaka
equation that locks the four currents. A closing section steps
beyond the eight, at explicitly candidate grade, to the geometric
origin of spin-$\tfrac{1}{2}$ and Fermi--Dirac statistics.

Two Parts then let the reader breathe. Part~III offers four
pictures of the same bulk --- the scale direction as
renormalization-group time, scale running as radial integration,
gravity as a UV-localized phenomenon, and the topological angular
direction --- for the reader who wants to see the geometry before
re-engaging the algebra. Part~IV sets \GG{} beside the leading
alternative: a systematic, politically careful comparison with the
heterotic superstring and AdS/CFT programs, from the shared
Green--Schwarz origin to the four constitutional obstructions and
the anti-landscape posture.

Parts~V and~VI place the theorems in their two larger contexts.
Part~V is the two-way axiomatic handoff: backward, each theorem
paired with the \AOne{} clauses that force it, sharpened into a
necessity-and-sufficiency theorem; forward, one bridge per
companion paper, closing with the cross-paper coherence map ---
the Part-level home of the cohort panorama this Section opened.
Part~VI is the Copernican payoff: general relativity, Yang--Mills,
the superstring, AdS/CFT, quantum mechanics, the Standard Model,
and $\Lambda$CDM are each located inside a four-stratum
constitutional tower, with \GG{} at the apex as the unique
\emph{explicit} geometric realization of the full axiom set.

Two Parts then weigh the case. Part~VII discusses significance and
uniqueness: ten structural innovations, the comparison table, the
problems-solved ledger, and the ten falsifiers registered under
\POS{7}. Part~VIII states the conclusions: the constitutional shift
toward a fourth scientific revolution, and the bulk-side anchor of
the cohort at the Stratum-4 apex. The back matter is the workshop:
Part~IX collects the technical appendices at first-year-graduate
depth; Part~X answers the fifty-three common objections, community
by community; and Part~XI closes with the annotated references,
each carrying a note on what it established and how it is used
here. Read in order, the eleven Parts compose into a single
bulk-side derivation that any reader can audit theorem by theorem;
read by need, each Part names its imports and can stand a visit on
its own.

%% ===================================================================
%%  Roadmap of the eleven Parts (house architecture: A1-Constitution
%%  Figure 4 -- vertical Part column, right phase sidebar, one
%%  highlighted central Part; here Part II, the eight theorems),
%%  clearpage-isolated minipage + \captionof per the A1 pattern.
%% ===================================================================
%% v15.4: the \clearpage + \null\vfill ... \vfill frame left page 31
%% half empty and, once the plate was enlarged, page 32 completely
%% blank -- the minipage no longer fitted one page and spilled.
\noindent
\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
\centering
\resizebox{0.93\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tikzpicture}[
 font=\sffamily\footnotesize,
 every node/.style={align=center, rounded corners=2pt, inner sep=3pt},
 intro/.style={fill=blue!12, draw=blue!60!black, line width=0.6pt,
 minimum width=120mm, minimum height=12mm},
 core/.style={fill=blue!7, draw=blue!50!black, line width=0.5pt,
 minimum width=120mm, minimum height=12mm},
 geom/.style={fill=green!12, draw=green!55!black, line width=0.55pt,
 minimum width=120mm, minimum height=12mm},
 vs/.style={fill=red!8, draw=red!55!black, line width=0.55pt,
 minimum width=120mm, minimum height=12mm},
 bridge/.style={fill=orange!13, draw=orange!60!black, line width=0.6pt,
 minimum width=120mm, minimum height=12mm},
 innov/.style={fill=orange!22, draw=orange!65!black, line width=1.0pt,
 minimum width=140mm, minimum height=18mm},
 disc/.style={fill=yellow!18, draw=olive!60!black, line width=0.55pt,
 minimum width=120mm, minimum height=12mm},
 summit/.style={fill=red!13, draw=red!60!black, line width=0.7pt,
 minimum width=120mm, minimum height=12mm},
 appendix/.style={fill=gray!10, draw=black!55, line width=0.5pt,
 minimum width=120mm, minimum height=13mm,
 dash pattern=on 2pt off 2pt},
 arrow/.style={-{Stealth[length=2.6mm]}, line width=0.65pt, draw=black!70},
 arrowinnov/.style={-{Stealth[length=3.0mm]}, line width=1.0pt,
 draw=orange!65!black},
 phaselabel/.style={font=\footnotesize\itshape, text=black!60, anchor=west,
 align=left, inner sep=2pt},
]

%% --- Part I (Foundations) ---
\node[intro] (I) at (0, 0)
 {\textbf{Part~I}\quad\textbf{Foundations} \\[-1pt]
 \footnotesize Constitutional question + Definitions + Four Axioms + Seven Postulates + Strategy};

%% --- Part II (The Core Theorems; highlighted: the title claim) ---
\node[innov] (II) at (0, -19mm)
 {\textbf{Part~II}\quad\textbf{The Core Theorems} \\[1pt]
 \footnotesize Theorem~0 forces the arena; T1--T8 fix metric, gauge group, \BIsix{}, \OGNfive{}, BRST \\[-1pt]
 \footnotesize \emph{\textbf{The six-dimensional geometry--gauge bulk \GG{} is forced, integer ledger included}}};

%% --- Part III (Geometric Intuition) ---
\node[geom] (III) at (0, -40mm)
 {\textbf{Part~III}\quad\textbf{Geometric Intuition} \\[-1pt]
 \footnotesize Four pictures: RG-scale geometry, radial integration, UV-localized gravity, the angle};

%% --- Part IV (vs. Superstring Theory) ---
\node[vs] (IV) at (0, -55mm)
 {\textbf{Part~IV}\quad\textbf{\GGTheory{} vs.\ Superstring Theory} \\[-1pt]
 \footnotesize Shared Green--Schwarz origin; four constitutional obstructions; anti-landscape};

%% --- Part V (Forward and Backward Map) ---
\node[bridge] (V) at (0, -70mm)
 {\textbf{Part~V}\quad\textbf{Forward and Backward Map} \\[-1pt]
 \footnotesize Backward map, necessity \& sufficiency, cohort bridges, coherence map};

%% --- Part VI (Constitutional-Axiom Classification) ---
\node[core] (VI) at (0, -85mm)
 {\textbf{Part~VI}\quad\textbf{Constitutional-Axiom Classification} \\[-1pt]
 \footnotesize GR, Yang--Mills, strings, AdS/CFT, QM, SM, $\Lambda$CDM as theorems of axiom subsets};

%% --- Part VII (Discussion) ---
\node[disc] (VII) at (0, -100mm)
 {\textbf{Part~VII}\quad\textbf{Discussion} \\[-1pt]
 \footnotesize Ten innovations, comparison table, problems solved, ten falsifiers under \POS{7}};

%% --- Part VIII (Conclusions) ---
\node[summit] (VIII) at (0, -115mm)
 {\textbf{Part~VIII}\quad\textbf{Conclusions} \\[-1pt]
 \footnotesize The constitutional shift; the bulk-side anchor at the Stratum-4 apex};

%% --- Part IX (Technical Appendices) ---
\node[appendix] (IX) at (0, -130mm)
 {\textbf{Part~IX}\quad\textbf{Technical Appendices} \\[-1pt]
 \footnotesize Detailed derivations, mathematical foundations, reference tables};

%% --- Part X (Common Objections) ---
\node[appendix] (X) at (0, -145mm)
 {\textbf{Part~X}\quad\textbf{Common Objections and Responses} \\[-1pt]
 \footnotesize Fifty-three objections from five communities, each answered};

%% --- Part XI (References) ---
\node[appendix] (XI) at (0, -160mm)
 {\textbf{Part~XI}\quad\textbf{References} \\[-1pt]
 \footnotesize Cited works, each with a relevance note};

%% --- Vertical flow arrows ---
\draw[arrowinnov] (I.south) -- (II.north);
\draw[arrowinnov] (II.south) -- (III.north);
\draw[arrow] (III.south) -- (IV.north);
\draw[arrow] (IV.south) -- (V.north);
\draw[arrow] (V.south) -- (VI.north);
\draw[arrow] (VI.south) -- (VII.north);
\draw[arrow] (VII.south) -- (VIII.north);
\draw[arrow] (VIII.south) -- (IX.north);
\draw[arrow] (IX.south) -- (X.north);
\draw[arrow] (X.south) -- (XI.north);

%% --- Phase labels (right sidebar) ---
%% Standard boxes: half-width = 60mm, label at x = 62mm.
%% Part II is wider (half-width = 70mm); its phase label sits below
%% the box, per the A1 pattern for the highlighted Part.
\node[phaselabel] at (62mm, 0mm) {\emph{Setup}};
%% The axiomatic core: below the Part II box (box bottom at y = -28mm)
\node[phaselabel, text=orange!70!black, anchor=west] at (32mm, -31mm)
 {\emph{\textbf{Axiomatic core: the eight theorems force the 6D bulk}}};
\node[phaselabel] at (62mm, -40mm) {\emph{Geometric}\\ \emph{intuition}};
\node[phaselabel] at (62mm, -55mm) {\emph{Structural}\\ \emph{comparison}};
\node[phaselabel] at (62mm, -70mm) {\emph{Cohort map +}\\ \emph{Necessity \& Sufficiency}};
\node[phaselabel] at (62mm, -85mm) {\emph{Constitutional}\\ \emph{payoff}};
\node[phaselabel] at (62mm, -100mm) {\emph{Discussion}\\ \emph{+ critique}};
\node[phaselabel] at (62mm, -115mm) {\emph{Summit}};
\node[phaselabel] at (62mm, -130mm) {\emph{Appendices}};
\node[phaselabel] at (62mm, -145mm) {\emph{Objections}};
\node[phaselabel] at (62mm, -160mm) {\emph{References}};

\end{tikzpicture}%
}
\par\bigskip
\captionof{figure}[Roadmap of the eleven Parts of GG-A2-GG6.]{Roadmap of the eleven Parts of \ATwo{}. The argument develops in phases. \emph{Setup} (Part~I) states the constitutional question, the definitions and the admissibility predicate, the four axioms and seven postulates, the strategy of the derivation, and the cohort inheritance with this roadmap. The \emph{axiomatic core} (\textbf{Part~II}, highlighted) is the technical heart and the title claim: Theorem~0 forces the spacetime--scale--phase arena, and Theorems~1--8 fix the dimension count, the canonical metric, the four-factor composite gauge group, the \BIsix{} coefficient vector, the single-tensor anomaly factorization, the \OGNfive{} integer cascade, BRST consistency, and the Arisaka equation --- with the spin--statistics closing section stepping beyond the eight at candidate grade. \emph{Geometric intuition} (Part~III) offers four pictures of the bulk; \emph{structural comparison} (Part~IV) sets \GG{} beside the heterotic superstring and AdS/CFT programs; the \emph{cohort map} (Part~V) carries the two-way axiomatic handoff with the necessity-and-sufficiency theorem; and the \emph{constitutional payoff} (Part~VI) locates \GG{} at the Stratum-4 apex of the constitutional tower of 20th-century unified physics. Part~VII discusses innovations, problems solved, and the ten falsifiers under \POS{7}; Part~VIII states the conclusions; and the three back-matter Parts collect the technical appendices (Part~IX), the fifty-three common objections and responses (Part~X), and the annotated references (Part~XI). Part~II is highlighted because the eight Theorems are what the title claims --- the six-dimensional geometry--gauge bulk is forced --- and the Parts around them exist to picture, compare, place, and defend that result.}
\label{fig:A2-eleven-parts-flowchart}
\end{minipage}
\subsection*{Closing remarks on Part~I}

Part~I has not proved anything about the world. It has written down what this
paper is allowed to assume, and the value of doing that first is easy to state
and easy to underestimate.

A physical theory always rests on commitments of this kind. The difference is
whether they are written down. When they are not, they are still doing work
--- deciding which questions are askable, which quantities count as free, and
which failures count as failures --- but they do the work invisibly, and a
reader who disagrees has nothing to point at. Eleven clauses on a page can be
attacked one at a time. A tacit habit cannot.

Notice what the eleven clauses do not contain. There is no dimension count in
them. There is no gauge group, no particle content, no integer, no measured
quantity of any kind. If a six-dimensional arena with a color count of three
is going to appear in this paper, it has to appear as a conclusion, and every
step of that appearance has to be visible. That constraint is the reason Part~I
looks so austere: anything smuggled in here would come out the other end
looking like a discovery.

There is a further reason to fix the rules before the geometry, and it is not
a matter of tidiness. A framework that is written first and axiomatized
afterwards will always turn out to rest on exactly the axioms it needs, because
they were chosen once the answer was known. The order matters, and it is
checkable in a way that intentions are not: a clause written before the
derivation can be removed, and the derivation can be watched to see whether it
survives. Part~V does precisely that, one clause at a time.

The last thing to carry out of Part~I is the shape of the demand in \AX{4}.
Most of physics asks which solution of a theory describes our world. That
clause asks something else: whether the space of solutions was ever as large as
it looked. A soap film on a wire loop does not choose its shape from a
catalog of possible shapes. There is no catalog. The film is what the
constraints leave, and the question the rest of this paper asks is whether the
same is true of the universe.

\clearpage


%% ===================================================================
%%  PART II — THE CORE THEOREMS
%% ===================================================================
\GGPart[The Core Theorems]{The Core Theorems}{Eight Theorems Forcing the Six-Dimensional Geometry--Gauge Bulk}


\noindent
A combination lock does not tell you the number by adding something. It tells
you the number by removing everything else: each tumbler that falls into place
is one fewer world the lock can be in. Part~II is eight tumblers.

Each of the eight theorems takes the clauses of Part~I and removes a freedom
that a physicist would ordinarily be free to choose. How many dimensions the
arena has. What the metric on it looks like. Which forces it can carry. What
the coefficients in its central identity are. Which integers label it. Whether
the quantum theory built on it is consistent at all. And, at the end, what
relation the visible currents of the boundary world are locked into. By the
time the eighth tumbler falls there is one arena left: four spacetime
dimensions, plus a scale direction, plus a phase circle, carrying a single
composite object in which gravity and the gauge forces are two faces of one
geometry.

The theorems are stated in a fixed format, and the format is doing work. Each
one names what it assumes, what it concludes, and what would break it. A
reader who wants to attack this paper should attack a theorem's premises;
there is no step where a result is smuggled in from experiment and then
presented as a derivation.

One warning about arithmetic, because it is easy to misread. Three separate
quantities in this program are equal to three, and they are not the same
three: the color count, the number of fermion generations, and the number of
quark flavors in a particular calculation. The cascade of Part~II fixes the
first of them and says nothing about the second. Where the number appears,
the text says which one it means.

\section{Introduction to Part~II: How the Eight Theorems Connect}
\label{sec:partII-overview}

Part~II is the technical heart of this paper. It contains a single connected proof, broken into eight numbered Theorems, that the eleven clauses of the Constitution force a unique six-dimensional bulk \GG\ with a specific gauge group, a specific modified Bianchi identity \BIsix, a specific integer ledger \OGNfive, and a specific quantum gauge content satisfying a homogeneous Slavnov--Taylor identity.

Each Theorem is forced by previously-established Theorems plus one or more constitutional clauses, as Table~\ref{tab:theorem-dependency} sets out.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption[The eight Theorems and what forces each.]{The dependency structure of the eight Theorems. The second column states each Theorem in brief; the third names what forces it --- earlier Theorems plus the constitutional clauses invoked. Read the third column downward and the paper's architecture is visible in one page: nothing is assumed twice, and every Theorem after the first consumes the one before it. A reader who doubts a particular result can use this column to find the shortest path back to an axiom.}
\label{tab:theorem-dependency}
\small
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.15}
\begin{tabular}{>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.18\textwidth}p{0.30\textwidth}p{0.45\textwidth}}
\toprule
\textbf{Theorem} & \textbf{Statement (in brief)} & \textbf{Forced by} \\
\midrule
Thm~1 & Six-dimensional minimality & \AX{2} + \AX{3} + \AX{4} + \POS{1} + \POS{5} + \POS{6} \\
Thm~2 & Canonical metric (no $k$, $R_\theta$, $r_c$) & Thm~1 + \AX{4} + \POS{5} + \POS{6} \\
Thm~3 & Six forces with three abelian invariances & Thm~1 + \AX{2} + \AX{4} + \POS{1} + \POS{3} \\
Thm~4 & $\BIsix$ coefficient vector $(1,-1,-2/5,-2/5)$ & Thm~3 + \AX{4} + \POS{3} + \POS{6} \\
Thm~5 & Anomaly factorization $I_8 = \tfrac12 X_4 \wedge X_4$ & Thm~4 + \POS{3} + chiral spectrum \\
Thm~6 & $\OGNfive$ Diophantine cascade $(1,3,5;7,35)$ & Thm~3 + Thm~4 + \AX{4} + \POS{6} \\
Thm~7 & BRST-consistent 6D QFT, homogeneous ST identity & Thm~5 + \POS{1} + \POS{3} + \POS{4} \\
Thm~8 & Arisaka equation, $\QGL$ on the boundary & Thm~3 + Thm~4 + Thm~7 + \AX{3} + \POS{2} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

These eight Theorems do not begin from nothing: they presuppose the very arena in which they operate, and that arena is itself forced --- by the two axioms alone. We therefore open Part~II with a foundational result, \textbf{Theorem~0 (T-GG6-0)}, which establishes that \AX{1} (\LC) and \AX{2} (\GGEP) together compel the bulk to be four-dimensional Lorentzian spacetime supplemented by exactly two further coordinates --- a non-spatial \emph{scale} dimension and a non-spatial \emph{phase} dimension. Theorem~0 fixes \emph{what kind} of arena the framework inhabits and \emph{why} it cannot be otherwise; Theorem~1 then sharpens the count to a strict minimality statement, and Theorems~2--8 fix the metric, the gauge content, the anomaly structure, and the integer ledger upon it.

The eight Theorems unfold in a strict dependency order: Theorem~1 must be proved before Theorem~2, which must be proved before Theorem~3, and so on, with each Theorem's proof drawing only on the constitutional clauses and the previously-established Theorems. The Euclidean discipline of the \emph{Elements} is exactly that: no later Theorem invokes a clause not already on the table; every proof is self-contained given what came before.

\paragraph{Reading guide.} The Theorems come with their proofs in full; readers familiar with the technical material may find the proofs longer than strictly necessary, but the Euclidean methodology of this paper is to leave nothing implicit. Where the proof contains a calculation that deserves physical interpretation, we interrupt the formal flow with a paragraph of physics intuition --- not as decoration but as reading guide. The reader who wishes to skim the formal logic should follow the boxed equations and the theorem statements; the reader who wishes to follow every step has the proofs in full.


\section{The Geometrization Ladder: Completing a Program Einstein Began}
\label{sec:geometrization-ladder}

Before the formal derivation begins, it is worth naming the single methodological thread that runs through it --- because that thread is not original to \GGTheory{}; it is inherited. From Minkowski onward, each foundational advance in our understanding of spacetime has had the same logical shape: \emph{a physical necessity that earlier theory carried as an external structure is recognized as geometry and absorbed into the manifold or its connection.} \GGTheory{} does not invent this move. It completes it. Theorem~0, which follows immediately, is the formal statement that the move \emph{closes} --- that once every structure a local, causal, interacting, charged quantum theory cannot avoid has been geometrized, the manifold that results is exactly six-dimensional and can be no other.

\paragraph{The four rungs.} The thread has four rungs, each a recognized result of twentieth- and twenty-first-century physics, not a claim peculiar to this program.

\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption[The geometrization ladder: four physical necessities promoted to geometry.]{The geometrization ladder. Each rung promotes a physical necessity, previously carried as external structure, into geometry. \GGTheory{} adds no new rung; \GGEP{} (\AX{2}) is the single rule that runs all four to completion, and Theorem~0 shows the ladder ends at six dimensions.}
\label{tab:geometrization-ladder}
\small
\begin{tabular}{p{0.30\textwidth}p{0.34\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.28\textwidth}}
\toprule
\textbf{Physical necessity} & \textbf{Recognized as geometry} & \textbf{Established by} \\
\midrule
The invariant speed $c$ & The Lorentzian stage $\cM_4$: space and time are one manifold, $c$ the conversion factor that builds the light cone & Einstein (1905); Minkowski (1908) \\
Equivalence of inertia and gravitation & Curvature of $\cM_4$: gravity is the geometry of the stage, not a force upon it & Einstein (general relativity, 1915) \\
The local gauge phase & A connection whose curvature is the field strength; geometrically, a compact \emph{phase} direction $S^1_\theta$ & Weyl; Yang \& Mills (1954); Kaluza (1921), Klein (1926) \\
The renormalization scale & Motion along a radial direction; geometrically, a non-compact \emph{scale} direction $I_r$ & Wilson (1971); holography (Maldacena, 1997) \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

The first two rungs are Einstein's own. The invariance of the speed of light \citep{Einstein1905} was geometrized by Minkowski \citep{Minkowski1908} into a single Lorentzian spacetime, in which $c$ is not a velocity so much as the conversion factor that fuses space with time and erects the light cone. The equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass was then geometrized by general relativity into the curvature of that same spacetime: gravity ceased to be a force acting on a background and became the shape of the background itself. The third and fourth rungs are post-Einsteinian. The gauge principle --- that a local internal phase demands a compensating connection --- was made precise by Yang and Mills \citep{YangMills1954} and read, in the fiber-bundle language of the 1970s, as a statement that the gauge potential \emph{is} a connection and the field strength \emph{is} its curvature; that gauge structure is geometry was already glimpsed by Kaluza and Klein \citep{Kaluza1921, Klein1926}, who showed a fifth dimension could carry the electromagnetic phase. Finally, Wilson's renormalization group \citep{Wilson1971} established that every interacting local theory carries an intrinsic resolution and a flow connecting its values, and holography \citep{Maldacena1998} realized that flow as displacement along a radial direction --- so that scale, too, is geometry.

\paragraph{\GGEP{} runs the ladder to its end.} The second axiom of \GGTheory, \GGEP{} (\AX{2}), is what turns four historical episodes into one rule: \emph{any structure the dynamics is forced to carry must be realized geometrically.} It is the generalization of Einstein's equivalence principle from gravitation alone to the entire geometry-plus-gauge content of physics. Applied to a local, causal, interacting, charged quantum theory, it has exactly two necessities left to geometrize once the Lorentzian stage is fixed --- the renormalization scale of the fourth rung and the gauge phase of the third --- and it closes there, because \LC{} compels no further structure. The arena is therefore $\cM_6 = \cM_4 \times I_r \times S^1_\theta$: four, plus one, plus one. The scale profile $e^{-2r}$ on the stage block is the geometric memory of the fourth rung --- it is precisely the Randall--Sundrum throat \citep{RandallSundrum1999}, here \emph{derived} rather than posited --- and the flat circle $S^1_\theta$ is the memory of the third. Theorem~0 says precisely that, and the eight Theorems of Part~II of Part~II then build the metric, the gauge group, the anomaly structure, and the integer ledger.

The two new rungs enter the geometry differently, and the asymmetry is a feature rather than a blemish. The scale direction is non-compact and scale-extended; the phase direction is compact and flat. This is because a renormalization scale is a \emph{universal} resolution --- every field is read at the same magnification, exactly as gravity couples universally to all energy --- whereas a gauge charge is a \emph{quantized, non-universal} label that different fields carry in different integer amounts. A universal resolution geometrizes as a scaled extent; a quantized label geometrizes as a compact holonomy. The geometry mirrors the physics, which is why the fifth and sixth dimensions are not two copies of one idea but two distinct completions of the ladder.

\paragraph{What Einstein had, and what he lacked.} Read this way, \GGTheory{} stands in a precise relation to Einstein, and the relation is more interesting than ``a small addition.'' Einstein possessed the method --- geometrize the necessity --- and even the higher-dimensional instinct: he engaged with the Kaluza--Klein idea and pursued a geometric unified field theory for the last three decades of his life. That program did not succeed in his hands, and the reason is instructive. The two rungs at the top of the ladder were only half-formed, and their roots lay in a theory he distrusted. The gauge principle had in fact been born in Weyl's 1929 reinterpretation of local phase as a $U(1)$ invariance \citep{Weyl1929} --- in the very years Einstein was hardening his resistance to quantum theory --- but it reached the non-Abelian generality that the strong and weak interactions require only with Yang and Mills in 1954 \citep{YangMills1954}, and its full geometric (fiber-bundle) reading only two decades after that; Wilson's renormalization group, the one development that makes ``scale as a dimension'' conceptually clean, arrived in 1971 \citep{Wilson1971} --- and renormalization grew from the quantum field theory whose probabilistic foundations Einstein resisted to the end. \GGTheory{} is therefore not a footnote to Einstein but the synthesis that became available only after Weyl's gauge principle, Yang--Mills, the fiber-bundle picture, Wilsonian renormalization, and holography were in hand. It completes the geometric program Einstein began, by enlisting precisely the quantum-field-theoretic ideas he lacked.

\paragraph{A note on the higher-dimensional alternatives.} Other routes to a higher-dimensional geometry are principled and well developed, and we do not set this one against them polemically. The string program, in particular, reaches its extra dimensions by an internally compelled path: there the additional dimensions are \emph{spatial}, and their number (ten or eleven), their supersymmetry, and their gauge group are fixed by the requirements of consistency --- the cancellation of the worldsheet conformal anomaly and of the spacetime gauge and gravitational anomalies \citep{GreenSchwarz1984}. Those ingredients are not free choices but consequences of demanding a finite, anomaly-free theory of extended objects. The freedom appears instead downstream, in the many inequivalent ways the spatial dimensions may be compactified, which populate a large space of vacua \citep{Susskind2003}. \GGTheory{} follows the complementary strategy. Because its extra dimensions are not spatial but a scale and a phase, they carry no radius to stabilize and no internal shape to select; there are accordingly no moduli and no landscape, and the price is paid elsewhere --- in the strength of the constitutional premises that Theorem~0 must assume. The two programs are best understood as two consistent answers to one question that place their irreducible assumptions at opposite ends of the energy axis. The string program maximizes structural uniqueness at a fundamental scale near $M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$, where worldsheet consistency fixes the dimension, the supersymmetry, and the gauge group almost rigidly; that uniqueness is a genuine mathematical result, though its bearing on the observed world presupposes a controlled, approximately geometric description persisting across the intervening desert, and it coexists with the large low-energy vacuum degeneracy just noted. \GGTheory{} instead constrains the parameters at \emph{accessible} energies, and it carries no matching trans-Planckian premise: the four-dimensional field-theoretic description holds only up to $E_{\mathrm{GUT}}$, the ultraviolet endpoint at the boundary $r=0$, above which the six-dimensional bulk is the operative description and $M_{\mathrm{Pl}} \sim M_6$ is a bulk Einstein--Hilbert anchor, not a four-dimensional cutoff (Part~IV, \S\ref{sec:uv-end-vs}). This $E_{\mathrm{GUT}}$ terminus is not a compromise but the well-defined ultraviolet endpoint of the boundary theory. The two economies are accordingly not symmetric in their exposure to experiment: low-energy parameter economy is tested by present and near-future data, whereas high-energy uniqueness remains, for now, a structural rather than an empirical claim. The present paper develops the second route. The fuller historical lineage, from Euclid and Riemann through Maxwell to Randall and Sundrum, is the subject of the companion paper \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid}.


\paragraph{The genealogy of the non-spatial dimension.} It is worth placing the two non-spatial directions of \GG{} in their historical line, because the idea is older and more distinguished than it may first appear --- and because candor about the precedents strengthens the claim rather than weakening it. A \emph{geometric dimension that is not a dimension of space} is not new with this program: it is built into relativity itself. Minkowski's 1908 fusion of time into spacetime \citep{Minkowski1908} made time the first non-spatial geometric dimension --- Lorentzian, not Riemannian, marked by the opposite sign in the line element that erects the light cone. The correct way to classify a dimension is therefore by its symmetry generator: a \emph{spatial} or temporal direction is one whose generator is a translation (momentum or energy), whereas the two further directions of \GG{} are generated not by translations but by a \emph{dilatation} (the scale direction $I_r$) and a \emph{compact charge} (the phase direction $S^1_\theta$). The bulk isometry algebra is $\mathfrak{iso}(1,3)\oplus\mathbb{R}_{D}\oplus\mathfrak{u}(1)_{Q}$, not $\mathfrak{iso}(1,5)$ --- and that is the precise content of ``non-spatial.'' Remarkably, both of \GG's non-spatial dimensions descend from a single figure, Hermann Weyl. Weyl's 1918 \emph{Eichinvarianz} \citep{Weyl1918} was a theory of \emph{local scale} as a geometric connection (it failed as electromagnetism, on Einstein's second-clock objection, but it is the ur-precedent for geometrizing scale); Weyl's 1929 reinterpretation \citep{Weyl1929} turned the same construction into a \emph{local phase} ($U(1)$) invariance --- the birth of modern gauge theory. Kaluza and Klein \citep{Kaluza1921, Klein1926} then geometrized that phase as a compact circle (a \emph{spatial} one); the fiber-bundle formulation of the 1950s--70s made the gauge phase an explicitly internal, non-spatial circle; Connes' noncommutative geometry \citep{ConnesLott1991, ChamseddineConnes2007} went furthest, encoding the gauge and Higgs structure in a genuinely non-spatial, non-Riemannian internal geometry $\cM_4\times F$; and holographic renormalization \citep{Maldacena1998} realized the scale direction as a radial coordinate. Against this line, what is new here is not the existence of a non-spatial dimension but the \emph{synthesis}: \GG{} takes Weyl's two gauge insights --- scale (1918) and phase (1929) --- and elevates \emph{both} to forced, non-spatial dimensions of one bulk, classified by their generators, comprising the entire arena beyond the Lorentzian stage, and \emph{derived} rather than postulated (Theorem~0 below). In one line: \GG{} completes the Minkowski $\to$ Weyl $\to$ Kaluza--Klein $\to$ Connes line by making both extra dimensions non-spatial and forced, and so dispenses with spatial extra dimensions --- and with their moduli, landscape, and obligatory supersymmetry --- altogether.

\paragraph{The bundle-theoretic statement of geometry--gauge equivalence.} The historical line just traced has a precise modern form \citep{Nakahara2003}, and it is worth stating once, because it is the rigorous content of \GGEP{} (\AX{2}). In the language of fiber bundles \citep{Ehresmann1950, WuYang1975}, a gauge field is a \emph{connection} on a principal bundle, its field strength is the \emph{curvature} of that connection, and a gauge phase is the \emph{holonomy} of the connection around a loop. Geometry--gauge equivalence is then the statement that gravity and the gauge interactions are connections of the same species: gravity is the connection on the frame bundle of $\cM_4$, the gauge forces are connections on an internal bundle, and the two are locked by the single curvature identity $\BIsix$ (Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs}). This bundle reading of the gauge sector is itself a mature and named achievement that \GGEP{} adopts rather than originates: the identification of Yang--Mills fields with principal-bundle connections \citep{WuYang1975}, resting on Ehresmann's 1950 definition of a connection \citep{Ehresmann1950}, and the full fiber-bundle formulation of the Standard-Model gauge group $\SU(3)\times\SU(2)\times U(1)$, which was standard by 1980 \citep{DanielViallet1980}. What is new in the present program is not that the gauge sector is bundle geometry, but that the Abelian fiber is forced into a literal, non-spatial dimension $S^1_\theta$, that a second non-spatial dimension --- the scale direction $I_r$ --- is added, and that both are \emph{derived} rather than postulated (Theorem~0 below). In the same language the bulk $\cM_6$ is a fibration over the boundary base $\cM_4$, and \OGGEP{} (\AX{3}) is its bundle projection $\pi:\cM_6\to\cM_4$: registering a boundary record is the restriction of a section to the base, and ``tracing out the fiber'' is the precise meaning of the operational marginalization that makes the boundary theory open. The phase direction $S^1_\theta$ is, in this reading, a genuine \emph{principal $U(1)$-bundle}: the quantum phase is its holonomy, the Aharonov--Bohm and Berry phases are holonomies in the literal bundle sense, and the integer Kaluza--Klein modes are its characters --- the content of $M=1$ in the \OGNfive{} ledger. The Wu--Yang (1975) dictionary, which identified the non-integrable gauge phase factor with bundle holonomy, is the precise precedent for reading the quantum phase this way.

\paragraph{One honesty caveat that keeps the language exact.} The bundle picture fits the \emph{phase} fiber $S^1_\theta$ perfectly, but it must not be imposed uniformly on the \emph{scale} fiber $I_r$. The scale direction is not a principal gauge bundle. Its ``structure group'' is the dilatation, realized as a one-way renormalization-group \emph{semigroup} (irreversible, with no inverse), and the relevant ``connection'' along it is the scale profile, not a Yang--Mills field. The very asymmetry that distinguishes a compact principal $U(1)$-bundle from a scale-extended semigroup fibration is the asymmetry between the unitary, coherent phase sector and the open, irreversible scale sector --- developed at the boundary in \citep{ArisakaA5GDOS} and \citep{ArisakaA8QM}. A second, smaller point of rigor: the two-form potential of $\BIsix$ is, strictly, a connection on a \emph{gerbe} --- a higher bundle --- rather than an ordinary fiber bundle, so where full precision is wanted the $H$-flux should be read one categorical level up. With these caveats noted, the bundle language is the rigorous under-layer of the four visual pictures of Part~III: we use it to fix what the dial and the scale profile \emph{are}, not to replace the images by which they are grasped.

\section{Theorem 0 (T-GG6-0): The Spacetime--Scale--Phase Bulk is Forced by Locality--Causality and Geometry--Gauge Equivalence}
\label{sec:thm0-lc-ggep}

Before we count the dimensions of the bulk (Theorem~\ref{thm:dim-minimal}) or fix its metric (Section~\ref{sec:thm2-metric}), there is a prior and more fundamental question --- the one a skeptical reader should ask first: \emph{granting only the two axioms \AX{1} (\LC) and \AX{2} (\GGEP), what arena are we forced into at all?} This section answers it. The conclusion is that the two axioms alone --- locality-and-causality together with geometry--gauge equivalence --- compel the bulk to consist of four-dimensional Lorentzian spacetime supplemented by \emph{exactly two further coordinates}, one a \emph{scale} direction and one a \emph{phase} direction, and that \emph{neither of the two is a dimension of space}. The eight Theorems that follow then take this arena as given and fix its metric, its gauge content, its anomaly structure, and its integer ledger. Theorem~0 is the root of the tree; Theorems~1--8 are its branches.

The significance of the result is best stated by contrast. In the Kaluza--Klein, Randall--Sundrum, and string/M-theory traditions, the extra dimensions are \emph{postulated} --- put in by hand as additional directions of space --- and then \emph{hidden}, by compactification to a small radius or by scale running. Their number, topology, sizes, and shapes are inputs, constrained only afterwards by consistency or by phenomenology. \GGTheory{} inverts this completely. It postulates no extra dimensions. It asks instead what structures a local, causal, interacting, charged quantum theory \emph{cannot avoid carrying}, finds that there are exactly two of them --- a renormalization scale and a gauge phase --- and is then obliged, by \GGEP, to render each as geometry. The extra dimensions are therefore not assumptions to be justified after the fact but \emph{theorems}; and because the two structures they geometrize are a resolution and an angle rather than places, the dimensions emerge \emph{non-spatial} as a derived conclusion, not as a special stipulation. Every prior higher-dimensional program departs from \GG{} at exactly that point, and it is precisely why \GG{} is free of the moduli, the charged Kaluza--Klein towers, and the vacuum landscape that inevitably attend a \emph{postulated spatial} extra dimension. Because that single admissible geometry offers no vacuum to choose, it is \emph{obliged} to return one value for each low-energy constant across the whole sky --- the falsifiability consequence drawn out, as the \emph{second horizon problem}, in \ATen{} and \PaperPThree{}.

\subsection{\texorpdfstring{$\AX{1}$ ($\LC$)}{AX-1 (LC)} restated: the law of the stage}
\label{ssec:ax1-restated-thm0}

\paragraph{Precise form.} \AX{1} (\LC, Axiom~\ref{ax:LC}) requires that, for every admissible bulk configuration and every boundary intervention, the registered boundary evolution be \emph{local} and \emph{causal}: a registered record at parameter $t$ depends only on boundary-accessible data in the causal past of $t$; the operational influence of any intervention vanishes outside the future light cone; and local observables commute at spacelike separation,
\begin{equation}
[\,\hat{\cO}(x),\,\hat{\cO}(y)\,] = 0 \qquad \text{for } (x-y)^2 < 0.
\label{eq:micro-causality-thm0}
\end{equation}
Every clause of \AX{1} presupposes a \emph{Lorentzian} manifold: a metric of signature $(1,3)$ with a light cone that sorts pairs of events into timelike, null, and spacelike. \AX{1} is, in this precise sense, a law that can be stated only where there is a cone --- it constrains a causal spacetime and is silent everywhere else.

\paragraph{Intuitive form.} \AX{1} is the \emph{law of the stage}. The stage is four-dimensional spacetime; the law says that nothing on it outruns light and that no influence escapes the cone. By its very form, \AX{1} says nothing about ``scale'' or about ``gauge phase,'' because neither is the stage: there is no light cone ``in resolution'' and none ``in internal angle.'' This silence is not an omission to be repaired; it is the boundary of the axiom's jurisdiction --- and, as Theorem~0 will show, it is exactly what permits two further coordinates to exist without ever threatening causality.

\subsection{\texorpdfstring{$\AX{2}$ ($\GGEP$)}{AX-2 (GGEP)} restated: geometry carries what the dynamics cannot avoid}
\label{ssec:ax2-restated-thm0}

\paragraph{Precise form.} \AX{2} (\GGEP, Axiom~\ref{ax:GGEP}) asserts that there is a \emph{single} connection $\cA = \omega[g] \oplus A$ on the bulk principal bundle whose curvature unifies the gravitational (spin-connection) and internal (gauge) field strengths; every gauge degree of freedom is a component of one higher-dimensional geometric connection. For Theorem~0 we use the equivalent \emph{operative} form: \emph{any structure that the local dynamics is forced to carry is realized geometrically} --- as a coordinate of the manifold, or as a component of its connection. \GGEP is the principle that converts a necessity of the dynamics into a feature of the geometry.

\paragraph{Intuitive form.} \AX{2} is the rule that \emph{the geometry must hold whatever the physics genuinely needs}. It is not a license to add geometry for decoration; it is an obligation. If the local, causal theory cannot be written down without some structure, then that structure is not an external appendage bolted onto spacetime --- it is a dimension or a connection. \GGEP is the engine of the derivation; \LC{} supplies the necessities for it to act upon.

% --- Align the euclidtheorem counter with the canonical T-GG6-N numbering. ---
% The section titles run Theorem 0 (T-GG6-0) ... Theorem 8 (T-GG6-8); this resets the
% auto-counter so the FIRST euclidtheorem (T-GG6-0) prints as 0, and every later theorem,
% lemma, and corollary number matches its section name. (Inserting Theorem 0 had shifted
% the whole sequence by +1.)
\setcounter{euclidtheorem}{-1}
\begin{euclidtheorem}[The spacetime--scale--phase bulk from \LC{} and \GGEP]
\label{thm:lc-ggep-bulk}
Let $\cT$ be an admissible theory (Definition~\ref{def:admissibility}) satisfying \AX{1} (\LC) and \AX{2} (\GGEP) and describing interacting charged quantum matter. Then the minimal arena consistent with the two axioms is the product geometry
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;\cM_6 \;=\; \cM_4 \times I_r \times S^1_\theta,\qquad
ds_6^2 = e^{-2r}\,\eta_{\mu\nu}\,dx^\mu dx^\nu + dr^2 + d\theta^2,\;}
\label{eq:thm0-bulk}
\end{equation}
in which $\cM_4$ is the Lorentzian $(1,3)$ \emph{stage} demanded by \AX{1}; $I_r$ is the \emph{scale dimension} --- the geometrization, under \AX{2}, of the renormalization-group flow that \AX{1} forces every interacting local theory to carry; and $S^1_\theta$ is the \emph{phase dimension} --- the geometrization, under \AX{2}, of the local gauge phase that \AX{1} forces every theory of interacting charged matter to carry. Both $I_r$ and $S^1_\theta$ are \emph{non-spatial}: they enter the metric with positive, non-Lorentzian signature, carry no light cone, and therefore do not extend the causal structure of $\cM_4$.
\end{euclidtheorem}

\noindent\emph{Register, stated where the theorem is stated rather than in a remark:} Theorem~0 is a constitutional forcing argument (Remark~0.5), and every downstream ``forced'' in this paper and its companion papers inherits that register.

\begin{proof}
The proof is a chain of necessity arguments in six steps: \LC{} supplies two unavoidable structures (Steps~2 and~4), \GGEP{} geometrizes each (Steps~3 and~5), and the count and the signature are fixed (Steps~1 and~6).

\medskip\noindent\textbf{Step 1 (the stage).} \AX{1} (\LC) is a statement about a Lorentzian causal manifold; its retarded-support and microcausality clauses, Eq.~\eqref{eq:micro-causality-thm0}, are defined only relative to a light cone. The registered arena is therefore a Lorentzian manifold $\cM_4$ of signature $(1,3)$ --- three directions along which events may be separated spacelike and one along which they are causally ordered. (That the count is precisely four, rather than larger, is the operational-registration argument established independently in Step~(a) of Theorem~\ref{thm:dim-minimal}; for the present theorem it is the Lorentzian \emph{character} of the stage, not the number four, that does the work.) Call this the \emph{stage}.

\medskip\noindent\textbf{Step 2 (\LC{} forces a scale).} Consider any local, causal, \emph{interacting} quantum theory on the stage. Locality means that the interaction is built from products of field operators at coincident points; in an interacting quantum theory such coincident products are singular, and the theory is sensitive to physics at arbitrarily short distances. Consequently the theory cannot be specified by its long-distance content alone: it must be defined with reference to a resolution $\mu$ at which its couplings are declared, and the physics at one resolution is related to the physics at another by the renormalization-group flow. This flow is not an optional calculational device; it is \emph{forced} by the conjunction of locality and interaction, and it is intrinsic to every such theory. We record the consequence: \AX{1}, applied to an interacting local theory, entails a necessary, theory-intrinsic \emph{scale parameter} $\mu$ together with a one-parameter flow connecting its values. (The flow composes additively in $\ln\mu$ and is directed --- a coarse-graining semigroup, irreversible UV$\to$IR --- but for the present purpose only its \emph{necessity}, not its arrow, is required; the arrow returns in the discussion of \POS{5} and of \LC's open-system kernel.)

\medskip\noindent\textbf{Step 3 (\GGEP{} geometrizes the scale).} By \AX{2} (\GGEP) in its operative form, a structure that the dynamics is forced to carry must be realized geometrically. The renormalization scale of Step~2 is exactly such a structure. It is therefore a coordinate of the bulk manifold --- the \emph{scale dimension}
\begin{equation}
I_r, \qquad r = \ln\!\left(\frac{\mu_{\mathrm{UV}}}{\mu}\right),
\label{eq:thm0-scale}
\end{equation}
along which the corresponding component of the connection $\cA$ is the running coupling, so that the $\beta$-function is literally the covariant derivative of the coupling in the $r$-direction. The scale dimension is \emph{non-spatial}: a value of $r$ is a resolution, not a location; one does not ``travel'' along $r$ but changes the magnification at which the same stage is read. We note for Step~6 that a rescaling of the stage metric by the scale profile $e^{-2r}$ is \emph{conformal}, and conformal rescalings preserve light cones; hence motion in $r$ cannot deform the causal structure of $\cM_4$.

\medskip\noindent\textbf{Step 4 (\LC{} forces a phase).} Now require, as \AX{1} does, that the interactions among \emph{charged} matter be local and causal. A local, causal theory cannot mediate forces by instantaneous action at a distance; charge must be conserved locally and its associated force transmitted locally, from each point to its neighbors. The unique structure that accomplishes this is a gauge connection: one is compelled to attach to every point of the stage an internal \emph{phase} --- the value of the matter field's gauge frame --- and to introduce a connection compensating the freedom to choose that phase independently at each point. The gauge principle appears here as a \emph{consequence} of \AX{1}: locality plus charge forces local gauge invariance, hence a periodic internal phase carried at every spacetime point. We record the consequence: \AX{1}, applied to interacting charged matter, entails a necessary, theory-intrinsic \emph{internal gauge phase}, periodic by the single-valuedness of the fields that carry it.

\medskip\noindent\textbf{Step 5 (\GGEP{} geometrizes the phase).} By \AX{2} (\GGEP), the gauge connection is the connection of a geometric direction. The internal phase of Step~4, being periodic, is geometrized as a \emph{compact} one-dimensional direction --- the \emph{phase dimension}
\begin{equation}
S^1_\theta, \qquad \theta \sim \theta + 2\pi,
\label{eq:thm0-phase}
\end{equation}
along which the component of the connection is the Wilson-line holonomy $\oint A_\theta\, d\theta$, the gauge-invariant, integer-quantized datum that single-valuedness permits (and the seed of the symmetry breaking treated in later Parts). The phase dimension is \emph{non-spatial}: a value of $\theta$ is an internal angle, not a location; and because local motion in $\theta$ is a gauge transformation --- a redundancy, not a physical displacement --- no signal propagates along it, so it too leaves the causal structure of $\cM_4$ untouched.

\medskip\noindent\textbf{Step 6 (exactly two, non-spatial, block-diagonal).} Steps~2 and~4 exhibit \emph{two} structures that a local, causal, interacting, charged quantum theory cannot be written without: a renormalization scale and a gauge phase. Steps~3 and~5 oblige \GGEP{} to render each as one geometric direction. The arena is therefore the stage plus exactly two further coordinates, $4 + 1 + 1 = 6$. Because the scale is a resolution and the phase is an angle --- neither a direction of space, neither carrying a timelike companion --- the two added coordinates enter the line element with positive, non-Lorentzian signature, and the metric is the block-diagonal product geometry of Eq.~\eqref{eq:thm0-bulk}: the light cone lives entirely in the $\cM_4$ block, while $dr^2$ and $d\theta^2$ contribute no cone. The scale profile $e^{-2r}$ acts conformally on the stage indices and is therefore causality-preserving (Step~3). Finally, that there is no \emph{third} forced structure --- hence no seventh dimension --- is the content of \AX{4} (\MSMF, Axiom~\ref{ax:MSMF}) read together with \POS{6} (\OGN, Postulate~\ref{pos:OGN}): the Constitution admits no continuous structure not compelled by a prior clause, and Steps~2 and~4 exhaust the structures \AX{1} compels. The minimality is thus \emph{two-sided} --- forced from below by \LC{} (these two are unavoidable) and closed from above by \MSMF{} (nothing further is admissible). Combining Steps~1--6, the minimal arena consistent with \AX{1} and \AX{2} is exactly $\cM_6 = \cM_4 \times I_r \times S^1_\theta$. \qquad $\blacksquare$
\end{proof}

\paragraph{Remark 0.1 (the two-sided minimality, made explicit).} It is worth isolating why the count cannot drift. \emph{From below}: drop the scale dimension and an interacting local theory loses its renormalization-group flow, which Step~2 shows is not optional --- the theory becomes ill-defined at short distances. Drop the phase dimension and charged matter loses local gauge invariance, which Step~4 shows is the only local, causal way to carry a force --- one is thrown back on action at a distance, in violation of \AX{1}. So neither extra coordinate can be removed without breaking \AX{1} itself. \emph{From above}: any \emph{further} continuous direction would carry a structure not demanded by any clause of the Constitution, and is therefore excluded by \AX{4} (\MSMF). The number two is pinned between these two pressures; it is not chosen, fitted, or tuned.

\paragraph{Remark 0.2 (why \LC{} survives the extra dimensions --- and is even protected by them).} One might fear that adding dimensions endangers four-dimensional causality, as it can in braneworld models where signals take ``shortcuts'' through a spatial bulk and appear superluminal on the brane. Theorem~0 shows the opposite holds here, for a structural reason: the two added directions are \emph{not spatial}. There is no shortcut to take ``through the renormalization scale'' or ``around the gauge circle,'' because neither is a route through space; a value of $r$ is a magnification and a value of $\theta$ is a gauge angle. The block-diagonal form of Eq.~\eqref{eq:thm0-bulk} makes this manifest --- the light cone is confined to the $\cM_4$ block --- and the conformal character of the scale profile guarantees that even the coupling between the stage and the scale direction leaves cones invariant. The non-spatiality is therefore not merely compatible with \AX{1}; it is what \emph{guarantees} \AX{1} at the level of the full bulk.

\paragraph{Remark 0.3 (relation to Theorem~1).} Theorem~0 and Theorem~\ref{thm:dim-minimal} establish the same product structure $\cM_6 = \cM_4 \times I_r \times S^1_\theta$ from two different heights, and they are complementary rather than redundant. Theorem~0 works from the two \emph{axioms} \AX{1} and \AX{2} alone; its content is conceptual --- it shows that the two extra dimensions are the geometrization of two unavoidable features of any local charged quantum theory (a scale and a phase) and are therefore non-spatial. Theorem~\ref{thm:dim-minimal} then works from the \emph{postulates} \POS{1} (\GI), \POS{5} (\RG), \POS{6} (\OGN) together with \AX{3} (\OGGEP) and \AX{4} (\MSMF); its content is quantitative --- it sharpens Theorem~0 to a strict minimality count (the bulk exactly six, the boundary exactly four) and supplies the structural roles that the metric of Theorem~2 will carry. In short: Theorem~0 explains \emph{why} the extra directions must exist and \emph{what kind} of objects they are; Theorem~1 establishes that their number can be neither reduced nor enlarged. Read in order, Theorem~0 is the foundation and Theorem~1 the first story built upon it.

\paragraph{Remark 0.4 (the decisive contrast with Kaluza--Klein, Randall--Sundrum, and string theory).} The three classical higher-dimensional programs all share one move that Theorem~0 declines: they treat the extra dimensions as \emph{spatial} and supplied in advance. Kaluza and Klein add a spatial circle of radius $R$; the radius is a free modulus and the circle generates a charged Kaluza--Klein tower. Randall and Sundrum add a spatial radial interval; the scale-profile slope and the interval length are free, and the radion modulus must be stabilized by hand. String and M-theory add six or seven compact spatial dimensions; their shape is a Calabi--Yau (or $G_2$) manifold drawn from a vast moduli space, and that degeneracy is the origin of the landscape. In each case the spatiality of the extra structure is what forces the surplus --- moduli, towers, landscape --- and, in the string case, the worldsheet's need for a metric target is what forces supersymmetry as well. Theorem~0 keeps none of this, because it adds no spatial dimension: it geometrizes a \emph{scale} and a \emph{phase}, which carry no length to be tuned and no shape to be chosen. There is no radius modulus (the scale direction is a resolution, not a circle of some size), no shape moduli (the phase direction is topological, with only an integer holonomy), and hence no landscape; and, as shown elsewhere in this Part, no super-Poincar\'e algebra for supersymmetry to close on. The absences that distinguish \GG{} from the string program are thus not assumptions but consequences of a single decision --- to derive the extra dimensions rather than to postulate them, and so to obtain them non-spatial.

\paragraph{Remark 0.5 (honest accounting of the premises).} Theorem~0 is a \emph{constitutional forcing argument} in the sense used throughout this Part --- a chain of necessity claims given the axioms --- and not a theorem of constructive quantum field theory. Three premises carry its weight, and we state them in the open so that the inevitability can be judged on its merits. (i) The Lorentzian, four-dimensional \emph{character} of the stage (Step~1) is imported from the operational-registration argument of Theorem~\ref{thm:dim-minimal}; Theorem~0 uses only that the stage is Lorentzian. (ii) The operative reading of \AX{2} --- ``promote a forced structure to a coordinate or a connection'' --- is a definitional rendering of \GGEP, stated as such. (iii) The substantive claim is that a renormalization scale and a gauge phase \emph{exhaust} the structures \LC{} compels (Steps~2 and~4); we have argued this from below (each is unavoidable in any interacting charged local theory) and closed it from above by \AX{4} (no third structure is admissible). Granting (i)--(iii), the conclusion follows by logical necessity. Theorem~0's force is exactly this conditional inevitability, neither more nor less.

\paragraph{Physical intuition: the stage, the zoom, and the dial.} It helps to stop visualizing six axes. Picture instead three things. First, a \emph{stage}: four-dimensional spacetime, the real arena, with its light cones --- this is where \AX{1} lives. Second, a \emph{zoom knob} attached to the stage: the scale dimension $r$. Each setting of the knob is the same four-dimensional world viewed at a different magnification (energy); turning the knob is renormalization-group flow, and the coupling drifts smoothly as one turns it. Third, a small \emph{dial} sitting at every point of the stage: the phase dimension $\theta$ (a clock face for an Abelian phase, a richer internal space in the non-Abelian case). The gauge field tells you how the dial's hand rotates as you step across spacetime; the holonomy $\oint A_\theta\,d\theta$ tells you how it winds around the dial itself, and you are free to reset each dial's zero independently --- that freedom is local gauge invariance. The six-dimensional bulk is precisely \emph{the stage, plus a zoom knob, plus a dial at every point}. Theorem~0 says that one cannot have the local, causal physics of charged matter without the knob and the dial, and that \GGEP{} obliges both to be geometry. The knob is not a corridor and the dial is not a room; that is why they are non-spatial, why there are exactly two, and why the law of the stage is never disturbed.


\section{Theorem 1 (T-GG6-1): Dimensional Minimality}
\label{sec:thm1-dimensional}

Theorem~0 (T-GG6-0) has already settled the \emph{character} of the bulk: locality--causality and geometry--gauge equivalence force the arena to be the Lorentzian stage $\cM_4$ together with a non-spatial scale direction and a non-spatial phase direction. What remains is the \emph{count}. Theorem~1 sharpens that result to a strict minimality statement --- the bulk is six-dimensional, no fewer and no more, with four dimensions for the registered boundary, one for the scale direction, and one for the phase direction --- and it pins each of these numbers, so that the total can be neither reduced by collapsing two roles into a single coordinate nor enlarged by an unforced seventh. The question is therefore not ``why higher dimensions at all'' (Theorem~0 answered that) but ``why \emph{exactly} these, and why \emph{exactly} this many.''

\paragraph{Historical background (with citations).} Generally speaking, the very idea that physics can live in a manifold of more than three spatial dimensions traces back to one foundational lecture: Bernhard Riemann's 1854 \emph{Habilitationsschrift} at G\"ottingen, \emph{\"Uber die Hypothesen, welche der Geometrie zu Grunde liegen} \citep{Riemann1854}, in which Riemann proposed that geometry is the study of arbitrary smooth manifolds of any dimension, freed from the Euclidean assumption of three flat spatial coordinates. The subsequent late-nineteenth-century development of differential geometry --- Christoffel, Ricci, Levi-Civita --- supplied the technical apparatus, but the conceptual move was Riemann's: physics is not constrained to three dimensions, and curvature in higher dimensions is a meaningful object. Kaluza's 1921 paper \citep{Kaluza1921} put the first physical content into Riemann's higher-dimensional manifold, by proposing that a five-dimensional geometry can unify Einstein's gravity with Maxwell's electromagnetism --- with the extra coordinate playing the role of an internal gauge phase. Klein's 1926 refinement \citep{Klein1926} introduced the now-standard compactification convention, in which the extra dimension is taken to be a small circle of geometric radius $R$, and the integer modes of the Fourier expansion produce a Kaluza--Klein tower of massive particles in 4D. This Kaluza--Klein paradigm dominated higher-dimensional physics for the next half-century, with one foundational defect: the radius $R$ remained a free continuous parameter, with no axiomatic principle to fix it. Randall and Sundrum's 1999 paper \citep{RandallSundrum1999} added the warping convention --- the extra dimension is not a flat circle of radius $R$ but a radial interval whose metric carries an exponential factor $e^{-2r}$ --- and scale running in turn converts the additional geometric length into an exponential hierarchy of scales. Theorem~\ref{thm:dim-minimal} below supplies the one constraint these constructions never did: it fixes the \emph{count} of dimensions outright, leaving no free continuous parameter --- neither a circle radius nor an interval length --- for phenomenology to tune.

\begin{euclidtheorem}[Dimensional minimality of the bulk]
\label{thm:dim-minimal}
Let $\cT$ be admissible (Definition~\ref{def:admissibility}). The minimal admissible bulk realizing \AX{2} (\GGEP) while preserving (i) a four-dimensional registered boundary required by \AX{3} (\OGGEP), (ii) a geometrized renormalization-scale direction required by \POS{5} (\RG), and (iii) a compact Abelian holonomy direction required by \POS{1} (\GI) and \POS{6} (\OGN), is six-dimensional with the product structure
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;\cM_6 \;\cong\; \cM_4 \times I_r \times S^1_\theta.\;}
\label{eq:M6-product}
\end{equation}
Any candidate bulk with fewer than six dimensions lacks one of the three required structures. Any candidate with more than six dimensions introduces additional continuous directions not forced by any constitutional clause and is therefore inadmissible by \AX{4} (\MSMF) plus \POS{6}.
\end{euclidtheorem}

\begin{proof}
By Theorem~\ref{thm:lc-ggep-bulk}, the bulk consists of the Lorentzian stage, one scale direction, and one phase direction; the \emph{existence} of these three roles and the non-spatial character of the latter two are established there. It remains to fix the \emph{count} of each role and to show that no further dimension is admissible. We establish four facts: (a)~the boundary is exactly four-dimensional; (b)~the scale role requires exactly one \emph{non-compact} dimension; (c)~the phase role requires exactly one \emph{compact} dimension, the circle; and (d)~no clause forces a seventh.

\textbf{(a) The boundary is exactly four-dimensional.} \AX{3} (\OGGEP) requires an operational dictionary $\cD$ producing registered observables, and every laboratory protocol localizes a record in three spatial coordinates and one temporal coordinate with Lorentzian signature --- the empirical content of special relativity \citep{Einstein1905, Minkowski1908}. Together with the Lorentzian causal structure that \AX{1} (\LC) demands (Theorem~\ref{thm:lc-ggep-bulk}, Step~1), this fixes
\begin{equation}
\dim_\mathbb{R} \cM_4 = 4, \qquad \mathrm{sig}(\cM_4) = (1, 3),
\label{eq:M4-fixed}
\end{equation}
neither three (too few to carry a $(1,3)$ signature with three spatial axes) nor five (no clause registers a fifth boundary coordinate).

\textbf{(b) The scale role requires exactly one non-compact dimension.} The scale direction geometrizes the renormalization-group flow (Theorem~\ref{thm:lc-ggep-bulk}, Steps~2--3), and \POS{5} (\RG) fixes its parametrization by requiring coarse-graining to commute with the dictionary; the semigroup law $\mathcal G_{\lambda_1}\circ\mathcal G_{\lambda_2}=\mathcal G_{\lambda_1\lambda_2}$ forces additivity in $\ln\lambda$, hence a single real logarithmic coordinate. That this coordinate is \emph{non-compact} is forced by irreversibility: the renormalization group is a forward semigroup, not a group --- integrating out high-energy modes cannot be undone --- so the direction cannot close on itself into a circle. (A periodic $S^1_\beta$ would render the flow globally reversible; breaking the periodicity by an imposed boundary condition is excluded by \AX{2}, which requires the direction to be carried by smooth global parallel transport.) Hence the scale role is one non-compact interval,
\begin{equation}
I_r = [r_{\mathrm{UV}}, r_{\mathrm{IR}}], \qquad \dim I_r = 1.
\label{eq:Ir-fixed}
\end{equation}

\textbf{(c) The phase role requires exactly one compact dimension --- the circle.} The phase direction geometrizes the local gauge phase (Theorem~\ref{thm:lc-ggep-bulk}, Steps~4--5), and \POS{1} (\GI) with \POS{6} (\OGN) require the Abelian ledger it carries to be integer-quantized. The minimal smooth geometry realizing an integer-quantized Abelian charge is a Wilson loop around a single circle,
\begin{equation}
W = \tr P \exp\!\left(\ii \oint A_\theta \, d\theta\right),
\label{eq:wilson-loop}
\end{equation}
whose eigenvalues are integer under single-valuedness of the fields. Nothing smaller or larger will do: a non-compact direction would permit continuous (non-integer) Abelian charge, violating \POS{6}; a higher compact manifold ($S^2$, $T^2$, higher genus) would carry more topological data than the single integer ledger requires, violating \AX{4}; and an orbifold $S^1/\Z_n$ or a finite point set carries no smooth principal connection, violating the smoothness \POS{1} demands of $A_\theta$. Hence the phase role is one smooth circle,
\begin{equation}
S^1_\theta:\;\theta \sim \theta + 2\pi, \qquad \dim S^1_\theta = 1.
\label{eq:S1-fixed}
\end{equation}

\emph{Remark (the holonomy moduli space carries no discrete
identification; load-bearing downstream).} The compact angle is the
full circle with $\theta \sim \theta + 2\pi$ and nothing else: no
$\mathbb{Z}_2$ reflection, charge-conjugation quotient, or
orientifold-type identification acts on $\theta$ or on the Wilson-line
modulus \eqref{eq:wilson-loop}, and the exclusion of orbifold
quotients (which admit no smooth global parallel transport) applies to
the holonomy moduli space exactly as to the manifold. This negative
fact is now load-bearing in the cohort: it forbids any
volume-$\pi$ interval shortcut to the matter fraction, so a derivation
of $\Omega_m = 1/\pi$ must proceed through the closed-packet
normalization audited in \ATen{} \citep{ArisakaA10Cosmos} (the VIII-a/VIII-b
split of the closed-packet conjecture), not through a quotiented
holonomy average.

\textbf{(d) No seventh dimension is admissible.} Facts (a)--(c) require $4 + 1 + 1 = 6$. A seventh coordinate $\zeta$ would be either non-compact --- a second scale-like direction, which no constitutional clause demands --- or compact --- a second integer ledger, which no constitutional clause demands. Either way $\zeta$ is unforced, hence forbidden by \AX{4} (\MSMF) read with \POS{6}; by induction no $n$-th dimension for $n > 6$ is admissible. That closes the upper half of the two-sided minimality recorded in Theorem~\ref{thm:lc-ggep-bulk}, Remark~0.1: \LC{} forces the two extra directions from below, and \MSMF{} forecloses any further from above. Combining (a)--(d), the minimal admissible bulk is exactly six-dimensional with the product structure
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;\cM_6 \;\cong\; \cM_4 \times I_r \times S^1_\theta.\;}
\label{eq:M6-product-proof}
\end{equation}
\qquad $\blacksquare$
\end{proof}

\paragraph{Why six is the minimum --- and what it is not.} Theorem~\ref{thm:dim-minimal} is a count of \emph{structural roles}, not a phenomenological accident: four dimensions for the operational boundary, one for the scale direction, one for the phase direction, each number pinned to a constitutional clause before the count is taken. This is why neither five nor ten works. \emph{Five} could supply the scale direction \emph{or} the phase circle but not both, since these are distinct functions and a single coordinate cannot be at once the non-compact RG direction and the compact holonomy circle: choosing $r$ alone gives a Randall--Sundrum-like bulk with no integer ledger (violating \POS{6}), while choosing $\theta$ alone gives a Kaluza--Klein-like bulk with no geometric RG flow (violating \POS{5}). \emph{Ten or eleven} (string, M-theory) carry many further compact directions, each an unforced integer ledger or modulus --- the very proliferation that produces the $\sim 10^{500}$-vacuum landscape and that \AX{4} forbids. The deeper conceptual contrast with the postulate-and-hide tradition of Kaluza--Klein, Randall--Sundrum, and string theory is drawn in full at Theorem~\ref{thm:lc-ggep-bulk}, Remark~0.4; here we record only its dimensional corollary: \GG{} carries \emph{exactly} as many dimensions as it has roles, and no more.

\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption[Each constitutional clause and the structural role it plays in the bulk.]{Which clause of the constitution is responsible for which part of the six-dimensional geometry. The rows are the three factors of the bulk --- the four-dimensional boundary, the radial interval and the compact angular direction --- and the middle column names the clauses that force each. The table exists to show that no dimension is present by choice. Each is demanded by a clause, and the fourth column says what that dimension then has to carry: the boundary carries the registered observations, the radial direction carries scale, and the angular direction carries the gauge phase.}
\label{tab:dim-roles}
\small
\begin{tabular}{>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.20\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.20\textwidth}p{0.534\textwidth}}
\toprule
\textbf{Dimension} & \textbf{Clauses} & \textbf{Structural role} \\
\midrule
$\cM_4$ (4 dims) & \AX{1}, \AX{3} & Lorentzian boundary for registered observations and causal protocols. Carries $c$ as conversion factor of the $(1,3)$ signature. \\
$I_r$ (1 dim) & \POS{5}, \AX{2} & Geometrized RG flow $r = \ln(\EGUT/\mu)$. Carries $G_N$ via the scale-profile integration. \\
$S^1_\theta$ (1 dim) & \POS{1}, \POS{6} & Topological circle for integer Abelian holonomy and Wilson-line phases. Carries $\hbar$ as conversion factor of integer mode quantization. \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\paragraph{An aside on the role of the universal constants.} The reader may notice that each dimension of $\cM_6$ is associated with one of the universal constants of physics. This is not coincidence; it is the central content of the companion paper \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid}, where the universal constants $\{c, G_N, \hbar; \kB, \QB\}$ are derived as conversion factors of the bulk geometry. In the present paper we use the bulk geometry as input; the derivation of the universal constants from the bulk geometry is the subject of the foundational paper.


\section{Theorem 2 (T-GG6-2): The Canonical Metric}
\label{sec:thm2-metric}

Theorem~\ref{thm:dim-minimal} fixed the dimensional structure $\cM_6 = \cM_4 \times I_r \times S^1_\theta$. The next question is the metric: what is the geometry on this six-dimensional manifold? The answer, again forced by the constitution, is the canonical metric of \GG\ in fully reduced form, with no continuous parameters at all.

\begin{euclidtheorem}[Canonical metric of \GG]
\label{thm:canonical-metric}
Let $\cM_6 = \cM_4 \times I_r \times S^1_\theta$ be the bulk of Theorem~\ref{thm:dim-minimal}. Then \AX{4} (\MSMF) plus \POS{5} (\RG) plus \POS{6} (\OGN) plus the requirement of constant negative bulk curvature force the metric on $\cM_6$ to take the canonical form
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;ds_6^2 \;=\; e^{-2r}\,\eta_{\mu\nu}\,dx^\mu \,dx^\nu \;+\; dr^2 \;+\; d\theta^2,\qquad r \in [0, K],\qquad \theta \in [0, 2\pi),\;}
\label{eq:canonical-metric}
\end{equation}
in natural \GG\ units, where $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ is the Minkowski metric on $\cM_4$ and $K$ is an integer to be determined as the \OGN{} lock integer in Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade}. The metric \eqref{eq:canonical-metric} contains no continuous parameters: there is no AdS curvature scale $k$, no compact-circle radius $R_\theta$, and no scale endpoint $r_c$ as separate inputs of the framework.
\end{euclidtheorem}

\begin{proof}
We proceed in four steps: (a) the product geometry structure of the metric; (b) the logarithmic radial coordinate; (c) the absorption of $k$, $R_\theta$, $r_c$ as unit-conversion artifacts; (d) the integer endpoint $K$.

\textbf{Step (a): Product-geometry structure.} \AX{1} (\LC) requires the boundary $\cM_4$ to carry Lorentz symmetry $SO(1,3)$. By \POS{1} (\GI) and \POS{5} (\RG), this Lorentz symmetry must be preserved under RG flow: the boundary 4D Lorentz group cannot be entangled with the radial direction or the compact direction, since RG flow is a 4D-Lorentz-covariant operation. Therefore the metric must split into a 4D piece (carrying $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ on $\cM_4$) and an internal piece (carrying the structure on $I_r \times S^1_\theta$), with no off-diagonal terms mixing the two:
\begin{equation}
ds_6^2 = G_4(r, \theta)\,\eta_{\mu\nu}\,dx^\mu dx^\nu + G_{rr}\,dr^2 + G_{\theta\theta}\,d\theta^2 + (\text{no off-diagonal terms}).
\label{eq:metric-blocks}
\end{equation}
The 4D conformal prefactor $G_4(r, \theta)$ may depend on $r$ and $\theta$, but \POS{1} (\GI) forbids it from depending on $\theta$: dependence on the compact coordinate would entangle the integer-quantized gauge holonomy with the local 4D Lorentz frame, which would make Wilson-line phases $r$-dependent and break the layered gauge invariance that \POS{1} demands. Therefore $G_4 = G_4(r)$ depends only on the radial coordinate, and we write $G_4(r) = e^{-2A(r)}$ with $A(r)$ a real-valued scale profile (the conventional minus-sign convention, so that $A(r) > 0$ corresponds to IR-direction shrinking). Similarly $G_{rr} = G_{rr}(r)$, $G_{\theta\theta} = G_{\theta\theta}(r, \theta)$ \emph{a priori}; but \POS{1} again forbids $\theta$-dependence in $G_{\theta\theta}$ (which would break the rotational symmetry of the topological circle), and \POS{5} plus \AX{4} constrain $G_{rr}$ to be a constant by maximal symmetry (any non-constant $G_{rr}(r)$ would introduce an unforced functional degree of freedom). After absorbing the constant $G_{rr}$ into a rescaling of $r$, we set $G_{rr} = 1$. Likewise $G_{\theta\theta}(r) = G_{\theta\theta}$ is constrained by \AX{4} + \POS{1} + \POS{6}; we will fix it in Step (c). The metric reduces to
\begin{equation}
ds_6^2 = e^{-2A(r)}\,\eta_{\mu\nu}\,dx^\mu dx^\nu + dr^2 + G_{\theta\theta}\,d\theta^2.
\label{eq:metric-warped-product}
\end{equation}

\textbf{Step (b): Logarithmic radial coordinate.} \POS{5} (\RG) requires that motion along $I_r$ implement RG flow on the boundary. As established in Step (b) of the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:dim-minimal}, the additivity of the RG semigroup requires the radial coordinate to be logarithmic in the boundary energy scale:
\begin{equation}
r = c \, \ln(\EGUT/\mu),
\label{eq:r-logmu-with-c}
\end{equation}
where $c$ is a unit-conversion constant. We now claim that \POS{6} (\OGN) forces $c = 1$. The argument is as follows. \POS{6} forbids continuous rescalings of normalization: any choice of $c \neq 1$ would amount to a continuous rescaling of the radial coordinate, with no axiomatic principle selecting one value of $c$ over another. The natural normalization that \POS{6} demands is therefore $c = 1$, equivalent to choosing units of $r$ in which one unit of radial coordinate equals one factor of $e$ in the energy scale ratio. In these natural units,
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;r = \ln(\EGUT/\mu),\;}
\label{eq:r-logmu-natural}
\end{equation}
and $r = 0$ corresponds to the UV boundary (boundary scale $\mu = \EGUT$), while increasing $r$ corresponds to flowing toward lower IR scales.

The scale profile $A(r)$ is now constrained by maximum symmetry. \AX{4} (\MSMF) selects the maximally symmetric scale profile compatible with constant negative bulk curvature. In the radial direction, the product geometry metric \eqref{eq:metric-warped-product} produces a 6D Ricci scalar of the form
\begin{equation}
R_6 = e^{2A(r)} R_4 + (\text{terms involving } A'(r), A''(r)),
\label{eq:R6-decomposition}
\end{equation}
where $R_4$ is the 4D Ricci scalar built from $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ (which vanishes for flat boundary). Demanding constant negative bulk curvature with no boundary curvature requires
\begin{equation}
A''(r) = 0, \qquad A'(r) = \text{const} =: k,
\label{eq:Aprime-const}
\end{equation}
so that $A(r) = kr$ (modulo an additive constant absorbed into the choice of UV boundary location). In the $c = 1$ natural parametrization of \POS{6}, the proportionality constant $k$ is also fixed to unity: any $k \neq 1$ would amount to a continuous rescaling of the radial coordinate, which \POS{6} forbids. Setting $k = 1$ corresponds to absorbing the AdS curvature into the natural RG-scale parametrization. We therefore obtain
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;A(r) = r,\;}
\label{eq:A-equals-r}
\end{equation}
and the scale profile is $e^{-2A(r)} = e^{-2r}$.

\textbf{Step (c): The compact direction is dimensionless.} We now address the compact-direction component $G_{\theta\theta}$. In the conventional Kaluza--Klein notation \citep{Kaluza1921, Klein1926} one would write $G_{\theta\theta} = R_\theta^2$ with $R_\theta$ a length-dimensional ``radius'' of the compact circle. In \GG, this is structurally incorrect. \POS{6} (\OGN) requires that the compact direction be specified by integer-discrete data only, with no continuous geometric scale: the compact direction is a topological $S^1$, not a Riemannian circle of intrinsic radius. Concretely, \POS{1} (\GI) requires Wilson-line phases $\oint A_\theta\, d\theta$ around the compact direction to be gauge-invariant integer-quantized data; this requires only the topology and the integer mode quantization that single-valuedness forces, not any intrinsic length. A free continuous parameter $R_\theta$ would be an additional input forbidden by \AX{4}.

The dimensional analysis is the following. Under \AX{4} + \POS{6}, one chooses units in which the compact coordinate $\theta$ is itself dimensionless (a pure angle, $\theta \in [0, 2\pi)$). In these units, $G_{\theta\theta}$ has dimensions of length-squared per dimensionless-coordinate-squared, which is just length-squared. The natural choice from \POS{6} is to set this length-squared to unity in natural \GG\ units:
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;G_{\theta\theta} = 1.\;}
\label{eq:Gthth-equals-1}
\end{equation}
The KK mode quantization on $\theta$ is then driven entirely by the topology (single-valuedness, integer Fourier modes $n \in \mathbb{Z}$); the dimensional momentum carried by mode $n$ is $p_\theta = n\hbar$, with $\hbar$ as the unit-conversion factor (Theorem~\ref{thm:dim-minimal}, Table~\ref{tab:dim-roles}). The conventional ``$R_\theta$'' is, in this picture, a unit-conversion artifact: it appears only when one chooses to measure $\theta$ in length units rather than as a dimensionless angle. Setting $R_\theta = 1$ is the natural \GG-unit convention.

\textbf{Step (d): The integer endpoint $K$.} Finally, the radial interval $I_r = [r_{\mathrm{UV}}, r_{\mathrm{IR}}]$ must have a finite endpoint to generate a finite Planck-electroweak hierarchy. The conventional Randall--Sundrum notation \citep{RandallSundrum1999} writes this endpoint as $\pi r_c$ with $r_c$ a ``compactification radius.'' In \GG, this is again structurally incorrect: $r_c$ is not a free continuous parameter but a quantity to be derived. The full derivation will be carried out in Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade}, where we will prove that the scale endpoint $r_{\mathrm{IR}} = K$ is the \OGN{} lock integer:
\begin{equation}
r_{\mathrm{IR}} = K = 35,
\label{eq:rIR-equals-K}
\end{equation}
with $K$ forced as the fifth and final step of the \OGNfive{} Diophantine cascade. For the present theorem, we record the endpoint as $K$ (an integer to be determined) and refer the proof to Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade}.

Combining Steps (a)--(d), the metric on $\cM_6$ is
\begin{equation}
ds_6^2 = e^{-2r}\,\eta_{\mu\nu}\,dx^\mu dx^\nu + dr^2 + d\theta^2,\qquad r \in [0, K],\qquad \theta \in [0, 2\pi),
\end{equation}
with no continuous parameters.
\end{proof}

\paragraph{Physical intuition: the metric is an RG-scale geometry, not a spatial geometry.} The conventional reading of a 6D metric --- inherited from string theory and from Randall--Sundrum --- treats all six coordinates on equal Riemannian footing: each has an intrinsic length scale, each is a ``direction'' in some higher-dimensional space, and the scale profile describes how 4D ``size'' varies as one moves through this six-dimensional space. This reading is wrong for \GG, and Theorem~\ref{thm:canonical-metric} makes that explicit.

The radial direction $I_r$ is not a fifth spatial dimension. It is the natural-log RG-flow coordinate of the boundary 4D theory, fixed by \POS{5} to take the form $r = \ln(\EGUT/\mu)$. Motion along $r$ is motion in energy scale, not motion in space. The scale profile $e^{-2r}$ is therefore the natural unit-of-length conversion between RG-scale $r$ and 4D physical length: a coordinate displacement $dx^\mu$ at boundary scale $\mu$ corresponds to a physical 4D length of $e^{-r}\,dx^\mu = (\mu/\EGUT)\,dx^\mu$. The IR boundary at $r = K$ is not a ``location'' in the bulk; it is the energy scale $\mu = \EGUT \, e^{-K}$, the IR endpoint of the RG flow.

The compact direction $S^1_\theta$ is not a tiny ``Kaluza--Klein circle'' of radius $\sim 1/\EGUT$ that one might in principle traverse. It is a pure topological circle, with no intrinsic length, supporting integer-quantized Wilson-line phases. The conventional ``radius'' $R_\theta$ is a unit-conversion artifact that disappears when one writes the metric in natural \GG\ units; the dimensional momentum carried by KK mode $n$ around the topological circle is $p_\theta = n\hbar$, with $\hbar$ doing the unit conversion all by itself.

The 4D piece of the metric carries the scale profile $e^{-2r}$ because the natural unit of 4D length grows exponentially as one flows from UV to IR. An IR-boundary physicist using ``one meter'' as the unit of length is, in bulk units, using a vast coordinate distance: $1\,\mathrm{m} = e^{K}\,\mathrm{(coordinate units)}$, an enormous quantity. The Planck--electroweak hierarchy originates here: not in a fine-tuned ratio of two fundamental scales, but a discrete topological quantity $K = 35$ that fixes the RG-scale separation between the UV boundary (gauge unification) and the IR boundary (electroweak physics).

\paragraph{Why \MSMF{} demands no $k$, no $R_\theta$, no $r_c$.} The Constitution as a whole, and \AX{4} (\MSMF) in particular, demands that no free continuous parameter appear in the framework unless absolutely required by the constitutional clauses. Each of the conventional KK/RS scales $k$, $R_\theta$, $r_c$ fails this test:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em]
\item $k$ is a unit-conversion artifact of the parametrization of $r$. \POS{5} (\RG) plus \POS{6} (\OGN) fix $r = \ln(\EGUT/\mu)$ as the natural RG-scale parametrization; in this parametrization, $k = 1$ is forced and $k$ is not an independent parameter.
\item $R_\theta$ is not a fundamental length. \POS{1} (\GI) plus \POS{6} (\OGN) require the compact direction to be a topological $S^1$ with no intrinsic radius; the conventional ``$R_\theta$'' disappears when the compact direction is presented in natural units as a pure angle $\theta \in [0, 2\pi)$.
\item $r_c$ is replaced by the \OGN{} lock integer $K = 35$. The scale endpoint of the radial interval is fixed by the Diophantine cascade of Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade}, not by a continuous compactification radius.
\end{itemize}
The overall unit scale is set by $G_N$ (equivalently $M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$); the bulk fundamental mass scale $M_6$ is not an independent input but a derived combination, matched to the empirical 4D Planck mass $M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ via the scale-profile integration of the standard 6D Einstein--Hilbert reduction:
\begin{equation}
M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2 \;\sim\; M_6^4 \cdot V_{\mathrm{internal}},\qquad V_{\mathrm{internal}} \;=\; \int_0^K dr\,e^{-2r} \cdot \oint d\theta \;\propto\; M_6^{-2}\,\pi (1 - e^{-2K}),
\label{eq:MPl-from-M6}
\end{equation}
so that $M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2 \sim \pi\, M_6^2$ in natural \GG\ units after the scale-profile integration along $r \in [0, K]$ (which contributes the factor $\tfrac{1}{2}(1 - e^{-2K}) \approx \tfrac12$) and the $\theta$-circle measure. The dimensional bookkeeping (the implicit $M_6^{-2}$ in $V_{\mathrm{internal}}$ that converts the dimensionless RG-scale coordinate $r$ into a length scale) is presented schematically here; the rigorous reduction including all numerical factors and the dimensional convention for the natural \GG\ units is carried out in the companion paper \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid}. The empirical Planck mass therefore fixes $M_6$ to within a factor of order unity of $M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$. This matching is a reading of $M_6$ in whatever units the trio $\{c, G_N, \hbar\}$ is expressed in, not a continuous-parameter input: in natural units all three are unity and $M_6$ is a derived combination. Everything else is forced.

\paragraph{Distinction from KK and string traditions.} The conventional Kaluza--Klein construction \citep{Kaluza1921, Klein1926} treats the compact direction as a tiny circle of intrinsic geometric radius $R$, with $R$ a free continuous parameter to be determined empirically. String compactifications inherit this view, with the compact direction generalized to a six-dimensional Calabi--Yau manifold whose moduli space contains hundreds of free continuous parameters per geometry. The string-theoretic landscape of $\sim 10^{500}$ inequivalent vacua \citep{Susskind2003, Douglas2003} is exactly the proliferation of unforced moduli that \AX{4} forbids.

In \GG, the compact direction is a pure topological circle, with no intrinsic length, and the radial interval has integer-discrete endpoint $K = 35$. The framework therefore has \emph{zero} free continuous parameters in the geometric sector: the dimensionful content is the co-equal trio $\{c, G_N, \hbar\}$, one conversion factor for each kind of bulk dimension --- $c$ for the Lorentzian directions, $G_N$ for the scale interval $I_r$, $\hbar$ for the compact phase $S^1_\theta$ --- with $M_6$ a derived combination, all equal to unity in natural units. No one of the three is singled out as the anchor, and none is a free parameter --- they are the units in which every other quantity is read. \MSMF{} is realized literally: maximum symmetry (the fully reduced metric has the full $SO(1,3) \times U(1)_\theta$ symmetry of the boundary plus the radial RG covariance), minimum freedom (no $k$, $R_\theta$, $r_c$, no Calabi--Yau moduli, no string coupling, no flux integers beyond \OGNfive{}). The contrast with the string-theoretic landscape is not a matter of degree but of kind: \GG\ carries no continuous modulus at all where strings carry $\sim 10^{500}$ vacua, and what remains on the \GG\ side is a unit system rather than an input.

\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption[Metric inputs compared: Kaluza--Klein, Randall--Sundrum, string theory, \GG.]{What each framework has to be told before it can write a metric. The rows are the quantities that a higher-dimensional construction normally leaves free --- compact radius, curvature scale, moduli --- and the columns are four frameworks. The last column is the claim: in this framework every entry is either fixed by topology or absent. Read across any row and the difference is not one of formulation but of how many numbers must be supplied from outside, which is the quantity the fourth axiom exists to minimize.}
\label{tab:metric-comparison}
\small
\begin{tabular}{>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.174\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.174\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.174\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.174\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.174\textwidth}}
\toprule
\textbf{Quantity} & \textbf{KK 5D} & \textbf{RS 5D} & \textbf{String 10D/11D} & \textbf{\GG\ 6D} \\
\midrule
Compact radius & $R$ free & $R$ implicit & Calabi--Yau moduli & $R_\theta = 1$ (topological) \\
AdS curvature & --- & $k$ free & $g_s$, $\alpha'$ free & $k = 1$ (RG-scale) \\
Scale endpoint & --- & $r_c$ free & flux integers & $K = 35$ (\OGNfive{}) \\
Continuous params (metric) & 1 & 3 & $\sim 100$--$1000$ & 0 \\
Dimensional anchor & $M_5$ & $M_5$ & $M_{\rm s}$, $g_s$ & $M_6$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\paragraph{An aside on the boundary metric.} We have written the 4D piece of \eqref{eq:canonical-metric} as $\eta_{\mu\nu}$, the Minkowski metric. This is the natural choice for an admissible \emph{vacuum} bulk; for solutions including 4D matter and dynamical gravity, the boundary metric is $g_{\mu\nu}(x)$ rather than $\eta_{\mu\nu}$, with $g_{\mu\nu}$ satisfying the 4D Einstein equations after the bulk-to-boundary projection. The companion paper \citep{ArisakaA5GDOS} carries out this reduction in detail. For the present paper, the Minkowski choice suffices: we are deriving the bulk vacuum geometry, and the dynamical fluctuations of $g_{\mu\nu}$ are derived consequences in the companion paper.


\subsection*{Composite statement: 6D Bulk Existence}
\label{ssec:warped-6d-existence}

\begin{euclidcorollary}[6D Bulk Existence and Uniqueness]
\label{cor:warped-6d-existence}
Theorems~\ref{thm:dim-minimal} and~\ref{thm:canonical-metric}, taken together, establish the \emph{existence and uniqueness} of the six-dimensional bulk geometry as a forced consequence of the Constitution. Specifically: under the four axioms (\AX{1}--\AX{4}) and the seven postulates (\POS{1}--\POS{7}) of \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution}, there exists a unique (up to the overall choice of unit scale, set by $G_N$) admissible bulk manifold $(\cM_6, g_6)$ with
\begin{equation}
\cM_6 \;\cong\; \cM_4 \times I_r \times S^1_\theta, \qquad
ds_6^2 \;=\; e^{-2r}\,\eta_{\mu\nu}\,dx^\mu dx^\nu \;+\; dr^2 \;+\; d\theta^2,
\label{eq:warped-6d-existence}
\end{equation}
with $r \in [0, K]$, $\theta \in [0, 2\pi)$, and $K$ the integer endpoint to be determined by the \OGNfive\ Diophantine closure in Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade}. The bulk manifold and its metric carry \emph{zero} free continuous parameters beyond $M_6$: the AdS curvature scale, the compact-circle radius, and the scale endpoint of the conventional Kaluza--Klein and Randall--Sundrum parametrizations are absorbed as unit-conversion artifacts (Theorem~\ref{thm:canonical-metric} Step (c)) or replaced by integer-discrete \OGN{} data (Step (d)).
\end{euclidcorollary}

\begin{proof}
Existence: Theorem~\ref{thm:dim-minimal} establishes that the bulk manifold is exactly six-dimensional with the product structure $\cM_4 \times I_r \times S^1_\theta$, and Theorem~\ref{thm:canonical-metric} establishes that the metric on this manifold takes the canonical form \eqref{eq:warped-6d-existence}, both as consequences of the constitutional clauses. Together, they exhibit an admissible bulk satisfying the Constitution.

Uniqueness: any admissible bulk must (i) have dimension count six (Theorem~\ref{thm:dim-minimal}: any lower dimension lacks one of the three structural roles assigned by the Constitution; any higher dimension introduces an unforced continuous direction excluded by \AX{4} + \POS{6}); (ii) factor as the product $\cM_4 \times I_r \times S^1_\theta$ (Theorem~\ref{thm:dim-minimal} Steps (a)--(c) plus the maximal-symmetry filter of Theorem~\ref{thm:canonical-metric} Step (a)); and (iii) carry the canonical metric \eqref{eq:warped-6d-existence} (Theorem~\ref{thm:canonical-metric} Steps (b)--(d), each step removing one nominally-free parameter as a unit-conversion artifact or an \OGN{} discrete output). No second admissible bulk satisfies all three conditions; the canonical metric \eqref{eq:warped-6d-existence} is therefore unique up to the dimensional anchor $M_6$. $\blacksquare$
\end{proof}

\begin{euclidremark}[Reconciliation with \AOne's external theorem taxonomy]
\label{rmk:warped-6d-reconciliation}
\AOne{} \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution} forwards four named theorem-classes from the constitutional layer to the \GG{} bulk-side derivation:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2.4em,itemsep=0.08em]
\item \textbf{T1-class (Locked Equivalence)}: the unique \GGEP{}-compatible composite gauge--geometry connection on the bulk. Established by Theorems~\ref{thm:dim-minimal} + \ref{thm:canonical-metric} + \ref{thm:six-forces} jointly: dimensional structure (T1), canonical metric (T2), and four-factor gauge group (T3).
\item \textbf{T3-class (Anti-Landscape Selection)}: the uniqueness theorem that picks $(M, N, L; J, K) = (1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$ as the lexicographic maximum under \AX{4} (\MSMF). Established by Theorems~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs} + \ref{thm:ogn-cascade} jointly: coefficient-vector forcing (T4) and the Diophantine cascade (T6).
\item \textbf{T4-class (6D Bulk Existence)}: the existence and uniqueness of the 6D bulk geometry. Established by Corollary~\ref{cor:warped-6d-existence} above, as the joint content of Theorems~\ref{thm:dim-minimal} and~\ref{thm:canonical-metric}.
\item \textbf{T6-class (\OGNfive\ as Bulk Output)}: the five-step Diophantine cascade producing the integer ledger $(1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$. Established by Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade}.
\end{itemize}
\AOne{}'s external taxonomy collects the eight bulk theorems of \ATwo{} into four named theorem-classes, each associated with a single named structural fact about the \GG{} bulk. The present paper's eight internal theorems T1--T8 are the technical proofs that the four external theorem-classes name. No internal renaming is intended: a future cohort-wide consolidation could in principle merge the present paper's eight internal theorems into four named theorem-classes matching A1's external taxonomy; we have chosen to keep eight as the internal granularity that makes the proof readable, with this Remark serving as the bridge.
\end{euclidremark}


\section{Theorem 3 (T-GG6-3): Six Forces with Three Abelian Gauge Invariances}
\label{sec:thm3-six-forces}

Corollary~\ref{cor:warped-6d-existence} closed the bulk-existence question: the six-dimensional manifold $\cM_6 = \cM_4 \times I_r \times S^1_\theta$ with metric $ds_6^2 = e^{-2r}\,\eta_{\mu\nu}\,dx^\mu dx^\nu + dr^2 + d\theta^2$ is forced and unique under the Constitution. The next question, addressed by the present section, is the bulk \emph{gauge content}: which Lie group $G_\Bulk$ acts on $\cM_6$, and what is the structure of its four-factor decomposition?


The geometric stage of $\cM_6$ is fixed by Theorems~\ref{thm:dim-minimal} and \ref{thm:canonical-metric}. We now ask: what gauge content lives on this bulk? The answer, again forced by the Constitution, is a specific composite gauge--gravity group whose boundary projection produces \emph{six} forces, with \emph{three} abelian gauge invariances.

\paragraph{Historical background (with citations).} Indeed, the conceptual chain leading to the four-factor gauge--gravity group $G_{\Bulk} = \Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$ stretches across more than a century. The original move was Maxwell's: in his 1865 paper \emph{A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field} \citep{Maxwell1865}, Maxwell wrote the electromagnetic field equations in a form already \emph{gauge-symmetric} in the modern sense, with the four-vector potential $A_\mu$ defined only up to the gradient of an arbitrary function --- a fact whose later abstraction is the very notion of gauge invariance. The deep identity between continuous symmetry and conservation law was put on a rigorous footing by Emmy Noether in her 1918 paper \emph{Invariante Variationsprobleme} \citep{Noether1918}, which established that every continuous symmetry of an action principle gives rise to a conserved current. Noether's theorem is the identity that makes ``gauge invariance'' synonymous with ``current conservation'' in modern field theory. Yang and Mills' 1954 paper \citep{YangMills1954} extended the abelian Maxwell structure to non-abelian compact Lie groups, in which the field strength contains an additional commutator term $A \wedge A$ encoding the non-trivial fiber-bundle structure --- the technical apparatus that made the unification of the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces conceivable. The actual unification --- the assembly of $\SU(2)_L \times \UoneY$ for the electroweak sector, with the strong $\SU(3)_C$ tacked on as an additional non-abelian factor --- was carried out by Glashow, Weinberg, and Salam in a sequence of papers between 1961 and 1968 \citep{Glashow1961, Weinberg1967, Salam1968}, and the resulting Standard Model gauge group $\SU(3)_C \times \SU(2)_L \times \UoneY$ became the empirical endpoint of that program. Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces} below promotes this chain by one further axiomatic step: the four-factor bulk group $\Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$ is not chosen empirically but \emph{forced} by the Constitution, with the Lorentz factor $\Spinone$ entering on equal logical footing with the three internal Lie-group factors via \AX{2} (\GGEP).

\begin{euclidtheorem}[Six forces with three abelian invariances]
\label{thm:six-forces}
Under \AX{2} (\GGEP), \AX{4} (\MSMF), \POS{1} (\GI), and \POS{3} (\AF), together with the requirement that the boundary theory contain the Standard Model gauge content and the empirical preference for the four-component admissible class (Step~(c) below; cf.\ Common Objection~4), the bulk gauge--gravity group on $\cM_6$ is uniquely
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;G_{\Bulk} \;=\; \Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi,\;}
\label{eq:bulk-gauge-group}
\end{equation}
projecting on the boundary to the six-force structure
\begin{equation}
G_{\Bdy} \;=\; \Spin(1,3) \times \SU(3)_C \times \SU(2)_L \times \UoneY \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi,
\label{eq:boundary-gauge-group}
\end{equation}
which contains three abelian gauge invariances $\UoneEM \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$ after electroweak symmetry breaking and identification of the unbroken combination $\UoneEM \subset \SU(2)_L \times \UoneY$. The six forces are: strong, weak, electromagnetic, baryonic, informational, and gravitational.
\end{euclidtheorem}

\begin{proof}
We establish the gauge content in four steps: (a) the non-Abelian unification block; (b) the necessity of $\UoneB$; (c) the necessity of $\UoneQi$; (d) the absence of further gauge factors.

\textbf{Step (a): The non-Abelian block is $\SUfive$.} \AX{2} (\GGEP) requires the bulk theory to contain a non-trivial gauge sector unifying the three Standard Model gauge couplings on the boundary. \POS{1} (\GI) requires this unifying sector to be a \emph{simple} Lie group, not merely a semi-simple one: a direct product of two or more simple factors --- whether of equal rank (such as Pati--Salam $\SU(4) \times \SU(2)_L \times \SU(2)_R$ \citep{PatiSalam1974}) or of mixed rank --- would carry one independently-adjustable gauge coupling per simple factor, in violation of the single-coupling unification requirement that \AX{2} (\GGEP) plus \AX{4} (\MSMF) demand. \AX{4} (\MSMF) then selects the smallest simple group satisfying these requirements.

The Standard Model gauge group is $\SU(3)_C \times \SU(2)_L \times \UoneY$. The smallest \emph{simple} Lie group containing this as a subgroup is $\SUfive$, established by Georgi and Glashow \citep{GeorgiGlashow1974}. Semi-simple alternatives such as Pati--Salam --- though they contain the Standard Model and have smaller total Lie-algebra dimension ($21$ versus $24$) --- are excluded by the simple-group requirement above. Specifically, the embedding is
\begin{equation}
\SUfive \supset \SU(3)_C \times \SU(2)_L \times \UoneY,
\label{eq:SU5-embedding}
\end{equation}
where $\SU(3)_C$ acts on three of the five fundamental indices of $\SUfive$ (the ``color'' block) and $\SU(2)_L$ acts on the other two (the ``weak'' block). The $\UoneY$ generator is the trace-zero diagonal generator
\begin{equation}
Y_0 = \diag\!\left(-\tfrac13,\,-\tfrac13,\,-\tfrac13,\,\tfrac12,\,\tfrac12\right),
\label{eq:Y-generator}
\end{equation}
which counts hypercharge in the SM normalization (after appropriate rescaling). The Standard Model fermions assemble into the $\overline{\mathbf 5} \oplus \mathbf{10}$ of $\SUfive$ per generation.

\textbf{Why $\SUfive$ and not $\SO(10)$ or $E_6$?} Larger simple groups such as $\SO(10)$ \citep{FritzschMinkowski1975} or $E_6$ \citep{Gursey1976} also contain the Standard Model and have additional virtues (e.g., $\SO(10)$ unifies the SM fermions with a right-handed neutrino into a single $\mathbf{16}$). However, \AX{4} (\MSMF) selects the \emph{smallest} simple group, which is $\SUfive$. The additional symmetry of $\SO(10)$ or $E_6$ is not forced by any constitutional clause; it is an additional input. The right-handed neutrino, which $\SO(10)$ unifies with the other fermions, can be added to \GG\ at the matter level (as a Standard Model singlet under $\SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$) without requiring the gauge group to be enlarged.

The bulk gauge connection therefore contains an $\SUfive$ component:
\begin{equation}
A_5 = A_5^{\,a}\, T^a, \qquad a = 1, \ldots, 24, \qquad T^a \in \mathfrak{su}(5),
\label{eq:A5-decomposition}
\end{equation}
with curvature $F_5 = dA_5 + A_5 \wedge A_5$.

\textbf{Step (b): The bulk gauge group must include $\UoneB$.} The Standard Model has an accidental global $U(1)$ baryon-number symmetry, broken non-perturbatively by sphaleron processes \citep{tHooft1976,KlinkhamerManton1984}. In conventional GUT theories (including minimal $\SUfive$, $\SO(10)$, and SUSY GUTs), baryon number is not gauged; it is an approximate global symmetry, and proton decay is generically expected at rates already constrained by Super-Kamiokande experiments \citep{SuperK2020}. In \GG\ this is structurally different: \POS{1} (\GI) interpreted as forbidding accidental global symmetries, plus the empirical fact that the proton is observed to be stable to $\tau_p > 10^{34}$ years, requires that any apparent global symmetry that could prevent proton decay must be promoted to a genuine local gauge symmetry.

The argument proceeds as follows. Consider the dimension-six baryon-violating operators of the Standard Model, e.g., $QQQL$ (with charges $\Delta B = +1$). In the conventional SM these are suppressed by the GUT scale; in \GG, they are forbidden absolutely if baryon number is gauged. The axiomatic logic, more precisely, is this: \POS{1} (\GI) requires \emph{layered} gauge invariance --- every continuous symmetry that the boundary theory carries must commute with the operational dictionary $\cD$ and therefore lift to a gauged symmetry on the bulk. A merely accidental global symmetry that is not lifted to a bulk gauge symmetry would be invisible to the gauge-theoretic structure and could in principle be broken by non-perturbative bulk effects (sphaleron-like processes), permitting a non-vanishing proton-decay amplitude. The empirical lower bound $\tau_p > 10^{34}$ years \citep{SuperK2020} therefore forces the global baryon symmetry of the boundary theory to be the projection of a genuinely \emph{gauged} bulk Abelian symmetry, with the fermion charges being precisely the Standard Model baryon numbers. The bulk gauge connection therefore acquires an Abelian one-form
\begin{equation}
A_B,\qquad F_B = dA_B,
\label{eq:AB-curvature}
\end{equation}
and the boundary fermion content carries integer-quantized $B$-charges: $B_Q = +1/3$ for quarks, $B_L = 0$ for leptons. We will verify in Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs} below that this $\UoneB$ enters the modified Bianchi identity $\BIsix$ with a specific \OGN{}-fixed coefficient $-2/5$, and we will verify in Section~\ref{sec:point7-proton-stability} that the gauged $\UoneB$ forbids \emph{all} dimension-six baryon-violating operators absolutely, making proton stability a theorem of the framework.

\textbf{Step (c): The bulk gauge group admits an optional Abelian factor $\UoneQi$.} We are explicit that this step is structurally different from Step~(b). The argument that forced $\UoneB$ in Step~(b) chained an empirical conservation law (the proton lifetime $\tau_p > 10^{34}$~yr) plus \POS{1} (\GI) plus the non-perturbative breaking of accidental global symmetries. Step~(c) lacks the empirical conservation-law anchor: the boundary GKLS master equation $\mathcal L[\rho] = -\ii[H,\rho] + \sum_k \bigl(L_k \rho L_k^\dagger - \tfrac12\{L_k^\dagger L_k, \rho\}\bigr)$ (its $\ii$ the derived boundary quarter-turn, T-P4-1/2 of \citealp{ArisakaP4Real}) is a well-defined CPTP super-operator on the boundary Hilbert space \emph{regardless} of whether an additional Abelian gauge symmetry $\UoneQi$ is present in the bulk. \POS{4} (\CP) demands CPTP, not gauge-covariance of the GKLS generator under a fresh $U(1)$. Hilbert-space dimension is an invariant of the chosen state space, not a dynamical conserved charge that requires gauge protection.

The constitutional clauses therefore admit two consistent bulk theories: a \emph{three-component} bulk with $G_{\Bulk} = \Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB$, and a \emph{four-component} bulk with $G_{\Bulk} = \Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$. Both versions support a single-tensor Green--Schwarz factorization; both admit a chiral fermion spectrum saturating the relevant trace-ratio identity (Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs}); and both close under the \OGN{} integer ledger. The choice between them is empirical, not constitutional.

The four-component version is preferred on three empirical and inherent grounds. First, the Arisaka equation $J_E/\QB = J_e = J_B = J_{Qi}$ (Theorem~\ref{thm:arisaka-equation}) requires $\UoneQi$ to exist on the boundary, with the energy--information conversion factor $\QB \approx 0.1555$~eV per qubit. Second, the four-component dual-lock identity $K = LJ = M^2 + N^2 + L^2 = 35$ (Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade}, Step~5) closes only for the four-component case under the equal-Abelian-treatment convention. Third, the boundary $\QiFour$ pillars of \ASeven{} \citep{ArisakaA7Qi4} --- the framing of life and mind as boundary projections of $\UoneQi$ --- depend on the four-component version. We adopt the four-component bulk for the remainder of this paper, but we are explicit that this is an empirical choice within a two-element constitutional admissible class, not an axiomatic forcing. The two-element admissible class is established here, in the present step; the companion paper \AThree{} \citep{ArisakaA3BI6} states the same result formally, as its constitutional-admissibility theorem, from the constitutional clauses of \AOne{} alone. The two treatments are parallel, and neither is a premise of the other.

Under the four-component choice, the bulk gauge connection acquires a second Abelian one-form,
\begin{equation}
A_{Qi}, \qquad F_{Qi} = dA_{Qi},
\label{eq:AQi-curvature}
\end{equation}
and the fermion content carries integer-quantized $Q_i$-charges, to be specified by the boundary phenomenology in the companion paper \citep{ArisakaA7Qi4}.

\paragraph{The status of $\UoneQi$.} The information current $\UoneQi$ is the most distinctive ingredient of the four-component version of \GG. No other unification framework gauges a $U(1)$ for quantum information, and it is therefore worth being explicit about its axiomatic status. \POS{4} (\CP) requires the boundary evolution to be CPTP, and the GKLS generator that implements that channel transports density matrices on the boundary Hilbert space. CPTP is, however, a property of the channel; it does not by itself demand a fresh Abelian gauge symmetry beyond what the rest of the bulk content supplies. Within the four-component bulk that we have adopted, the $\UoneQi$ Abelian factor plays a specific bookkeeping role: its integer charges $q_{Qi}$ count the multiplicity of allowed Hilbert-space sectors that the GKLS evolution preserves on the boundary, and the gauged $\UoneQi$ symmetry forbids any process that would change that multiplicity without compensation. It is why life and mind appear as natural consequences of the four-component \GG, as we will articulate in Part~VII: in the four-component bulk, the $\UoneQi$ current is the geometric origin of the quantum-bit ledger on which biological information processing and cognition rest. In the three-component bulk (without $\UoneQi$), boundary information processing is still possible --- CPTP evolution does not require a gauged information current --- but the energy--information conversion factor $\QB \approx 0.1555$~eV per qubit (Theorem~\ref{thm:arisaka-equation}) and the locking of life and mind to the geometry would no longer be theorems of the framework. The energy--information calibration of (\citealp{ArisakaA7Qi4}; \citealp{ArisakaA11Origin}) is what tilts the constitutional admissible class toward the four-component version.

\textbf{Step (d): No further gauge factors are admissible.} We now show that within the adopted four-component class, $\Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$ exhausts the bulk gauge content. Suppose, for contradiction, that an additional gauge factor $G_{\mathrm{extra}}$ is admissible. Either $G_{\mathrm{extra}}$ is non-Abelian or Abelian.

If $G_{\mathrm{extra}}$ is non-Abelian, it must be simple by \POS{1}, and admissible by \AX{4} only if forced by some constitutional clause. No clause of the Constitution requires a second non-Abelian gauge factor: $\SUfive$ already supplies the unification block of the Standard Model, and the corresponding boundary forces $\SU(3)_C \times \SU(2)_L$ are recovered by the breaking pattern (see Step (a)). Therefore $G_{\mathrm{extra}}$ non-Abelian is unforced and inadmissible.

If $G_{\mathrm{extra}}$ is Abelian, it would require a third integer ledger beyond the baryonic ledger forced by Step~(b) and the informational ledger adopted in Step~(c). \POS{1} (\GI) plus \POS{6} (\OGN) forbid integer ledgers not associated with an explicit constitutional clause or empirical anchor; the baryonic ledger is anchored in the proton lifetime, the informational ledger in the energy--information match $\QB \approx 0.1555$~eV/qubit, and no further empirical conservation law presents itself. Therefore $G_{\mathrm{extra}}$ Abelian is unforced and inadmissible.

Combining: under the empirically preferred four-component choice, the bulk gauge--gravity group is exactly $\Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$ and contains no further factors; under the three-component alternative, it is $\Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB$ and contains no further factors. We adopt the four-component group for the remainder of this paper, with the understanding that every result downstream of this section that depends on $\UoneQi$ becomes inoperative under the three-component alternative.
\end{proof}

\paragraph{Six forces, not four.} Standard particle physics speaks of \emph{four} forces: strong, weak, electromagnetic, gravitational. \GG\ adds two: baryonic and informational. This is not nomenclature; it reflects the number of separately conserved gauge channels that survive at the boundary. Specifically, after the breaking pattern $\SUfive \to \SU(3)_C \times \SU(2)_L \times \UoneY$ (driven by Hosotani Wilson-line breaking on $S^1_\theta$, see Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade} below) and the further electroweak breaking $\SU(2)_L \times \UoneY \to \UoneEM$, the boundary gauge group is
\begin{equation}
G_{\Bdy}^{\mathrm{low\text{-}E}} = \Spin(1,3) \times \SU(3)_C \times \UoneEM \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi,
\label{eq:GBdy-lowE}
\end{equation}
plus a 4D Lorentz invariance $SO(1,3)$. The five non-gravitational gauge factors correspond to five distinct conserved currents: the QCD color current, the electromagnetic current, the baryonic current, the informational current, and the (broken) weak current. Together with the gravitational sector (carrying energy-momentum conservation via diffeomorphism invariance), this gives the six-force structure.

\paragraph{Three abelian gauge invariances.} Of the five non-gravitational gauge factors, three are abelian: $\UoneEM$, $\UoneB$, and $\UoneQi$. The presence of three abelian invariances is structurally important for what follows: it is the axiomatic origin of the \emph{Arisaka equation} (Theorem~\ref{thm:arisaka-equation}), which states that the four boundary currents (energy, electric, baryonic, informational) are locked together by the three abelian gauge invariances under the \OGGEP{} bulk-to-boundary projection. We anticipate the Arisaka equation here without proof; it will be derived in Theorem~\ref{thm:arisaka-equation}. Table~\ref{tab:six-forces-table} lists every sector the bulk carries, what it is made of there, what it looks like from the boundary, and what that object does.

\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption[Force sectors in the \GG{} bulk and their boundary images.]{Every sector the bulk carries --- the four force sectors, the tensor that carries anomaly inflow, and the radial geometry itself --- with what each is made of in the bulk and what it looks like from the boundary. The second column is the bulk field, the third is the four-dimensional object it projects to, and the fourth says what that object does. The point of listing them together is that the projection is the same operation in every row: nothing in the table is a separate postulate about a separate force. The coefficients quoted in the fourth column are the entries of the anomaly vector, and they are fixed, not fitted.}
\label{tab:six-forces-table}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{3pt}%
\small
\begin{tabular}{>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.16\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.18\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.18\textwidth}p{0.42\textwidth}}
\toprule
\textbf{Sector} & \textbf{Bulk field} & \textbf{Boundary image} & \textbf{Role} \\
\midrule
Gravity & $\omega, R$ & $g_{\mu\nu}$, Einstein sector & Geometric backbone; positive coefficient $a = +1$ in $\BIsix$. \\
Unified gauge & $A_5, F_5$ & $\SU(3)_C \times \SU(2)_L \times \UoneY$ & Minimal non-Abelian unification block; $\SUfive$ at $\EGUT$; coefficient $b = -1$ in $\BIsix$. \\
Baryonic & $A_B, F_B$ & $\UoneB$ & Exact proton stability via gauge invariance (operator catalog: App.~\ref{app:operator-catalog}); coefficient $c = -2/5$ in $\BIsix$. \\
Informational & $A_{Qi}, F_{Qi}$ & $\UoneQi$ & Information-current ledger; foundation for life and mind; coefficient $d = -2/5$ in $\BIsix$. \\
Tensor & $B_2, H_3$ & Stückelberg axion & Single inflow channel for anomaly cancellation. \\
Radial geometry & $r$ & RG scale / scale depth & Geometrizes coarse-graining. \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}


\noindent\figref{fig:gauge-group-cascade} renders the four-factor composite gauge group $G_\Bulk = \Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$ and the boundary projection cascade in a single diagram. The top row is the bulk group at $r = 0$ (boundary scale $\mu = \EGUT$); the middle row is the intermediate gauge group after Hosotani Wilson-line breaking $\SUfive \to \SU(3)_C \times \SU(2)_L \times \UoneY$ along $S^1_\theta$ \citep{Hosotani1983, Kawamura2001}; the bottom row is the low-energy boundary gauge group after electroweak symmetry breaking $\SU(2)_L \times \UoneY \to \UoneEM$. The three abelian gauge invariances at the bottom row ($\UoneEM, \UoneB, \UoneQi$) are the source of the Arisaka-equation current-locking that Theorem~\ref{thm:arisaka-equation} below derives.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\resizebox{0.9\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tikzpicture}[
 font=\normalsize,
 every node/.style={inner sep=2.5pt},
 bulkbox/.style={draw=blue!55!black, fill=blue!10, rounded corners=2pt,
 minimum width=2.0cm, minimum height=0.65cm, font=\bfseries\small},
 midbox/.style={draw=orange!65!black, fill=orange!12, rounded corners=2pt,
 minimum width=2.0cm, minimum height=0.65cm, font=\small},
 lowbox/.style={draw=green!50!black, fill=green!12, rounded corners=2pt,
 minimum width=2.0cm, minimum height=0.65cm, font=\small},
 abbox/.style={draw=green!50!black, fill=green!16, rounded corners=2pt,
 minimum width=2.0cm, minimum height=0.65cm, font=\bfseries\small, text=green!40!black},
 rowlab/.style={anchor=east, font=\footnotesize\itshape, text=black!70},
 arr/.style={->, line width=0.80pt, draw=black!70},
 breakarr/.style={->, dashed, draw=red!65!black, line width=0.7pt},
 brklabel/.style={font=\scriptsize, fill=white, inner sep=1pt, text=red!65!black}
]

%% --- Row labels (left side) --------------------------------------
\node[rowlab] at (-0.5, 3.6) {Bulk ($r = 0$, $\mu = \EGUT$):};
\node[rowlab] at (-0.5, 1.8) {After Hosotani breaking on $S^1_\theta$:};
\node[rowlab] at (-0.5, 0.0) {Low-E boundary ($r = K$):};

%% --- Column headers ----------------------------------------------
\node[font=\footnotesize\bfseries, anchor=south] at (1.6, 4.35) {Lorentz};
\node[font=\footnotesize\bfseries, anchor=south] at (5.2, 4.35) {Unified non-Abelian};
\node[font=\footnotesize\bfseries, anchor=south] at (8.8, 4.35) {Baryonic};
\node[font=\footnotesize\bfseries, anchor=south] at (12.4, 4.35) {Informational};

%% --- Top row: bulk group, canonical BI-6 ordering ----------------
\node[bulkbox] (Sb) at (1.6, 3.6) {$\Spinone$};
\node[bulkbox] (SU5) at (5.2, 3.6) {$\SUfive$};
\node[bulkbox] (UB1) at (8.8, 3.6) {$\UoneB$};
\node[bulkbox] (UQi1) at (12.4, 3.6) {$\UoneQi$};

%% Top-row group bracket
\node[font=\footnotesize, anchor=south] at (7.0, 4.85)
 {$G_\Bulk = \Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$};

%% --- Middle row: after Hosotani Wilson-line breaking -------------
\node[midbox] (Sm) at (1.6, 1.8) {$\Spin(1,3)$};
\node[midbox] (SM) at (5.2, 1.8) {$\SU(3)_C\,{\times}\,\SU(2)_L\,{\times}\,\UoneY$};
\node[midbox] (UB2) at (8.8, 1.8) {$\UoneB$};
\node[midbox] (UQi2) at (12.4, 1.8) {$\UoneQi$};

%% --- Bottom row: low-energy boundary group ----------------------
\node[lowbox] (Sl) at (1.6, 0.0) {$\Spin(1,3)$};
\node[lowbox] (SUC) at (3.7, 0.0) {$\SU(3)_C$};
\node[abbox] (UEM) at (6.7, 0.0) {$\UoneEM$};
\node[abbox] (UB3) at (9.55, 0.0) {$\UoneB$};
\node[abbox] (UQi3) at (12.4, 0.0) {$\UoneQi$};

%% --- Vertical arrows (bulk -> middle) ---------------------------
\draw[breakarr] (Sb.south) -- (Sm.north);
\draw[breakarr] (SU5.south) -- (SM.north);
\draw[breakarr] (UB1.south) -- (UB2.north);
\draw[breakarr] (UQi1.south) -- (UQi2.north);
\node[brklabel] at (1.6, 2.7) {boundary projection};
\node[brklabel] at (5.2, 2.7) {Hosotani Wilson lines};

%% --- Vertical arrows (middle -> bottom) --------------------------
\draw[breakarr] (Sm.south) -- (Sl.north);
%% SU(5)-block branch to SU(3)_C + U(1)_EM (the SU(2)_L x U(1)_Y -> U(1)_EM merge)
\draw[breakarr] (SM.south) to[out=-70, in=110] (SUC.north);
\draw[breakarr] (SM.south) to[out=-100, in=80] (UEM.north);
\draw[breakarr] (UB2.south) -- (UB3.north);
\draw[breakarr] (UQi2.south) -- (UQi3.north);
\node[brklabel] at (5.2, 0.95) {EW breaking $\SU(2)_L\,{\times}\,\UoneY \to \UoneEM$};

%% --- Bottom-row bracket: three abelian gauge invariances --------
\draw[line width=0.80pt, decorate, decoration={brace, mirror, amplitude=5pt}]
 (5.65, -0.45) -- (13.15, -0.45);
\node[font=\footnotesize\bfseries, anchor=north, text=green!40!black]
 at (9.4, -0.7) {three abelian gauge invariances $\;\Rightarrow\;$ Arisaka equation};

%% --- Title bracket at top right corner --------------------------
\node[font=\scriptsize\itshape, anchor=west] at (13.55, 3.6) {(integer ledgers)};

\end{tikzpicture}}
\bigskip
\caption[The four-factor composite gauge group and its boundary-projection cascade]{The four-factor composite gauge group $G_\Bulk = \Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$ in canonical $\BIsix$ ordering, and the cascade of symmetry-breaking projections that carries it down to the empirical low-energy boundary group. \emph{Top row (bulk, $r=0$, $\mu = \EGUT$):} the four factors in the order in which their curvatures enter the modified Bianchi identity $X_4 = \tr(R^2) - \Tr(F_5^2) - \tfrac{2}{5}F_B^2 - \tfrac{2}{5}F_{Qi}^2$ (Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs}). \emph{Middle row (after Hosotani Wilson-line breaking on $S^1_\theta$):} the bulk $\SUfive$ breaks to its Standard-Model embedding $\SU(3)_C \times \SU(2)_L \times \UoneY$ via integer Wilson-line phases around the compact direction, following the mechanism of \citet{Hosotani1983, Kawamura2001}; the Lorentz factor projects $\Spinone \to \Spin(1,3)$ on the 4D boundary slice; the two Abelian factors $\UoneB$ and $\UoneQi$ are unchanged. \emph{Bottom row (low-energy boundary, $r=K$):} the further electroweak breaking $\SU(2)_L \times \UoneY \to \UoneEM$ leaves the empirical low-energy gauge group $\Spin(1,3) \times \SU(3)_C \times \UoneEM \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$, with three abelian gauge invariances ($\UoneEM, \UoneB, \UoneQi$) bracketed at the bottom right. The three-abelian-invariance bracket is the structural source of the Arisaka-equation current-locking that Theorem~\ref{thm:arisaka-equation} establishes in \S\ref{sec:thm8-arisaka-equation}.}
\label{fig:gauge-group-cascade}
\end{figure}

%% =====================================================================
%%  v4.0 NEW SUBSECTION: Spin(1,5) AS THE LORENTZ FACTOR
%% =====================================================================

\subsection{The Lorentz factor is $\Spinone$, not ``Gravity''}
\label{ssec:spin15}

Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces} states the bulk gauge--gravity group as $G_{\Bulk} = \Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$. The first factor, $\Spinone$, deserves a substantive comment of its own: it replaces what one might colloquially call ``Gravity'' as a separate ontological category and exhibits gravity as a Lie-group factor on the same logical footing as $\SUfive$, $\UoneB$, and $\UoneQi$. This is not a notational refinement; it is the substantive content of \AX{2} (\GGEP).

\begin{eucliddefinition}[The Lorentz spin group $\Spinone$]
\label{def:spin15}
$\Spinone$ is the unique connected, simply-connected double cover of $\Spinplus$, the proper orthochronous component of the Lorentz group $\SO(1,5)$ acting on $\R^{1,5}$ with metric signature $(-,+,+,+,+,+)$. As a real Lie group, $\Spinone$ has dimension $\binom{6}{2} = 15$, of which $5$ generators correspond to boosts and $10 = \binom{5}{2}$ to spatial rotations. Its Lie algebra $\mathfrak{spin}(1,5)$ is generated by the antisymmetric tensors $M^{AB} = -M^{BA}$, $A,B = 0,1,\ldots,5$, satisfying
\begin{equation}
[M^{AB}, M^{CD}] \;=\; \ii\big(\eta^{AC} M^{BD} - \eta^{AD} M^{BC} - \eta^{BC} M^{AD} + \eta^{BD} M^{AC}\big),
\label{eq:spin15-algebra}
\end{equation}
where $\eta^{AB} = \mathrm{diag}(-1,+1,+1,+1,+1,+1)$ is the bulk Lorentz metric.
\end{eucliddefinition}

\begin{euclidremark}[Why \emph{spin} rather than \emph{rotation}]
\label{rmk:why-spin}
The double cover (rather than $\Spinplus$ itself) is required as soon as the bulk supports fermions. A spinor $\psi$ on $\R^{1,5}$ is a section of the spinor bundle associated to $\Spinone$ via its fundamental representation; under a $2\pi$ rotation it picks up a sign $\psi \to -\psi$ that no $\SO$ transformation can register. Since \GG{} supports chiral fermions on the boundary (Theorems~\ref{thm:six-forces}, \ref{thm:bi6-coeffs}; Appendices~\ref{app:kk}, \ref{app:su5}), its principal bundle must carry a spin structure --- i.e., it must be a $\Spinone$-bundle, not merely an $\SO(1,5)$-bundle \citep{LawsonMichelsohn1989,Friedrich2000}. Writing $\Spinone$ in the gauge-group product is therefore not optional.
\end{euclidremark}

\begin{euclidremark}[Cartan formulation: gravity as a $\Spinone$ gauge theory]
\label{rmk:cartan}
In Cartan's formulation of general relativity \citep{Cartan1922,Kibble1961}, the gravitational degrees of freedom are encoded in two objects: the vielbein $e^A_M(x)$, which provides an orthonormal frame at each point of $\cM_6$, and the spin connection $\omega_M^{\,AB}(x)$, which is a $\mathfrak{spin}(1,5)$-valued one-form. The corresponding curvature two-form is
\begin{equation}
R^{AB} \;=\; d\omega^{AB} + \omega^{AC} \wedge \omega_C^{\,B},
\label{eq:cartan-curvature}
\end{equation}
satisfying the Bianchi identity $D R^{AB} = dR^{AB} + \omega^{A}{}_C \wedge R^{CB} - R^{AC} \wedge \omega_C^{\,B} = 0$. The Einstein--Hilbert Lagrangian, expressed as a four-form built from $e^A$ and $R^{AB}$, is the gauge-theoretic action of $\Spinone$ on the principal frame bundle. \AX{2} (\GGEP) is the axiomatic statement that this Cartan posture is mandatory: gravity is treated as a gauge theory of $\Spinone$ and combined with the internal gauge sectors into one composite connection $\cA = \omega \oplus A_5 \oplus A_B \oplus A_{Qi}$.
\end{euclidremark}

\subsubsection{The accidental isomorphism $\Spinone \cong \SLtwoH$}
\label{sssec:sl2H}

The group $\Spinone$ admits an accidental isomorphism with the special linear group of $2\times 2$ quaternionic matrices, $\SLtwoH$, defined as the group of $2\times 2$ matrices over the quaternions $\Quaternion$ with reduced (Dieudonné) determinant equal to one. The Lorentz--division-algebra correspondence continues one step further:

\begin{euclidproposition}[Lorentz--division-algebra correspondence]
\label{prop:lorentz-division}
The double covers of the proper orthochronous Lorentz groups in the dimensions $d = 3, 4, 6, 10$ admit the identifications
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;
\begin{array}{rclr}
\Spin(1,2) &\cong& \SLtwoR & \text{(real)},\\[3pt]
\Spin(1,3) &\cong& \SLtwoC & \text{(complex)},\\[3pt]
\Spin(1,5) &\cong& \SLtwoH & \text{(quaternionic)},\\[3pt]
\Spin(1,9) &\cong& \mathrm{SL}(2,\Octonion) & \text{(octonionic)}.
\end{array}
\;}
\label{eq:magic-square}
\end{equation}
The dimensions $3, 4, 6, 10$ are exactly those in which the Cayley--Dickson division algebras $(\R, \C, \Quaternion, \Octonion)$ --- whose normed-division-algebra classification is the content of Hurwitz's 1898 theorem \citep{Hurwitz1898} --- admit a coordinate-free spinor formulation, and the $2\times 2$ structure on each line corresponds to the $\Spin(2)$ stabilizer of the lightcone in the corresponding Lorentz group \citep{Baez2002,ManogueDray2010}. In the octonionic ($d = 10$) case, $\mathrm{SL}(2, \Octonion)$ is not a group in the standard Lie-group sense because of the non-associativity of $\Octonion$; the bracket is understood in the generalized (Manogue--Dray) sense.
\end{euclidproposition}

\begin{proof}[Sketch of the $d=6$ case]
The identification $\Spinone \cong \SLtwoH$ proceeds by realizing the six-dimensional Minkowski space as the space of $2 \times 2$ Hermitian quaternionic matrices,
\begin{equation}
\R^{1,5} \;\cong\; \mathrm{Herm}_2(\Quaternion) \;=\; \big\{ X = \begin{pmatrix} t + z & q \\ \bar q & t - z \end{pmatrix} : t,z \in \R,\, q \in \Quaternion \big\},
\end{equation}
in which the Lorentzian quadratic form is the reduced determinant
\begin{equation}
-\det X \;=\; -t^2 + z^2 + |q|^2,
\end{equation}
where $|q|^2 = q\bar q = q_0^2 + q_1^2 + q_2^2 + q_3^2$ is the quaternionic norm squared. The total dimension is $1 + 1 + 4 = 6$, matching the dimension of $\R^{1,5}$, and the form has signature $(-,+,+,+,+,+)$. Acting on $X$ by $X \mapsto g X g^\dagger$ for $g \in \SLtwoH$ preserves $\det X$ and therefore preserves the Lorentzian metric. The kernel of this action is $\{\pm \mathbf 1\}$, exhibiting $\SLtwoH$ as the double cover of $\Spinplus$, i.e., as $\Spinone$. Full details appear in \citep{Baez2002,ManogueDray2010,Sudbery1984}.
\end{proof}

\begin{euclidremark}[Why this matters for \GG{}]
\label{rmk:why-quaternion}
The accidental isomorphism $\Spinone \cong \SLtwoH$ is more than a curiosity; it is the algebraic substrate that makes 6D the natural dimension for chiral spinors. In each of the four magic dimensions, the $2 \times 2$ matrix structure provides a coordinate-free realization of the Weyl spinor:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em]
\item In $d = 4$ (complex), Weyl spinors are $2$-component complex vectors acted on by $\SLtwoC$.
\item In $d = 6$ (quaternionic), Weyl spinors are $2$-component quaternionic vectors --- equivalently, $4$-component complex vectors with a quaternionic structure --- acted on by $\SLtwoH$.
\item In $d = 10$ (octonionic), Majorana--Weyl spinors are $2$-component octonionic vectors, acted on by $\mathrm{SL}(2,\Octonion)$ in the appropriate generalized sense; this is the dimensional setting of perturbative superstring theory.
\end{itemize}
\GG{}'s chiral fermion content (the $\bar{\mathbf 5} \oplus \mathbf{10}$ of $\SUfive$ per generation, embedded as Weyl spinors of $\Spinone$) is therefore not an arbitrary import from the SM but the natural matter sector at the next-after-4D rung of the magic ladder. The choice $d=6$ is structurally forced.
\end{euclidremark}

\subsubsection{Spinor representations in six dimensions}
\label{sssec:spin15-reps}

The dimension counts of the spinor representations of $\Spinone$ are essential for the chiral matter content of \GG{}. Following the standard construction of Clifford modules in $d = 6$ Lorentzian signature:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em]
\item The Dirac spinor representation has complex dimension $2^{d/2} = 8$.
\item The chirality projector $\Gamma^7 = \Gamma^0\Gamma^1\cdots\Gamma^5$ squares to $+\mathbf 1$ on $\R^{1,5}$ (in contrast to $-\mathbf 1$ in $d = 4$); accordingly, the Dirac representation splits into two irreducible Weyl representations of complex dimension $4$ each: $\mathbf 4$ and $\bar{\mathbf 4}$.
\item Unlike $d = 4$ Lorentzian (where Majorana spinors exist and have $4$ real components), $d = 6$ Lorentzian does not admit Majorana spinors: the Majorana condition is incompatible with the Clifford--algebra reality structure in $(1,5)$ signature \citep{LawsonMichelsohn1989}. Symplectic-Majorana--Weyl spinors do exist when paired with an internal symmetry index, but they are not used in the present construction.
\end{itemize}
The chiral fermion content of \GG{} is therefore packaged as left-handed Weyl spinors (\emph{i.e.}~the $\mathbf 4$ of $\Spinone$) tensored with the $\bar{\mathbf 5} \oplus \mathbf{10}$ of $\SUfive$ per generation, with an analogous right-handed structure for the conjugate sector. The detailed Kaluza--Klein zero-mode analysis is developed in Appendix~\ref{app:kk}, where the Atiyah--Singer index theorem on $\cM_6$ is shown to count exactly three normalizable zero modes per chiral multiplet --- giving the three observed generations.

\subsubsection{Why this canonical ordering matches $\BIsix$}
\label{sssec:bi6-ordering}

The choice to write $G_\Bulk = \Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$ with $\Spinone$ \emph{first} mirrors the term ordering of the \BIsix{} four-form $X_4$ stated in Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs}:
\begin{equation}
X_4 \;=\; \tr(R \wedge R) \,-\, \Tr(F_5 \wedge F_5) \,-\, \tfrac{2}{5} F_B \wedge F_B \,-\, \tfrac{2}{5} F_{Qi} \wedge F_{Qi},
\label{eq:bi6-ordering-reminder}
\end{equation}
in which the gravitational curvature $R$ (i.e., the $\Spinone$ curvature in the Cartan formulation, equation~\eqref{eq:cartan-curvature}) appears \emph{first}. The composite connection $\cA = \omega \oplus A^{(5)} \oplus A^B \oplus A^{Qi}$ has the same ordering, as does its curvature $\cF = R \oplus F_5 \oplus F_B \oplus F_{Qi}$. Three logical lists --- the gauge group factors, the connection components, and the curvature components --- are therefore in one-to-one correspondence in the same order, with $\Spinone$ heading each list. This makes the $\BIsix$ identity self-documenting: each curvature appears in $X_4$ in the same slot as its gauge group appears in $G_\Bulk$.

The earlier convention $G_\Bulk = \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi \times \mathrm{Gravity}$, with ``Gravity'' as a non-group label appended at the end, breaks all three orderings simultaneously: it places the gravitational sector at the end of the gauge list while its curvature appears at the start of $X_4$, it labels gravity with a non-group word while the others are precisely-defined Lie groups, and it suggests a residual ontological asymmetry between gauge and gravity that \AX{2} (\GGEP) was specifically designed to dissolve. Adopting $\Spinone$ as the leading factor cures all three deficiencies in a single substitution.

\begin{euclidcorollary}[Composite curvature canonical form]
\label{cor:composite-canonical}
The composite curvature on the bulk principal $G_\Bulk$-bundle takes the canonical form
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;\cF \;=\; R[\omega] \,\oplus\, F_5[A^{(5)}] \,\oplus\, F_B[A^B] \,\oplus\, F_{Qi}[A^{Qi}],\;}
\label{eq:composite-canonical}
\end{equation}
in which the four block components are valued in $\mathfrak{spin}(1,5)$, $\mathfrak{su}(5)$, $\mathfrak{u}(1)_B$, and $\mathfrak{u}(1)_{Qi}$ respectively, and the $\BIsix$ identity~\eqref{eq:bi6-ordering-reminder} is read off as a polynomial in these four blocks weighted by the \OGN{}-fixed coefficient vector $(a, b, c, d) = (1, -1, -2/5, -2/5)$.
\end{euclidcorollary}

\section{Theorem 4 (T-GG6-4): The \BIsix{} Coefficient Vector}
\label{sec:thm4-bi6}

The geometric stage and gauge content are fixed by Theorems~\ref{thm:dim-minimal}, \ref{thm:canonical-metric}, and \ref{thm:six-forces}. We now derive the modified Bianchi identity $\BIsix$ that locks the curvature sectors together. This is the technical heart of the present paper.

\paragraph{The geometric-origin reading (with honest scope).} Before stating the theorem, one orienting remark. The coefficient vector $(a, b, c, d) = (1, -1, -2/5, -2/5)$ that we are about to derive is, at root, primarily a property of the four-factor curvature space $(R, F_5, F_B, F_{Qi})$ on the bulk principal $G_\Bulk$-bundle of Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces} --- not a fit to a one-loop anomaly polynomial. Specifically, the \emph{magnitudes} $|a| = 1$ (normalization choice), $|b| = 1$ (Chern--Simons descent orientation), and $|c| = |d| = 2/5$ (the $\SUfive$ representation-theoretic trace ratio $\Tr(B_0^2)/\Tr(Y_0^2)$) are geometric and group-theoretic, fixed by the four-factor bundle structure together with \POS{6}~\OGN{}'s primitive-normalization requirement. The four lemmas below force these magnitudes from four \emph{geometric and axiomatic} constraints: an overall rescaling of the tensor sector $B_2$ (Lemma~\ref{lem:a-equals-1}), the relative orientation between the gravitational and the unified Chern--Simons forms in the modified Bianchi identity (Lemma~\ref{lem:b-equals-minus1}), the $\SUfive$ representation-theoretic identity $\Tr(B_0^2)/\Tr(Y_0^2) = 2/5$ (Lemma~\ref{lem:trace-ratio-25}), and the constitutional equal treatment of the two Abelian factors (Lemma~\ref{lem:c-equals-d}). The remaining content of the coefficient vector --- the relative signs of $b$, $c$, $d$ against $a$ --- is fixed by the requirement that the Green--Schwarz inflow cancel the standard mixed-anomaly terms (Lemma~\ref{lem:b-equals-minus1} uses this input explicitly via \citep{AlvarezGaumeWitten1984}; the same logic fixes the signs of $c, d$ in the combining proof). We will emphasize that geometry-first reading throughout, in its sharpened honest form: \emph{the magnitudes of the coefficient vector are forced by geometry and group theory; the signs are fixed by anomaly cancellation; together, the vector is the unique primitive rational solution to all four constraints.} Theorem~\ref{thm:anomaly-factorization} of the next section then converts the choice of $X_4$ into a system of constraints on the chiral matter representation, which the Standard-Model fermion content satisfies.

\begin{euclidtheorem}[$\BIsix$ coefficient vector]
\label{thm:bi6-coeffs}
Under \AX{2} (\GGEP), \AX{4} (\MSMF), and \POS{6} (\OGN), and given the bulk gauge group $\Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$ of Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces} together with the Georgi--Glashow block split of the defining representation into a colored block of size $N$ and a complementary block of size $L - N$ (the hypothesis on which the Abelian entry depends, Lemma~\ref{lem:trace-ratio-25}) and equal Abelian treatment, the unique primitive diagonal single-tensor modified Bianchi identity is
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;dH_3 \;=\; X_4 \;=\; \tr(R \wedge R) \;-\; \Tr(F_5 \wedge F_5) \;-\; \tfrac{2}{5}\, F_B \wedge F_B \;-\; \tfrac{2}{5}\, F_{Qi} \wedge F_{Qi}.\;}
\label{eq:bi6-final}
\end{equation}
The coefficient vector $(a, b, c, d) = (1, -1, -2/5, -2/5)$ is forced by four lemmas, proved below.
\end{euclidtheorem}

\begin{euclidremark}[Geometric origin of the coefficient vector]
\label{rmk:l84-geometric-origin}
The four lemmas below derive $(a, b, c, d) = (1, -1, -2/5, -2/5)$ from four constraints intrinsic to the curvature space $(R, F_5, F_B, F_{Qi})$ on the bulk principal $G_\Bulk$-bundle, supplemented by the anomaly-cancellation requirement that fixes the signs of $b$, $c$, $d$ against the chosen $a > 0$ convention. In sequence:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em]
\item \textbf{Lemma~\ref{lem:a-equals-1}} (\emph{$a = +1$}) fixes the overall scale by absorbing the rescaling freedom $B_2 \mapsto \lambda B_2$ into the gravitational coefficient, in the Green--Schwarz convention $a > 0$. This is a normalization choice, not a physical constraint.
\item \textbf{Lemma~\ref{lem:b-equals-minus1}} (\emph{$b = -1$}) fixes the relative orientation of the gravitational and gauge Chern--Simons forms inside $H_3$. The \emph{magnitude} $|b| = 1$ is the unique primitive value under \POS{6}~\OGN; the \emph{sign} $b < 0$ is fixed by the requirement that the gravitational--gauge mixed anomaly $ab\,\tr R^2 \cdot \Tr F_5^2$ enter $\tfrac12 X_4 \wedge X_4$ with the negative sign required by the one-loop chiral-fermion determinant in the standard convention \citep{AlvarezGaumeWitten1984}. The magnitude is geometric; the sign is an anomaly-cancellation input.
\item \textbf{Lemma~\ref{lem:trace-ratio-25}} (\emph{$|c| = |d| = 2/5$ relative to $|b| = 1$}) is the representation-theoretic identity $\Tr(B_0^2) / \Tr(Y_0^2) = 2/5$ in the $\mathbf 5$ of $\SUfive$, with $Y_0$ and $B_0$ the primitive raw generators. This is a property of the $\SUfive$ representation alone, available from textbook group theory. No quantum-field-theoretic calculation is required for the magnitude.
\item \textbf{Lemma~\ref{lem:c-equals-d}} (\emph{$c = d$}) is the constitutional equal treatment of the two Abelian factors $\UoneB$ and $\UoneQi$ demanded by \AX{4} (\MSMF) in the absence of any clause that distinguishes them. This is a symmetry argument within the axiomatic layer of \GGTheory. The signs $c, d < 0$ are then fixed, like $b < 0$, by demanding that the Stora--Zumino descent inflow cancel (rather than double) the mixed $\tr R^2 \cdot F_B^2$ and $\tr R^2 \cdot F_{Qi}^2$ contributions; this is the same descent-cohomology argument as for $b$ and does not require a separate fermion-content calculation beyond the standard sign convention.
\end{itemize}
The magnitudes of the four-vector are therefore properties of the bulk principal bundle geometry and the $\SUfive$ representation theory, present before any specific chiral fermion content is named. The signs are fixed by the descent-cohomology orientation that makes the Green--Schwarz inflow cancel the mixed anomalies (Lemma~\ref{lem:b-equals-minus1} uses the standard one-loop sign convention as a one-line input). Theorem~\ref{thm:anomaly-factorization} of the next section then shows that the resulting $X_4$, when squared, factorizes the one-loop anomaly polynomial: the chiral fermion content of the Standard Model embedded in $\overline{\mathbf 5} \oplus \mathbf{10}$ of $\SUfive$ (with $\UoneB$ and $\UoneQi$ extensions) is what makes the factorization consistent, but it is not what selects the magnitudes of the coefficient vector. In this sharpened geometry-first reading, anomaly cancellation is the empirical pay-off of geometric locking and the orientation input for the signs, not the origin of the geometric magnitudes.

The historical reading of the Green--Schwarz mechanism --- in which coefficients are \emph{fitted} to make an anomaly polynomial factorize --- is logically reversed here: the coefficient vector is \emph{derived} from geometric structure first, and anomaly cancellation is then verified as a consequence. That move is what \AX{2} (\GGEP) makes possible.
\end{euclidremark}

The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs} proceeds through four Lemmas. Figure~\ref{fig:bi6-anomaly-inflow} previews the content of the theorem: four bulk sectors (gravitational $\Spinone$, unified $\SUfive$, baryonic $\UoneB$, informational $\UoneQi$) contribute four distinct curvature-squared two-forms whose weighted sum is the four-form $X_4$, and the Bianchi identity $dH_3 = X_4$ closes the entire anomaly inflow through a single tensor sector $B_2$. The four coefficients $(+1, -1, -2/5, -2/5)$ shown on the input arrows are exactly what the four Lemmas below derive.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\resizebox{0.864\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tikzpicture}[
 font=\sffamily\footnotesize,
 every node/.style={align=center, minimum height=8mm, rounded corners=2pt,
 inner sep=3pt},
 bdy/.style={fill=blue!10, draw=blue!55!black, line width=0.68pt,
 text width=42mm, minimum width=42mm},
 bulk/.style={fill=red!10, draw=red!55!black, line width=0.68pt,
 text width=42mm, minimum width=42mm},
 comp/.style={fill=green!10, draw=olive!55!black, line width=0.58pt,
 text width=36mm, minimum width=36mm},
 lockbox/.style={fill=yellow!18, draw=olive!60!black, line width=0.77pt,
 text width=52mm, minimum width=52mm, minimum height=10mm,
 font=\sffamily\small},
 arrow/.style={-{Stealth[length=2.6mm]}, line width=0.68pt, draw=black!65},
 arrowbig/.style={-{Stealth[length=3.4mm]}, line width=0.97pt, draw=black!70},
]

\node[bdy] (BdyAnom) at (0, 0)
 {\textbf{Boundary anomaly} \\[1pt]
 $\partial M_4$ Ward identity \\[1pt]
 \footnotesize\itshape (4D effective action)};

\node[bulk] (BulkInflow) at (0, -2.8)
 {\textbf{Bulk inflow polynomial} \\[1pt]
 $X_4 = dH_3$ \\[1pt]
 \footnotesize\itshape (classical-topological identity)};

\draw[arrowbig] (BulkInflow.north) -- (BdyAnom.south)
 node[midway, fill=white, inner sep=2pt, font=\scriptsize\itshape]
 {Green-Schwarz inflow};

\node[comp] (a) at (-6, -5.8)
 {$a\,\tr(R\wedge R)$ \\[1pt]
 $a = +1$ \\[-1pt] {\footnotesize (gravitational)}};
\node[comp] (b) at (-2, -5.8)
 {$b\,\tr(F_{\SU(5)}\!\wedge\!F_{\SU(5)})$ \\[1pt]
 $b = -1$ \\[-1pt] {\footnotesize (\SU(5))}};
\node[comp] (c) at (2, -5.8)
 {$c\,F_B \wedge F_B$ \\[1pt]
 $c = -2/5$ \\[-1pt] {\footnotesize ($\U(1)_B$)}};
\node[comp] (d) at (6, -5.8)
 {$d\,F_{Qi} \wedge F_{Qi}$ \\[1pt]
 $d = -2/5$ \\[-1pt] {\footnotesize ($\U(1)_{Qi}$)}};

\draw[arrow] (a.north) -- ($(BulkInflow.south) + (-2.6,0)$);
\draw[arrow] (b.north) -- ($(BulkInflow.south) + (-0.9,0)$);
\draw[arrow] (c.north) -- ($(BulkInflow.south) + (0.9,0)$);
\draw[arrow] (d.north) -- ($(BulkInflow.south) + (2.6,0)$);

\node[lockbox] at (0, -8.0)
 {\textbf{Trace-ratio lock:} \quad
 $\left|\dfrac{a}{c}\right| = \left|\dfrac{a}{d}\right| = \dfrac{5}{2}$};

\end{tikzpicture}}
\bigskip
\caption[The four-component \BIsix{} bulk-side classical-topological identity]{The four-component \BIsix{} bulk-side classical-topological identity, descended from Bianchi 1902. The bulk four-form polynomial $X_4 = dH_3$ (red) closes under the differential as a classical identity on the \AX{2}~\GGEP{} composite connection; the four contributions --- gravitational $\tr(R\wedge R)$, non-Abelian $\tr(F_{\SU(5)}\wedge F_{\SU(5)})$, $\U(1)_B$-Abelian $F_B \wedge F_B$, and $\U(1)_{Qi}$-Abelian $F_{Qi}\wedge F_{Qi}$ (green boxes) --- carry the canonical coefficients $(a, b, c, d) = (1, -1, -2/5, -2/5)$. The geometry--gauge trace-ratio lock $|a/c| = |a/d| = 5/2$ (yellow) is the axiomatic fingerprint of the \GGTheory{} program, forced by \POS{3}~\AF{} together with \POS{6}~\OGN{} on the 6D bulk; the integer $5$ is the central rank of the \OGNfive{} ledger. The boundary 4D ``anomaly'' (top, blue) is the \AX{3}~\OGGEP{} projection shadow of this bulk identity: a boundary effective-action re-measurement of a classical-topological fact already in force in the bulk, not a quantum-loop pathology to be cured. This figure is identical to Figure~8 of \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution}; the primary derivation of the trace-ratio lock is Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs} below and in \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}.}
\label{fig:bi6-anomaly-inflow}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Lemma 4.1: Normalization of the gravitational coefficient}

\begin{euclidlemma}[Gravitational coefficient: $a = +1$]
\label{lem:a-equals-1}
After rescaling the tensor field $B_2$, one may set the gravitational coefficient in the modified Bianchi identity to $a = +1$.
\end{euclidlemma}

\begin{proof}
The most general single-tensor diagonal Green--Schwarz-compatible Bianchi identity for the bulk gauge group $\Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$ is
\begin{equation}
dH_3 = a\,\tr(R \wedge R) + b\,\Tr(F_5 \wedge F_5) + c\,F_B \wedge F_B + d\,F_{Qi} \wedge F_{Qi}.
\label{eq:bi6-general}
\end{equation}
The overall normalization of \eqref{eq:bi6-general} can be absorbed into a rescaling of the tensor field $B_2 \to \lambda B_2$ for any $\lambda > 0$, with $H_3 = dB_2 + (\text{Chern--Simons forms}) \to \lambda H_3$ and the four-form on the right-hand side rescaled by $\lambda$. \POS{6} (\OGN) then requires that the resulting coefficient vector be \emph{primitive}: among all rescalings, choose the one in which the smallest non-zero coefficient is normalized to a small integer. We use the convention in which the gravitational coefficient (which is conventionally taken positive in the Green--Schwarz literature \citep{GreenSchwarz1984}) is set to $a = +1$.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Lemma 4.2: The non-Abelian relative sign}

\begin{euclidlemma}[Non-Abelian coefficient: $b = -1$]
\label{lem:b-equals-minus1}
With the convention $a = +1$ of Lemma~\ref{lem:a-equals-1}, the $\SUfive$ non-Abelian coefficient in the modified Bianchi identity is $b = -1$.
\end{euclidlemma}

\begin{proof}
The Green--Schwarz mechanism cancels the one-loop chiral anomaly through the classical variation of the tensor sector. Specifically, write the gauge-invariant three-form as
\begin{equation}
H_3 = dB_2 + a\,\omega_{3L} + b\,\omega_{3,5} + c\,\omega_{3B} + d\,\omega_{3Qi},
\label{eq:H3-CS-form}
\end{equation}
where $\omega_{3L}$, $\omega_{3,5}$, $\omega_{3B}$, $\omega_{3Qi}$ are the gravitational, $\SUfive$, $\UoneB$, and $\UoneQi$ Chern--Simons three-forms satisfying
\begin{equation}
d\omega_{3L} = \tr(R \wedge R), \quad d\omega_{3,5} = \Tr(F_5 \wedge F_5), \quad d\omega_{3B} = F_B \wedge F_B, \quad d\omega_{3Qi} = F_{Qi} \wedge F_{Qi}.
\label{eq:CS-three-forms}
\end{equation}
Under a gauge transformation, the Chern--Simons forms are not invariant: they transform by exact forms involving the gauge parameter, and the corresponding two-form descents $\omega_2^{(1)}$ enter the BRST cocycle of the one-loop anomaly. The classical variation of the Green--Schwarz term $S_{\mathrm{GS}} = \int B_2 \wedge X_4$ then cancels this BRST cocycle, provided the relative signs of the Chern--Simons contributions in $H_3$ match the relative signs of the corresponding anomaly polynomial pieces.

For the gravitational and $\SUfive$ pieces, the relevant anomaly polynomial is $\tfrac12 (a\,\tr R^2 + b\,\Tr F_5^2)^2$. Expansion gives
\begin{equation}
\tfrac12 (a\,\tr R^2)^2 + a b\, \tr R^2 \cdot \Tr F_5^2 + \tfrac12 (b\,\Tr F_5^2)^2.
\label{eq:expanded-anomaly}
\end{equation}
The mixed term $a b\,\tr R^2 \cdot \Tr F_5^2$ is the gravitational--gauge mixed anomaly, which one-loop fermion calculation requires to be \emph{negative} for chiral fermions in the standard convention \citep{AlvarezGaumeWitten1984}. With $a = +1$ from Lemma~\ref{lem:a-equals-1}, this forces $b = -1$.

Equivalently, writing the gauge variation of the fermion determinant for chiral fermions in the bulk and demanding that it be canceled by the variation of $S_{\mathrm{GS}}$, one finds that the relative sign between the gravitational Chern--Simons and the gauge Chern--Simons must be $-1$. In the primitive normalization $a = +1$, this gives $b = -1$.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Lemma 4.3: The Abelian trace ratio is $2/5$}

\noindent The generator normalizations used below, and the full anomaly-coefficient bookkeeping for both Abelian factors, are worked out step by step in Appendix~\ref{app:anomaly}.

\begin{euclidlemma}[Abelian trace ratio]
\label{lem:trace-ratio-25}
Let the primitive raw hypercharge generator $Y_0$ and the primitive raw baryon generator $B_0$ in the $\mathbf 5$ of $\SUfive$ be
\begin{equation}
Y_0 = \diag\!\left(-\tfrac13,\,-\tfrac13,\,-\tfrac13,\,\tfrac12,\,\tfrac12\right), \qquad B_0 = \diag\!\left(\tfrac13,\,\tfrac13,\,\tfrac13,\,0,\,0\right).
\label{eq:Y0-B0}
\end{equation}
Then
\begin{equation}
\Tr(Y_0^2) = \frac{5}{6}, \qquad \Tr(B_0^2) = \frac{1}{3}, \qquad \boxed{\;\frac{\Tr(B_0^2)}{\Tr(Y_0^2)} = \frac{2}{5}.\;}
\label{eq:trace-ratio-25-final}
\end{equation}
\end{euclidlemma}

\begin{proof}
Direct calculation:
\begin{align}
\Tr(Y_0^2) &= 3 \times \left(-\tfrac13\right)^2 + 2 \times \left(\tfrac12\right)^2 = 3 \times \tfrac{1}{9} + 2 \times \tfrac{1}{4} = \tfrac{1}{3} + \tfrac{1}{2} = \tfrac{2}{6} + \tfrac{3}{6} = \tfrac{5}{6},
\\[4pt]
\Tr(B_0^2) &= 3 \times \left(\tfrac13\right)^2 + 2 \times 0^2 = 3 \times \tfrac{1}{9} = \tfrac{1}{3}.
\end{align}
The ratio is
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Tr(B_0^2)}{\Tr(Y_0^2)} = \frac{1/3}{5/6} = \frac{1}{3} \cdot \frac{6}{5} = \frac{2}{5}.
\end{equation}
\end{proof}

\paragraph{Why \emph{this} normalization? --- the axiomatic fixing.} A hostile reader will rightly ask: the trace ratio $2/5$ is calculated under one specific normalization of $Y_0$ and $B_0$. A different choice (for instance the GUT normalization $Y \to \sqrt{5/3}\,Y$, or a rescaled baryon generator $B \to 3B$ in which the quark charge is $+1$) would give a different ratio. Where in the Constitution is \emph{this} normalization forced? The answer is \POS{6} (\OGN): the Constitution requires every ledger generator to be normalized so that its eigenvalues are \emph{primitive rational numbers}, with the smallest non-zero denominator compatible with the chosen representation. In the $\mathbf 5$ of $\SUfive$, the SM hypercharge eigenvalues $Y_i \in \{-1/3, +1/2\}$ and the SM baryon-number eigenvalues $B_i \in \{+1/3, 0\}$ are precisely the primitive rationals: rescaling either generator multiplicatively by any $\lambda \ne 1$ would either introduce a smaller denominator (forbidden by the integer-rank rule of \POS{6}) or rescale the right-hand side of $\BIsix$ by a continuous parameter (forbidden by \AX{4} \MSMF). The trace ratio $2/5$ is therefore independent of conventions \emph{within} the axiomatic class of admissible normalizations, and the GUT-normalization rescaling (which leaves the SM gauge couplings well-defined but breaks primitivity) is excluded by \POS{6}.

\paragraph{What about gauge-coupling unification?} A second reasonable concern. The GUT normalization $Y_{\mathrm{GUT}} = \sqrt{5/3}\, Y_0$ is conventional in the $\SU(5)$ literature precisely because it makes the three Standard-Model gauge couplings unify cleanly at $E_{\mathrm{GUT}}$: in the GUT-normalized basis, the one-loop running of $g_1, g_2, g_3$ meets at a single point at $\EGUT \approx 2.28 \times 10^{16}$~GeV. If \GG{} rejects the GUT normalization, how does it achieve gauge-coupling unification? The answer is geometric: in \GG{}, gauge-coupling unification is not imposed at the boundary by a basis rescaling; it is implemented at the bulk level by the scale profile of Theorem~\ref{thm:canonical-metric} together with the Hosotani Wilson-line breaking of Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade} Step~4 (see also \citep{Hosotani1983, Kawamura2001}). The single bulk gauge coupling $g_5$ of the unified $\SUfive$ block runs along the radial interval $I_r$ and projects to the three boundary couplings $g_1, g_2, g_3$ through the scale-profile integral; the relative normalization between hypercharge and the color/weak couplings is then a derived consequence of the bulk geometry rather than an empirical input. The companion paper \citep{ArisakaA9SM} carries out the explicit boundary running and verifies that the Standard-Model gauge couplings at $M_Z$ are reproduced from the bulk inputs without ever invoking the $\sqrt{5/3}$ rescaling. The GUT normalization, in other words, is a useful book-keeping device in conventional $\SUfive$ phenomenology, but it is not necessary for gauge-coupling unification in \GG{}, where the unification is geometric rather than algebraic.

\paragraph{Physical intuition: where does $2/5$ come from?} Lemma~\ref{lem:trace-ratio-25} is one of the most remarkable facts of the framework, and it deserves explicit unpacking. Under the constitutionally-fixed primitive normalization just described, the number $2/5$ emerges from a direct trace calculation in the fundamental representation $\mathbf 5$ of $\SUfive$, with the primitive generators $Y_0$ and $B_0$ given by their natural integer-multiple values (Standard Model hypercharges and baryon numbers, normalized so that the entries are primitive simple fractions). No empirical input enters beyond the axiomatic fixing; the calculation is then pure group theory of $\SUfive$.

The factor of $\tfrac{1}{9}$ in each diagonal entry of $Y_0^2$ and $B_0^2$ comes from squaring the third-of-an-integer charge of the color triplet (down-type quarks have hypercharge $-\tfrac13$ and baryon number $\tfrac13$ each). The factor of $\tfrac{1}{4}$ in $Y_0^2$ comes from squaring the half-integer charge of the weak doublet (the lepton doublet has hypercharge $-\tfrac12$, and the conjugate $\bar{\mathbf 5}$ has $+\tfrac12$). The leptonic block has zero baryon number, so the leptonic block contributes nothing to $\Tr(B_0^2)$. The asymmetry between the trace of $Y_0^2$ (over the full $\mathbf 5$) and the trace of $B_0^2$ (only over the colored block) is what produces the ratio $\tfrac{2}{5}$.

In words: the number $\tfrac{2}{5}$ is the fraction of the trace of $Y_0^2$ that comes from the colored quark sector alone. It is built in to the $\SUfive$ structure of the Standard Model, but it has not, to the author's knowledge, ever been used as the central technical input of a unification framework before. Lemma~\ref{lem:trace-ratio-25} converts this trace ratio from a curiosity of $\SUfive$ representation theory into an axiomatic theorem of \GG: the Abelian coefficient $-2/5$ in $\BIsix$ is forced by the trace ratio, and this is the origin of the Diophantine cascade we will derive in Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade}.

\subsection{Lemma 4.4: Equal Abelian treatment}

\begin{euclidlemma}[Equal Abelian treatment: $c = d$]
\label{lem:c-equals-d}
Under \AX{4} (\MSMF) and \POS{6} (\OGN), the $\UoneB$ and $\UoneQi$ Abelian coefficients in the modified Bianchi identity satisfy $c = d$.
\end{euclidlemma}

\begin{proof}
By Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces}, the bulk gauge group contains two Abelian factors $\UoneB$ and $\UoneQi$, both arising from axiomatic requirements (\POS{1} plus proton stability for $\UoneB$; \AX{3} plus \POS{4} plus \POS{1} for $\UoneQi$). \AX{4} (\MSMF) demands equal treatment of the two Abelian factors unless a constitutional clause distinguishes them. No clause does: $\UoneB$ and $\UoneQi$ enter the constitution at the same level (both as integer-quantized boundary ledgers, both gauged in the bulk to prevent global-symmetry breakdown). \POS{6} (\OGN) then requires that their coefficients in $\BIsix$ be equal:
\begin{equation}
c = d.
\label{eq:c-equals-d-final}
\end{equation}
Equivalently, choose primitive raw $Q_{i,0}$ generators of the same trace norm class as $B_0$:
\begin{equation}
\Tr(Q_{i,0}^2) = \Tr(B_0^2) = \tfrac13.
\label{eq:Qi-trace-equal-B}
\end{equation}
This forces $c$ and $d$ to enter $\BIsix$ symmetrically.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Combining the Lemmas: proof of Theorem 4}

We now assemble Lemmas~\ref{lem:a-equals-1}, \ref{lem:b-equals-minus1}, \ref{lem:trace-ratio-25}, and \ref{lem:c-equals-d} into a proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs}.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs}]
By Lemma~\ref{lem:a-equals-1}, the gravitational coefficient is $a = +1$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:b-equals-minus1}, the $\SUfive$ coefficient is $b = -1$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:trace-ratio-25}, the Abelian-to-non-Abelian trace ratio is $2/5$. The signs of the Abelian coefficients $c$ and $d$ are fixed by demanding that the Green--Schwarz term cancel the one-loop \emph{mixed} anomalies $\tr(R^2)\,F_B^2$ and $\tr(R^2)\,F_{Qi}^2$, in addition to the pure non-Abelian and gravitational anomalies that Lemmas~\ref{lem:a-equals-1}--\ref{lem:b-equals-minus1} have already addressed. Following the same Stora--Zumino descent logic as in Lemma~\ref{lem:b-equals-minus1}, the Abelian Chern--Simons three-forms $\omega_{3B}$ and $\omega_{3Qi}$ must enter $H_3$ with sign opposite to the gravitational Chern--Simons $\omega_{3L}$ in order for the inflow to cancel the mixed-anomaly contribution rather than double it. Therefore $c, d < 0$, and $|c| = |d| = 2/5 \cdot 1 = 2/5$ relative to the unified non-Abelian block whose magnitude is $|b| = 1$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:c-equals-d}, $c = d$. Combining:
\begin{equation}
(a, b, c, d) = (1, -1, -2/5, -2/5).
\end{equation}
The corresponding modified Bianchi identity is \eqref{eq:bi6-final}.
\end{proof}

\paragraph{What ``locking'' means.} Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs} is the mathematical content of the phrase ``Geometry--Gauge Locking'' that gives the framework its name, and it is, at root, a geometric statement. In conventional gauge theory, the gravitational and gauge field strengths are independent objects, each varying independently of the other. In \GG{}, the modified Bianchi identity \eqref{eq:bi6-final} ties them together as components of one composite curvature $\cF = R \oplus F_5 \oplus F_B \oplus F_{Qi}$ on the four-factor principal $G_\Bulk$-bundle: any change in one curvature must be compensated by changes in the others (in the \OGN{}-fixed weighted combination on the right-hand side), with the global topological information of $H_3$ unchanged. The locking is exactly that, and the geometry of the four-factor bundle together with the \OGN{}-primitive normalization of the rational coefficient vector --- not by any quantum-mechanical anomaly calculation.

The locking has two consequences, in logical order. First (geometric, immediate), the four curvature sectors (gravity, $\SUfive$, $\UoneB$, $\UoneQi$) cannot have independent classical dynamics: they are constrained at every point of $\cM_6$ by \eqref{eq:bi6-final}. Second (quantum, downstream), the same geometric $X_4$ provides the inflow that cancels the one-loop chiral anomaly: the Green--Schwarz term $S_{\mathrm{GS}} = \int B_2 \wedge X_4$, built from the very $X_4$ forced by the geometric locking, cancels the BRST variation of the fermion determinant. Theorem~\ref{thm:anomaly-factorization} of the next section makes this consequence explicit. On the geometry-first reading: the geometric locking is the cause; anomaly cancellation is the effect.

\paragraph{Why this coefficient vector and no other?} It is worth pausing to appreciate that Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs} is a uniqueness theorem. The coefficient vector $(1, -1, -2/5, -2/5)$ is not one option among many: it is the only primitive rational vector consistent with all four constraints (gravitational normalization, Green--Schwarz cancellation, Abelian trace ratio, equal Abelian treatment). Any other choice fails at least one constraint. This is the kind of rigidity that the Constitution buys.

\paragraph{Echo of Green--Schwarz: $\BIsix$ as the four-component generalization.} Indeed, the four-component pattern of $\BIsix$ is the natural generalization of the two-component pattern that Green and Schwarz pioneered in 1984 for ten-dimensional heterotic string theory \citep{GreenSchwarz1984}. Where GS demonstrated that the gauge field strength $F$ and the gravitational curvature $R$ can sit together inside one closed four-form $X_4$ in ten dimensions, $\BIsix$ makes the very same geometrization move \emph{constitutional} in the 6D bulk of \GGTheory --- with four contributing factors $(\Spinone, \SUfive, \UoneB, \UoneQi)$ replacing GS's two and the $\OGNfive$ ledger pinning the coefficients $(1, -1, -2/5, -2/5)$ that the GS construction left as a free fit. The full discussion of the GS legacy --- including the differential-cohomology refinements and the precise relationship to \AX{2} \GGEP\ --- is developed in the companion paper \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}, in its section on $\BIsix$ as the \GGEP{} completion of Green--Schwarz, which positions $\BIsix$ as the axiomatic completion of the geometrization move that GS technically pioneered four decades ago.

\paragraph{Looking forward.} The four numerical entries of the coefficient vector $(1, -1, -2/5, -2/5)$ encode key data of the framework, which the next theorems will unpack:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em]
\item The integer $5$ in the denominator of $-2/5$ is the unification index $L = 5$ (size of the $\SUfive$ fundamental representation). It will reappear as the third entry of the $\OGNfive$ Diophantine cascade.
\item The integer $2$ in the numerator of $-2/5$ is the complementary block size $L - N = 5 - 3 = 2$, the leptonic dimension of the $\SUfive$ fundamental --- this is what \eqref{eq:trace-ratio-general-A2} puts there, and it is not the count of Abelian factors, which is two by coincidence. It enters the trace ratio that Step 3 of $\OGNfive$ uses as its independent check on $N$.
\item The trace ratio $-(L - N)/L = -2/5$ is consistent with $N = 3$ via $5 - 3 = 2$, and that consistency is a real constraint on the ledger. It is not what fixes $N$: the ratio is computed on the block split of the defining representation, so a derivation of $N$ from it would consume the split it concludes. Step~3 of the $\OGNfive$ cascade in Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade} therefore fixes $N = N_c = 3$ by the dual lock and the block embedding, and reads the trace ratio as the check that the observed $3{+}2$ split agrees with a ledger already determined.
\end{itemize}

The next theorem (Theorem~\ref{thm:anomaly-factorization}) shows that the anomaly polynomial $I_8$ admits the Green--Schwarz factorization $I_8 = \tfrac{1}{2}\, X_4 \wedge X_4$ with the same four-form $X_4$ that appears in $\BIsix$. The theorem after that derives the $\OGNfive$ Diophantine cascade in five steps, with $N = N_c = 3$ from the dual lock as Step 3 and the trace ratio of Lemma~\ref{lem:trace-ratio-25} as its check. The remaining theorems then assemble the BRST quantum theory and the Arisaka equation.


\section{Theorem 5 (T-GG6-5): Single-Tensor Anomaly Factorization}
\label{sec:thm5-anomaly-factorization}

Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs} fixed the coefficient vector of the modified Bianchi identity from the geometry of the four-factor curvature space alone (Remark~\ref{rmk:l84-geometric-origin}). We now prove that this geometric $X_4$ has an immediate quantum-mechanical consequence: the same four-form, when squared, factorizes the one-loop chiral-fermion anomaly polynomial through a single tensor inflow channel. Anomaly cancellation is therefore not the motivation for the coefficient vector but the downstream pay-off of the geometric locking established in Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs}: one four-form, one tensor, one inflow --- all of them forced before the fermion content is even specified.

\begin{euclidtheorem}[Single-tensor anomaly factorization]
\label{thm:anomaly-factorization}
Let $X_4$ be the four-form of $\BIsix$ given in Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs}. The one-loop chiral anomaly polynomial $I_8$ of the bulk theory factorizes as
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;I_8 \;=\; \tfrac{1}{2}\,X_4 \wedge X_4,\;}
\label{eq:I8-factorization}
\end{equation}
with the chiral fermion content of the bulk chosen so that the irreducible $\tr R^4$ and $\Tr F_5^4$ pieces vanish identically. The Green--Schwarz term
\begin{equation}
S_{\mathrm{GS}} \;=\; \int_{\cM_6} B_2 \wedge X_4
\label{eq:SGS}
\end{equation}
then provides the single inflow channel that cancels the BRST variation of the one-loop fermion determinant.
\end{euclidtheorem}

\begin{proof}
We proceed in three steps: (a) expansion of the factorized polynomial; (b) absence of irreducible $\tr R^4$ and $\Tr F_5^4$ terms as the matter-content constraint; (c) construction of the Green--Schwarz term.

\textbf{Step (a): Expansion of $\tfrac12 X_4 \wedge X_4$.} Substituting $X_4 = \tr R^2 - \Tr F_5^2 - \tfrac{2}{5} F_B^2 - \tfrac{2}{5} F_{Qi}^2$ from Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs} into \eqref{eq:I8-factorization} and expanding the wedge product, we obtain
\begin{align}
I_8 \;=\; \tfrac{1}{2}\, X_4 \wedge X_4 \;&=\; \tfrac{1}{2}(\tr R^2)^2 + \tfrac{1}{2}(\Tr F_5^2)^2 + \tfrac{2}{25}(F_B^2)^2 + \tfrac{2}{25}(F_{Qi}^2)^2 \nonumber \\
&\quad - \tr R^2 \cdot \Tr F_5^2 - \tfrac{2}{5}\,\tr R^2 \cdot F_B^2 - \tfrac{2}{5}\,\tr R^2 \cdot F_{Qi}^2 \nonumber \\
&\quad + \tfrac{2}{5}\,\Tr F_5^2 \cdot F_B^2 + \tfrac{2}{5}\,\Tr F_5^2 \cdot F_{Qi}^2 + \tfrac{4}{25}\,F_B^2 \cdot F_{Qi}^2.
\label{eq:I8-expanded}
\end{align}
The four ``square'' terms in the first line are the pure curvature-squared and gauge-field-strength-squared pieces; the six ``cross'' terms in the second and third lines are the mixed gravitational--gauge and gauge--gauge anomalies.

\textbf{The expansion contains \emph{no} irreducible $\tr R^4$ or $\Tr F_5^4$ terms.} Single-tensor factorization has a purely algebraic content: a four-form $X_4$ that is itself only second-order in the curvature invariants, when squared, produces only fourth-order monomials of the form $X^2 \cdot Y^2$, never $X^4$. The proper anomaly polynomial $I_8$ from the chiral fermion determinant, by contrast, generically contains both reducible (factorizable) and irreducible (non-factorizable) pieces, the latter being the obstruction to Green--Schwarz inflow.

\textbf{Step (b): The matter content constraint.} \POS{3} (\AF, Postulate~\ref{pos:AF}) requires that the chiral fermion content of the bulk be chosen such that the proper one-loop anomaly polynomial coincides with \eqref{eq:I8-expanded}: no irreducible $\tr R^4$ or $\Tr F_5^4$ pieces, and the cross-term coefficients matching those obtained from $\tfrac12 X_4 \wedge X_4$.

The proper anomaly polynomial for chiral fermions in $6$D with gauge group $\SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$ takes the standard form \citep{AlvarezGaumeWitten1984}
\begin{equation}
I_8^{\mathrm{proper}} = \mathrm{tr}_R\,\hat A(R) \cdot \mathrm{ch}(F)\Big|_{8\text{-form}},
\label{eq:I8-proper}
\end{equation}
where the trace is over the chiral fermion representation, $\hat A(R)$ is the A-roof genus of the tangent bundle, $\mathrm{ch}(F)$ is the Chern character of the gauge bundle, and the projection picks out the eight-form piece. Expanding, $I_8^{\mathrm{proper}}$ is a polynomial in $\tr R^2$, $\tr R^4$, $\Tr F_5^2$, $\Tr F_5^4$, $F_B^2$, $F_B^4$, $F_{Qi}^2$, $F_{Qi}^4$, and their products.

The constraint that $I_8^{\mathrm{proper}} = \tfrac12 X_4 \wedge X_4$ is therefore a system of \emph{anomaly-coefficient conditions} on the chiral fermion content. The explicit conditions are:
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=2em, label=(\roman*)]
\item Coefficient of $\tr R^4$ in $I_8^{\mathrm{proper}}$ must vanish (it is absent on the right of \eqref{eq:I8-expanded}).
\item Coefficient of $\Tr F_5^4$ in $I_8^{\mathrm{proper}}$ must vanish.
\item Coefficient of $F_B^4$ in $I_8^{\mathrm{proper}}$ must \emph{match} the value $\tfrac{2}{25}$ carried by $\tfrac12 X_4\wedge X_4$ in \eqref{eq:I8-expanded}, and likewise for $F_{Qi}^4$. (Conditions (i) and (ii) demand vanishing because $\tr R^4$ and $\Tr F_5^4$ are \emph{irreducible} quartics, absent from the square of a quadratic form; an Abelian field strength has no independent quartic invariant, so $F_B^4$ simply \emph{is} $(F_B^2)^2$ and must match rather than vanish.)
\item Each of the cross-term coefficients in \eqref{eq:I8-expanded} must match the corresponding coefficient computed from the matter representation.
\end{enumerate}
\emph{The existence of a chiral content satisfying these conditions is a hypothesis of the present theorem}, carried in its statement by the clause ``with the chiral fermion content of the bulk chosen so that''. It is not established here, and the theorem is stated conditionally on it. The companion paper \AThree{} \citep{ArisakaA3BI6} discharges the hypothesis by explicit construction --- it exhibits a finite chiral spectrum realizing the factorization, and characterizes the complete family of such spectra --- and is cited here as the existence witness rather than as a premise imported into the proof. The construction uses the Standard Model fermion content embedded in $\overline{\mathbf 5} \oplus \mathbf{10}$ of $\SUfive$ per generation, plus $\UoneB$ and $\UoneQi$ charges assigned by the Standard Model baryon number and the (Theorem~\ref{thm:arisaka-equation} below) information charge respectively, plus appropriate spectator multiplets to saturate the mixed-anomaly coefficients.

\textbf{Step (c): Construction of the Green--Schwarz term.} Given the factorization \eqref{eq:I8-factorization} and the modified Bianchi identity $dH_3 = X_4$ from Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs}, the Green--Schwarz term is
\begin{equation}
S_{\mathrm{GS}} = \int_{\cM_6} B_2 \wedge X_4.
\label{eq:SGS-construction}
\end{equation}
This is a six-form integrated over the six-dimensional bulk, hence a well-defined classical term in the action. Its BRST variation under \eqref{eq:descent-I8} (proved formally in Theorem~\ref{thm:brst-consistency} below) cancels exactly the BRST variation of the one-loop fermion determinant $\Gamma_{\mathrm{1-loop}}$, completing the anomaly cancellation:
\begin{equation}
s\big(\Gamma_{\mathrm{1-loop}} + S_{\mathrm{GS}}\big) = 0.
\label{eq:s-cancel}
\end{equation}
The full BRST argument is the content of Theorem~\ref{thm:brst-consistency}.
\end{proof}

\paragraph{Why factorization is so rigid.} The Green--Schwarz mechanism is at its heart a topological argument: the anomaly polynomial $I_8$, which is a closed eight-form on the bulk, must factorize through a four-form $X_4$ in order for a tensor inflow (involving a two-form $B_2$ whose curl is constrained by a modified Bianchi identity $dH_3 = X_4$) to cancel it. The factorization condition $I_8 = \tfrac12 X_4 \wedge X_4$ is the precise mathematical statement that this is possible. In the geometry-first reading we adopt here, the rigidity is best read \emph{geometry-first}.

The rigidity comes from two sources, in logical order. First (geometric, fixed before any fermion calculation): the four-form $X_4$ on the right-hand side of $\BIsix$ is fixed by Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs} as a property of the four-factor curvature space on the bulk principal bundle (Remark~\ref{rmk:l84-geometric-origin}). There is no freedom to choose its coefficients or its sectors. Second (quantum, downstream of the geometry): the condition $I_8 = \tfrac12 X_4 \wedge X_4$ then converts into a system of constraints on the chiral matter representation. The Standard Model fermion content (with $\UoneB$ and $\UoneQi$ extensions) must satisfy these constraints exactly; the companion paper \citep{ArisakaA3BI6} carries out the benchmark construction. Either a different $\BIsix$ coefficient vector (geometrically forbidden) or a different fermion content (then phenomenologically excluded by Standard Model matching) would destroy the factorization, leaving an irreducible $\tr R^4$ or $\Tr F_5^4$ piece that no tensor inflow could cancel. The fact that the geometrically-forced coefficient vector and the Standard Model fermion content fit together in a single closed factorization is the principal non-trivial empirical content of the framework.

In the conventional ten-dimensional Green--Schwarz setting, the factorization is what selects the $\SO(32)$ and $E_8 \times E_8$ heterotic string vacua \citep{GreenSchwarz1984}. In the present six-dimensional setting, the factorization is what selects the $\SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$ gauge content with the specific \OGN{}-fixed coefficient vector $(1, -1, -2/5, -2/5)$. Different gauge groups or different coefficients would produce a different $X_4$, and there is no \emph{a priori} reason that the corresponding $\tfrac12 X_4 \wedge X_4$ would match a possible chiral fermion spectrum. The fact that it does match for the \GG\ choice is the miracle of the framework.

\paragraph{Single-tensor versus multiple-tensor.} \AX{4} (\MSMF) demands the minimum number of tensor sectors; we have used a single $B_2$ throughout. In principle, multi-tensor Green--Schwarz mechanisms exist (for example, the rank-$2$ factorization $I_8 = \tfrac12 X_4 \wedge X_4 + Y_4 \wedge Y_4$ used in some 6D supergravity constructions); these require more than one anomaly-canceling tensor field. \AX{4} selects against such constructions: any additional tensor field is unforced by the constitution and inadmissible. The single-tensor factorization is therefore the axiomatic minimum, and it is precisely what the \GG\ choice of $\BIsix$ delivers.

\paragraph{Forward pointer to the rigorous global proof.} Theorem~\ref{thm:anomaly-factorization} establishes the local anomaly cancellation: the factorization of the perturbative one-loop anomaly polynomial through a single $X_4$. This is sufficient for a perturbatively-consistent quantum theory, but a rigorous quantum theory also requires \emph{global} anomaly freedom under large gauge transformations. The companion paper \citep{ArisakaA3BI6} carries out the global anomaly freedom proof in the Wu--Chern--Simons / differential-cohomology framework, establishing that $\BIsix$ together with the axiomatic matter content satisfies both the local and global anomaly cancellation conditions on the intended \GG{} background class. The reader interested in the full mathematical rigor of the global proof is referred to that paper. In the present paper, we use the local factorization \eqref{eq:I8-factorization} as input for the BRST consistency proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:brst-consistency}.

\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption[Physical reading of the anomaly coefficient vector, term by term.]{What each coefficient of the anomaly-cancellation vector means physically. The vector is a short list of numbers that has to come out right for the theory to be consistent at all, and it is usually presented as arithmetic; this table gives each entry a sector, a value and an interpretation. The gravitational entry sets the normalization, so the remaining entries are ratios rather than free choices --- which is why the vector is a prediction rather than a fit. A single wrong entry would leave the theory anomalous and therefore dead.}
\label{tab:bi6-meaning}
\small
\begin{tabular}{>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.13\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.16\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.13\textwidth}p{0.46\textwidth}}
\toprule
\textbf{Coefficient} & \textbf{Sector} & \textbf{Value} & \textbf{Interpretation in factorization} \\
\midrule
$a$ & Gravity & $+1$ & Reference normalization; gravitational Chern--Simons enters $H_3$ with $+$ sign. \\
$b$ & $\SUfive$ & $-1$ & Opposite inflow orientation; cancels mixed $\tr R^2 \cdot \Tr F_5^2$ anomaly. \\
$c$ & $\UoneB$ & $-2/5$ & Minimal Abelian trace weight; cancels mixed $\tr R^2 \cdot F_B^2$ anomaly. \\
$d$ & $\UoneQi$ & $-2/5$ & Equal Abelian trace weight; cancels mixed $\tr R^2 \cdot F_{Qi}^2$ anomaly. \\
$|a/c|$ & Gravity / $\UoneB$ & $5/2$ & Reciprocal trace ratio; canonical geometric weight in boundary current language. \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}


\section{Theorem 6 (T-GG6-6): The \OGNfive{} Diophantine Cascade}
\label{sec:thm6-ogn-cascade}

The Constitution constrains continuous parameters; Theorems~\ref{thm:dim-minimal} through \ref{thm:anomaly-factorization} have demonstrated the geometric and gauge-content rigidity that follows. We now ask: are there any continuous parameters left in the framework, and if so, how few? The answer is that the dimensionless freedom of the bulk theory collapses entirely to a five-integer ledger, the $\OGNfive$ ledger, derived as a Diophantine cascade in five steps.

\paragraph{Historical background (with citations).} Roughly speaking, the $\OGNfive$ ledger is a Diophantine cascade: each integer in the ledger is the unique solution to an integer constraint forced by a prior theorem. The intellectual lineage of integer-only solution constraints in physics is older than calculus. Diophantus of Alexandria, in his third-century \emph{Arithmetica} \citep{Diophantus250}, posed a class of polynomial equations whose admissible solutions are required to be integers (or rational numbers); this was the conceptual seed of what is now called Diophantine analysis. The next decisive move was Joseph-Louis Lagrange's 1770 four-square theorem \citep{Lagrange1770}, which established that every non-negative integer is expressible as a sum of four integer squares, $n = a^2 + b^2 + c^2 + d^2$ with $a, b, c, d \in \Z_{\ge 0}$. Lagrange's theorem is the prototype of an algebraic identity that pins together several distinct integer ledgers --- exactly the pattern the $\OGNfive$ closure step uses in $K = M^2 + N^2 + L^2$. Between Lagrange and Dirac, the decisive intermediate step in physics was Bohr's 1913 trilogy \citep{Bohr1913}, which proposed that the electronic orbits in the hydrogen atom are admissible only at discrete integer-quantized values of the action --- the first time a continuous classical parameter (the orbital radius) was collapsed in physics to an integer ledger by a structural rule rather than fitted to data. In 1931, Dirac's paper \emph{Quantized singularities in the electromagnetic field} \citep{Dirac1931} carried the move one decisive step further, proving that the existence of a single magnetic monopole anywhere in the universe forces all electric charges to be integer multiples of a fundamental charge unit, with the quantization condition $eg = n\hbar c/2$ for $n \in \Z$ --- the first physical example of an integer-quantization-from-topology argument. Dirac's quantization condition is the original physical example of a continuous parameter (electric charge) collapsing to an integer ledger by virtue of a topological constraint. The $\OGNfive$ cascade we now derive applies the same move five times in a row: each integer $(M, N, L; J, K)$ is forced by a prior theorem or a constitutional clause; the five integers together exhaust the dimensionless freedom of the bulk theory; and Lagrange's four-square identity closes the cascade with $K = LJ = M^2 + N^2 + L^2 = 35$. Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade} below carries the cascade out in its five steps.

\begin{euclidremark}[Defense of the lexicographic ordering --- the anti-landscape objection]
\label{rmk:lexicographic-defense}
A natural objection raised by senior string-theory readers, and one we wish to address head-on before stating the theorem: \AX{4} (\MSMF) prescribes a \emph{lexicographic} maximum on the pair $(S(\cT), -F(\cT))$ in equation~\eqref{eq:msmf-lexicographic}, in which the symmetry score is maximized first and the freedom score minimized second. The choice of lexicographic order --- symmetry-then-freedom rather than, say, freedom-then-symmetry --- is, on its face, a free axiomatic choice; a different ordering would in principle select a different point in admissible-theory space. Does this not reduce the framework's anti-landscape claim to a tautology hinging on an arbitrary order?

The objection is structurally sharp, and the answer is in three parts.

\textbf{First (constitutional priority).} The lexicographic order in \AX{4} is not chosen freely; it records the constitutional priority that the prior clauses already establish. \AX{1} (\LC), \AX{2} (\GGEP), \AX{3} (\OGGEP), \POS{1} (\GI), \POS{3} (\AF), \POS{5} (\RG), \POS{7} (\MF) each demand particular symmetries (Lorentz covariance, gauge--geometry equivalence, operational dictionary, layered gauge invariance, anomaly freedom, RG semigroup, falsifiability) that any admissible theory must \emph{first} possess. A theory failing one of these symmetry requirements is simply not admissible; it never enters the maximization. \AX{4}'s lexicographic max begins on the residual space of theories that already saturate these symmetries; the freedom-minimization step is what then prunes the remaining continuous moduli. The order is therefore prescribed by the prior clauses, not chosen freely inside \AX{4}.

\textbf{Second (the cascade is forced step-wise, not picked by a maximum).} The five-integer ledger derived in Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade} below is \emph{not} obtained by ranking candidate ledgers under any score function. Each integer is forced by a prior theorem ($M = 1$ by Theorem~\ref{thm:dim-minimal}; $L = 5$ by Theorem~T-BI6-9.0 of \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}, free of $N$; $N = N_c = 3$ by Theorem~T-BI6-10.2a of \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}, from the dual lock and the block embedding) or by a structural clause of \AX{4} together with the closure identities ($J = 2N + 1$; $K = LJ = M^2 + N^2 + L^2$). No lexicographic choice operates inside the cascade; the only role of the lexicographic structure is at the meta-level, to record that ``admissible'' theories first satisfy the constitutional symmetries before any candidate ledger is even constructed. An ``alternative'' lexicographic order would, by the first argument above, fail to be admissible in the first place.

\textbf{Third (the empirical lock).} Even if a hostile reader rejects the first two arguments and treats the lexicographic order as a free choice, the framework remains exposed in the standard scientific sense: each integer of the ledger is tied to an empirical anchor that the cascade predicts. $L = 5$ is forced by Theorem~T-BI6-9.0 of \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}, from single-tensor Green--Schwarz consistency alone, and is \emph{separately} anchored by the empirical fact that the Standard Model's $\SU(3)_C \times \SU(2)_L \times \UoneY$ embeds in $\SUfive$ and not in a smaller simple group \citep{GeorgiGlashow1974} --- the derivation and the anchor being independent is the point. $N = N_c = 3$ is \emph{derived} from the dual lock together with the block embedding, Theorem~T-BI6-10.2a of \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}, and is anchored by the empirical count of \emph{colors}; the count of fermion generations $N_g$ is a different quantity and is not what this integer is. $K = 35$ produces $M_{\mathrm{lock}} \approx 3.85$~TeV \citep{ATLAS2019, CMS2021} and the leading-order \OGN{} fine-structure prediction $\alpha^{-1}(0) = 2^J + N^2 = 137$ matching the integer part of CODATA \citep{CODATA2022} exactly (with the residual $\sim 0.026\%$ deviation treated in \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid}). Each integer is therefore independently falsifiable through its empirical anchor; the lexicographic framing is not what carries the anti-landscape claim --- the empirical match plus the no-free-parameter status of every step is. The full program-level defense of the no-free-parameters claim, including the rigorous statement that GU-5 (the Geometric Universal Five Constants) $\{c, G_N, \hbar; \kB, \QB\}$ exhausts the dimensionful content of the framework, is the subject of the companion paper \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid}, which we cite here as the primary published authority on this question.
\end{euclidremark}

\begin{euclidtheorem}[$\OGNfive$ Diophantine cascade]
\label{thm:ogn-cascade}
Under \AX{4} (\MSMF) plus \POS{6} (\OGN), the dimensionless free parameters of the bulk theory are exhausted by a five-integer ledger
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;(M, N, L;\, J, K) \;=\; (1,\, 3,\, 5;\, 7,\, 35),\;}
\label{eq:OGN5-final}
\end{equation}


forced by the following five-step Diophantine cascade. Three integers of
value three occur in this program and must not be conflated: $N_c = 3$
is the color count, which is the \OGNfive{} integer $N$; $N_g = 3$ is
the number of fermion generations, which is \emph{not} an \OGNfive{}
member and is established in \citep{ArisakaP2N3}; and $N_f$ keeps its
standard meaning, the number of quark flavors in a beta function, equal
to $6$ at high scale. Nothing in the cascade uses $N_g$.
\begin{enumerate}[label=\textbf{Step \arabic*:}, leftmargin=2.5em]
\item $M = 1$ from Theorem~\ref{thm:dim-minimal} (single compact direction);
\item $L = 5$ from single-tensor Green--Schwarz consistency, Theorem~T-BI6-9.0 of
 \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}: the irreducible quartic and cubic indices of the
 charged core package both equal $L - 5$ and must vanish, with \AX{4}
 (\MSMF) selecting the minimal chiral package. This route is free of $N$
 throughout, which is what makes Step~3 available in the form given
 below; Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces} of the present paper reaches the
 same unified block from the Constitution together with the requirement
 that the boundary carry the Standard-Model gauge content, and is
 retained as that separate result;
\item $N = N_c = 3$ from the dual lock together with the block
 embedding, Theorem~T-BI6-10.2a of \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}: substituting
 $J = 2N+1$ into $K = LJ = M^2 + N^2 + L^2$ gives
 $N = L \pm \sqrt{L - M^2}$, so at $M = 1$ integrality requires $L-1$ to
 be a perfect square; at $L = 5$ the roots are $3$ and $7$, and $N < L$
 --- the color block sits inside the $L$-dimensional defining
 representation --- retains $N = 3$. The trace ratio $-(L-N)/L = -2/5$
 is \emph{not} used to fix $N$: it is computed on the block split of the
 defining representation and would consume the split it concludes. It
 serves instead as the independent check;
\item $J = 2N + 1 = 7$, the centered odd closure index. The symmetric,
 centered form of the charge packet is a structural claim and not a
 convention: among admissible closure packets it is the minimal one
 symmetric about a neutral slot, and the selection is \AX{4} (\MSMF)
 acting through \POS{6} (\OGN). $J$ is therefore a structural function
 of $N$ rather than an independent integer of the ledger;
\item $K = LJ = M^2 + N^2 + L^2 = 35$ (master lock integer; dual-lock identity).
\end{enumerate}
The five integers are linked by the algebraic relations
\begin{equation}
J = 2N + 1,\qquad K = LJ,\qquad K = M^2 + N^2 + L^2,
\label{eq:OGN5-relations}
\end{equation}
and no free dimensionless parameter survives in the bulk theory. Nor does the bulk single out one dimensionful anchor: its dimensionful content is the co-equal trio $\{c, G_N, \hbar\}$, one conversion factor for each kind of bulk dimension --- $c$ for the Lorentzian directions, $G_N$ for the scale interval $I_r$, $\hbar$ for the compact phase $S^1_\theta$ --- with $M_6$ a derived combination and none of the three free. (Two objects in this paper are written with a subscript six and are not the same thing: $\cM_6$ is the six-dimensional manifold, $M_6$ is the bulk mass scale defined on it.) Setting $c = \hbar = 1$, as one does, leaves the overall unit scale as the single remaining dimensionful datum; that is a choice of units, not a parameter.
\end{euclidtheorem}

Figure~\ref{fig:ogn5-cascade} previews the cascade as a flowchart: two theorems force $(M, L) = (1, 5)$ with no color count in play, the dual lock together with the block embedding $N < L$ then determines $N = N_c = 3$, and the pair $(J, K) = (7, 35)$ follows from the closure-index clause and the identity $K = LJ = M^2 + N^2 + L^2$.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\resizebox{0.92\textwidth}{!}{%
\usebox{\GGscCasc}%
}
\bigskip
\caption[The $\OGNfive$ Diophantine cascade as a five-step flowchart]{The $\OGNfive$ Diophantine cascade as a five-step flowchart. Two theorems force $(M, L) = (1, 5)$ without reference to any color count (left column); the dual lock together with the block embedding $N < L$ then determines $N = N_c = 3$, and the pair $(J, K) = (7, 35)$ follows from the closure-index clause and the same identity $K = LJ = M^2 + N^2 + L^2 = 35$ (right column). The double equality $35 = 5 \times 7 = 1 + 9 + 25$ is the axiomatic fingerprint of \OGNfive{}: it is not a coincidence but the content of the dual lock, and every numerical prediction of the program descends from these five integers. Solid arrows mark the forcing chain; the one dashed arrow carries the check. The trace ratio hangs below the chain as a dashed node: it checks a ledger already determined and is not a route to $N$. After the cascade closes, no continuous dimensionless parameter survives in the bulk theory --- the defeat of the string-theoretic landscape problem.}
\label{fig:ogn5-cascade}
\end{figure}

The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade} is the explicit verification of each of the five Steps. We carry them out in sequence.

\subsection{Step 1: $M = 1$ from Theorem 1}

\begin{euclidlemma}[Compact-direction count]
\label{lem:M-equals-1}
The \OGN{} integer $M$ counts the number of compact Abelian holonomy directions in the bulk. By Theorem~\ref{thm:dim-minimal}, $M = 1$.
\end{euclidlemma}

\begin{proof}
Theorem~\ref{thm:dim-minimal} established that the bulk $\cM_6$ contains exactly one compact direction, the topological circle $S^1_\theta$. This direction supports exactly one Abelian holonomy ledger (the Wilson-line phase $\oint A_\theta\, d\theta$ together with the integer-quantized Kaluza--Klein modes around the circle). Therefore $M = 1$.
\end{proof}

\paragraph{Physical intuition for $M = 1$.} The integer $M$ is the structural ``Abelian compact direction count.'' In conventional Kaluza--Klein theories, $M$ would be the rank of the compact internal space (e.g., $M = 1$ for $S^1$, $M = 2$ for $T^2$, $M = 6$ for a Calabi--Yau three-fold with no further constraints). In \GG, the constitution forces $M = 1$ via Theorem~\ref{thm:dim-minimal}: a single compact direction is the axiomatic minimum, and \AX{4} (\MSMF) forbids any additional compact directions not forced by another clause. No further clause demands a second compact direction, so $M = 1$ is the unique admissible value. Axiomatically, that is why Calabi--Yau compactifications of string theory are inadmissible in \GG: each additional compact direction is unforced.

\subsection{Step 2: $L = 5$ from single-tensor Green--Schwarz consistency}

\begin{euclidlemma}[Unification-index count]
\label{lem:L-equals-5}
The \OGN{} integer $L$ is the size of the fundamental representation of the bulk non-Abelian gauge group. By single-tensor Green--Schwarz consistency --- Theorem~T-BI6-9.0 of \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}, which uses no color count at any step --- $L = 5$. Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces} reaches the same value through the observed low-energy gauge content and is retained as the physical gloss.
\end{euclidlemma}

\begin{proof}
Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces} established that the bulk non-Abelian gauge group is $\SUfive$; its defining representation is the $\mathbf 5$, of dimension five, so $L = 5$.

Two remarks on the standing of this step. First, the route just used --- ``the smallest simple Lie group containing the Standard Model gauge sector'' (its algebra, root system and branching rules are set out in Appendix~\ref{app:su5-lie}) --- reaches the right answer but reaches it through the observed low-energy gauge content, and that content includes $\SU(3)_C$. An integer obtained that way cannot afterwards be used, in the same cascade, to conclude how many colors there are. Second, and for exactly that reason, the companion paper \AThree{} now supplies a route that does not: single-tensor Green--Schwarz consistency requires the irreducible quartic index and the cubic index of the charged core package to vanish, both indices equal $L - 5$, and \AX{4}~(\MSMF) selects the minimal chiral package --- so $L = 5$ follows with no reference to the observed gauge group and no appearance of $N$ at any step. We adopt that route as the primary one and retain the smallest-simple-group statement as the physical gloss it always was.
\end{proof}

\paragraph{Physical intuition for $L = 5$.} The integer $L$ is the structural ``unification index'' of the framework. Among simple Lie groups containing the Standard Model gauge group, $\SUfive$ has the smallest fundamental representation; the next-smallest options are $\SO(10)$, whose defining
representation is the $\mathbf{10}$ ($L = 10$), and $E_6$, whose
fundamental is the $\mathbf{27}$ ($L = 27$), and so on. Read that way, the Constitution selects $L = 5$ via \AX{4} (\MSMF, smallest simple group) and \POS{6} (\OGN, integer rank). This is the gloss and not the forcing: the forcing is the Green--Schwarz route of the proof above, which never consults the observed gauge group. Just as $M = 1$ records the single compact direction, $L = 5$ records the size of the non-Abelian unification block.

\subsection{Step 3: $N = N_c = 3$ from the dual lock}

\begin{euclidlemma}[Color index from the dual lock]
\label{lem:N-equals-3}
The \OGN{} integer $N$ is the color index $N_c$ of the colored sector
inherited by the boundary theory. Substituting the closure-index clause
$J = 2N + 1$ of Step~4 into the dual lock $K = LJ = M^2 + N^2 + L^2$
gives the quadratic
\begin{equation}
N^2 - 2LN + \bigl(M^2 + L^2 - L\bigr) = 0,
\qquad
N = L \pm \sqrt{L - M^2},
\label{eq:LN-relation}
\end{equation}
so that at $M = 1$ integrality requires $L - 1$ to be a perfect square.
With $M = 1$ from Lemma~\ref{lem:M-equals-1} and $L = 5$ from
Lemma~\ref{lem:L-equals-5}, the two roots are $3$ and $7$; the block
embedding $N < L$ --- the color block sits inside the $L$-dimensional
defining representation --- retains
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;N = N_c = 3.\;}
\label{eq:N-equals-3-boxed}
\end{equation}
This is Theorem~T-BI6-10.2a of \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}, which owns the
derivation. Nothing in it uses the observed $3{+}2$ split, and nothing
in it bears on the generation count $N_g$.
\end{euclidlemma}

\begin{proof}
The two roots of \eqref{eq:LN-relation} sum to $2L$, so exactly one lies
strictly below $L$ whenever the discriminant is positive; the selection
by $N < L$ is therefore unique by construction and not a coincidence of
$L = 5$. A quadratic has no third root, so $N = 3$ is the only
admissible value. The discarded root closes the ledger too ---
$(M, N, L; J, K) = (1, 7, 5; 15, 75)$ satisfies $LJ = 75 = 1 + 49 + 25$
--- and is excluded by the embedding and by nothing else, which is worth
stating plainly rather than leaving the reader to discover it.
\end{proof}

\paragraph{The trace ratio, as the independent check.} The trace ratio is the check that the observed block split agrees with a ledger already determined. We record it at general block size, which is three lines of algebra and is proved here rather than imported. Let the defining representation
$\mathbf L$ of $\SU(L)$ split into a colored block of size $N$ and a complementary
block of size $L - N$, and take the primitive generators
\begin{equation}
Y_0 = \diag\!\Bigl(\underbrace{-\tfrac1N,\ldots,-\tfrac1N}_{N},\;
\underbrace{\tfrac{1}{L-N},\ldots,\tfrac{1}{L-N}}_{L-N}\Bigr),
\qquad
B_0 = \diag\!\Bigl(\underbrace{\tfrac1N,\ldots,\tfrac1N}_{N},\;0,\ldots,0\Bigr).
\label{eq:Y0-B0-general}
\end{equation}
$Y_0$ is traceless, as an $\SU(L)$ generator must be, since
$N(-1/N) + (L-N)\bigl(1/(L-N)\bigr) = 0$. Then
\begin{equation}
\Tr(Y_0^2) = \frac{N}{N^2} + \frac{L-N}{(L-N)^2} = \frac1N + \frac{1}{L-N}
= \frac{L}{N(L-N)},
\qquad
\Tr(B_0^2) = \frac{N}{N^2} = \frac1N ,
\label{eq:traces-general}
\end{equation}
so that
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Tr(B_0^2)}{\Tr(Y_0^2)} \;=\; \frac{1}{N}\cdot\frac{N(L-N)}{L}
\;=\; \frac{L-N}{L}.
\label{eq:trace-ratio-general-A2}
\end{equation}
Lemma~\ref{lem:trace-ratio-25} is the specialization of
\eqref{eq:trace-ratio-general-A2} to $(N, L) = (3, 5)$. Evaluated on the
ledger already determined, $(L - N)/L = 2/5$ returns exactly the $\BIsix$
Abelian fraction of Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs}. That agreement is the
check: it is not used to fix $N$, because the generators
\eqref{eq:Y0-B0-general} are written on a block split that already
carries the color count, so a derivation of $N$ from the ratio would
consume the split it concludes.

\paragraph{What this step establishes.} Two things, and they should be
kept apart. The forcing is Lemma~\ref{lem:N-equals-3}: the dual lock
together with the closure-index clause and the block embedding
determines $N = N_c = 3$, and every premise in that chain --- $M = 1$,
$L = 5$, $J = 2N+1$, $N < L$ --- is fixed without reference to the
observed color count. The check is the trace ratio: the $\BIsix$
Abelian fraction $2/5$ is computed, here and in the companion
\AThree{}, by evaluating \eqref{eq:trace-ratio-general-A2} on generators
whose colored block already has three entries, so it cannot be the
route to $N$ --- but it can, and does, confirm that the ratio, the block
size and the ledger closure all agree at one integer. The agreement
fails elsewhere, as Step~5 shows by walking the admissible range. The order matters and is worth stating as a rule: an argument that reached $N$ through the ratio and then confirmed it against the closure would not have forced $N$ from premises innocent of the color count, and would owe the reader that admission. Reached through the closure and confirmed against the ratio, it does, because no premise of T-BI6-10.2a mentions a color count.

\paragraph{Physical intuition for $N = 3$, and the honest order of the argument.}
\label{sec:ogn5-step3}\label{ssec:ogn5-step3-honest}
Step 3 of the cascade is the step on which most of the framework's arithmetic downstream depends, and for that reason it deserves the most careful statement of what it does. We foreground the distinction at once: the trace-ratio identity presupposes the $3{+}2$ color split of the $\SUfive$ fundamental and is therefore a check, while the forcing is the dual lock with the block embedding, which uses no color count anywhere in its premises. The three-leg pincer of \PaperPTwo{} \citep{ArisakaP2N3} is not the forcing invoked here and should not be read as one: that pincer bounds the \emph{generation} count $N_g$, a different quantity from the color index $N_c$ that this step determines. Conventional particle physics treats the three-color structure of QCD as an empirical fact: there are three quark colors because deep-inelastic scattering, $e^+ e^-$ annihilation, and the $\pi^0 \to \gamma \gamma$ decay rate all confirm the color count to be three, not two or four. In every other unification framework, the choice of $\SU(3)_C$ as the color gauge group is an empirical input.

In \GG, the three-color structure is determined by the ledger rather than assumed alongside it, and the trace ratio then ties it to the $\BIsix$ coefficient vector. The number $3$ is the root of \eqref{eq:LN-relation} below $L$; the complementary block $L - N = 5 - 3 = 2$ is the leptonic dimension, and the trace ratio $\Tr(B_0^2)/\Tr(Y_0^2) = (L-N)/L = 2/5$ relates it to the unification index $L = 5$. The check chain is:
\begin{equation}
\BIsix\text{ Abelian coefficient } = -\tfrac25 \;\Longrightarrow\; \frac{L-N}{L} = \frac25 \;\Longrightarrow\; N = 3.
\label{eq:N3-chain}
\end{equation}
The first arrow is Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs} (the $\BIsix$ coefficient vector, whose Abelian entry is fixed by the trace ratio on the block split); the second is arithmetic. Read in the direction the arrows point, the chain says: \emph{the three-color structure of QCD is locked to the $\BIsix$ Abelian fraction and to the $\OGNfive$ closure, and all three agree at exactly one integer}. It is a check and not a derivation, because the fraction $2/5$ is computed on a block split that already carries the color count; the derivation is Lemma~\ref{lem:N-equals-3}, which does not.

It is worth being exact about how this compares with the alternatives, because the comparison is favorable without any need to overstate it. In $\SUfive$ Georgi--Glashow GUTs, in $\SO(10)$, in $E_6$, in supersymmetric GUTs, in heterotic string compactifications and in F-theory, the color count is an ingredient chosen and then held fixed; nothing in those frameworks constrains it once chosen. In \GG{} it is not free in that sense: it is locked simultaneously to the $\BIsix$ Abelian fraction, to the block size, and to the dual-lock closure, and those three constraints have different provenances and agree at one integer only. What the present paper claims, and what it does not, should be stated exactly. It claims that the color index $N_c = 3$ is forced from premises innocent of the color count, by Lemma~\ref{lem:N-equals-3} and T-BI6-10.2a of \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}; the trace-ratio route, which does presuppose the $3{+}2$ split, is carried as the check and not as the proof. It does \emph{not} claim the generation count. That is $N_g$, a different quantity, established by the three-leg pincer of \PaperPTwo{} \citep{ArisakaP2N3} --- a \CP{} lower bound $N_g \ge 3$ with an upper bound $N_g \le 3$ from the carrying capacity of the boundary law and of \GRIP{}, the Gauge-Runtime Invariance Pipeline that drives a boundary configuration downhill and says where it stops. The upper bound is no longer the standing conjecture the cohort's ledgers long recorded: it is the capacity theorem $\mathrm{Cap} = \pi N_g$ with exact saturation, together with the integrality theorem L-INT, and two obstruction theorems establishing that the conjectural framing could not have been discharged as it was posed. One residue is declared, R-INT --- a topological check that the \BIsix{} seam supports the Hopkins--Singer quadratic refinement \citep{HopkinsSinger2005} --- and it is met on the benchmark background by the inflow companion. The conditionality that remains is therefore named and narrow, and \ANine{}'s \emph{Derived (cond.)} grading should be read against R-INT rather than against a conjecture.

\subsection{Step 4: $J = 2N + 1 = 7$ (odd closure, paired with Step 5)}

\paragraph{Honest framing.}
\label{sec:ogn5-step4}
Steps 1 and 2 of the cascade are forcings: $M$ by dimensional minimality, $L$ by the vanishing of the cubic and irreducible-quartic indices under single-tensor consistency. Step 3 is a forcing as well, by the dual lock and the block embedding, for the reason set out above. Step 4 states the closure-index clause $J = 2N+1$, and Step 5 reads off $K$. The integer $J$ is often introduced as ``the smallest odd integer above $N$'', with odd-parity Wilson-loop phases on $S^1_\theta$ and odd-parity fermion zero-mode counting on $\cM_6$ offered as motivations. Those motivations are physically suggestive and no more: an index-theorem derivation of $J = 2N+1$ from the spinor content of $\cM_6$ does not exist in this paper and, we should say plainly, does not exist in any companion paper of the cohort either. What the companion \AThree{} does establish is that the centered odd form is a structural claim of \AX{4} (\MSMF) acting through \POS{6} (\OGN) --- among admissible closure packets it is the minimal one symmetric about a neutral slot --- rather than a definition adopted for convenience, and the present paper adopts that grading. Note the order of use: $J = 2N+1$ is a clause about the shape of the charge packet, stated without reference to the value of $N$, which is why Step~3 may substitute it into the dual lock without circularity. Within the present paper, the cleaner and self-contained route is the joint dual-lock closure: \emph{the pair $(J, K)$ is the unique pair of small positive integers consistent with $K = LJ = M^2 + N^2 + L^2$ given the integers $(M, N, L)$ already fixed by Steps~1--3.}

\begin{euclidlemma}[Joint closure of $J$ and $K$]
\label{lem:J-equals-7}
With $(M, N, L) = (1, 3, 5)$ fixed by Lemmas~\ref{lem:M-equals-1}--\ref{lem:N-equals-3}, the pair $(J, K)$ that closes the \OGN{} ledger via the dual-lock identity $K = LJ = M^2 + N^2 + L^2$ is uniquely $(J, K) = (7, 35)$. In particular,
\begin{equation}
J = \frac{M^2 + N^2 + L^2}{L} = \frac{1 + 9 + 25}{5} = 7,
\label{eq:J-from-pythag}
\end{equation}
which coincides with the heuristic odd-closure formula $J = 2N + 1$ for $N = 3$.
\end{euclidlemma}

\begin{proof}
By \POS{6} (\OGN), the \OGN{} ledger must close: every continuous dimensionless parameter of the bulk must be fixed by an integer relation. Steps~1--3 have determined $M = 1$, $L = 5$, $N = 3$. The remaining freedom is the master lock integer $K$ together with the closure integer $J$ that fixes the joint normalization of the unified gauge block and the topological tensor sector.

\POS{6} (\OGN) plus \AX{4} (\MSMF) demand the \emph{minimal} closure relation that links $K$ to $L$ and $J$ on one hand, and to $M, N, L$ on the other --- with no additional continuous parameters. Two algebraic candidates are forced by the structural roles of the integers:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em]
\item The \emph{product identity} $K = LJ$ comes from \POS{6} demanding that the master lock integer be the product of the unification index $L$ and the closure index $J$.
\item The \emph{Pythagorean identity} $K = M^2 + N^2 + L^2$ comes from \POS{6} demanding that the master lock integer be the smallest sum of squares of the three structural-role integers (compact-direction count, triplicity index, unification index).
\end{itemize}
Demanding both identities simultaneously yields equation~\eqref{eq:J-from-pythag}: $J = (M^2 + N^2 + L^2)/L = 35/5 = 7$, and consequently $K = LJ = 35$. No smaller positive integer pair $(J, K)$ satisfies both identities for the given $(M, N, L)$.
\end{proof}

\paragraph{Physical intuition for $J = 7$.} The integer $J$ is the structural ``closure index'' of the framework, fixing the joint normalization of the unified gauge block and the topological tensor sector. Algebraically, $J = (M^2 + N^2 + L^2)/L = 7$ is forced by the dual-lock closure together with $(M, N, L) = (1, 3, 5)$. That $J$ comes out odd (and equal to $2N + 1$ for $N = 3$) is not independent information: with $(M, N, L)$ fixed, $J = (M^2+N^2+L^2)/L$ and $J = 2N+1$ are the same number, and the coincidence of the two expressions at $(1,3,5)$ is an arithmetic fact about those integers rather than a second derivation. The odd-parity Wilson-loop and spinor-zero-mode readings remain the physical picture behind the closure index; they are not, in this paper or in any companion, carried to an index-theorem derivation. Geometrically, $J$ controls the spectrum of allowed Wilson-loop phases around $S^1_\theta$ that produce admissible Hosotani symmetry breaking $\SUfive \to \SU(3)_C \times \SU(2)_L \times \UoneY$ \citep{Hosotani1983}. Among the Wilson-line breaking patterns admissible at this $J$ (which include in principle $\SUfive \to \SU(4) \times \UoneY'$ and $\SUfive \to \SU(2) \times \SU(2) \times \UoneY''$ as alternatives), the Standard-Model embedding $\SU(3)_C \times \SU(2)_L \times \UoneY$ is selected by the empirical fact that the boundary low-energy gauge group has color and weak as separate non-Abelian factors --- the choice of breaking pattern is therefore not free but anchored in the observed gauge structure, with the companion paper \citep{Kawamura2001} carrying the full Wilson-line phase classification. Numerically, $J$ enters the empirical prediction for the fine-structure constant: at leading order in the \OGN{} cascade, $\alpha^{-1}(0) = 2^J + N^2 = 128 + 9 = 137$, which reproduces the \emph{integer part} of the CODATA 2022 value $\alpha^{-1}(0) = 137.035999177(21)$ \citep{CODATA2022} exactly. The residual $137.036 - 137 \approx 0.036$ deviation is the contribution of higher-order corrections (QED running plus finite-nucleus-size and recoil effects) treated in the companion paper \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid}, where the running prediction $\alpha^{-1}(M_Z) = 2^J - N^2/2^J \approx 127.93$ is also derived. The integer-level match is the structural pay-off of the \OGN{} cascade; the residual is the empirical refinement layer.

\subsection{Step 5: $K = LJ = M^2 + N^2 + L^2 = 35$ (the dual lock)}

\begin{euclidlemma}[Master lock integer with dual-lock identity]
\label{lem:K-equals-35}
The \OGN{} integer $K$ is the master lock integer of the cascade, satisfying simultaneously
\begin{equation}
K = LJ = 5 \times 7 = 35,\qquad K = M^2 + N^2 + L^2 = 1 + 9 + 25 = 35.
\label{eq:K-dual-lock}
\end{equation}
\end{euclidlemma}

\begin{proof}
The first identity is the simplest closure condition: $K$ is the product of the unification index $L$ and the odd closure index $J$. This product captures the joint information of the non-Abelian unification (factor $L = 5$) and the dyadic odd-parity sector (factor $J = 7$):
\begin{equation}
K = LJ = 5 \times 7 = 35.
\label{eq:K-product}
\end{equation}

The second identity is the Pythagorean-sum identity:
\begin{equation}
K = M^2 + N^2 + L^2 = 1^2 + 3^2 + 5^2 = 1 + 9 + 25 = 35.
\label{eq:K-pythag}
\end{equation}
This identity is arithmetically nontrivial. To see that the dual lock $K = LJ = M^2 + N^2 + L^2$ is genuinely restrictive, we make the admissible-range search explicit. By Lemmas~\ref{lem:M-equals-1}--\ref{lem:L-equals-5}, the integers $M = 1$ and $L = 5$ are fixed; the open integer is $N$, with $1 \le N < L$ and $N \in \Z_{>0}$ (the requirement that the bulk gauge group contain both colored and uncolored entries). The admissible range is therefore $N \in \{1, 2, 3, 4\}$. Walking the four cases:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em]
\item $N = 1$: $K = 1 + 1 + 25 = 27$, $LJ = 27 \Rightarrow J = 27/5 \notin \Z$. Dual lock fails.
\item $N = 2$: $K = 1 + 4 + 25 = 30$, $LJ = 30 \Rightarrow J = 6$.
 But the block-embedding root of Lemma~\ref{lem:N-equals-3} --- the
 dual-lock quadratic together with $N < L$ --- gives $N = 3$, and so
 excludes $N = 2$. The dual lock would close numerically here, but the
 result contradicts Step~3.
\item $N = 3$: $K = 1 + 9 + 25 = 35$, $LJ = 35 \Rightarrow J = 7$. Dual lock holds, and $N = 3$ is forced by Step~3. $\checkmark$
\item $N = 4$: $K = 1 + 16 + 25 = 42$, $LJ = 42 \Rightarrow J = 42/5 \notin \Z$. Dual lock fails.
\end{itemize}
Therefore $(M, N, L; J, K) = (1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$ is the unique admissible solution.

That \emph{both} identities hold simultaneously is the distinguishing arithmetic fact of $\OGNfive$. We call this the \emph{dual-lock identity}: the same integer $K = 35$ is both the product $LJ$ and the Pythagorean sum $M^2 + N^2 + L^2$. \POS{6} selects this dual-lock structure as the unique closure consistent with all preceding integers.
\end{proof}

\paragraph{Physical intuition for $K = 35$ and the dual-lock identity.} The integer $K = 35$ has multiple roles in the framework, all converging on the same number:

(i) \textbf{Throat depth.} $K = 35$ is the radial-coordinate length of the radial interval $I_r = [0, K]$. The exponential hierarchy generated by the scale profile is $e^{-K} = e^{-35} \approx 6 \times 10^{-16}$, comparable to the ratio of the electroweak scale ($\sim 10^2$ GeV) to the Planck scale ($\sim 10^{19}$ GeV). In conventional Randall--Sundrum, the throat depth $kr_c$ is a free continuous parameter tuned to fit the hierarchy; in \GG, it is the integer $K = 35$ forced by the \OGN{} cascade.

(ii) \textbf{Master lock integer.} $K$ closes the \OGN{} ledger: every other integer of the cascade ($M, N, L, J$) is constrained to satisfy $K = LJ = M^2 + N^2 + L^2$. It plays the role the level integer plays in Wess--Zumino--Witten constructions: it controls the global normalization of the topological sector.

(iii) \textbf{Pythagorean structure.} The identity $K = 1^2 + 3^2 + 5^2$ is the smallest non-trivial three-term sum-of-squares representation of $K$ using the \OGN{} integers. Pythagorean structures of this kind appear repeatedly in topological field theory and in the classification of compact Lie group representations \citep{FreedHopkinsTeleman2007}; their appearance in $\OGNfive$ is the axiomatic fingerprint that the framework uses the same arithmetic structures that govern compact group representation theory.

The dual-lock identity is the fingerprint that $\OGNfive$ is not arbitrary. If the cascade had landed on $(M, N, L; J, K) = (1, 3, 5; 7, 36)$ instead of $35$, the product identity $K = LJ$ would still hold (with $K = LJ' = 5 \times 7.2$, requiring non-integer $J$), but the Pythagorean identity would fail. Conversely, if it had landed on $(1, 3, 5; 8, 36)$, the Pythagorean identity would fail. Only $(1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$ closes both identities simultaneously --- a remarkable arithmetic coincidence that locks the cascade.

\subsection{Combining the Steps: proof of Theorem 6}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade}]
By Lemmas~\ref{lem:M-equals-1}, \ref{lem:L-equals-5}, \ref{lem:N-equals-3}, \ref{lem:J-equals-7}, and \ref{lem:K-equals-35}, the five \OGN{} integers are
\begin{equation}
(M, N, L; J, K) = (1, 3, 5; 7, 35),
\end{equation}
with the algebraic relations $J = 2N + 1$, $K = LJ$, $K = M^2 + N^2 + L^2$. By \POS{6} (\OGN), no continuous dimensionless parameter beyond these integers survives in the bulk theory. By \AX{4} (\MSMF), no free parameter survives. The bulk carries three conversion factors, one for each kind of direction --- $c$ for the Lorentzian directions, $G_N$ for the scale interval, $\hbar$ for the compact phase --- and none of the three is singled out by the geometry. Once $c$ and $\hbar$ are set to unity in the usual way, a single dimensionful datum remains: the overall unit scale, conventionally carried by $G_N$ (equivalently $\EGUT$; $M_6$ is a derived combination), fixed by matching the empirical Planck scale --- the choice of unit system every dimensionful theory must make, not a free parameter.
\end{proof}

\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption[The integer cascade, step by step, with what forces each value.]{The integer ledger derived one step at a time. Each row names a symbol, what forces it, the value that results, and the role that value then plays. The column that matters is the fourth: every entry is an integer, and none of them is chosen. The order of the rows is the order of the argument, not a chain in which each line leans on the line above: $M$ and $L$ are fixed independently and without reference to any color count, and only then does the dual lock close on $N$, $J$ and $K$. This is the concrete content of the claim that the framework has no free continuous parameters --- the cascade is where the numbers come from, and it can be checked one line at a time.}
\label{tab:OGN5-cascade}
\small
\begin{tabular}{>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.069\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.069\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.208\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.128\textwidth}p{0.40\textwidth}}
\toprule
\textbf{Step} & \textbf{Symbol} & \textbf{Forced by} & \textbf{Value} & \textbf{Role} \\
\midrule
1 & $M$ & Thm~1 (single compact direction) & $1$ & Compact Abelian holonomy direction count \\
2 & $L$ & T-BI6-9.0 (single-tensor Green--Schwarz; free of $N$) & $5$ & Non-Abelian unification index \\
3 & $N$ & Dual lock with $N < L$ (T-BI6-10.2a); trace ratio checks & $3$ & Color index $N_c$ of the colored sector \\
4 & $J$ & $J = 2N + 1$ (odd closure) & $7$ & Odd closure index \\
5 & $K$ & $K = LJ = M^2 + N^2 + L^2$ (dual lock) & $35$ & Master lock integer \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

Table~\ref{tab:OGN5-cascade} sets out the same five steps one to a row, each naming the integer, what forces it, and the role the value plays.

\paragraph{Parameter counting.} We can now count the surviving continuous parameters of the bulk theory.

\begin{euclidproposition}[Parameter counting in \GG]
\label{prop:parameter-counting}
The bulk theory $\GG$ contains zero free parameters: zero continuous dimensionless parameters, and a single overall unit scale --- the choice of unit system, naturally taken as $G_N$, with $M_6$ and $\EGUT$ fixed relative to it by pure numbers --- which is a unit convention, not a free parameter. All dimensionless freedom is fixed by the $\OGNfive$ ledger and the $\BIsix$ coefficient vector.
\end{euclidproposition}

\begin{proof}
A generic six-dimensional gauge--gravity action contains continuous dimensionless parameters in: (i) the relative gauge couplings $g_5/g_B$, $g_5/g_{Qi}$, $g_B/g_{Qi}$; (ii) the Abelian coefficients $c, d$ in the modified Bianchi identity; (iii) the throat depth $kr_c$; (iv) the compactification radius $R_\theta$; (v) the AdS curvature scale $k$. In \GG\ the situation is:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em]
\item Items (i): all gauge couplings are unified at $\EGUT$ to a single value $g_{\GUT}$, fixed by Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces} plus \AX{4}. The single $g_{\GUT}$ is itself dimensionless but is fixed by the \OGN{} coefficient ratios within the bulk and by the IR-projection condition (matching to the empirical $\alpha^{-1}(M_Z)$ at the boundary).
\item Item (ii): fixed by Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs} to $(1, -1, -2/5, -2/5)$.
\item Item (iii): fixed by Lemma~\ref{lem:K-equals-35} to $K = 35$.
\item Items (iv) and (v): fixed by Theorem~\ref{thm:canonical-metric} to $R_\theta = 1$ and $k = 1$ in natural \GG\ units.
\end{itemize}
The only dimensionful datum is the overall unit scale --- set by $G_N$, with $M_6$ a derived combination --- fixed by matching to $M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ via the schematic scale-profile integration relation
\begin{equation}
M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2 \;\sim\; M_6^4 \cdot V_{\mathrm{internal}},\qquad V_{\mathrm{internal}} \;=\; \int_0^K dr\, e^{-2r} \cdot \oint d\theta \;\propto\; M_6^{-2}\,\pi (1 - e^{-2K}) \;\approx\; \pi\, M_6^{-2},
\label{eq:MPl-from-M6-final}
\end{equation}
so that $M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2 \sim \pi\, M_6^2$ and
$M_6 = M_{\mathrm{Pl}}/\sqrt{\pi} \approx 0.564\,M_{\mathrm{Pl}} \sim 10^{19}$~GeV --- within an order of unity of the Planck scale. The implicit $M_6^{-2}$ in $V_{\mathrm{internal}}$ that makes the dimensions consistent (and that converts the dimensionless RG-scale coordinate $r$ into a length scale) is presented schematically here; the rigorous Einstein--Hilbert reduction with all numerical factors is carried out in the companion paper \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid}. The companion paper also extends the parameter count to GU-5 ($\{c, G_N, \hbar; \kB, \QB\}$) and shows that even this single dimensional anchor is derivable from \OGN{}-integer data on the bulk geometry; in the present paper we treat $M_6$ as the dimensional input.
\end{proof}

\paragraph{Worked example: numerical hierarchy from $K = 35$.} Let us anchor the cascade with concrete numbers, so the reader can see the integers at work. Take the dimensional anchor $M_6 \sim M_{\rm Pl} = 1.22 \times 10^{19}$ GeV (the only continuous parameter of the framework, fixed by the empirical Planck-mass match). Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade} then forces the scale endpoint $r_{\mathrm{IR}} = K = 35$, and the scale profile $e^{-K} = e^{-35} \approx 6.3 \times 10^{-16}$ converts the Planck UV scale into a TeV-scale lock $M_{\rm lock} \approx \tfrac12 M_{\rm Pl} e^{-35} \approx 3.85$ TeV. The canonical \GG\ prediction follows; the factor of $1/2$ in this rapid-orientation estimate reflects the scale profile normalization $\int_0^K e^{-2r}dr \approx 1/2$ of the schematic reduction above, and the rigorous derivation with all numerical pre-factors is in \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid}. Going further down the cascade, $M_{\rm lock}$ projects to the electroweak vacuum expectation value
$v = M_{\rm lock}\,(2/L)^N = M_{\rm lock}\,(2/5)^3$, the doublet
projection $2/L = 2/5$ raised to the generation count $N = 3$, which
evaluates to $v \approx 246.3$ GeV, and to the cosmological-constant scale
$m_\Lambda^{\rm geom} = M_{\rm lock}^2 / \bar M_{\rm Pl} \approx 6$ meV,
where $\bar M_{\rm Pl} = (8\pi G_N)^{-1/2} \approx 2.44\times 10^{18}$ GeV
is the reduced Planck mass. In one breath, the integer $K = 35$ connects the Planck scale
($\sim 10^{19}$ GeV), the unification scale $\EGUT = M_{\rm Pl}
e^{-2\pi}\approx 2.28\times 10^{16}$ GeV, the lock cluster ($\sim 3.85$
TeV), the electroweak scale ($\sim 246$ GeV), and the dark-energy
scale ($\sim 6$ meV) in a single integer-discrete chain. Downstream
consequences --- the cosmological density inventory $\Omega_m$,
$\Omega_\Lambda$, $\Omega_b$ in \ATen{} \citep{ArisakaA10Cosmos};
the Kaxion oscillation frequency in the \ATen{} boundary recast;
and the energy--information Arisaka constant $\QB$ in \ASeven{}
\citep[\S 9, T-QUA.2]{ArisakaA7Qi4} --- are documented in their
respective papers. No empirical input enters the cascade except the
dimensional anchor $M_6$; every other scale is a derived consequence
of the constitutionally-fixed integer $K = 35$.

\paragraph{Comparison with the string-theoretic landscape.} The contrast with string theory is sharp, and the full version of the comparison is the subject of \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid} (the primary published authority on the no-free-parameters claim of the \GGTheory\ program). We summarize the contrast here. In conventional flux compactifications of type IIB string theory \citep{KachruKalloshLindeTrivedi2003}, the moduli space of admissible vacua contains $\sim 10^{500}$ inequivalent points \citep{Susskind2003, Douglas2003}, each corresponding to a different continuous parameter assignment. In \GG, the moduli space is a single point: the dimensionless parameters are all fixed by $\OGNfive$ + $\BIsix$, and there is no free continuous parameter at all. \MSMF{} is realized literally here as well: minimum freedom, with every dimensionless parameter integer-discrete (the $\OGNfive$ ledger) or derived from it, and the single overall unit scale $M_6 \sim M_{\rm Pl}$ a choice of unit system (set by $G_N$, with $M_6$ a derived combination), not a free dial. The argument that GU-5 (the Geometric Universal Five Constants) $\{c, G_N, \hbar; \kB, \QB\}$ exhausts the dimensionful content of the framework --- so that even the single $M_6$ anchor is itself a derived quantity from \OGN{}-integer data on the bulk geometry --- is carried out in \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid}; here we record only the bulk-side count.


\section{Theorem 7 (T-GG6-7): BRST Consistency and the Homogeneous Slavnov–Taylor Identity}
\label{sec:thm7-brst}

We have established the classical bulk skeleton: the geometry (Theorems~\ref{thm:dim-minimal}, \ref{thm:canonical-metric}), the gauge content (Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces}), the modified Bianchi identity (Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs}), the anomaly factorization (Theorem~\ref{thm:anomaly-factorization}), and the discrete normalization ledger (Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade}). We now ask: does this bulk structure define a quantum-consistent gauge theory? The answer is yes, and it is encoded in the homogeneous Slavnov--Taylor identity.

\begin{euclidtheorem}[BRST consistency and homogeneous Slavnov--Taylor identity; local form]
\label{thm:brst-consistency}
Under \POS{1} (\GI), \POS{3} (\AF), \POS{4} (\CP), together with the local anomaly factorization of Theorem~\ref{thm:anomaly-factorization}, the gauge-fixed bulk action of \GG\ defines a \emph{perturbatively} BRST-consistent six-dimensional quantum field theory at $\EGUT$: the present theorem covers the local (perturbative one-loop) cancellation. At the local level: the complete one-particle-irreducible effective action $\Gamma_{\mathrm{full}}$ satisfies the homogeneous Slavnov--Taylor identity
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;\cS(\Gamma_{\mathrm{full}}) \;=\; 0,\;}
\label{eq:STidentity-final}
\end{equation}
with no residual local gauge, mixed, or gravitational anomaly. Equivalently, the variation of the one-loop fermion determinant is exactly canceled by the variation of the Green--Schwarz term:
\begin{equation}
s\big(\Gamma_{\mathrm{1-loop}} + S_{\mathrm{GS}}\big) = 0.
\label{eq:s-cancellation}
\end{equation}
\end{euclidtheorem}

\begin{euclidremark}[The global completion, and where it lives]
\label{rmk:brst-global}
Theorem~\ref{thm:brst-consistency} is complete as stated, and it is stated locally on
purpose: what it establishes is the perturbative, one-loop BRST consistency of the
gauge-fixed bulk action. The matching \emph{global} statement --- anomaly freedom under
large gauge transformations and across topological sectors --- is a separate proposition
with its own machinery, and it is the central content of the companion paper \AThree{}
\citep{ArisakaA3BI6}, in the Wu--Chern--Simons / differential-cohomology framework. The
framework-level claim that the bulk theory is BRST-consistent both locally and globally
is the conjunction of the two results; neither paper's theorem is a premise of the
other's.
\end{euclidremark}

The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:brst-consistency} requires three Lemmas: the construction of the gauge-fixing fermion and BRST transformations; the descent equations relating the anomaly polynomial to the BRST cocycle; and the Green--Schwarz variation that completes the cancellation.

\subsection{The classical bulk action}

Before constructing the BRST algebra, we state the classical bulk
action --- and, in Proposition~\ref{prop:canonical-bulk-action} below,
promote it from a recorded preliminary to the numbered statement its
cohort role requires: this action is what the companion papers export,
and its uniqueness deserves a home, not a citation. The field content
of \GG\ consists of:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\alph*), leftmargin=2em]
\item the six-dimensional metric $g_{MN}$ and spin connection $\omega_M{}^{AB}$;
\item the non-Abelian $\SUfive$ gauge field $A_M = A_M^a T^a$ with curvature $F_{MN} = \partial_M A_N - \partial_N A_M + [A_M, A_N]$;
\item the Abelian gauge fields $A_M^{(B)}$ and $A_M^{(Qi)}$ with curvatures $F_{MN}^{(B)} = \partial_M A_N^{(B)} - \partial_N A_M^{(B)}$ and similarly for $Qi$;
\item the Green--Schwarz two-form $B_{MN}$ with gauge-invariant three-form field strength
\begin{equation}
H_3 = dB_2 + \omega_{3L} - \omega_{3,5} - \tfrac25 \omega_{3B} - \tfrac25 \omega_{3Qi},
\label{eq:H3-improved}
\end{equation}
where the Chern--Simons three-forms $\omega_{3L}$, $\omega_{3,5}$, $\omega_{3B}$, $\omega_{3Qi}$ satisfy $d\omega_{3L} = \tr(R \wedge R)$, $d\omega_{3,5} = \Tr(F_5 \wedge F_5)$, $d\omega_{3B} = F_B \wedge F_B$, $d\omega_{3Qi} = F_{Qi} \wedge F_{Qi}$ respectively;
\item an anomaly-admissible matter sector $\mathfrak M_{\AF}$ of chiral fermions and --- in the general envelope --- symmetry-breaking scalars, whose multiplicities are constrained so that $I_8^{\mathrm{proper}} = \tfrac12 X_4 \wedge X_4$ as in Theorem~\ref{thm:anomaly-factorization}; the \emph{constitutional selection} within this envelope is the minimal admissible member --- one bulk spinor per family, no fundamental scalar --- stated as Proposition~\ref{prop:canonical-bulk-action} below.
\end{enumerate}
The classical bulk action is then
\begin{align}
S_6 &= \int_{\cM_6} d^6x\,\sqrt{-g_6}\,\Bigg[ \frac{M_6^4}{2}\big(R_6 - 2\Lambda_6\big) - \frac{1}{4 g_5^2}\Tr(F_{MN} F^{MN}) - \frac{1}{4 g_B^2}F_{MN}^{(B)} F_{(B)}^{MN} - \frac{1}{4 g_{Qi}^2}F_{MN}^{(Qi)} F_{(Qi)}^{MN} \nonumber \\
&\hspace{3em} - \frac{1}{12} H_{MNP}\, H^{MNP} + \cL_{\mathrm{matter}}(\Psi, \Phi;\, \cA, g) \Bigg] \;+\; \int_{\cM_6} B_2 \wedge X_4 \;+\; S_{\mathrm{bdy}}.
\label{eq:S6-classical}
\end{align}
The matter Lagrangian is
\begin{equation}
\cL_{\mathrm{matter}} = \sum_{\Psi \in \mathfrak M_{\AF}} \bar\Psi\, \ii\,\Gamma^M D_M \Psi + (D_M \Phi)^\dagger D^M \Phi - V(\Phi) + \cL_{\mathrm{Yuk}},
\label{eq:Lmatter}
\end{equation}
with covariant derivative $D_M = \nabla_M + \ii g_5 A_M^a T^a + \ii g_B q_B A_M^{(B)} + \ii g_{Qi} q_{Qi} A_M^{(Qi)}$. The boundary term $S_{\mathrm{bdy}}$ implements the Hosotani Wilson-line breaking $\SUfive \to \SU(3)_C \times \SU(2)_L \times \UoneY$ on $S^1_\theta$ \citep{Hosotani1983, Kawamura2001}; its explicit form is the completed Wilson-line sector of the companion \ANine{} \citep{ArisakaA9SM} --- the holonomy Higgs chapter and stage S-6 of its export chain --- and is consumed there rather than rebuilt here.

\paragraph{The scalar envelope, and the cosmological term.}
Two entries of the recorded action deserve an explicit word, because
the companion papers spend a leaner object than the general form above.
First, the scalar sector of \eqref{eq:Lmatter} --- $(D_M\Phi)^\dagger
D^M\Phi - V(\Phi) + \cL_{\mathrm{Yuk}}$ --- is the most general
anomaly-admissible \emph{envelope}, retained so that the bookkeeping of
Theorem~\ref{thm:anomaly-factorization} covers every admissible matter
assignment; the constitutional selection is the \emph{scalar-free}
member of that envelope. The export never spends a fundamental bulk
scalar: the symmetry-breaking order parameter is the Wilson-line
holonomy of $S_{\mathrm{bdy}}$ just described, and a fundamental
$\Phi$ alongside it would be redundant continuous freedom of exactly
the kind \AX{4} (\MSMF) forbids. Second, the bulk cosmological term
$\Lambda_6$ rides with the gravitational sector; its boundary
descendant is not a tuned number but an export --- the lock-scale
seesaw of the cosmological companion \ATen{} \citep{ArisakaA10Cosmos}.
With the envelope so labeled, the recorded action and the canonical
form quoted by the companions (\ANine{}'s assembly interlude; the
cosmological derivation appendix of \ATen{}) are one object, not two.

\begin{euclidproposition}[The Canonical Bulk Action]
\label{prop:canonical-bulk-action}
On the bulk forced by Theorems~\ref{thm:lc-ggep-bulk},
\ref{thm:dim-minimal}, and~\ref{thm:canonical-metric}, with the gauge
group forced by Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces} and the matter sector
restricted to the minimal anomaly-admissible chiral class of
Theorem~\ref{thm:anomaly-factorization}, the constitutional clauses
\AX{1} (\LC), \POS{2} (\UEP), and \AX{4} (\MSMF) --- the last read
at lowest derivative order --- admit exactly one local action
functional: the classical bulk action \eqref{eq:S6-classical} with the
scalar envelope empty, completed by the Green--Schwarz coupling that
the \BIsix\ closure forces.
\end{euclidproposition}

\begin{proof}[Proof sketch]
Uniqueness is checked sector by sector at lowest derivative order.
\emph{(i) Geometry.} The Einstein--Hilbert term is the unique
diffeomorphism-invariant density at two derivatives; in six dimensions Lovelock's classification \citep{Lovelock1971} admits one further candidate with
second-order field equations, the Gauss--Bonnet density, which is
removed not by a uniqueness theorem but by \AX{4}'s
lowest-derivative-order reading --- its boundary image is an
irrelevant operator, and the caveat is stated rather than hidden.
\emph{(ii) Gauge.} Given $G_{\Bulk}$ from
Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces}, the Yang--Mills terms are the unique
gauge-invariant densities at two derivatives; the parity-odd
Chern-class densities a six-dimensional connection admits are not free
additions --- they belong to the topological sector, every coefficient
of which is priced by the \BIsix\ closure
(Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs}). \emph{(iii) Matter.} The Dirac term
is the unique first-order kinetic term; the \emph{content} --- one
bulk spinor per family and nothing else --- is the minimal sector
whose anomaly polynomial factorizes as
Theorem~\ref{thm:anomaly-factorization} requires. Its minimality
(no second packet, no exotics, no vector-like passengers) is \AX{4}
again, and its precise statement is a named open lemma --- the
\emph{Minimal-Matter Lemma}, whose existence witness is the benchmark spectrum
of \AThree{} \citep{ArisakaA3BI6} --- carried at register Derived
(cond.). \emph{(iv) Flux.} Consistency of the chiral sector forces
the Chern--Simons-improved field strength \eqref{eq:H3-improved};
its kinetic term is the unique two-derivative invariant, and the
Green--Schwarz coupling with the coefficient vector of
Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs} is a theorem, not a choice.
\emph{(v) No fundamental scalar.} The Wilson-line holonomy already
supplies the symmetry-breaking order parameter, so a bulk $\Phi$
would be redundant continuous freedom forbidden by \AX{4}; the
constitutional selection is the scalar-free member of the envelope,
as stated. The course-pace walk of this argument, with the register
of every step printed beside it, is station S-1a of the assembly
interlude of \ANine{} \citep{ArisakaA9SM}; the registers are: form
\textbf{Derived} at lowest derivative order (Lovelock caveat stated);
matter content \textbf{Derived (cond.)} on the Minimal-Matter Lemma;
gauge group inheriting the conditional clauses stated inside
Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces}.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Lemma 7.1: Gauge-fixing fermion and BRST transformations}

\begin{euclidlemma}[Gauge-fixing fermion]
\label{lem:gauge-fixing}
The gauge-fixed bulk action of \GG\ is constructed by introducing ghost fields $c_5^a$, $c_B$, $c_{Qi}$, antighost fields $\bar c_5^a$, $\bar c_B$, $\bar c_{Qi}$, and Nakanishi--Lautrup auxiliary fields $b_5^a$, $b_B$, $b_{Qi}$. The gauge-fixing fermion is
\begin{equation}
\Psi_{\mathrm{gf}} = \int d^6x \sqrt{-g_6}\,\bigg[\,\bar c_5^a\Big(\nabla^M A_M^a + \tfrac{\xi_5}{2}\, b_5^a\Big) + \bar c_B\Big(\nabla^M A_M^{(B)} + \tfrac{\xi_B}{2}\, b_B\Big) + \bar c_{Qi}\Big(\nabla^M A_M^{(Qi)} + \tfrac{\xi_{Qi}}{2}\, b_{Qi}\Big)\bigg],
\label{eq:Psi-gf}
\end{equation}
and the gauge-fixing plus ghost action is $S_{\mathrm{gf+gh}} = s\,\Psi_{\mathrm{gf}}$. The BRST transformations of all fields preserve the gauge-invariant three-form: $sH_3 = 0$.
\end{euclidlemma}

\begin{proof}
The BRST transformations of the gauge multiplet are the standard Yang--Mills + Abelian + matter rules:
\begin{align}
s A_5 &= D c_5,\quad s c_5 = -\tfrac12 [c_5, c_5],\quad s\bar c_5 = b_5,\quad s b_5 = 0, \label{eq:BRST-nonAb} \\
s A_B &= dc_B,\quad s c_B = 0,\quad s\bar c_B = b_B,\quad s b_B = 0, \label{eq:BRST-B} \\
s A_{Qi} &= dc_{Qi},\quad s c_{Qi} = 0,\quad s\bar c_{Qi} = b_{Qi},\quad s b_{Qi} = 0, \label{eq:BRST-Qi} \\
s\Psi &= \ii (g_5 c_5 + g_B q_B c_B + g_{Qi} q_{Qi} c_{Qi})\Psi, \label{eq:BRST-matter}
\end{align}
and similarly for the scalar matter $\Phi$. These transformations are nilpotent ($s^2 = 0$) by direct calculation, and the gauge-fixing fermion $\Psi_{\mathrm{gf}}$ is BRST-invariant up to the $b$-equation-of-motion terms that produce the gauge-fixed action.

The non-trivial part is the BRST transformation of the tensor field $B_2$. In ordinary Yang--Mills + matter theories without a tensor sector, $sH_3$ would not arise. In \GG, the modified Bianchi identity $dH_3 = X_4$ from Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs} forces a non-trivial transformation of $B_2$ in order that $sH_3 = 0$. Specifically, write the gauge-invariant three-form as
\begin{equation}
H_3 = dB_2 + \omega_3^{(0)},
\label{eq:H3-with-CS}
\end{equation}
where $\omega_3^{(0)}$ is the total Chern--Simons three-form with $d\omega_3^{(0)} = X_4$. Under a gauge transformation, $\omega_3^{(0)}$ transforms by an exact form involving the gauge parameter and a two-form descent $\omega_2^{(1)}$:
\begin{equation}
s\,\omega_3^{(0)} + d\omega_2^{(1)} = 0.
\label{eq:CS-descent}
\end{equation}
For $sH_3 = 0$ to hold, the tensor field $B_2$ must transform as
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;sB_2 = -\omega_2^{(1)} + d\Lambda_1,\;}
\label{eq:sB2-corrected}
\end{equation}
where $\Lambda_1$ is a one-form gauge parameter for the Abelian gauge symmetry of $B_2$ itself. Substituting \eqref{eq:sB2-corrected} into $sH_3$:
\begin{equation}
sH_3 = d(sB_2) + s\omega_3^{(0)} = d(-\omega_2^{(1)} + d\Lambda_1) + s\omega_3^{(0)} = -d\omega_2^{(1)} + s\omega_3^{(0)} = 0,
\end{equation}
where we used $d^2 = 0$ in the second-to-last step and \eqref{eq:CS-descent} in the last step. The transformation \eqref{eq:sB2-corrected} therefore preserves the gauge invariance of $H_3$.
\end{proof}

\paragraph{Physical intuition for the descent-corrected $B_2$ transformation.} The transformation \eqref{eq:sB2-corrected} is the six-dimensional analog of the more familiar correction in Chern--Simons-improved field strengths in 4D. It says that the tensor field $B_2$ does not transform homogeneously under gauge transformations; instead, it absorbs a piece of the Chern--Simons descent $\omega_2^{(1)}$, which is precisely the piece that would otherwise spoil the gauge invariance of $H_3$. Formally, that is how the tensor sector ``feels'' the gauge transformations of the other sectors and the gravitational sector --- a mechanism that does not exist for an ordinary tensor field decoupled from the gauge content.

\subsection{Lemma 7.2: The descent equations and the BRST cocycle}

\begin{euclidlemma}[Descent equations]
\label{lem:descent}
The anomaly polynomial $I_8 = \tfrac12 X_4 \wedge X_4$ from Theorem~\ref{thm:anomaly-factorization} satisfies the descent chain
\begin{equation}
I_8 = d I_7^{(0)},\qquad sI_7^{(0)} + dI_6^{(1)} = 0,\qquad I_6^{(1)} = \omega_2^{(1)} \wedge X_4,
\label{eq:descent-I8}
\end{equation}
where $I_7^{(0)}$ and $I_6^{(1)}$ are seven-form and six-form descents respectively. The BRST variation of the one-loop fermion determinant is therefore
\begin{equation}
s\,\Gamma_{\mathrm{1-loop}} = 2\pi\,\ii \int_{\cM_6} I_6^{(1)} = 2\pi\,\ii \int_{\cM_6} \omega_2^{(1)} \wedge X_4.
\label{eq:s-Gamma-1loop}
\end{equation}
\end{euclidlemma}

\begin{proof}
The descent chain follows the standard Stora--Zumino procedure \citep{Stora1984, Zumino1984}. Since $I_8 = \tfrac12 X_4 \wedge X_4$ and $X_4 = d\omega_3^{(0)}$ (as established in Lemma~\ref{lem:gauge-fixing}), we have
\begin{equation}
I_8 = \tfrac12 X_4 \wedge X_4 = \tfrac12 d\omega_3^{(0)} \wedge X_4 = d\big(\tfrac12 \omega_3^{(0)} \wedge X_4\big),
\end{equation}
where in the last step we used the identity $d(\omega_3^{(0)} \wedge X_4) = d\omega_3^{(0)} \wedge X_4 - \omega_3^{(0)} \wedge dX_4 = X_4 \wedge X_4$ (since $dX_4 = 0$ by definition of $X_4$ as a closed four-form representing a characteristic class). Therefore
\begin{equation}
I_7^{(0)} = \tfrac12 \omega_3^{(0)} \wedge X_4.
\end{equation}
Applying the BRST operator $s$ to $I_7^{(0)}$ and using \eqref{eq:CS-descent}:
\begin{equation}
sI_7^{(0)} = \tfrac12 (s\omega_3^{(0)}) \wedge X_4 = -\tfrac12 (d\omega_2^{(1)}) \wedge X_4 = -d\big(\tfrac12 \omega_2^{(1)} \wedge X_4\big),
\end{equation}
where in the last step we used that $X_4$ is closed. Therefore $sI_7^{(0)} + dI_6^{(1)} = 0$ with $I_6^{(1)} = \tfrac12 \omega_2^{(1)} \wedge X_4$. (The factor of $\tfrac12$ is conventional; the precise normalization is fixed by the matching to the fermion determinant variation in \eqref{eq:s-Gamma-1loop}.)

The relation \eqref{eq:s-Gamma-1loop} between the BRST variation of the one-loop fermion determinant and the descent six-form $I_6^{(1)}$ is the standard Wess--Zumino consistency condition for chiral anomalies \citep{WessZumino1971, BardeenZumino1984}.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Lemma 7.3: Green–Schwarz cancellation}

\begin{euclidlemma}[Green--Schwarz variation cancels the BRST cocycle]
\label{lem:GS-cancellation}
The BRST variation of the Green--Schwarz term $S_{\mathrm{GS}} = \int_{\cM_6} B_2 \wedge X_4$ is
\begin{equation}
s\,S_{\mathrm{GS}} = \int_{\cM_6} (sB_2) \wedge X_4 = -2\pi\,\ii \int_{\cM_6} \omega_2^{(1)} \wedge X_4,
\label{eq:s-SGS}
\end{equation}
which exactly cancels \eqref{eq:s-Gamma-1loop}: $s(\Gamma_{\mathrm{1-loop}} + S_{\mathrm{GS}}) = 0$.
\end{euclidlemma}

\begin{proof}
Starting from $S_{\mathrm{GS}} = \int_{\cM_6} B_2 \wedge X_4$ and using $sB_2 = -\omega_2^{(1)} + d\Lambda_1$ from \eqref{eq:sB2-corrected}:
\begin{equation}
s\,S_{\mathrm{GS}} = \int_{\cM_6} (sB_2) \wedge X_4 = \int_{\cM_6} (-\omega_2^{(1)} + d\Lambda_1) \wedge X_4 = -\int_{\cM_6} \omega_2^{(1)} \wedge X_4,
\label{eq:s-SGS-detailed}
\end{equation}
where in the last step the $d\Lambda_1$ piece integrates to a boundary term that vanishes (assuming compact support or appropriate boundary conditions on $\Lambda_1$). Choosing the conventional normalization $\omega_2^{(1)} \mapsto 2\pi\,\ii\,\omega_2^{(1)}$ to match the standard normalization of the one-loop anomaly variation \eqref{eq:s-Gamma-1loop}, we obtain \eqref{eq:s-SGS}.

Adding \eqref{eq:s-Gamma-1loop} and \eqref{eq:s-SGS}:
\begin{equation}
s\,\big(\Gamma_{\mathrm{1-loop}} + S_{\mathrm{GS}}\big) = 2\pi\,\ii \int \omega_2^{(1)} \wedge X_4 - 2\pi\,\ii \int \omega_2^{(1)} \wedge X_4 = 0.
\label{eq:cancellation-detailed}
\end{equation}
The Green--Schwarz term exactly cancels the BRST variation of the one-loop fermion determinant.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Combining the Lemmas: proof of Theorem 7}

\noindent \emph{Prerequisite and scope.} This subsection assumes the Batalin--Vilkovisky formulation of gauge fixing at the level of a graduate field-theory course. A reader who takes on trust that a consistent quantum theory exists on this bulk may go to the next Section without loss; nothing later in Part~II uses the internal steps of this proof, only its conclusion. Appendix~\ref{app:bv-brst} carries the master equation, the Ward operators and the current algebra in full, for a reader who wants the quantization written out rather than cited.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:brst-consistency}]
By Lemma~\ref{lem:gauge-fixing}, the classical gauge-fixed action is BRST-invariant: $sS_{\mathrm{gf+gh}} = 0$ and $sH_3 = 0$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:descent}, the only possible quantum obstruction to BRST invariance is the ghost-number-one descent cocycle $I_6^{(1)} = \omega_2^{(1)} \wedge X_4$ associated with the one-loop fermion anomaly. By Lemma~\ref{lem:GS-cancellation}, the BRST variation of the Green--Schwarz term exactly cancels this cocycle. Therefore the full effective action is BRST-closed:
\begin{equation}
s\,\Gamma_{\mathrm{full}} = s\,(\Gamma_{\mathrm{classical}} + \Gamma_{\mathrm{1-loop}} + S_{\mathrm{GS}} + \cdots) = 0.
\label{eq:s-Gamma-full}
\end{equation}
Standard BRST arguments (the Zinn--Justin equation \citep{ZinnJustin1975}) then imply that $\Gamma_{\mathrm{full}}$ satisfies the homogeneous Slavnov--Taylor identity $\cS(\Gamma_{\mathrm{full}}) = 0$.
\end{proof}

\paragraph{Consequences: Ward identities and current conservation.} Once the homogeneous Slavnov--Taylor identity \eqref{eq:STidentity-final} holds, the Ward identities for all gauge currents follow. For the non-Abelian $\SUfive$ current, the bulk diffeomorphism current, and the Abelian $\UoneB$ and $\UoneQi$ currents (with their respective Green--Schwarz topological contributions):
\begin{equation}
D_M\langle J_5^M \rangle = 0,\qquad \nabla_M \langle T_{\mathrm{tot}}^{MN}\rangle = 0,\qquad \nabla_M \langle J_B^M + J_{\mathrm{GS},B}^M \rangle = 0,\qquad \nabla_M \langle J_{Qi}^M + J_{\mathrm{GS},Qi}^M\rangle = 0.
\label{eq:Ward-identities-6D}
\end{equation}
The tensor sector contributions $J_{\mathrm{GS},B}^M$ and $J_{\mathrm{GS},Qi}^M$ are essential here: they convert the matter Abelian currents (which are individually anomalous at one loop) into anomaly-free total currents. That is what single-tensor inflow means mathematically.

\paragraph{Boundary projection.} Theorem~\ref{thm:brst-consistency} is a six-dimensional bulk theorem. Under the boundary projection through the \OGGEP{} dictionary $\cD$ (Axiom~\ref{ax:OGGEP}), the bulk Ward identities \eqref{eq:Ward-identities-6D} project to the corresponding 4D boundary Ward and Slavnov--Taylor identities of the effective four-dimensional theory. This is why the anomaly-free current algebra of the boundary theory is not an independent assumption but a derived consequence: it is the boundary shadow of the 6D BRST theorem. The detailed derivation is the subject of the companion paper \AFive{}.

\paragraph{Why no supersymmetry, no strings.} The Green--Schwarz mechanism first entered physics through ten-dimensional supersymmetric string theory \citep{GreenSchwarz1984}. The bulk--boundary bulk--boundary correspondence first entered through supersymmetric AdS/CFT \citep{Maldacena1998}. In both cases, supersymmetry was an ingredient, often presented as essential. Theorem~\ref{thm:brst-consistency} demonstrates that this is not so: the descent equations \eqref{eq:descent-I8}, the modified Bianchi identity, and the Green--Schwarz cancellation are statements about characteristic classes, Chern--Simons forms, and BRST cohomology --- all of which are well-defined on any admissible bundle with connection, regardless of supersymmetry.

In the present six-dimensional setting, anomaly cancellation is achieved through:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em]
\item the modified Bianchi identity $dH_3 = X_4$ with \OGN{}-fixed coefficients (Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs});
\item the single-tensor anomaly factorization $I_8 = \tfrac12 X_4 \wedge X_4$ (Theorem~\ref{thm:anomaly-factorization});
\item the descent-corrected $B_2$ transformation (Lemma~\ref{lem:gauge-fixing});
\item the explicit BRST cancellation (Lemmas~\ref{lem:descent} and \ref{lem:GS-cancellation}).
\end{itemize}
None of these ingredients requires supersymmetry, fundamental strings, or extra moduli beyond the overall unit scale (set by $G_N$, with $M_6$ a derived combination). The Constitution does not force supersymmetry; therefore by \AX{4} (\MSMF), supersymmetry is inadmissible in the minimal \GG\ realization. The same argument applies to fundamental strings. The framework's signature feature is therefore: \emph{anomaly cancellation at $6$D, not $10$D/$11$D, without supersymmetry, without strings}.


\section{Theorem 8 (T-GG6-8): The Arisaka Equation and Quadruple Gauge Locking}
\label{sec:thm8-arisaka-equation}

We now state and prove the eighth and final theorem of Part~II: the boundary current locking equation that follows from the bulk-side BRST consistency under the \OGGEP{} bulk-to-boundary projection. This locking equation, which we call the \emph{Arisaka equation}, is the law that ties together the four conserved currents of the boundary theory (energy, electric, baryonic, informational) into a single algebraic identity. It is the boundary shadow of the bulk's three abelian gauge invariances.

\begin{euclidtheorem}[Arisaka equation and Quadruple Gauge Locking]
\label{thm:arisaka-equation}
The three abelian gauge invariances $\UoneEM \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$ of the boundary theory (Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces}), together with the modified Bianchi identity $\BIsix$ (Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs}) and its inflow under the \OGGEP{} bulk-to-boundary projection (Axiom~\ref{ax:OGGEP}), force the four boundary current densities to be locked together by a single algebraic identity:
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;\frac{J_E}{\QB} \;=\; J_e \;=\; J_B \;=\; J_{Qi},\;}
\label{eq:arisaka-equation}
\end{equation}
where $J_E$ is the boundary energy current density, $J_e$ is the
boundary electric current density, $J_B$ is the boundary baryonic
current density, $J_{Qi}$ is the boundary informational current
density, and $\QB$ is a single energetic conversion factor of
dimension energy-per-quantum-bit (the energy--information Arisaka constant;
numerical value $\QB \approx 0.1555$~eV/qubit established in
\citep[\S 9, T-QUA.2]{ArisakaA7Qi4}, with $\QB = (2/5)E_{\rm Ry}/K$).
We call the law \eqref{eq:arisaka-equation} \emph{Quadruple Gauge
Locking} ($\QGL$): four currents, three abelian invariances, locked
by one equation.
\end{euclidtheorem}

\begin{proof}
We proceed in five steps: (a) the three abelian boundary currents from the boundary projection of the bulk gauge group; (b) the integer-quantization of the corresponding charges; (c) the derivation of the locking equation from the \BIsix{} inflow under \OGGEP{}; (d) the empirical determination of $\QB$; (e) the identification with three abelian invariances.

\textbf{Step (a): The three abelian boundary currents.} By Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces}, the boundary gauge group after Hosotani breaking $\SUfive \to \SU(3)_C \times \SU(2)_L \times \UoneY$ and electroweak breaking $\SU(2)_L \times \UoneY \to \UoneEM$ is
\begin{equation}
G_{\Bdy}^{\mathrm{low\text{-}E}} = \Spin(1,3) \times \SU(3)_C \times \UoneEM \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi.
\label{eq:GBdy-lowE-thm8}
\end{equation}
Each abelian factor produces a conserved boundary current under \POS{1} (\GI):
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em]
\item $\UoneEM$ produces the electric current $J_e$, with charges $q_e = -1, 0, +1, \tfrac23, -\tfrac13$ for the Standard Model fermions in conventional normalization. The conserved current is $\partial_\mu J_e^\mu = 0$.
\item $\UoneB$ produces the baryonic current $J_B$, with charges $q_B = +1/3$ for quarks, $0$ for leptons. The conserved current is $\partial_\mu J_B^\mu = 0$.
\item $\UoneQi$ produces the informational current $J_{Qi}$, with charges $q_{Qi}$ to be specified by boundary phenomenology. The conserved current is $\partial_\mu J_{Qi}^\mu = 0$.
\end{itemize}
Diffeomorphism invariance of the boundary theory produces a fourth conserved current, the energy-momentum tensor $T_{\mu\nu}$ with conserved trace $T = T^\mu_\mu$ playing the role of an effective ``energy current density'' $J_E$ in the bulk--boundary correspondence. Conservation: $\nabla^\mu T_{\mu\nu} = 0$.

\textbf{Step (b): Integer quantization of the charges.} \POS{6} (\OGN, Postulate~\ref{pos:OGN}) requires the gauge charges to be integer-quantized. In the conventional Standard Model normalization, the electric charges are integer multiples of $\tfrac13$ (the smallest unit being the down-quark charge $-\tfrac13$). After multiplying through by $3$ to obtain integer-normalized charges, the electric, baryonic, and informational charges of every Standard Model fermion plus their information sector partner are simultaneously integer. \POS{6} therefore requires the integer-normalized currents $J_e^{\mathrm{int}}$, $J_B^{\mathrm{int}}$, $J_{Qi}^{\mathrm{int}}$ to satisfy the same algebraic relations as the gauge couplings of the bulk theory.

\textbf{Step (c): The locking equation from \BIsix{} inflow under \OGGEP{}.} Theorem~\ref{thm:brst-consistency} established that the bulk Ward identities for the abelian currents include the Green--Schwarz topological contributions:
\begin{equation}
\nabla_M\langle J_B^M + J_{\mathrm{GS}, B}^M\rangle = 0, \qquad \nabla_M\langle J_{Qi}^M + J_{\mathrm{GS}, Qi}^M\rangle = 0.
\label{eq:Ward-bulk-Ab}
\end{equation}
Under the \OGGEP{} bulk-to-boundary projection $\cD: \Bulk \to (\cH_\partial, \rho_\partial, \Phi_{t,s}, \{\cI_\alpha\})$, these bulk Ward identities project to boundary Ward identities for the corresponding boundary currents. The Green--Schwarz contributions $J_{\mathrm{GS}, B}$, $J_{\mathrm{GS}, Qi}$ are sourced by the same four-form $X_4$ (Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs}), and project to the boundary as additional terms in the boundary current divergences.

The key insight is that the \BIsix{} inflow couples \emph{all three} abelian currents (electric, baryonic, informational) to the gravitational sector through the same four-form $X_4$. Specifically, the trace-ratio coefficients $-2/5$ in $\BIsix$ for $\UoneB$ and $\UoneQi$ are the same coefficient that controls the relative weight of the gravitational current $J_E$ in the boundary projection. Working out the boundary projection of $\BIsix$ via the bulk--boundary correspondence (a calculation carried out in detail in the companion paper \citep{ArisakaA5GDOS}), one finds the boundary-side identity
\begin{equation}
\frac{J_E}{\QB} = J_e = J_B = J_{Qi},
\label{eq:arisaka-equation-derived}
\end{equation}
where the energy-current $J_E$ enters with the conversion factor $\QB$ that converts an energetic current to a unit-discrete current, and the three abelian currents $J_e$, $J_B$, $J_{Qi}$ enter with the same units (one quantum unit per fermion, integer-normalized). This is the Arisaka equation.

\textbf{Step (d): Numerical value of $\QB$ (deferred to \ASeven{}).} The
conversion factor $\QB$ is the energy per quantum bit at boundary
scale $\mu = M_Z$; its numerical value is established by the chain
$\OGNfive \to \alpha \to m_e \to E_{\rm Ry} \to \QB$ of
\citet[\S 9, T-QUA.2]{ArisakaA7Qi4}, where the closed-form formula
$\QB = (2/5) E_{\rm Ry}/K \approx 0.15549$~eV/qubit is derived and
the equivalent unit conversion $N_A \cdot \QB \approx 15.0$~kJ/mol of
qubits is established. Its energy--information calibration against
biological energy currents is developed in
(\citealp{ArisakaA7Qi4}; \citealp{ArisakaA11Origin}). The present theorem proves only the bulk-algebraic
existence of the four-current locking; the empirical anchor of $\QB$
is \ASeven{}'s contribution.

\textbf{Step (e): Three abelian invariances, four currents, one locking equation.} Counting: the boundary theory has four conserved currents ($J_E$, $J_e$, $J_B$, $J_{Qi}$) and three abelian gauge invariances ($\UoneEM$, $\UoneB$, $\UoneQi$). The Arisaka equation \eqref{eq:arisaka-equation} provides exactly $4 - 1 = 3$ independent constraints among the four currents, equal to the number of abelian invariances. It is where the name \emph{Quadruple Gauge Locking} comes from ($\QGL$): the \emph{four} boundary currents (quadruple) are locked to one another by the abelian \emph{gauge} invariances through one algebraic \emph{locking} equation.
\end{proof}

\paragraph{Why this equation is so distinctive.} The Arisaka equation is unlike anything in the conventional unification literature. In the Standard Model, the four conserved currents (energy, electric, baryon, lepton) are independent: there is no algebraic relation locking them together. In conventional GUTs (SU(5), SO(10), supersymmetric GUTs), some currents become unified at high energies, but no boundary-level locking equation appears. In string theory, additional currents typically come from compactification moduli, and the relations among them depend on the choice of compactification.

In \GG, the four boundary currents are forced into the algebraic relation \eqref{eq:arisaka-equation} by the bulk's three abelian gauge invariances acting through the \OGGEP{} bulk-to-boundary projection. Three of the four currents are integer-normalized gauge currents, and the fourth (the energy current) is converted to integer-normalized units by a single conversion factor $\QB$. The locking equation is therefore not a phenomenological fit; it is a consequence of the constitutional clauses.

\paragraph{Empirical signature: $\QB \approx 0.1555$ eV.} The numerical value of $\QB$ is one of the most striking empirical signatures of \GG. In SI units, $\QB \approx 0.1555$ eV/qubit, equivalent to $N_A \cdot \QB \approx 15.0$ kJ/mol of qubits. The empirical calibration of $\QB$ against biological energy currents --- the per-qubit stoichiometry and its standard-versus-cellular corrections --- is the empirical anchor of the boundary $\UoneQi$ current and is developed in (\citealp{ArisakaA7Qi4}; \citealp{ArisakaA11Origin}); it is not part of the geometric construction of the present paper.

The numerical match between $\QB$ and the observed energy--information constants is not a coincidence: it is the empirical fingerprint of the bulk informational sector $\UoneQi$ projecting to a boundary information current locked by Quadruple Gauge Locking to the energy current. The companion paper \citep{ArisakaA7Qi4} carries out the full empirical calibration and explores the consequences for the structure of biological molecular machinery.

\paragraph{Connection to the foundational paper.} In the historical/foundational paper \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid}, $\QB$ is identified as one of \GUfive{}, the Geometric Universal Five Constants $\GUfiveSet$: $c$ is the conversion factor for the boundary $(1,3)$ Lorentz signature; $\hbar$ is the conversion factor for the integer KK mode quantization on $S^1_\theta$; $G_N$ is the gravitational coupling derived from the scale-profile integration on $I_r$; $\kB$ is the boundary thermodynamic conversion factor (energy--temperature, supplied by the Gibbs projection at the boundary, see \citep{ArisakaA5GDOS}); and $\QB$ is the conversion factor for the Arisaka equation. The elementary charge $e$ is \emph{not} a member of \GUfive{}: it is determined by $\alpha^{-1}(0) = 137$ (a theorem of \POS{7}+\OGNfive{}) and $e = \sqrt{4\pi\varepsilon_0\,\hbar\,c\,\alpha}$. This \GUfive{} exhausts the dimensional content of the framework: every dimensionful quantity in physics is a combination of $c$, $G_N$, $\hbar$, $\kB$, $\QB$ and the integer ledger \OGNfive{}. The dimensional reconstruction of physics from \GUfive{} is the central content of the foundational paper.

\paragraph{The Arisaka equation as the endpoint of Part II.} Part II began with Theorem~\ref{thm:dim-minimal} (the bulk is six-dimensional) and ends with Theorem~\ref{thm:arisaka-equation} (the boundary currents are locked by one equation). The chain is:
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;
\begin{aligned}
&\text{6D bulk} \;\to\; \text{canonical metric} \;\to\; \text{six forces} \;\to\; \BIsix \;\to\; \text{factorization} \\
&\quad\to\; \OGNfive \;\to\; \text{BRST consistency} \;\to\; \text{Arisaka equation}.
\end{aligned}\;}
\label{eq:partII-chain}
\end{equation}
At each step, the previous theorem plus a constitutional clause forces the next. At the end of the chain, the boundary theory inherits a single algebraic relation among its four conserved currents --- a relation that, in the author's view, is the most empirically distinctive single prediction of \GG.

The remaining parts of the paper unpack the consequences:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em]
\item Part III develops the geometric intuition for the bulk metric in four interlocking pictures (RG-scale, renormalization, gravity localization, topological circle);
\item Part~IV locates \GG{} against superstring theory --- shared
 heritage, and the four constitutional obstructions;
\item Part~V is the forward and backward map to the cohort papers, and
 Part~VI the constitutional-axiom classification of twentieth-century
 physics;
\item Part~VII carries the discussion: the ten structural innovations,
 the comparison table, the problems solved, and the registered
 falsifiers. Part~VIII states the conclusions, and Parts~IX--XI are
 back matter.
\end{itemize}

\paragraph{The master chain.} The eight Theorems of Part~II are now on the page. Each is forced by previously-established Theorems plus specific constitutional clauses; the chain is rigid in both directions, so that altering any constitutional clause breaks a downstream Theorem and altering any Theorem violates an upstream clause. The Euclidean discipline of the \emph{Elements}, applied to a constitution, comes to exactly that. The eight Theorems together prove that
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;
\begin{aligned}
&\mathrm{AX/POS} \;\Longrightarrow\; \GGEP \;\Longrightarrow\; \GG\ \&\ \BIsix\ \&\ \OGNfive \\
&\quad\Longrightarrow\; \text{6D BRST-consistent QFT at } \EGUT \;\Longrightarrow\; \text{Arisaka equation},
\end{aligned}\;}
\label{eq:final-master-chain}
\end{equation}
which is the master chain of the framework. No free parameter survives --- what remains dimensionful is the co-equal trio $\{c, G_N, \hbar\}$, a unit convention rather than a parameter, with $M_6$ a derived combination; the entire bulk theory is forced; the boundary currents are locked by one algebraic equation. What the chain does not do is let anyone \emph{see} the object it describes, and a formalism that cannot be pictured is a formalism that can only be checked, never questioned.

\section[Beyond the Eight Theorems: Spin-1/2 and Fermi--Dirac Statistics]{Beyond the Eight Theorems: The Geometric Origin of Spin-$\tfrac{1}{2}$ and Fermi--Dirac Statistics}
\label{sec:spin-statistics}

The eight theorems above force the arena: the six-dimensional bulk,
its metric, its four-factor gauge group, its anomaly bookkeeping, its
integer ledger, and its one locked equation. This closing section of
Part~II turns to a question the arena raises but no prior framework
has answered: \emph{why is there spin-$\tfrac{1}{2}$ matter at all,
and why does it exclude?} The section is deliberately placed beyond
the eight --- everything in T1--T8 is derived; what follows is a
candidate suite, stated at explicit grades, assembling results the
cohort already owns (here, in \citealp{ArisakaA8QM}, and in the CPT
member paper \citealp{ArisakaP5CPT}) into a geometric account of
half-integer spin and Fermi--Dirac statistics --- together with the
two named lemmas that would complete it. The unique contributions of
\GGTheory{} over the standard quantum-mechanical and field-theoretic
treatments are stated explicitly in \S\ref{ssec:spin-unique}, and the
honesty ledger of \S\ref{ssec:spin-ledger} separates, row by row,
what is proved from what is proposed.

\subsection{A century of deferrals: how each framework introduced
spin and statistics, and what it left unexplained}
\label{ssec:spin-deferrals}

\paragraph{Quantum mechanics (1922--1927): spin admitted, twice
postulated.} Spin entered physics as bookkeeping for data nobody
could organize: the anomalous Zeeman multiplets, then Stern and
Gerlach's two spots where classical reasoning expected a continuum
and orbital quantum numbers expected one or three. Pauli's
``classically non-describable two-valuedness'' (1925) --- a fourth
quantum number introduced precisely to make the exclusion principle
count atomic shells --- was given a body by Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit
and a formalism by Pauli's matrices (1927) \citep{Pauli1940}. The
mathematical situation was clarified by Wigner \citep{Wigner1939}:
quantum symmetries act on \emph{rays}, so the physically admissible
representations are projective, which for the rotation group means
representations of the double cover $\SU(2)$ --- and half-integer
spin is exactly the projective-but-not-linear sector, the sector
that registers a $2\pi$ rotation with a sign. Quantum mechanics
thereby \emph{admits} spin-$\tfrac{1}{2}$ but derives neither of the
two facts it rests on: that states are rays (postulated), and that
nature populates the spinorial option the ray structure permits
(imported from experiment). The exclusion principle and the
antisymmetrization postulate are, in the same register, pure axioms:
nonrelativistic quantum mechanics offers no connection between a
particle's spin and its statistics.

\paragraph{Quantum field theory and the Standard Model (1939--1973):
the connection proved, the existence deferred.} Relativistic field
theory converts the spin--statistics connection from mystery to
theorem: given Lorentz invariance, microcausality, a stable vacuum,
and a positive-metric state space, integer-spin fields must commute
and half-integer-spin fields must anticommute \citep{Pauli1940,
StreaterWightman1964}. The proof mechanism deserves emphasis,
because \GG{} will inherit it geometrically: the Wightman functions
continue analytically into the forward tube (the spectrum condition
--- positivity of the energy --- is what grants the continuation),
and at the Jost points the exchange of two spacelike-separated field
insertions is implemented by an analytically continued $2\pi$
rotation, which contributes exactly the sign $(-1)^{2s}$. \emph{The
exchange sign is the $2\pi$-rotation sign, transported by
one-sided analyticity.} In the algebraic refinement, the vacuum
restricted to a Rindler wedge is a KMS state whose modular objects
are geometric \citep{BisognanoWichmann1976}, and both the CPT
operator and the spin--statistics connection flow from that single
modular structure \citep{GuidoLongo1995}. The Standard Model raises
the stakes --- its matter is exclusively chiral spin-$\tfrac{1}{2}$,
its anomaly cancellations tie the fermion charges into an
overdetermined pattern --- but neither field theory nor the SM
explains why spinor fields exist, why matter is exclusively
spinorial, or why the projective category that admits them is the
physical one. The theorem is conditional; the existence is deferred.

\paragraph{String theory (1971--1985): spinors manufactured one
level down.} The RNS superstring makes spacetime fermions from
worldsheet structure: the Ramond sector's periodic worldsheet
fermions carry zero modes obeying a Clifford algebra, forcing the
sector's ground state to be a spacetime spinor, and the GSO
projection --- selected by one-loop modular invariance --- retains a
tachyon-free, spin--statistics-consistent spectrum. Two genuine
deepenings result: spin-$\tfrac{1}{2}$ is manufactured (from a
zero-mode Clifford algebra) rather than postulated, and the
spin--statistics connection is tied to the consistency of the
two-dimensional theory. But the worldsheet fermion is itself an
input (two-dimensional supersymmetry is assumed), the Ramond
boundary condition is a choice whose necessity rests on the
framework's own unestablished necessity, and the machinery lives at
the octonionic rung $d = 10$ of the ladder of
Proposition~\ref{prop:lorentz-division} with the vacuum unselected.
The deferral has moved down a level, not closed.

\paragraph{The pattern.} Each framework answers its predecessor's
deferral conditionally and creates its own: quantum mechanics
postulates, field theory proves \emph{if}, string theory
manufactures \emph{from} an assumed substrate. The remainder of this
section states what the present paper's eight theorems already
contribute to truncating this ladder, and then the candidate suite
that would close it.

\subsection{What the eight theorems already deliver}
\label{ssec:spin-delivered}

Three results proved earlier in this Part bear directly on the
question, and it is worth collecting them under this section's
heading because their joint force is easy to miss when they are read
as technical steps of T3.

\paragraph{(i) The spin structure is mandatory, not optional.}
Section~\ref{sssec:spin15-reps} established that once the bulk
supports chiral matter, the Lorentz factor of $G_\Bulk$ must be the
double cover $\Spinone$ --- the principal bundle must carry a spin
structure, and writing $\Spinone$ (rather than $\SO(1,5)$) in the
gauge-group product ``is not optional.'' In the Cartan posture of
Remark~\ref{rmk:cartan}, gravity itself is the gauge theory of this
double cover. Standard field theory imports $\SLtwoC$ together
with its matter content; here the covering structure is forced by
the constitution's own matter sector.

\paragraph{(ii) The spinor is the square root of the bulk's
geometry.} The accidental isomorphism $\Spinone \cong \SLtwoH$
(Proposition~\ref{prop:lorentz-division}) realizes the
six-dimensional Minkowski vector as a Hermitian quaternionic square,
$\R^{1,5} \cong \mathrm{Herm}_2(\Quaternion)$ with $X \mapsto g X
g^\dagger$ \citep{Baez2002, ManogueDray2010, Sudbery1984}. Read
geometrically rather than algebraically: the bulk's own displacement
object is \emph{composite}, the square of a more primitive
two-component quaternionic object --- and that object is the 6D Weyl
spinor. The fermion is not something added to the real oriented
geometry; it is the geometry's own factorization, available in
exactly the dimensions where a normed division algebra exists to
support it \citep{Hurwitz1898}, with $d = 6$ the last associative
rung. The ``half'' in spin-$\tfrac{1}{2}$ is the exponent in ``the
vector is the spinor squared.'' In slogan form, in the register the
CPT member paper made canonical: \emph{the bulk is real; its square
root is the fermion.}

\paragraph{(iii) The content of the spinorial sector is
overdetermined.} Given that the spinorial register is populated at
all, its content is forced: the $\bar{\mathbf 5} \oplus \mathbf{10}$
per generation by anomaly freedom (T4--T5 and the \BIsix{} inflow of
\citealp{ArisakaA3BI6}), and the number of generations, three, by
the index count of Appendix~\ref{app:kk}. No prior framework derives
its fermion multiplet; here everything after ``populated'' is a
theorem.

What none of the eight theorems address --- and what neither quantum
mechanics, nor field theory, nor string theory addresses --- is the
step \emph{before} ``populated'': why spinorial matter exists rather
than only tensorial matter. That is the frontier, and the next
subsection proposes its closure.

\subsection{The frontier: why the spinorial register is populated}
\label{ssec:spin-frontier}

\begin{eucliddefinition}[Frame-path registers]
\label{def:frame-path-register}
Let $F(\cM_6)$ be the principal frame bundle of the bulk, with
structure group acting on orthonormal frames. A \emph{frame path} is
a continuous path in the fiber of frames over a point; two frame
paths are equivalent if homotopic with fixed endpoints. Since
$\pi_1(\SO(1,5)^{\uparrow}) = \Z_2$, the deformation classes of
frame paths returning to their initial frame form exactly two
classes: the contractible class (represented by the trivial path and
by the $4\pi$ rotation) and the noncontractible class (represented
by the $2\pi$ rotation). A \emph{register} is an irreducible way for
a field on the bulk to respond to frame paths: the \emph{tensorial}
register responds only to endpoints (it is blind to the class), and
the \emph{spinorial} register responds to the class with a sign.
These are the only two options, because the universal cover
$\Spinone$ is a double cover.
\end{eucliddefinition}

\begin{euclidlemma}[L-Spin-1, candidate: frame-path memory of \GDOS{}
states]
\label{lem:frame-path}
\emph{(Candidate lemma; formalization of the Cartan/\AX{2} posture;
not yet proved at cohort standard.)} States of the bulk \GDOS{}
\citep{ArisakaA5GDOS} are functionals of frame-bundle data --- they
depend on deformation classes of frame paths, not only on endpoint
configurations. Consequently the group acting on bulk states is the
group of frame-path classes, $\Spinone$, and the state space
decomposes into the two registers of
Definition~\ref{def:frame-path-register}.
\end{euclidlemma}

\begin{euclidremark}[Why the lemma is plausible, and what remains]
\label{rmk:frame-path-status}
The Cartan formulation (Remark~\ref{rmk:cartan}) already treats the
bulk's gravitational dynamics as a gauge theory \emph{of the frame
bundle}: the fundamental variables are the vielbein and the spin
connection, and parallel transport of frames --- path data --- is
the dynamical content of \AX{2}. The lemma asserts that the \GDOS{}
state space inherits this path-dependence rather than quotienting it
away. What remains to be proved is precisely the non-quotienting:
that the \GDOS{} construction, carried out on $F(\cM_6)$, does not
factor through the orbit space in which the $2\pi$ class is
invisible. The claim is a formalization target, not a foregone
conclusion, and it is graded accordingly in
\S\ref{ssec:spin-ledger}. Its experimental shadow, however, is
already on record: a $2\pi$ rotation is observably nontrivial and a
$4\pi$ rotation observably trivial in neutron interferometry
\citep{Rauch1975} --- the boundary dictionary faithfully reports a
two-sheeted frame memory, which is exactly what the lemma asserts
the bulk possesses.
\end{euclidremark}

\begin{euclidtheorem}[T-Spin-A, candidate: the populated square
root]
\label{thm:spin-populated}
\emph{(Candidate theorem; derived-conditional on
Lemma~\ref{lem:frame-path} and on the \GRIP{} genericity clause;
grades in \S\ref{ssec:spin-ledger}.)} Assume
Lemma~\ref{lem:frame-path}, and assume the genericity clause of the
boundary runtime \citep{ArisakaA6Gi4}: generic cascade data populate
every register not forbidden by a conservation law. Then the
spinorial register of the bulk is populated --- matter transforming
in the $\mathbf 4$ of $\SLtwoH$ exists --- and, by the results
collected in \S\ref{ssec:spin-delivered}(iii), its content is then
forced to be three generations of
$\mathbf 4 \otimes (\bar{\mathbf 5} \oplus \mathbf{10})$.
\end{euclidtheorem}

\begin{euclidremark}[The inversion of the explanatory burden]
\label{rmk:spin-inversion}
The philosophical content of T-Spin-A is an inversion. In quantum
mechanics, spinors are \emph{allowed} (the projective loophole) and
\emph{found} (experiment); their presence is a brute fact. Under
T-Spin-A the burden reverses: in a real, oriented bulk whose states
remember frame paths, the spinorial register is \emph{present unless
projected out}, and genericity forbids the projection --- it is
\emph{absence} of spin-$\tfrac{1}{2}$ matter that would have
required explanation. The cohort treats CP violation by the same argument form (the flavor pentagon is chiral because
nothing forces it to be achiral; \citealp{ArisakaP5CPT}) and the
descent's parity breaking. The 1925 ``classically non-describable
two-valuedness'' becomes, in this reading, a classically describable
two-valuedness --- of frame paths in a real oriented geometry ---
that only \emph{point}-based classical mechanics could not describe.
The rotational sibling of the CPT member paper's slogan applies: no
real orientation can hide, and \emph{no real frame path can be
forgotten}. Spin-$\tfrac{1}{2}$ is what remembering looks like.
\end{euclidremark}

\subsection{Fermi--Dirac statistics: three strands, one geometry}
\label{ssec:spin-statistics-fd}

Quantum mechanics postulates the antisymmetry of fermionic states;
field theory proves it conditionally (\S\ref{ssec:spin-deferrals});
the configuration-space analysis of \citet{LeinaasMyrheim1977} shows
the Bose/Fermi dichotomy itself is a theorem of identical-particle
topology in three or more spatial dimensions (only a $\Z_2$ of
options exists), while leaving the per-species choice undetermined.
The cohort possesses three assets that, assembled, go further than
any of these. We state them as two candidate lemmas and one
candidate theorem.

\paragraph{Strand (a): the sibling of CPT under the Wick quartet.}
The CPT member paper \citep{ArisakaP5CPT} isolated, as its theorem
T-P5-B1, the single analytic fact behind Minkowski's $it$, Wick's
rotation, and the clock's quarter-turn: the one-sided spectrum that
\AX{1} positivity grants, from which the paper's CPT theorem
(T-P5-2) is derived at quasi-free grade. But the axiomatic
literature establishes that CPT and spin--statistics are
\emph{siblings}: both flow from the same wedge analyticity and
modular structure \citep{BisognanoWichmann1976, GuidoLongo1995,
StreaterWightman1964}. The sibling theorem is therefore available at
the same grade, from machinery already installed:

\begin{euclidtheorem}[T-Stat-A, candidate: spin--statistics at the
quartet]
\label{thm:spin-statistics-quartet}
\emph{(Candidate theorem; target grade derived (quasi-free), with
exactly the named residues of the CPT member paper's T-P5-2:
interacting case on scattering hypotheses; modular route open.)}
For the real quasi-free textures of the cohort --- fields built on
the circle $\oplus$ clock $\oplus$ space data of
\citep{ArisakaP5CPT} Part~IV --- the spin--statistics connection
holds and is forced by the same single analytic fact as CPT: the
one-sided spectrum supplies the forward-tube analyticity; the real
orientation reversals supply the Jost-point geometry; and the
$\Z_2$ frame-path register of
Definition~\ref{def:frame-path-register} supplies the sign
$(-1)^{2s}$. Consequently CPT and Fermi--Dirac statistics are the
two children of one geometric parent: \emph{the clock's
quarter-turn is why the mirrors multiply to the identity and why
matter excludes itself.}
\end{euclidtheorem}

No prior framework presents the two theorems as one geometric
object. The algebraic literature knows they share machinery; what it
lacks, and what \GG{} supplies, is a geometric parent \emph{for the
machinery itself}: the one-sided spectrum is not an axiom here but
the operational face of the bulk's causal clock (\AX{1} + \AX{3},
via the uniqueness theorem the CPT member paper labels Theorem~0).

\paragraph{Strand (b): exchange as rotation, for tokens of one
attractor.}

\begin{euclidlemma}[L-Stat-1, candidate: exchange $\simeq$ $2\pi$
rotation for attractor tokens]
\label{lem:exchange-rotation}
\emph{(Candidate lemma; classical topology plus a cohort premise.)}
In the boundary runtime, two ``identical particles'' are two
zero-mode tokens of one cascade attractor --- one type, fixed
upstream of any preparation (theorem TA-9 of
\citealp{ArisakaA8QM}, resting on the attractor-uniqueness result of
\citealp{ArisakaA11Origin}). Exchange of two tokens is therefore a
motion within a single field configuration, and the classical
homotopy argument \citep{FinkelsteinRubinstein1968} --- the exchange
loop of two identical lumps is homotopic to a $2\pi$ frame rotation
of one --- applies not to an abstract configuration space but to
actual frame paths in the real oriented bulk. Under
Lemma~\ref{lem:frame-path}, the exchange class and the $2\pi$ class
are the same noncontractible class, so the spinorial register must
weight exchange by $-1$: \emph{exclusion as holonomy}.
\end{euclidlemma}

\paragraph{Strand (c): the third job of the intertwiner $B$.}

\begin{euclidlemma}[L-Stat-2, candidate: obstruction, conjugation,
exclusion --- one matrix, three jobs]
\label{lem:third-job}
\emph{(Candidate lemma; Clifford bookkeeping only, no new
structure.)} The reality intertwiner $B$ of the $(1,5)$ Clifford
module satisfies $B\bar B = -\mathbf 1$
(\S\ref{sssec:spin15-reps}; \citealp{LawsonMichelsohn1989}). This
single algebraic fact does three jobs. \emph{Job one (obstruction):}
it forbids Majorana spinors in $(1,5)$ --- six-dimensional matter is
irreducibly chiral, the fact on which the descent's parity story
rests. \emph{Job two (conjugation):} it implements fermionic charge
conjugation as real geometry, $C = (\theta \mapsto -\theta) \circ
B$, with no new complex input (theorem T-P5-C2 of
\citealp{ArisakaP5CPT}). \emph{Job three (exclusion):} $B\bar B =
-\mathbf 1$ is precisely the statement that the Weyl module is
quaternionic (pseudo-real), and on a quaternionic module the
invariant bilinear form is antisymmetric (symplectic); the symmetry
of the invariant bilinear is what fixes the quantization sign of the
sector, and an antisymmetric invariant forces anticommutators on
pain of a vanishing or indefinite two-point structure. The Kramers
degeneracy ($T^2 = -\mathbf 1$) used by the CPT member paper is the
boundary shadow of the same quaternionic structure. Thus the matrix
that forbids a six-dimensional fermion from being its own mirror
also forces its tokens to exclude one another --- and $B$ is not
chosen but inherited from the $(1,5)$ reality structure of the real
bulk, the same signature fact that made the descent chiral.
\end{euclidlemma}

\begin{euclidremark}[The hour-4 over-determination, and the priced
category (candidate)]
The spinorial-register conclusions of this closing section are
forced twice, by independent clocks --- and the arena they stand on
is itself priced. First, the route taken above runs through the
weight arithmetic of the circle: Theorem~0's arena --- the compact
phase circle $S^1_\theta$ and the causal clock on the globally
static metric --- is precisely the input from which the Foundations
Branch derives the boundary's complex structure, as the circle's
quarter-turn (T-P4-1), the clock's polar phase (T-P4-2), and their
forced agreement (T-P4-3) (\citealp{ArisakaP4Real}); and
L-Constitution-1 of \AOne{} (candidate grade,
\citealp{ArisakaA1Constitution}) prices the primitive-category
axis with \AX{4}'s own machinery, selecting the real bulk category
as the unique \AX{4} minimum --- with the recoverability stage of
that lemma being exactly the arena Theorem~0 forces here. Second,
the mod-8 reality clock of the Clifford algebra reads the same
structure off the other side: the $(1,5)$ bulk sits at hour
$t - s \equiv 4$, where $B\bar B = -\mathbf 1$ --- the
quaternionic hour --- so the Weyl module is pseudo-real, the bulk
Majorana condition is empty, and the $\Z_2$ frame-path register is
the only reality structure available (Appendix~G.4 of the CPT
member paper, \citealp{ArisakaP5CPT}, at its textbook-reading
grade: a line read off the standard tables). Two derivations, one
structure: the register is over-determined in precisely the sense
the cascade integers are --- each fixed by an independent theorem
--- and the \GG{} signature that delivers it is doubly witnessed.
Grade: candidate, inheriting the quasi-free scope of the suite
above and the candidate grade of L-Constitution-1.
\end{euclidremark}

\subsection{The boundary half: observability through the dictionary}
\label{ssec:spin-boundary}

The origin proposed above is bulk-side; its \emph{observability} is
boundary-side, through the \AX{3} dictionary, and here the cohort
already owns a deepening that deserves to be stated as such.

\paragraph{The ray structure is derived, not postulated.}
Half-integer spin is admissible in quantum mechanics only because
states are rays --- Wigner's projective loophole
\citep{Wigner1939}. Standard quantum mechanics \emph{postulates}
the ray structure; the cohort \emph{derives} it, at the relaxation
level, through the Born chain of \citet{ArisakaA8QM} (\GDOS{}
relaxation $\Rightarrow$ Born weights $\Rightarrow$ states as
rays). \GGTheory{} therefore explains why the projective category
--- the only category in which spin-$\tfrac{1}{2}$ can appear as an
observable label --- is the physically mandated one. To our
knowledge no other framework closes this particular loophole rather
than assuming it.

\paragraph{Descent and the measured label.} The oriented descent
projects $\Spinone \to \Spin(1,3)$ on the boundary slice
(\S\ref{sssec:bi6-ordering} and the cascade figure); the 6D Weyl
$\mathbf 4$ decomposes into the 4D Weyl spinors of the Standard
Model, and the boundary little-group label --- ``spin'' as measured
in every Stern--Gerlach and every collider helicity analysis --- is
the operational name the dictionary assigns to the surviving bulk
register. Which four-dimensional hand appears is the descent
assertion audited in the CPT member paper's parity ledger; the spin
story and the parity story share that residue, and progress on
either pays both.

\paragraph{The $2\pi$ sign is measured.} The frame-path memory
asserted by Lemma~\ref{lem:frame-path} has a forty-year-old
laboratory witness: neutron interferometry registers the sign of a
$2\pi$ rotation and its cancellation at $4\pi$ \citep{Rauch1975}.
In the present reading this venerable experiment is a direct
observation of $\pi_1(\SO) = \Z_2$ in the real bulk's rotation
group, reported faithfully by the boundary dictionary.

\subsection{Experimental exposure and the candidate falsifier}
\label{ssec:spin-falsifier}

Under the account proposed here the exclusion sign is a holonomy of
the real oriented bulk --- not a parameter that could be slightly
wrong. The account is therefore maximally exposed, in the
\POS{7} register, to a class of experiments that already exists:

\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em]
\item \emph{Pauli-exclusion violation searches.} The VIP-2
experiment at Gran Sasso bounds the probability of
exclusion-violating atomic capture in copper at
$\beta^2/2 < 4.8 \times 10^{-29}$ (90\% CL, 2025)
\citep{VIP2_2025} --- among the most stringent null results in
physics. Under the frame-path account, the prediction is exact
silence, forever.
\item \emph{$4\pi$ interferometry} \citep{Rauch1975}: the standing
positive witness of the two-sheeted register.
\item \emph{Kramers-degeneracy phenomenology}: the boundary witness
of the quaternionic structure of Lemma~\ref{lem:third-job}.
\end{itemize}

\noindent\textbf{F-Stat-1 (candidate falsifier; registration in the
cohort ledger queued).} \emph{Any confirmed violation of
Fermi--Dirac statistics or of the spin--statistics connection, at
any magnitude, in any system, retires the frame-path register
account of this section --- L-Spin-1, T-Spin-A, L-Stat-1, and
T-Stat-A together.} The falsifier is observable-only, permanent,
and dial-free: no parameter of the framework can absorb a
violation, because the sign at stake is topological.

\subsection{The unique contributions of \GGTheory{}, stated
plainly}
\label{ssec:spin-unique}

Against the treatments of \S\ref{ssec:spin-deferrals}, the account
of this section is distinguished by five claims, of which the first
three rest on results already proved in the cohort and the last two
on the candidate suite above:

\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=2em]
\item \emph{The covering structure is forced, not imported} ---
the spin structure on the bulk is mandatory
(\S\ref{ssec:spin-delivered}(i)); field theory assumes its
$\SLtwoC$ together with its matter content.
\item \emph{The spinor is the geometry's own square root} ---
$\R^{1,5} \cong \mathrm{Herm}_2(\Quaternion)$
(\S\ref{ssec:spin-delivered}(ii)); nowhere in quantum mechanics or
field theory is the vector composite and the spinor prior.
\item \emph{The projective category is derived} --- the ray
structure that admits half-integer spin is an output of the Born
chain, not a postulate (\S\ref{ssec:spin-boundary}); Wigner's
loophole is closed rather than assumed.
\item \emph{The explanatory burden is inverted} --- spinorial
matter is present unless projected out, and genericity forbids the
projection (T-Spin-A); every prior framework treats its presence as
brute fact or manufactures it from an assumed substrate.
\item \emph{CPT and Fermi--Dirac statistics acquire one geometric
parent} --- the clock's one-sided spectrum (T-Stat-A), with the
statistics sign carried by the same intertwiner that forbids
Majorana masses and implements conjugation
(Lemma~\ref{lem:third-job}): one matrix, three jobs; one geometry,
three theorems.
\end{enumerate}

\subsection{Status ledger, and the handoff to \AEight{}}

\noindent \emph{Scope.} The candidate results of this Section are the one place in Part~II where the paper proposes rather than proves. Nothing in Parts~III--VIII rests on any of them, so a reader who is not persuaded loses this Section and nothing else, and a reader in a hurry may treat the whole of it as optional.
\label{ssec:spin-ledger}

\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\footnotesize
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.25}
\caption[Honesty ledger for the spin--statistics section.]{The status of every claim in the spin--statistics section, graded. Rows above the rule rest on proved results of the cohort and are cited to them; rows below it are the candidate suite this section proposes and are not yet proved, with the claims among them set in bold and the one falsifier not. The distinction is load-bearing and is made here rather than left to the reader: nothing in Parts~III--XI depends on any bold row, so a reader who rejects the candidate suite loses this section and nothing else. The third column names the basis or the residue in each case, so a skeptical reader can go straight to what is actually being claimed.}
\label{tab:spin-ledger}
\begin{tabular}{p{4.1cm} p{2.9cm} p{6.6cm}}
\toprule
\textbf{Item} & \textbf{Grade} & \textbf{Basis / named residue} \\
\midrule
Spin structure mandatory & derived & \S\ref{sssec:spin15-reps};
conditional on chiral matter existing \\
$\Spinone \cong \SLtwoH$; spinor as square root & derived &
Proposition~\ref{prop:lorentz-division}; standard mathematics, \GG{}
reading \\
Multiplet + three generations forced & derived & anomaly inflow
$+$ index count (\S\ref{ssec:spin-delivered}(iii)) \\
Ray structure derived & derived (relaxation level) & Born chain of
\citealp{ArisakaA8QM}; its own named conditions \\
Token identity of identical particles & derived & TA-9 of
\citealp{ArisakaA8QM}; attractor uniqueness \\
\midrule
L-Spin-1 (frame-path memory) & \textbf{candidate} & formalization
of the Cartan/\AX{2} posture; non-quotienting to be proved \\
T-Spin-A (populated register) & \textbf{candidate},
derived-conditional & L-Spin-1 $+$ \GRIP{} genericity clause \\
L-Stat-1 (exchange $\simeq$ $2\pi$) & \textbf{candidate} &
classical homotopy $+$ TA-9 premise; configuration-space
formalization \\
L-Stat-2 (third job of $B$) & \textbf{candidate} & Clifford
bookkeeping; proof expected routine \\
T-Stat-A (statistics at the quartet) & \textbf{candidate}, target
derived (quasi-free) & residues exactly those of the CPT
member paper's T-P5-2 \\
F-Stat-1 & candidate falsifier & observable-only; ledger
registration queued \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

Table~\ref{tab:spin-ledger} grades every claim of this section, naming for each either the proved basis it rests on or the residue still owed.

The division of labor ahead is fixed by the cohort's architecture:
the bulk-side content (L-Spin-1, T-Spin-A, L-Stat-2) belongs to this
paper and its Part-II successors; the QM-register development ---
discharging the one seam in \citet{ArisakaA8QM} where TA-9 currently
inherits the spin--statistics connection from standard field theory,
and promoting T-Stat-A to a theorem of the boundary runtime ---
belongs to \AEight{}, where it is queued as the companion
installation to this section. With both in place, the summit phrase
of the CPT member paper --- \emph{twins, locked spin--statistics, and
inviolable CPT} --- would be earned clause by clause inside the
cohort: the twins by the handshake, CPT by the quartet, and the lock
by the frame path that no real geometry can forget. Why does matter
take up room? Because the real oriented bulk remembers the turn ---
and two tokens of one attractor cannot change places without making
it.


\subsection*{Closing remarks on Part~II}

Eight theorems have removed eight freedoms, and it is worth pausing on what
kind of result that is.

None of the eight adds a feature to the world. Each says that something a
physicist would ordinarily be free to choose was never actually free, given the
clauses of Part~I. The dimension count is not a model-building decision; it is
what locality, geometry--gauge equivalence and the demand for an operational
dictionary leave standing. The coefficients in the modified Bianchi identity are
not fitted; three of the four are group theory and the fourth is a sign forced
by cancellation. The five integers are not chosen for elegance; they are the
unique simultaneous solution of two conditions with nothing in common.

That last point is the one to carry forward, because it is the difference
between an argument and a coincidence. Two constraints of different provenance
--- one from the trace structure of a representation, one from a closure
identity on the ledger --- meet at a single pair of integers, and the meeting
is provable in two lines. A framework can be tuned to satisfy one constraint.
Being tuned to satisfy two that were never designed together is a different
matter, and it is the strongest structural claim this paper makes.

What the eight theorems do not establish is worth stating with equal
directness. They do not derive the fermion masses. They do not derive the
generation count. They do not, on their own, produce quantum mechanics; the
projection that does is the subject of a companion paper and rests on its own
arguments. Part~II delivers an arena and a ledger. Everything else in this
program is downstream of them, and is exactly as strong as its own reasoning.

There is a habit of thought worth naming here, because it runs through the
whole construction. At each step the question is not ``what should we add to
make this work?'' but ``what would have to be true for anything else to be
possible?'' Those two questions look similar and produce entirely different
theories. The first builds a model that fits. The second, when it can be
answered at all, leaves you holding the only thing the constraints permit ---
and gives you nothing to adjust when the measurement comes in.

%% ===================================================================
%%  PART III — GEOMETRIC INTUITION FOR THE 6D BULK
%% ===================================================================
\GGPart[Geometric Intuition]{Geometric Intuition}{Four Pictures of the 6D Bulk}


\noindent
You can drive a car without opening the hood. Part~II built the engine, and it
built it the way engines are built --- to a tolerance, with every part
justified. Part~III opens the hood and points at the parts.

Nothing here is new physics, and nothing here is needed for the proofs. What
is here is four pictures, each of which turns one piece of the six-dimensional
arena into something you can hold in your head.

The first picture is the one to get right, because everything else leans on
it. The fifth direction of this bulk is not a place. It is a magnification
setting. Moving along it is not traveling somewhere; it is changing the
energy at which you are looking, the way turning the focus ring on a
microscope changes what resolves and what blurs together. A particle sitting
at a fixed value of that coordinate is not parked at a location. It is being
observed at a fixed energy.

The second picture says what the familiar business of renormalization looks
like once the first picture is taken literally. The third says why gravity is
so much weaker than the other forces --- not because the coupling is
mysteriously tiny, but because gravity is concentrated at one end of the scale
direction and we live at the other. The fourth turns to the sixth direction, a
closed circle whose only content is a phase, and which is where every whole
number in this framework comes from.

The circle remembers; the interval forgets. Read together, those two clauses
are the whole geometry.

\section{Introduction to Part~III}
\label{sec:partIII-overview}

Part~II proved the existence and uniqueness of the 6D bulk \GG\ from the constitutional clauses, and presented the eight Theorems in formal Euclidean style. A reader who has worked through Part~II now possesses the formal mathematical structure of the framework, but may not yet have a vivid mental picture of \emph{what the bulk geometry actually is}. Part~III supplies that picture.

The reason this matters is that the 6D bulk of \GG\ is structurally unlike the spacetime of conventional physics, of conventional Kaluza--Klein theories, and of conventional string compactifications. Each of those frameworks has built up, over decades, a robust set of mental images that physicists rely on when reasoning informally. The bulk of \GG\ requires its own set of mental images, and the literature has not yet converged on what those images should be. Part~III is the author's attempt to supply four interlocking pictures that together fix the intuition for working with $\GG$:

\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=2em]
\item \textbf{Picture 1: RG-scale geometry.} The radial direction $r$ is not a fifth spatial dimension; it is the natural-log scale coordinate of the boundary 4D theory. Motion along $r$ is motion in energy, not motion in space.
\item \textbf{Picture 2: Renormalization as radial integration.} The Standard Model renormalization group, when geometrized into the bulk, becomes literal radial integration of bulk fields from UV to IR. RG flow is not abstract; it is parallel transport along $r$.
\item \textbf{Picture 3: Gravity as a UV-localized phenomenon.} In the bulk, gravity localizes near the UV boundary (small $r$) while gauge zero-modes spread across the throat. The hierarchy between the Planck and electroweak scales comes from that asymmetry. The volcano-potential picture from Randall--Sundrum is the relevant mental image.
\item \textbf{Picture 4: The topological angular direction.} The compact direction $S^1_\theta$ is not a small circle one could in principle traverse; it is a pure topological circle, with no intrinsic length, supporting integer-quantized Wilson-line phases. The conventional ``radius'' $R_\theta$ is a unit-conversion artifact.
\end{enumerate}

The four pictures are not independent: they are four facets of the same underlying geometry, each emphasizing a different structural role. Together they give the working physicist the mental images needed to manipulate \GG\ comfortably. The pictures are also pedagogically important because they connect the formal Euclidean structure of Part~II to the physical phenomenology that the framework predicts. A reader who has digested all four pictures will have a much easier time following the further companion papers, which use these images repeatedly.

\paragraph{What the angular circle geometrizes --- and what it does not.} A natural question arises at exactly this point. If the compact direction $S^1_\theta$ geometrizes the gauge phase, does it geometrize the \emph{non-Abelian} groups $\SU(3)$ and $\SU(2)$ as well? It does not, and it should not. A single circle carries exactly one Abelian holonomy --- one Wilson-line phase $\oint A_\theta\,d\theta$, valued in $U(1)$ --- because its holonomy is a single commuting angle; this is the content of $M = 1$ in the \OGNfive{} ledger (Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade}). Non-Abelian groups are intrinsically not dimensions: an $\SU(2)$ holonomy is a non-commuting $2 \times 2$ unitary matrix, so ``transport around the gauge direction'' depends on the order of the moves, a structure that no single extra coordinate can encode. The Kaluza--Klein route --- realizing a gauge group as the isometry of extra \emph{space} --- would require, for $\SU(3) \times \SU(2) \times U(1)$, a seven-dimensional compact manifold \citep{Witten1981KK}, i.e.\ the eleven dimensions of supergravity; \GG\ declines this route precisely because its extra dimensions are non-spatial. Instead, \GG\ geometrizes the non-Abelian sector in the older Weyl--Yang--Mills sense made constitutional by \AX{2} (\GGEP): the $\SU(5)$ gauge field is a \emph{connection} whose curvature is the same species of geometric object as the spacetime curvature, the two locked into a single identity by the modified Bianchi identity $\BIsix$ (Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs}). \emph{Which} simple group it is --- $\SU(5) \supset \SU(3) \times \SU(2) \times U(1)_Y$ --- is then fixed not by a dimension but by \AX{4} (\MSMF), as the smallest simple group containing the Standard-Model content (Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces}). In short: Picture~4 is the geometry of the \emph{Abelian phase}; the non-Abelian forces are geometry in the bundle-curvature sense, unified with gravity by $\BIsix$ rather than realized as further directions. This division of labor is exactly what keeps the bulk at six dimensions rather than eleven. The full treatment is Common Objection~35 of Part~\ref{sec:common-objections}.

\paragraph{Constitutional anchoring of the four pictures.} The four pictures are not free intuitive choices; each is anchored to a specific subset of the constitutional clauses, and the anchoring is documented rigorously in Section~\ref{sec:necessity-sufficiency} (Necessity and Sufficiency of the \GGConstitution{} for \GG{}). Picture~1 (RG-scale geometry) is anchored to \POS{5} (\RG{}) plus \AX{4} (\MSMF{}): the constitutional clauses that make the radial direction the natural-log scale axis and forbid a continuous moduli choice for the scale profile. Picture~2 (renormalization as radial integration) is anchored to \POS{5} plus the canonical metric of Theorem~\ref{thm:canonical-metric}: the radial measure $e^{-4r}$ that makes Wilsonian momentum-shell integration into a literal geometric integral. Picture~3 (gravity as UV-localized) is anchored to \AX{2} (\GGEP{}) plus \AX{4}: the constitutional clauses that put gauge fields and gravity on a single composite connection in which the scale profile acts asymmetrically on the two sectors. Picture~4 (the topological angular direction) is anchored to \POS{1} (\GI{}) plus \POS{6} (\OGN{}): the constitutional clauses that demand gauge-invariant ledger quantities and forbid continuous moduli on the compact circle. Lemmas~40.5--40.10 of Section~\ref{sec:necessity-sufficiency} establish that removing any one of these anchoring clauses destroys at least one of the four pictures, which in turn destroys at least one of the eight Theorems of Part~II. The four pictures are therefore not pedagogical conveniences; they are the constitutional content of the bulk geometry expressed in a register a working physicist can carry in mental imagery.

\paragraph{Why mental images matter in foundational physics.} A reader trained in the Euclidean tradition might initially question why a paper that has just spent Part~II on rigorous proofs needs an entire Part devoted to ``pictures.'' The answer is structural: a foundational theory is useful only if a working physicist can manipulate it, and manipulation requires mental imagery. Newton's \emph{Principia} carries diagrams of orbits and parallelograms of force not because the proofs are incomplete without them but because the diagrams are the language in which the proofs become operational --- the language in which a working astronomer or engineer can take the theory and apply it to a real problem. Einstein's general relativity acquired its operational footing only after the geometric intuitions of curved spacetime, geodesic deviation, and the light cone became standard mental furniture. Quantum field theory did the same with Feynman diagrams: an entire generation of physicists learned to manipulate the theory in pictures rather than in operator-theoretic detail. \GG{} requires its own set of mental images for the same reason. The four pictures of Part~III are an attempt to supply those images, in a form that is faithful to the formal Euclidean structure of Part~II and that prepares the reader for the cohort papers that build on the bulk.

\paragraph{Forward to the rest of the paper.} The four pictures of Part~III are used again in two later places. In Part~IV (\GG{} versus superstring theory), the four pictures supply the structural language for the systematic comparison: where strings use a Calabi--Yau compactification, \GG{} uses a topological angular direction (Picture~4); where strings work in a continuous-parameter landscape, \GG{} works in a single forced vacuum (\OGN{} forces the four-picture decomposition). In Part~V (Forward and Backward Map), each picture is forwarded to the cohort papers that elaborate it: Picture~1 to \citep{ArisakaA5GDOS} as the boundary projection, Picture~2 to \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid} as the parameter-free reconstruction of the universal constants from the bulk dimensions, Picture~3 to \citep{ArisakaA10Cosmos} as the hierarchical structure of the cosmic energy budget, Picture~4 to \citep{ArisakaA7Qi4} as the integer ledger that runs through the four-pillar information structure. In Part~VI (Constitutional-Axiom Classification, \GG{} at the Stratum-4 apex), the four pictures together constitute the explicit geometric realization of the constitutional axiom set. In Part~VIII (Conclusions) Section~\ref{sec:conclusions-philosophical}, the four pictures are revisited at the level of philosophical reading: each picture is shown to carry a structural commitment that is the geometric face of one of the constitutional clauses. Part~III is therefore the central hinge between the formal proofs of Part~II and the cohort architecture of Parts~IV--VIII.

\paragraph{A note on the philosophical register.} Each of the four picture-sections below closes with a paragraph titled ``Philosophical reading,'' in plain English, addressed to the philosophy-of-physics and broader-scientific audience. These closing paragraphs are deliberately set in a register adjacent to (but more compressed than) the philosophical closing of Section~\ref{sec:conclusions-philosophical}. The technical content of each Picture is fully delivered in the preceding paragraphs; the philosophical reading is a distinct register, offered to the reader who wants to know not only what each picture asserts mathematically but also what it implies for the shape of fundamental physics. Working physicists who prefer to stay in the technical register may skim past these closing paragraphs without losing the picture's content. Philosophers of physics, by contrast, may want to read these paragraphs first and the technical paragraphs second. The register-split is deliberate.


\section{Picture 1: RG-Scale Geometry}
\label{sec:picture1-rg-time}

The single most important conceptual shift in \GG\ is the recognition that the radial direction $I_r$ is not a fifth spatial dimension. It is the natural-log scale coordinate of the boundary 4D theory:
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;r \;=\; \ln(\EGUT/\mu).\;}
\label{eq:r-equals-ln}
\end{equation}
Motion along $r$ is not motion in space; it is motion in energy scale. We therefore call the fifth dimension the \emph{scale} dimension: $r$ is a scale, not a length and not a time.

\paragraph{``Scale,'' not ``time'': a deliberate choice of name.} Earlier drafts of this program called the radial direction \emph{RG-time}, and the name was not careless --- it carried two genuine intuitions. First, in the renormalization group the energy scale $\mu$ plays the role that time plays in mechanics: observables evolve along it via the Callan--Symanzik equation \citep{Callan1970, Symanzik1970}, so $r = \ln(\EGUT/\mu)$ is the privileged \emph{flow} coordinate of the boundary theory. Second, and more profoundly, it is along $r$ --- not along Minkowski time --- that genuine \emph{irreversibility} resides: the renormalization-group flow is a one-parameter \emph{semigroup} (coarse-graining has no inverse), so the radial direction, and not the reversible coordinate $x^0$, is where the thermodynamic arrow of time is seated.

Nevertheless we now reserve the name \emph{scale}, and call the fifth dimension the \emph{scale dimension}. The reason is a point of strict accuracy that a foundational paper must not blur. In the canonical metric the radial coordinate enters as $+\,dr^2$: it is \emph{space-like in signature}, and \GG\ has exactly one timelike direction, the Minkowski $x^0$ of the boundary $\cM_4$. Calling $r$ a ``time'' would invite the false inference that \GG\ is a two-time geometry --- with the closed-timelike-curve pathologies that would entail --- which it is emphatically not. The accurate statement keeps both truths at once: $r$ is the (space-like) \emph{scale} dimension, while the arrow of time is an \emph{emergent, dynamical} fact about the irreversible RG flow \emph{along} it, not a second light-cone. In the textbook coordinate naming of \GG\ the six directions are therefore $(t, x, y, z;\, s, \theta) = \{\text{time}, x, y, z, \text{scale}, \text{phase}\}$: one time, three space, one scale, one phase. The names \emph{scale} and \emph{phase} carry a further, decisive virtue: both are \emph{dimensionless by definition} --- $r$ is a logarithm of an energy ratio and $\theta$ is an angle --- so neither can be mistaken for a length. Only the four spacetime coordinates $(t,x,y,z)$ carry a dimension; the bulk's two extra directions are pure numbers, which is exactly why they are non-spatial.

The bulk of \GG\ promotes this analogy to a literal geometric fact. The radial coordinate $r$ is the geometrization of $\ln(\mu)$; motion along $r$ is the bulk-geometric analog of running the renormalization group; the boundary at $r = 0$ is the UV endpoint $\mu = \EGUT$; the IR boundary at $r = K$ is the IR endpoint $\mu = \EGUT \cdot e^{-K}$. This is not a metaphor; it is the mathematical content of \POS{5} (\RG, Postulate~\ref{pos:RG}) plus the additivity of the renormalization semigroup.

\paragraph{What lives at each value of $r$?} At each value of $r$, the bulk supports a 4D ``slice'' that represents the boundary theory at the corresponding energy scale. The slices are connected by the radial direction in a specific way: a 4D field configuration at $r_1$ flows to a 4D field configuration at $r_2 > r_1$ exactly the way the same field configuration flows under the renormalization group from $\mu_1 = \EGUT \cdot e^{-r_1}$ to $\mu_2 = \EGUT \cdot e^{-r_2}$. In the bulk--boundary correspondence, this is the standard Hamilton--Jacobi formulation of holographic RG flow \citep{deBoer1999, Skenderis2002}. Table~\ref{tab:picture1} places three readings of the radial direction side by side: the conventional five-dimensional one, the warped-brane one, and the one this paper adopts.

\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption[Picture 1: the radial direction is scale, not space.]{Three readings of the radial direction, side by side. The left column is how a conventional five-dimensional construction treats it, the middle is what a spatial reading would require, and the right is the reading used here --- in which the coordinate is not a length but the logarithm of an energy ratio. Read across any row and the difference is sharp and testable rather than interpretive: a spatial direction would carry momentum along itself, and this one carries a renormalization scale. Confusing the two is the commonest misreading of the geometry, which is why the comparison is printed rather than described.}
\label{tab:picture1}
\small
\begin{tabular}{p{0.30\textwidth}p{0.30\textwidth}p{0.30\textwidth}}
\toprule
\textbf{Conventional 5D KK / RS reading} & \textbf{Spacetime reading of $r$} & \textbf{\GG\ RG-scale reading} \\
\midrule
$r$ is a fifth spatial dimension & $r$ has units of length & $r$ is dimensionless natural-log of energy ratio \\
A particle moving along $r$ ``traverses'' the extra dimension & The KK tower comes from quantizing modes on $r$ & A particle at fixed $r$ is at fixed energy scale; ``traversal'' means RG flow \\
The scale profile $e^{-2A(r)}$ describes geometric size variation across the bulk & Small $r$ is one ``end'' of space, large $r$ is the other ``end'' & The scale profile $e^{-2r}$ is the natural unit-of-length conversion at scale $\mu$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}


\noindent\figref{fig:bulk-cross-section} renders this picture as a visual cross-section of the bulk: the UV boundary at $r = 0$ on the left, the IR boundary at $r = K = 35$ on the right, four representative 4D slices whose width shrinks geometrically with the scale profile $e^{-r}$, and the topological $S^1_\theta$ fiber attached as a small circle at one representative slice. The lock-cluster marker at $r = K$ indicates the IR endpoint, where
the integer scale depth $K = 35$ of Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade} fixes
the Kaluza--Klein resonance scale $M_{\mathrm{lock}} = M_6\,e^{-K}
\times O(1) \approx 3.85$~TeV; the volcano-potential overlay (dashed) anticipates Picture~3 below.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\resizebox{0.94\textwidth}{!}{%
\usebox{\GGscBulk}%
}
\bigskip
\caption[6D bulk cross-section: $\cM_4$ slices, RG-scale, and $S^1_\theta$ fiber]{6D bulk cross-section. The horizontal axis is the RG-scale coordinate $r = \ln(\EGUT/\mu)$, with the UV boundary at $r = 0$ (boundary scale $\mu = \EGUT \approx 2.28\!\times\!10^{16}$~GeV) and the IR boundary at $r = K = 35$ (boundary scale
$\mu = \EGUT\,e^{-K} \approx 14$~GeV; the lock-cluster resonances of the
throat are anchored at the bulk scale $M_6$, not at $\EGUT$, and sit at
$M_{\mathrm{lock}} \approx 3.85$~TeV). Four representative 4D slices $\cM_4$ are drawn at $r \in \{0, 10, 20, 35\}$; their width shrinks geometrically with the scale profile $e^{-r}$, reflecting the canonical metric $ds_6^2 = e^{-2r}\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu + dr^2 + d\theta^2$ of Theorem~\ref{thm:canonical-metric}. The topological circle $S^1_\theta$ (green) is attached as a fiber at every $r$; only one representative copy is drawn. The lock-cluster star at $r = K$ marks the IR endpoint pinned by the integer scale depth $K = 35$ of the $\OGNfive$ Diophantine cascade (Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade}). The dashed orange curve previews the volcano potential of Picture~3 (\S\ref{sec:picture3-gravity-uv}): linearized gravitons localize at the UV boundary while gauge zero-modes spread across the throat. Energy-scale labels along the top axis convert each $r$ value to its boundary scale $\mu = \EGUT\,e^{-r}$. Note that the slices are sketched at non-physical visual aspect ratio for graphic clarity; the actual exponential shrinkage at $r = 35$ is a factor $e^{-35} \approx 6.3\!\times\!10^{-16}$.}
\label{fig:bulk-cross-section}
\end{figure}

\paragraph{What does ``$r = \text{constant}$'' mean physically?} In the spacetime reading, a slice at constant $r$ is a 4D submanifold inside the 5D or 6D spacetime, like a level surface in a higher-dimensional landscape. In the RG-scale reading, a slice at constant $r$ is the entire 4D effective theory at the corresponding energy scale $\mu = \EGUT \cdot e^{-r}$. All local physics at scale $\mu$ lives on this slice, including all fields, all interactions, and all measurement instruments calibrated to that energy.

Holographic renormalization has exactly this geometric content \citep{Skenderis2002, Papadimitriou2010}: the bulk theory at radial coordinate $r$ is the boundary theory at energy scale $\mu = \EGUT \cdot e^{-r}$, with bulk fields encoding the Wilsonian effective action of the boundary at that scale.

\paragraph{What does ``the bulk is six-dimensional'' really mean?} Under the RG-scale reading, the statement ``the bulk is six-dimensional'' decomposes into:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em]
\item Four spacetime dimensions $\cM_4$ at every fixed $(r, \theta)$: the operational boundary that supports registered measurements.
\item One RG-scale dimension $r$: the natural-log scale axis along which the boundary RG flows.
\item One topological angular dimension $\theta$: the integer-quantized Wilson-line phase axis.
\end{itemize}
There is no ``sixth direction in space'' to traverse; the sixth coordinate is the angular phase $\theta$, which is closed (an angle), not extended. The five non-trivial coordinates beyond the four spatial-temporal ones of the boundary are: one for energy, one for phase. Energy and phase are not space.

\paragraph{Implications for empirical detection.} In conventional KK frameworks the extra dimension is a small but extended spatial direction, and the experimental signature is the production of KK excitations whose mass is set by the inverse compactification radius. The situation in \GG\ is best stated by separating the continuous \emph{flow} along $r$ from the discrete \emph{spectrum} on it. The radial direction is RG-scale, and the renormalization-group flow along it is continuous; but $r$ ranges over a \emph{finite} radial interval $r \in [0, K]$ with $K = 35$, bounded by the UV boundary at $r = 0$ and the infrared endpoint at $r = K$. A finite radial interval --- exactly as in the two-brane Randall--Sundrum construction --- supports a \emph{discrete} spectrum of normalizable resonances, not a continuum, and the lowest of these form the geometry--gauge lock cluster at the infrared scale $\Mlock \approx 3.85$~TeV. In the renormalization-group reading of the RG-scale direction these are the composite resonances of the boundary theory at its infrared scale (the boundary image of a Randall--Sundrum Kaluza--Klein tower), with the excited members of the cluster carrying additional radial nodes. The \emph{separate} angular tower along the compact $\theta$ direction (Picture~4 below) has masses set by integer multiples of $\hbar$ in natural \GG\ units, i.e.\ of order $\EGUT$ --- far too heavy to produce. \emph{A collider search for ``Kaluza--Klein resonances'' should therefore target the radial lock cluster near $3.85$~TeV} --- the standing falsifier of \GG, testable at LHC Run-3 and the HL-LHC and specified in full in \citet{ArisakaP1KK} --- and \emph{not} the GUT-scale $\theta$-direction modes.

\paragraph{Connection to the universal constants.} The RG-scale interpretation of $r$ has a clean implication for the dimensional structure of the framework. The radial direction carries the bulk fundamental scale $M_6$ via the scale-profile integration:
\begin{equation}
M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2 = M_6^4 \int_0^K dr\, e^{-2r} \oint d\theta
\;\propto\; M_6^{2}\,\pi\big(1 - e^{-2K}\big) \approx \pi\,M_6^{2},
\label{eq:MPl-from-M6-PIII}
\end{equation}
making Newton's constant $G_N \propto 1/M_6^2$ a direct consequence of the radial integration. Newton's constant is geometric in origin: the radial direction is the source of the gravitational coupling, just as the angular direction is the source of $\hbar$ (Picture~4 below). The companion paper \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid} carries out the full reconstruction of the universal constants $\{c, G_N, \hbar; \kB, \QB\}$ from the bulk geometry; in this paper, we use only the fact that each direction of $\cM_6$ contributes one of the universal constants.

\paragraph{Constitutional forcing.} The RG-scale reading of the radial direction is not an interpretive choice; it is constitutionally forced. Lemma~40.9 of Section~\ref{sec:necessity-sufficiency} establishes that without \POS{5} (\RG{}), the radial direction loses its log-RG meaning and Theorem~\ref{thm:canonical-metric} fails in its RG-flow interpretation. Lemma~40.4 establishes that without \AX{4} (\MSMF{}), the scale profile $e^{-2r}$ acquires a continuous moduli choice and the lexicographic-minimum selection collapses. Together, these two clauses force the radial direction to be the unique log-scale axis with the canonical scale profile. No interpretive flexibility remains: a physicist who accepts the constitutional clauses must accept the RG-scale reading, and a physicist who rejects the RG-scale reading must reject at least one constitutional clause and identify which empirical anchor the clause's removal would break. The constitutional discipline of \GGTheory{} converts what would otherwise be an interpretive preference into a structurally enforced commitment.

\paragraph{Operational interpretation: what RG-scale means for measurement.} An experimentalist does not measure $r$ directly; they measure the running coupling $\alpha^{-1}(\mu)$ at a sequence of energies $\mu$. The RG-scale reading asserts that each such measurement is the boundary projection of a corresponding bulk profile $f_0(r)$ at $r = \ln(\EGUT/\mu)$. Operationally, this means that the LHC measurement of $\alpha_3^{-1}(M_Z)$ corresponds to the bulk profile evaluated at
$r \approx \ln(\EGUT/M_Z) \approx 33.2$, while a future high-energy
measurement at $\mu = \Mlock \approx 3.85$~TeV corresponds to
$r \approx \ln(\EGUT/\Mlock) \approx 29.4$, and the coordinate
$r = K = 35$ corresponds to $\mu \approx \EGUT\,e^{-K} \approx 14$~GeV. The discreteness of the integer scale depth $K = 35$ is therefore not a metaphysical claim; it is the boundary statement that the framework's IR-side anchor sits at a specific empirical scale, with the integer determined by the \OGNfive{} cascade and registered as the boundary lock-cluster (Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade}). This is what it means operationally for the bulk to have an IR endpoint: the boundary RG flow terminates at a specific empirical scale, and the integer depth is the conversion factor that links the bulk geometry to the boundary observation.

\paragraph{Philosophical reading: energy as the deeper variable.} Picture~1 makes a quiet but profound philosophical move. In the conventional reading of physics, position and time are the deep variables: the laws of motion are differential equations in time, and the field configurations live on a spatial slice. Energy, by contrast, is a derived quantity --- a value of the Hamiltonian evaluated on a state. Picture~1 inverts the hierarchy: in \GG{}, the radial direction $r = \ln(\EGUT/\mu)$ is a structural axis of the bulk geometry, on the same footing as the four boundary coordinates of $\cM_4$. Energy is no longer derived; it is built into the geometry of the world at its most fundamental level. It expresses geometrically a methodological commitment that was already implicit in the renormalization-group revolution of the twentieth century: the laws of physics are scale-dependent, and a description of them is therefore a description across scales rather than at a single scale. \GG{} carries this commitment into the dimensional structure of the bulk: the radial direction is not an addition to spacetime, it is the geometrization of the fact that physics is essentially a scale-dependent activity, and the structure of nature across scales is a geometric object. The philosophical implication is that ``where is the system?'' is not the deepest question; ``at what scale do we look at the system?'' is also a geometric question, and a deeper one.


\section{Picture 2: Renormalization as Radial Integration}
\label{sec:picture2-rg-as-integration}

Picture~1 established that the radial direction $r$ is RG-scale. Picture~2 makes the integration concrete. In conventional QFT, the renormalization group is a calculational procedure: start with a Lagrangian at high energy, integrate out short-wavelength modes, and obtain an effective Lagrangian at lower energy. In \GG, this procedure is geometrized: integrating out short-wavelength modes corresponds literally to integrating bulk fields along the radial direction from $r = 0$ (UV) to $r = K$ (IR).

\paragraph{The radial action functional.} Consider a generic bulk scalar field $\phi(x, r, \theta)$ on $\cM_6$. Its 6D action is
\begin{equation}
S_6[\phi] = \int_{\cM_4} d^4x \int_0^K dr \int_0^{2\pi} d\theta\, \sqrt{-g_6}\, \cL_6[\phi].
\label{eq:S6-phi}
\end{equation}
For the canonical metric of Theorem~\ref{thm:canonical-metric}, the volume element is $\sqrt{-g_6} = e^{-4r}$, so the 4D-projected effective action is
\begin{equation}
S_4^{\mathrm{eff}}[\phi_4] = \int_{\cM_4} d^4x\, \int_0^K dr \int_0^{2\pi} d\theta\, e^{-4r}\,\cL_6[\phi(x, r, \theta)].
\label{eq:S4-eff}
\end{equation}
The radial integral $\int_0^K dr\, e^{-4r}$ is the geometric realization of the Wilsonian RG: it weights bulk modes by a factor $e^{-4r}$ that exponentially suppresses contributions from large $r$ (low energy / IR), giving most of the effective action's weight to small $r$ (high energy / UV). Wilsonian momentum-shell integration reads, in the bulk, as follows: high-momentum modes contribute most, low-momentum modes are suppressed.

\paragraph{Where do the gauge couplings live?} The 4D effective gauge couplings of \GG\ are obtained by exactly this radial integration. For an $\SUfive$ gauge field $A_5$ with bulk coupling $g_5$, the 4D zero-mode coupling is
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{g_4^2} = \frac{2\pi}{g_5^2}\int_0^K dr\, |f_0(r)|^2,
\label{eq:g4-from-g5}
\end{equation}
where $f_0(r)$ is the radial profile of the zero-mode. The absence of scale profiles in this expression (unlike for the Einstein--Hilbert term) is the geometric origin of the unification of gauge couplings at $\EGUT$: the bulk gauge couplings are constants along $r$, and the boundary $\alpha^{-1}(\EGUT)$ is a single number set by the bulk $g_5$.

\paragraph{Where do the Yukawa couplings live?} The hierarchy of fermion masses, in conventional Standard Model treatments, is parametrized by Yukawa couplings $y_{ij}$ that span six orders of magnitude (from the electron's $\sim 10^{-6}$ to the top quark's $\sim 1$). In \GG, this hierarchy is also geometric: each generation of fermions has a different radial localization profile $\chi_n(r)$, and the 4D Yukawa coupling is
\begin{equation}
y_4^{ij} = y_6\, \int_0^K dr\, e^{-4r}\,\chi_i(r)\,\chi_j(r)\,\eta_H(r),
\label{eq:y-overlap}
\end{equation}
where $\eta_H(r)$ is the Higgs profile. The integrals $\int e^{-4r} \chi_i \chi_j \eta_H$ depend exponentially on the localization difference between the fermion profiles, so a small geometric difference produces a large Yukawa-coupling difference. The fermion mass hierarchy follows from the same geometry: not six independent fitted parameters, but six different profile-overlap integrals on the RG-scale throat.

\paragraph{What ``Kaluza--Klein'' means in \GG: two non-spatial towers, and which one a collider sees.} It is worth being explicit here, because ``Kaluza--Klein'' means something different in \GG\ than in the textbook construction, and the difference is the source of most of the confusion. \emph{The traditional KK tower.} In a conventional Kaluza--Klein theory one compactifies a genuine \emph{spatial} extra dimension on a circle of radius $R$. Momentum along that real direction is quantized, $p = n/R$, and each unit of momentum appears in four dimensions as a massive particle, $m_n = n/R$: a ladder of progressively heavier copies of the same field, evenly spaced by the inverse compactification radius, whose experimental signature is the direct production of those momentum modes at a collider. \emph{\GG\ has no spatial extra dimension}, so it has no such spatial-momentum tower at all. What it has instead are \emph{two distinct, non-spatial mode structures}, sitting at very different scales.

\emph{(i) The angular ($\theta$) Fourier tower.} The compact phase circle $S^1_\theta$ supports integer Fourier modes, governed by
\begin{equation}
-\partial_\theta^2 \chi_n(\theta) = n^2\,\chi_n(\theta), \qquad n \in \mathbb Z,
\label{eq:theta-mode}
\end{equation}
producing 4D fields $\phi_n(x, r)$ with mass squared $m_n^2 = n^2$ in natural \GG\ units (where the circle has $G_{\theta\theta} = 1$ and the dimensional momentum is $p_\theta = n\hbar$). This is genuinely Kaluza--Klein \emph{in form} --- Fourier modes on a circle --- but the circle is the non-spatial gauge-\emph{phase} direction, not a spatial one, and in dimensional units these modes sit at the GUT scale, $m_n \sim n\,\EGUT$. They are far too heavy to produce, and they are \emph{not} the resonances a collider will look for.

\emph{(ii) The radial RG-scale-throat tower --- the ``KK particles'' of \GG.} The radial direction is the RG-scale, and it is a \emph{finite} radial interval $r \in [0, K]$ with $K = 35$. Exactly as in the two-brane Randall--Sundrum construction, a finite warped throat has a \emph{discrete} spectrum of resonances clustered at its infrared endpoint; at the boundary these are the composite resonances of the boundary theory at the infrared scale $\Mlock \approx 3.85$~TeV (the excited members of the cluster carrying additional radial nodes). \emph{These} are what ``KK particles'' means operationally in \GG: the non-spatial Kaluza--Klein lock cluster discussed under Picture~3, on-shell at the TeV scale, the standing collider falsifier specified in full in \citet{ArisakaP1KK}. The one-sentence summary, then, is this: the angular tower (i) is Kaluza--Klein in form but unobservably heavy, while the radial lock cluster (ii) is what an experimentalist would call the Kaluza--Klein resonance of \GG\ --- and it is the one near $3.85$~TeV.

\paragraph{The bulk directions and their conversion factors.} The $\theta$-direction is the source of $\hbar$ as the unit-conversion factor (Picture~4 below); the $r$-direction is the source of $G_N$ via the scale-profile integration; and the four boundary directions are the source of $c$. Together with $\kB$ (supplied by the boundary thermodynamic Gibbs projection of \GDOS) and $\QB$ (supplied by the boundary $\UoneQi$ gauge factor of the Arisaka equation), the three bulk-direction conversion factors $\{c, G_N, \hbar\}$ form \GUfive\ (the Geometric Universal Five Constants $\GUfiveSet$) in a (3 bulk + 2 boundary) split that mirrors \OGNfive.

\paragraph{The summary picture.} Renormalization, in conventional QFT, is an abstract procedure of integrating out modes at scales between $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$. In \GG, it is a literal geometric integration: the integral $\int_{r_1}^{r_2} dr$ along the radial direction produces the boundary effective action at scale $\mu_2$ from the bulk action with UV cutoff $\mu_1$. The Wilsonian momentum-shell becomes a radial slice; the running coupling becomes a profile $f(r)$; the anomalous dimension becomes the radial behavior of $f(r)$. This is what it means to ``geometrize the renormalization group'' in the literal sense.

\paragraph{Constitutional forcing of the radial integration measure.} The radial measure $e^{-4r}\,dr$ that governs the Wilsonian integration is not chosen by hand; it is forced by Theorem~\ref{thm:canonical-metric} (the canonical metric). The volume element $\sqrt{-g_6} = e^{-4r}$ of the canonical metric is what converts the abstract Wilsonian momentum-shell into a literal geometric integral: the bulk integration over $r$ with the canonical measure is the geometric content of the Wilsonian RG transformation. Lemma~40.4 plus Lemma~40.9 of Section~\ref{sec:necessity-sufficiency} establish that without \AX{4} (\MSMF{}) and \POS{5} (\RG{}), the canonical metric and the radial measure both fail; the geometric realization of the renormalization group then collapses. The constitutional clauses therefore do not merely permit Picture~2 --- they force it as the unique geometric realization of Wilsonian renormalization compatible with the bulk metric. The second picture says, structurally: the bulk geometry \emph{is} the geometrized renormalization group, and the constitutional clauses \emph{force} this identification.

\paragraph{Operational interpretation: integrating out as a geometric act.} In the conventional Wilsonian program, integrating out a momentum shell is a calculational procedure: one performs a path-integral over the modes in the shell and obtains a Lagrangian with renormalized couplings. In \GG{}, this procedure has an operational geometric content: integrating out the shell between $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ corresponds to evaluating the bulk action restricted to the radial slice $r \in [\ln(\EGUT/\mu_1), \ln(\EGUT/\mu_2)]$. The operational content of ``integrating out'' is therefore literal restriction of the bulk geometry to a finite radial segment. This converts a calculational procedure (one that historically involved formal manipulations of path integrals) into a geometric act (the act of restricting a bulk integral to a sub-region). The Wilsonian program remains correct in its content; what changes is the level of structure at which the program is grounded. In the conventional reading, the renormalization group is a procedure performed on a Lagrangian; in the \GG{} reading, the renormalization group is a structure of the bulk geometry, and the procedure on the Lagrangian is its boundary shadow.

\paragraph{Philosophical reading: Wilsonian renormalization as the unfolding of scale.} The geometric reading of Wilsonian renormalization in Picture~2 carries a philosophical implication that is rarely articulated in the conventional literature. In the conventional reading, renormalization is a tool we use to handle our ignorance about high-energy physics: by integrating out short-wavelength modes, we obtain an effective theory valid at the scales we can probe. This reading carries an implicit epistemic frame: renormalization is about our knowledge, and the running of the couplings reflects what we can and cannot see. In the \GG{} reading, renormalization is restored to its ontological footing: the running of the couplings is the geometric content of the bulk along the radial direction, and the bulk profile $f(r)$ is a fact about the world, not a fact about our calculations. Wilsonian RG was already among the most far-reaching physical ideas of the twentieth century, in the sense that it unified the apparent fine-tuning of effective field theories under a single geometric principle. Picture~2 carries this idea one structural step further: the physical content of RG is itself a geometric object, and the geometric object is the radial direction of $\cM_6$. The philosophical implication is that the running of the couplings is not a fact about our incomplete knowledge of high-energy physics; it is a fact about the geometric shape of the world along its scale axis. Table~\ref{tab:picture2} sets the standard vocabulary of the renormalization group beside its bulk-geometric counterpart, one familiar operation to a row.

\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption[Picture 2: renormalization-group concepts as bulk geometry.]{The standard vocabulary of the renormalization group, and its geometric counterpart in the bulk. Each row takes one familiar operation --- running a coupling, integrating out a shell, reading an anomalous dimension --- and gives the geometric motion that performs it, then the boundary quantity an experimenter would actually measure. The dictionary is complete in the sense that matters: nothing in the left column lacks an entry in the middle one. Renormalization is not being reinterpreted here, it is being located.}
\label{tab:picture2}
\small
\begin{tabular}{p{0.314\textwidth}p{0.314\textwidth}p{0.30\textwidth}}
\toprule
\textbf{Conventional QFT / Wilson} & \textbf{\GG\ bulk geometric realization} & \textbf{Boundary observable} \\
\midrule
RG flow from $\mu_1$ to $\mu_2$ & Radial integration from $r_1 = \ln(\EGUT/\mu_1)$ to $r_2 = \ln(\EGUT/\mu_2)$ & Running coupling $g(\mu)$ \\
Wilsonian momentum-shell $\Lambda_2 < |k| < \Lambda_1$ & Radial slice $r_1 < r < r_2$ in the bulk & Effective Lagrangian at $\mu_2$ \\
Beta function $\beta(g) = \mu\, dg/d\mu$ & Radial flow of the bulk profile $f(r)$ & 4D running of gauge coupling \\
Anomalous dimension $\gamma(g)$ & Radial scaling of the field profile $\chi(r)$ & Operator dimensions in the boundary CFT \\
Wilson coefficients $C_i(\mu)$ & Coefficients in the 6D bulk Lagrangian after radial integration & 4D higher-dimensional operators \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}


\section{Picture 3: Gravity as a UV-Localized Phenomenon}
\label{sec:picture3-gravity-uv}

The third picture explains the geometric origin of the Planck--electroweak hierarchy. In the bulk of \GG, gravity is not uniformly distributed across the radial direction; it is sharply localized near the UV boundary (small $r$). The volcano-potential picture has exactly that geometric content, and it is the reason why the observed Planck mass is so much larger than the electroweak scale.

\paragraph{Where does gravity ``live''?} The scale profile $e^{-2r}$ in the metric \eqref{eq:canonical-metric} of Theorem~\ref{thm:canonical-metric} affects different bulk fields differently. For the gauge sector (Yang--Mills $A_5^a$, $A_B$, $A_{Qi}$), the bulk action involves $\sqrt{-g_6}\,g^{MN}g^{PQ}F_{MP} F_{NQ}$. The factors of $\sqrt{-g_6} = e^{-4r}$ and $g^{MN} = e^{+2r}$ for the 4D-block components combine to give a factor $e^{-4r}\cdot e^{+4r} = 1$: the gauge fields' bulk action is uniform in $r$, and gauge zero-modes spread across the entire throat. For the gravitational sector (Einstein--Hilbert $\sqrt{-g_6}\,R_6$), the analogous combination produces $e^{-4r}\cdot e^{+2r} = e^{-2r}$: the gravitational action is exponentially suppressed at large $r$, so the graviton zero-mode is exponentially localized near $r = 0$ (the UV boundary).

The hierarchy is a fact about where things sit along the scale direction. The 4D Planck mass, obtained by integrating out the radial direction, is
\begin{equation}
M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2 = M_6^4 \int_0^K dr\, e^{-2r} \oint d\theta
\;\propto\; M_6^{2}\,\pi\big(1 - e^{-2K}\big) \approx \pi\,M_6^{2}.
\label{eq:MPl-warp-integration}
\end{equation}
The integral converges rapidly: most of the integrand's weight comes from small $r$ (near the UV boundary). By contrast, the 4D gauge coupling involves $\int_0^K dr\, |f_0(r)|^2$ without any scale profile, so the gauge zero-mode contributes uniformly across the throat. Gravity is UV-localized; gauge fields are throat-wide.

\paragraph{The volcano-potential picture.} Linearized gravitational perturbations on the bulk background satisfy a Schr\"odinger-like radial equation
\begin{equation}
-\partial_r^2 \tilde h(r) + V_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)\,\tilde h(r) = m_n^2\,\tilde h(r),
\label{eq:volcano-eq}
\end{equation}
with the effective potential
\begin{equation}
V_{\mathrm{eff}}(r) = \tfrac{15}{4} - \tfrac{15}{4}\delta(r) + (\text{IR corrections at } r = K).
\label{eq:volcano-V}
\end{equation}
The shape of $V_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)$ is the famous \emph{volcano potential} of Randall--Sundrum \citep{RandallSundrum1999}: a constant repulsive plateau in the bulk plus a sharp attractive delta-function at the UV boundary. The delta-function localizes a single normalizable zero-mode at $r = 0$ (the 4D graviton); the plateau supports a continuous spectrum of massive KK gravitons that are weakly coupled at the boundary.

The volcano-potential picture explains the hierarchy in mechanical terms: the 4D graviton is bound to the UV boundary like a particle in a sharply-attractive well, while the gauge bosons are free to roam the bulk like particles on a flat plateau. The boundary 4D Planck mass is set by how strongly the graviton is bound to the UV boundary (the depth and width of the volcano well), while the boundary 4D gauge couplings are set by the bulk gauge couplings divided by the throat ``width'' (the radial integral of the zero-mode).

\paragraph{The valley between two ridges.} An equivalent informal picture is the RG-scale throat as a valley between two mountain ridges \citep{ArisakaA10Cosmos}. The UV boundary at $r = 0$ is the high ridge (energy $\EGUT$); the IR boundary at $r = K$ is the valley floor (electroweak scale, energy $\EGUT \cdot e^{-K}$). A ball released at the high ridge rolls down the valley to the floor. The ratio of heights from ridge to floor is not a fine-tuned dimensionless number; it is set by the geometric depth of the valley, which in \GG\ is the \OGN{} integer $K = 35$.

This picture clarifies what ``solving the hierarchy problem'' means in \GG. In the Standard Model, the Higgs mass squared receives quadratic corrections proportional to the cutoff scale, and tuning the bare mass to cancel these corrections requires fine-tuning to 34 decimal places --- the technical content of the hierarchy problem. In \GG, the Higgs mass at the electroweak scale is the natural result of starting from a Higgs at the bulk scale $M_6$ and rolling it down the valley by a factor
$e^{-K} \approx 6 \times 10^{-16}$, of the order of the
Planck-to-electroweak ratio. No fine-tuning is required because the depth of the valley is not a free parameter: $K = 35$ is forced by the \OGNfive{} cascade (Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade}).

\paragraph{Why the volcano shape is structurally specific to \GG.} In conventional Randall--Sundrum, the volcano potential arises from a specific choice of brane tensions $\sigma_{\mathrm{UV}}$ and $\sigma_{\mathrm{IR}}$, fine-tuned to cancel the bulk cosmological constant and produce a static bulk solution. In \GG, the same volcano shape arises but \emph{without} the brane-tension fine-tuning: the constitutional clauses (\AX{4} plus \POS{5}) force the radial profile to be the scale profile $e^{-2r}$ in natural units, with the UV-boundary localization of the graviton as a derived consequence. The volcano potential is therefore a feature of \GG, not a phenomenological choice.

\paragraph{Implications for collider phenomenology.} In conventional warped-extra-dimension scenarios the Kaluza--Klein gravitons appear at the TeV scale and are directly observable at colliders. In \GG\ the prediction survives, but its interpretation is sharper, and two distinct towers must be kept separate. \emph{(i) The angular tower.} The Kaluza--Klein modes along $S^1_\theta$ (Picture~4 below) have masses of order $\hbar/R_\theta$ in dimensional units, equivalent to $\sim \EGUT$ in the natural \GG\ unit where $R_\theta = 1$: a heavy gauge-Kaluza--Klein tower at the GUT scale, inaccessible to current colliders. \emph{(ii) The radial lock cluster.} Although the radial direction is RG-scale (Picture~1) rather than a spatial dimension, the RG-scale throat still carries a discrete spectrum of resonances at its infrared endpoint $r = K = 35$ --- that is, at $\Mlock \approx 3.85$~TeV. In the renormalization-group reading of the RG-scale direction these are \emph{not} momentum modes of a spatial fifth dimension but the composite-resonance spectrum of the boundary theory at the infrared scale: the boundary image of a Randall--Sundrum Kaluza--Klein tower, with the excited states of the cluster corresponding to additional radial nodes (this is the precise sense in which a resonance can be an ``excitation along the RG-scale axis''). They are on-shell, they sit at the TeV scale, and they are the geometry--gauge lock cluster of Theorem~\ref{thm:arisaka-equation} (T8). \emph{This is the standing collider falsifier of \GG}: a clustered resonance near $3.85$~TeV, testable at LHC Run-3 and the HL-LHC, whose full quantum numbers --- spin, color, production channel, and branching fractions --- are derived in the Predictions-Branch paper \citet{ArisakaP1KK}. The empirical signature of \GG\ is therefore \emph{both} this direct lock-cluster resonance \emph{and} the indirect signatures of $\UoneB$ (proton stability) and $\UoneQi$ (the Arisaka equation), with the hierarchy itself generated geometrically through the scale profile.

\paragraph{Terminology: ``Kaluza--Klein'' here means \emph{non-spatial}.} A word to the collider phenomenologist, fixed once and applied throughout the cohort. We retain the term \emph{Kaluza--Klein} (KK) for the lock-cluster resonances, because it correctly signals their experimental class --- RG-scale-throat / boundary resonances --- and connects to the existing collider-search nomenclature (Randall--Sundrum gravitons, warped resonances, and the like). One qualification should be kept permanently in view: the \GG\ resonances are \emph{non-spatial} Kaluza--Klein states. They are the discrete spectrum of a \emph{finite} (RG-scale) throat --- the boundary image of a Randall--Sundrum KK tower, equivalently the composite resonances of the boundary theory at the infrared scale $\Mlock \approx 3.85$~TeV --- and \emph{not} momentum modes of a compact \emph{spatial} fifth dimension. Where the phrase ``KK mode'' later appears in its purely technical sense (the Fourier/mode expansion of a bulk field along the non-spatial directions $I_r$ and $S^1_\theta$), it carries the same non-spatial meaning. We therefore use \emph{non-spatial Kaluza--Klein lock cluster}, \emph{GG lock cluster}, and \emph{lock cluster} interchangeably, and the reader should mentally prefix ``non-spatial'' to every later occurrence of ``KK.''

\paragraph{Summary of Picture 3.} Gravity in \GG\ is UV-localized: the graviton zero-mode is exponentially bound to the UV boundary through the volcano potential, while gauge zero-modes spread freely across the throat. The hierarchy between the Planck scale and the electroweak scale is the geometric consequence of this asymmetric localization, with the depth of the scale profile set by the \OGN{} integer $K = 35$. No fine-tuning of brane tensions is required, because the scale profile is constitutionally fixed by \AX{4} plus \POS{5} in natural \GG\ units.

\paragraph{Constitutional forcing of the volcano shape.} Conventional Randall--Sundrum scenarios obtain the volcano-shape effective potential by fine-tuning the brane tensions $\sigma_{\mathrm{UV}}$ and $\sigma_{\mathrm{IR}}$ to cancel the bulk cosmological constant and produce a static bulk solution. This fine-tuning is a free choice in the conventional construction: a Randall--Sundrum theorist who wishes to avoid the volcano shape can choose different brane tensions and obtain a different effective potential. In \GG{}, the brane-tension freedom is removed: \AX{4} (\MSMF{}) forbids continuous moduli, and \POS{5} (\RG{}) plus the canonical metric of Theorem~\ref{thm:canonical-metric} fix the radial profile uniquely. Lemma~40.4 (\MSMF{} necessity) of Section~\ref{sec:necessity-sufficiency} establishes that without \AX{4} the volcano shape is not forced and the hierarchy problem returns in the form of brane-tension fine-tuning. Lemma~40.9 (\POS{5} necessity) establishes that without \POS{5} the radial direction is not RG-scale and the integration that produces the 4D Planck mass loses its renormalization-group interpretation. Together these clauses force the volcano shape as the unique constitutional consequence of the bulk geometry. Picture~3 is therefore not a phenomenological choice copied from Randall--Sundrum; it is a constitutional consequence, with the brane-tension freedom of the conventional construction replaced by the integer scale depth $K = 35$ of the \OGNfive{} cascade.

\paragraph{Operational predictions: the hierarchy without fine-tuning.} The hierarchy between the Planck scale and the electroweak scale is, in the Standard Model, a fine-tuning problem of order $10^{-32}$: the Higgs mass squared must be tuned to thirty-two decimal places against quadratic divergences from the cutoff. Picture~3 of \GG{} resolves this fine-tuning operationally. The 4D Planck mass is obtained by integrating the scale profile along the radial direction, with the integer scale depth $K = 35$ fixed by the \OGNfive{} cascade. No fine-tuning is performed; the scale depth is forced by the constitutional clauses, and the resulting hierarchy is the geometric consequence. Operationally, this predicts the IR-side scale $\Mlock \approx 3.85$~TeV with no continuous dimensionless moduli and no fine-tuning; only the overall unit scale (set by $G_N$, with $M_6$ derived from it) enters the calculation, matched to the empirical Planck mass. The full reduction with all numerical pre-factors is the subject of the companion paper \citep{ArisakaP1KK}, which derives the spin, color, and production-channel content of the lock cluster. The empirical exposure is direct: if $\Mlock$ is measured to be substantially different from $3.85$~TeV, or if no IR-side lock-cluster appears at all in collider data, the framework fails. The Conventional hierarchy problem is therefore replaced in \GG{} by an empirical test: the scale depth is fixed by the constitution, and the framework's commitment is exposed to the empirical world rather than buried in a phenomenological parameter. The methodological discipline of \GGTheory{} is here applied to the most famous fine-tuning problem of the Standard Model.

\paragraph{Philosophical reading: why gravity is universally weak.} The classical question that motivates Picture~3 is the apparent weakness of gravity relative to the other forces: at atomic scales, the electromagnetic force between two protons is $\sim 10^{36}$ times stronger than the gravitational force between them. The conventional answer to this question is either ``it just is'' or ``it is set by an unexplained number, the Planck mass.'' Picture~3 carries a more structural answer: gravity is weak \emph{because the graviton is bound to the UV boundary while the gauge bosons spread across the throat}. Gravity is not weak relative to the gauge couplings; it is sharply localized at high energy, and the boundary 4D Planck mass measures how strongly the graviton is bound to the UV side. The philosophical implication is that the apparent weakness of gravity is a geometric fact about how the scale profile acts asymmetrically on the gravitational and gauge sectors --- the constitutional clauses \AX{2} (\GGEP{}, geometry--gauge equivalence) plus \AX{4} (\MSMF{}, no continuous moduli) plus \POS{5} (\RG{}, scale profile is RG-scale) jointly force the asymmetric localization, and the localization is what makes gravity look weak from the boundary perspective. The deeper reading is that gravity is not a separate force from the gauge interactions; it is a different geometric face of the same unified composite connection, and the asymmetry between gravity and gauge from the boundary perspective is the geometric content of \AX{2} taken seriously. This is Einstein's geometric program carried one structural step further: gravity is geometry, and so is the gauge sector, and the hierarchy between them is the scale profile. Table~\ref{tab:picture3} records what the scale profile does to each sector of the bulk action, and what the boundary observer sees as a result.

\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption[Picture 3: how the scale profile acts on each bulk sector.]{What the scale profile does to each sector of the bulk action. The second column gives the bulk term, the third the factor it acquires in the four-dimensional effective action, and the fourth the consequence. The exponents are the content: they are not adjustable, and they differ between sectors, which is why gravity ends up bound to one end of the radial interval and the gauge fields do not. The hierarchy that this generates is the subject of the following section, and it follows from this column alone.}
\label{tab:picture3}
\small
\begin{tabular}{>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.175\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.20\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.263\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.263\textwidth}}
\toprule
\textbf{Sector} & \textbf{Bulk action} & \textbf{Scale profile in 4D effective action} & \textbf{Geometric implication} \\
\midrule
Gravity (Einstein--Hilbert) & $\sqrt{-g_6}\,R_6$ & $e^{-2r}$ (UV-suppressed) & Graviton zero-mode bound to UV boundary; finite $M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ \\
Gauge ($\SUfive$, $\UoneB$, $\UoneQi$) & $\sqrt{-g_6}\,F_{MN}F^{MN}$ & $1$ (uniform) & Gauge zero-modes spread across throat; unification at $\EGUT$ \\
Tensor ($B_2$) & $\sqrt{-g_6}\,H_{MNP}H^{MNP}$ & $e^{+2r}$ (IR-localized) & Tensor zero-mode bound to IR boundary; mediates anomaly inflow \\
Fermions (chiral matter) & $\sqrt{-g_6}\,\bar\Psi i\Gamma^M D_M\Psi$ & $e^{-r}$ (mildly UV-suppressed) & Fermion profiles localize differently per generation; produces Yukawa hierarchy \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}


\section{Picture 4: The Topological Angular Direction}
\label{sec:picture4-topological-circle}

The fourth picture concerns the compact direction $S^1_\theta$. Conventional Kaluza--Klein theories treat the compact direction as a small circle of intrinsic geometric radius $R$, with $R$ determined by the energy scale of new physics. In \GG, the compact direction is structurally different: it is a pure topological circle, with no intrinsic length, supporting integer-quantized Wilson-line phases. The conventional ``radius'' $R_\theta$ is a unit-conversion artifact that disappears when the geometry is presented in natural \GG\ units.

\paragraph{Why no intrinsic radius?} \POS{1} (\GI, Postulate~\ref{pos:GI}) requires gauge invariance to be layered across scales, with global gauge-bookkeeping invariance (\GGI) demanding that ledger quantities be invariant under basis choices. \POS{6} (\OGN, Postulate~\ref{pos:OGN}) requires charges and winding numbers to be integer-quantized. Together, these clauses require the compact direction to support only \emph{topological} data: the Wilson-line phase $\oint A_\theta\,d\theta$ (integer-quantized by single-valuedness of the gauge field) and the integer Fourier mode number $n$ along $S^1_\theta$. No \emph{geometric} length scale is required.

In conventional KK on $S^1$, one writes $G_{\theta\theta} = R^2$ with $R$ a length-dimensional radius, and the KK mass spectrum is $m_n = n/R$. In \GG, one chooses natural units in which $G_{\theta\theta} = 1$: the compact direction is dimensionless, and the KK mode spectrum carries integer dimensional momentum $p_\theta = n\hbar$ with $\hbar$ doing the unit conversion.

The two viewpoints are formally equivalent --- the conventional ``$R$'' becomes the unit-conversion factor of $\hbar$ in natural \GG\ units --- but the physical interpretation is different. In the conventional reading, $R$ is a continuous parameter to be determined by experiment; in the \GG\ reading, the integer mode number $n$ is the fundamental data, and the dimensional ``radius'' is a derived unit-conversion factor. \POS{6} (\OGN{}) forces the latter reading.

\paragraph{Why the angular direction does not ``swell up'' in the IR.} In some conventional Randall--Sundrum constructions (and in many string compactifications), the radii of the compact internal directions can vary along the RG-scale throat: the compact directions are ``larger'' near the IR boundary than near the UV boundary. This swelling is a geometric phenomenon that requires additional moduli to describe.

In \GG, the compact direction $S^1_\theta$ does \emph{not} swell up in the IR. This is a direct consequence of \POS{1} (gauge invariance must be layered: the Wilson-line phase must be invariant under RG flow) plus \POS{6} (no continuous moduli). Specifically, the $\theta$-component of the metric is $G_{\theta\theta} = 1$ at every value of $r$; there is no $r$-dependence. The compact direction is therefore the same topological circle at every energy scale, with the same integer-quantized mode spectrum. That is what ``the topological angular direction does not depend on energy scale.''

\paragraph{What the angular direction does carry.} Despite having no geometric length, the topological circle $S^1_\theta$ carries substantial physics. It carries:
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=2em]
\item \emph{Integer-quantized Wilson-line phases.} The phase $\oint A_\theta\,d\theta = 2\pi n$ for integer $n$, gauge-invariant. Different integer values of this phase produce different Hosotani breaking patterns of the bulk gauge group $\SUfive \to \SU(3)_C \times \SU(2)_L \times \UoneY$ \citep{Hosotani1983}. The boundary Standard Model gauge group is determined by the choice of Wilson-line phase.
\item \emph{Integer-quantized KK Fourier modes.} Bulk fields decompose into $\theta$-Fourier modes $\phi_n(x, r) e^{\ii n \theta}$ with integer $n$ --- the $\ii$ of the mode functions being the boundary rendering of the circle's forced quarter-turn (T-P4-1 of \citealp{ArisakaP4Real}); each mode appears as a 4D field with mass-squared $m_n^2 = n^2 / G_{\theta\theta} = n^2$ in natural units. The zero-mode $n = 0$ is the boundary 4D field; the higher modes are KK excitations with mass $\sim \EGUT$ (effectively decoupled from low-energy physics).
\item \emph{The unit-conversion factor $\hbar$.} In natural \GG\ units, the integer mode number $n$ is the fundamental data and the dimensional momentum $p_\theta = n\hbar$ is derived. Planck's constant arrives the same way, as the universal angular-momentum quantum: it emerges from the integer-quantization of mode numbers on the topological circle, exactly as the radial direction is the geometric origin of $G_N$ via the scale-profile integration (Picture~3).
\end{enumerate}

\paragraph{Implications for the strong CP problem.} The strong CP problem asks: why is the QCD theta-angle $\bar\theta < 10^{-10}$, when there is no symmetry forbidding a value of order $1$? In \GG, the four-dimensional theta-parameter is not a free knob; it is the boundary projection of a six-dimensional topological phase. Because the topological structure of the compact direction $S^1_\theta$ does not swell or vary across the RG-scale throat (this Picture), the boundary theta-parameter is constrained by the bulk gauge content to be exponentially small. Specifically, the residual leakage is $|\bar\theta| \lesssim 4.7 \times 10^{-18}$ \citep{ArisakaA9SM}, eight orders of magnitude below the experimental bound. The strong CP problem is solved geometrically: the topological angular direction does not allow the $\theta$-parameter to be a free knob; the constitution sets it nearly to zero.

\paragraph{Comparison with Calabi--Yau compactifications.} In string theory, the analog of the compact direction $S^1_\theta$ is a six-dimensional Calabi--Yau manifold, whose moduli space contains hundreds of continuous parameters per geometry. Each modulus represents a continuous deformation of the compact internal space, and the moduli must be ``stabilized'' (typically by fluxes) to produce a definite low-energy theory. The string-theoretic landscape, with $\sim 10^{500}$ inequivalent vacua, is the proliferation of inequivalent moduli stabilizations.

In \GG, the compact direction has zero moduli: it is a pure topological circle, with no continuous parameters to stabilize. That content is \OGNfive{} together with the topological-circle interpretation of $S^1_\theta$. The contrast with Calabi--Yau is sharp: \GG\ has \emph{no} compact moduli, where Calabi--Yau has hundreds. The anti-landscape posture is axiomatic: maximum symmetry, minimum freedom, with the compact direction reduced to its topological essence.

\paragraph{Summary of Picture 4.} The compact direction $S^1_\theta$ is a pure topological circle with no intrinsic length, supporting integer-quantized Wilson-line phases and integer-quantized KK Fourier modes. The topology does not depend on energy scale (no swelling along the throat); the conventional ``radius'' $R_\theta$ is a unit-conversion artifact that disappears in natural \GG\ units. Physically, the topological circle is the geometric origin of $\hbar$ via the integer mode quantization, and it is the reason why the strong CP problem is resolved geometrically in \GG.

\paragraph{Constitutional forcing of the topological reading.} The topological reading of the compact direction is forced by two constitutional clauses operating together. \POS{1} (\GI{}, gauge invariance across scales) requires the Wilson-line phase $\oint A_\theta\,d\theta$ to be invariant under boundary basis choices, which forces it to be integer-quantized by $2\pi$. \POS{6} (\OGN{}, Occam-Gauge Normalization) requires the compact direction to carry no continuous moduli, which forbids a continuous-parameter ``radius'' $R_\theta$ at the fundamental level and reduces the compact direction to its topological essence. Lemma~40.5 (\POS{1} necessity) of Section~\ref{sec:necessity-sufficiency} establishes that without \POS{1} the Abelian factors lose their gauge invariance and proton stability fails. Lemma~40.10 (\POS{6} necessity) establishes that without \POS{6} the integer cascade collapses, the $\theta$ direction acquires a continuous-parameter radius, and the \OGNfive{} ledger fails. Together these clauses force the topological-circle reading: the compact direction is a pure topological circle with integer-quantized data and no continuous moduli. The conventional reading (a small circle of radius $R$) is recovered only as a unit-conversion artifact, with $\hbar$ playing the role of the conversion factor between integer mode number and dimensional momentum.

\paragraph{The $\hbar$ story: the angular circle as the source of quantum granularity.} The most striking consequence of the topological-circle reading is that it provides a geometric origin for $\hbar$. In the conventional reading of quantum mechanics, $\hbar$ is the universal angular-momentum quantum, introduced by Planck to explain the spectrum of blackbody radiation and elevated by Dirac to the level of a universal unit of phase. In \GG{}, $\hbar$ is the conversion factor between the integer mode number $n$ on the topological circle and the dimensional momentum $p_\theta = n\hbar$: it is the unit-conversion artifact that arises when one measures the angular direction in dimensional units rather than in the natural-unit integer count. The granularity of quantum mechanics is, in this reading, the granularity of the integer modes on the topological angular direction; the universal constant $\hbar$ is the bridge between the integer-mode description (the deep description) and the dimensional-momentum description (the conventional description). This is parallel to the role of $G_N$ (which arises from the radial scale-profile integration, Picture~3) and to the role of $c$ (which arises from the Lorentzian signature of the boundary $\cM_4$). Each of the three classical universal constants $\{c, G_N, \hbar\}$ is associated with one direction of the bulk geometry, and the bulk decomposes into ``one direction per universal constant'' plus the boundary Lorentzian frame. The conversion-factor reading of $\{c, G_N, \hbar\}$ starts here of $\{c, G_N, \hbar\}$ in \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid}.

\paragraph{Anomaly cancellation as geometric smoothness, not quantization.} A reader familiar with the conventional language of QFT will note that Picture~4 supports a reading of anomaly cancellation that differs sharply from the textbook framing. In the conventional QFT framing, an anomaly is a classical symmetry that is broken by the act of quantization: the path-integral measure fails to be invariant, and a Ward identity that held at the classical level fails at the quantum level. In \GGTheory{}, anomaly cancellation is not a quantum-vs-classical phenomenon at all; it is a fact about the geometric smoothness of the composite gauge--gravity connection. The anomaly polynomial $I_8$ (and, after Green--Schwarz factorization, the four-form $X_4$) encodes a geometric obstruction to the smoothness of the differential geometry on the bulk; admissible chiral gauge content cancels this obstruction by inflow through the topological angular direction, with the integer-quantized Wilson-line phase carrying the inflow data. Quantization in \GGTheory{} is a downstream concept: it enters only at the \OGGEP{} (\AX{3}) boundary projection, where the bulk theory is registered by an open-system observer through the CPTP dictionary $\cD$. The bulk anomaly-cancellation condition is therefore a fact about the bulk geometry, not a fact about the quantum measure --- and the topological angular direction of Picture~4 is the channel through which the inflow operates. \GGTheory{} commits ontologically to that reading of anomalies, stated already in the discussion of \POS{3} in Part~I and again in the Theorems 4 and 5 of Part~II.

\paragraph{Philosophical reading: the discrete substrate of physics.} Picture~4 carries a philosophical implication that ties \GG{} to one of the oldest debates in foundational physics: is the world fundamentally continuous, or fundamentally discrete? The conventional reading of quantum mechanics straddles the question: the dimensions of phase space are continuous, but observable spectra are often discrete (energy levels in an atom, angular momentum quanta, charges). Picture~4 resolves the straddle by locating the source of discreteness explicitly: the integer-quantized Wilson-line phase and the integer Fourier modes on the topological circle are the geometric origin of every discrete observable in the bulk theory. Continuous quantities (radial profiles, gauge couplings as functions of energy) are forced by the constitutional clauses to be derived rather than fundamental; integer quantities (the \OGNfive{} ledger $(1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$, the Wilson phases, the mode numbers) are the structural substrate. The deepest reading is that physics is built on integers, with the continuous quantities of the conventional theory arising as derived ratios and conversion factors. It is the modern form of Pythagoras's commitment that the world is built on number, and it is the geometric face of \POS{6} (\OGN{}) as a constitutional clause. The philosophical implication is that the discreteness of the world is not a phenomenon imposed by quantum mechanics on a classical continuous substrate; it is the structure of the world at its most fundamental geometric level, and the continuous quantities of the conventional theory are the secondary, derived layer. Table~\ref{tab:picture4} compares how four frameworks treat the compact direction, and how many continuous moduli each pays for it.

\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption[Picture 4: the compact direction across four frameworks.]{How four frameworks treat the compact direction. The columns give the compact object, the number of continuous moduli it carries, and what remains integer-quantized. The middle column is the one to read: Kaluza--Klein leaves one modulus free, string compactifications leave many, and the construction here leaves none, because the radius is fixed by topology rather than by a choice. That is the whole difference, and it is a difference in how many numbers must be supplied rather than in the mathematics of mode expansion, which is identical in all four.}
\label{tab:picture4}
\small
\begin{tabular}{>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.20\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.253\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.20\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.253\textwidth}}
\toprule
\textbf{Framework} & \textbf{Compact direction} & \textbf{Continuous moduli} & \textbf{Status of integer-quantized data} \\
\midrule
Kaluza--Klein 5D & $S^1$ with intrinsic radius $R$ & 1 (the radius) & Integer modes $n$ derived; mass spectrum $m_n = n/R$ \\
Randall--Sundrum 5D & 5D bulk + UV/IR branes (no compact direction) & 0 (only $\sigma_{\mathrm{UV}}$, $\sigma_{\mathrm{IR}}$) & --- \\
Calabi--Yau (string) & Calabi--Yau three-fold & $\sim 100$--$1000$ moduli per geometry & Integer fluxes; complicated stabilization \\
\GG\ 6D (this work) & Topological $S^1_\theta$ with $G_{\theta\theta} = 1$ & 0 (no continuous moduli) & Integer modes $n$ fundamental; $\hbar$ derived as conversion factor \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}


\section{The Pair, Read Together: What the Two Fibers Jointly Buy}
\label{sec:pair-read-together}

The four pictures view the fifth and the sixth dimensions one at a
time --- $r$ through Pictures~1--3, $\theta$ through Picture~4. The
cohort's recent campaign (the symmetry review
\textsf{GG-W1-Symmetry} and its deployments across
\citealp{ArisakaA5GDOS}; \citealp{ArisakaA8QM};
\citealp{ArisakaA10Cosmos}; \citealp{ArisakaA11Origin}; and the CPT
companion's expanded treatment of time, \citealp{ArisakaP5CPT})
established that the framework's deepest payoffs live not in either
fiber but in the \emph{pair}, and this section adds that joint
reading to Part~III's intuition. One boundary is drawn first, so
the synthesis that follows keeps its force: what is presented here
is \emph{not a fifth picture}. The four-picture count is forced by
the constitutional clauses (the necessity lemmas of
Section~\ref{sec:necessity-sufficiency}), and the pair-reading adds
no fifth clause-face --- it is the four pictures viewed
\emph{simultaneously}, the way stereoscopic depth is not a third
eye.

\paragraph{The exact statement.} The joint reading rests on one
piece of exact topology, now printed across seven papers of the
cohort: \emph{holonomy requires closed loops, and an interval has
none.} The compact circle $S^1_\theta$ is nothing but closed
loops: everything it carries is holonomy --- Wilson phases,
integer windings, quantized charges --- gauge-invariant and
topologically protected, and its transport is a \emph{group},
every phase invertible. The radial interval $I_r$ can hold no
holonomy at all: no gauge-invariant memory, no quantized charge,
no protected content; its transport composes only forward --- a
\emph{semigroup}, the \GDOS{} generator's birthplace. The closing
synthesis of this Part sharpens the same asymmetry
bundle-theoretically (\S\ref{ssec:two-fibers}: both fibers carry
Ehresmann connections, yet one integrates to a group and one to a
semigroup); the campaign's addition is what the asymmetry
\emph{pays for}. In two words per fiber: \textbf{the circle
remembers; the interval forgets.} And the pair is minimal for a
world: two circles would give a reversible, forever-oscillating
bulk in which nothing is ever decided; two intervals would give a
featureless slide with no quantized charges and nothing to decide
\emph{into}. A boundary can both \emph{become} something (the
semigroup) and \emph{be} something definite (the holonomies) only
because the bulk carries exactly one fiber of each kind --- which is, in the campaign's judgment and this author's, the most consequential single sentence the six-dimensional geometry supports.

\paragraph{What the pair buys, now in print.} The joint reading is
not a metaphor awaiting employment; each of its payoffs is a
published result of the cohort, one line each with its home:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em]
\item \emph{Deterministic symmetry breaking.} The broken vacuum is
selected by arithmetic, not by a coin flip: the vacuum manifold is
a quantized dial on the circle (Wilson-line breaking, scanned to a
unique winner), and the descent that turns it is the interval's
one-way machine --- Curie's principle dissolved as ``symmetry
reading'' (\textsf{GG-W1-Symmetry}, the capstone).
\item \emph{Confinement and the immortal proton.} Baryon number is
a winding the circle protects against every operator, carried down
a descent the interval protects against every epoch --- ``immortal
means guarded twice'' (the proton companion,
\textsf{GG-P6-Proton}).
\item \emph{The birth of matter.} Sakharov's three conditions are
the anatomy of the pair --- nonequilibrium from the gated interval,
$CP$ violation from the circle's chiral alphabet, the lawful door
from the circle's topology --- with the yield
$\eta_B \simeq 5.9\times10^{-10}$ priced by the ledger's depth
\citep{ArisakaP5CPT}.
\item \emph{The measurement arrow.} Unitary quantum mechanics alone
can never produce an outcome because the circle has no arrow; the
record is an interval-side write, and the arrow of measurement is
the arrow of time, one semigroup \citep{ArisakaA8QM}.
\item \emph{The origin as chronology.} The eighteen-layer cascade
reads uniformly in the geometry and exponentially in the clock
\citep{ArisakaA11Origin}, because of the last item below.
\item \emph{Time itself.} The four endowments of time land on the
anatomy one each --- the cone orders, \emph{the circle ticks, the
interval points}, the spectrum shelters --- with the chronology
quantified: $d\ln t/dr = 2$ exactly in the radiation era, and the
age of the universe closing as an audited e-fold ledger,
$\ln(t_0/t_{\rm Pl}) = 140.24$ \citep{ArisakaP5CPT}.
\end{itemize}
No item on the list required a new axiom; every one is the pair of
Part~III's pictures, read together.

\paragraph{The \GUfive{} tie: two constants, two characters.} The
synthesis below assigns Newton's constant to the radial direction
and Planck's constant to the angular one, as conversion factors.
The pair-reading gives the assignment its character: $\hbar$ is
\emph{the circle's constant} --- the price of a tick, the unit of
winding, the quantum of the fiber that remembers --- while $G_N$
is \emph{the interval's constant} --- the accumulated weight of the
scale profile, the residue of the fiber that forgets, which is why
gravity alone among the forces is tied to irreversibility,
horizons, and thermodynamics. That the two most famous constants
of fundamental physics ride on fibers of opposite topological
character is offered here at the intuition register --- a reading,
not a theorem --- but it is a reading the reader will find difficult
to unsee, and it gives Picture~3's UV-localized gravity its
companion sentence: gravity is weak because the interval integrates,
and the interval integrates because it cannot hold.

\paragraph{The bulk in one sentence, upgraded.} The synthesis
below distils the bulk into ``energy and phase are not space.''
The pair-reading completes the sentence: energy and phase are not
space, \emph{and they are opposite in kind} --- the direction that
forgets and the circle that remembers --- so the six-dimensional
bulk is the minimal arena in which a world can have both a history
and an identity. Four dimensions to happen in, one to become
along, one to be with. That is the geometric intuition of \GG{}
in its shortest complete form, and everything the cohort has
derived --- the charges, the mirrors, the matter, the arrow, the
age --- is that sentence, spelled out.

\section{Synthesis: The Four Pictures Together}
\label{sec:partIII-synthesis}

Pictures~1 through 4 are four facets of the same underlying bulk geometry, each emphasizing a different structural role. Together they constitute the working physicist's mental image of \GG. We close Part~III with a synthesis.

\paragraph{The bulk dimensions and their structural roles.} The bulk $\cM_6$ has six dimensions, and each is assigned a specific structural role by the Constitution:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em]
\item \textbf{Four boundary dimensions $\cM_4$.} The Lorentzian operational boundary that supports registered measurements. Carries the speed of light $c$ as the conversion factor of the $(1,3)$ signature.
\item \textbf{One radial RG-scale direction $r \in [0, K]$.} The natural-log scale axis of the boundary RG flow, with $r = \ln(\EGUT/\mu)$. Carries Newton's constant $G_N$ as the conversion factor of the scale-profile integration. Pictures~1, 2, and 3 above.
\item \textbf{One topological angular direction $\theta \in [0, 2\pi)$.} The integer-quantized Wilson-line phase axis of the bulk gauge content. Carries $\hbar$ as the conversion factor of the integer mode quantization. Picture~4 above.
\end{itemize}
The five non-trivial coordinates beyond the four spatial-temporal ones decompose into one for energy and one for phase. Energy and phase are not space. The 6D bulk of \GG, distilled into one paragraph, is exactly that.

\paragraph{Why these four pictures, and not others?} One might ask why the synthesis settles on exactly these four pictures, rather than (say) three or five. The answer is that the pictures correspond to the four primitive aspects of the bulk geometry that any physicist needs to manipulate: \emph{what is $r$?} (Picture 1), \emph{how does $r$ produce running couplings?} (Picture 2), \emph{why is gravity weak compared to the gauge couplings?} (Picture 3), \emph{what is $\theta$?} (Picture 4). These four questions are the most common ones a working physicist asks when first encountering the framework, and the four pictures supply the answers in a form that connects directly to the formal Theorems of Part~II.

\paragraph{Pedagogical use.} In the author's experience, the four pictures together are sufficient to enable a reader from a particle-physics or general-relativity background to follow the technical content of the framework's companion papers. The pictures are deliberately complementary: each one supplies an aspect of the geometric intuition that the others do not, and together they cover the ground. A reader who has digested all four pictures should find the further companion papers --- \citet{ArisakaA5GDOS} on the boundary projection, \citet{ArisakaA3BI6} on the global anomaly proof, and \citet{ArisakaA4Euclid} on the parameter-free reconstruction --- significantly easier to follow.

\paragraph{The bulk as the Stratum-4 geometric realization.} Part~VI of the present paper formalizes the central structural claim of \GGTheory{}: \GG{} sits at the apex of a four-stratum constitutional tower, as the unique explicit geometric realization of the full constitutional axiom set. The four pictures of Part~III are the concrete content of that apex. Picture~1 is the geometric content of \POS{5} (\RG{}) realized on the bulk. Picture~2 is the geometric content of \AX{4} (\MSMF{}) plus \POS{5} realized as the radial integration measure. Picture~3 is the geometric content of \AX{2} (\GGEP{}) plus \AX{4} realized as the asymmetric scale-profile action on gravity and gauge. Picture~4 is the geometric content of \POS{1} (\GI{}) plus \POS{6} (\OGN{}) realized as the integer-quantized topological circle. Each picture, taken alone, is the geometric face of one or two constitutional clauses; taken together, the four pictures constitute the geometric realization of the entire eleven-clause Constitution. The Stratum-4 claim says exactly that: there is exactly one explicit geometric object that realizes the full set of constitutional clauses, and that object is the 6D bulk visualized through the four pictures of Part~III. The Necessity-and-Sufficiency Theorem of
Section~\ref{sec:necessity-sufficiency} makes the Stratum-4 claim
rigorous; Part~VI makes it explicit in the language of constitutional classification; Part~III makes it visible in the language of mental images.

\paragraph{The GU-5 and the bulk dimensions.} A reader who has worked through the four pictures will note a striking pattern: each picture is associated not only with a constitutional clause but also with a specific universal constant of physics. The radial direction $r$ (Pictures~1, 2, 3) is the source of Newton's constant $G_N$ via the scale-profile integration that produces the 4D Planck mass. The angular direction $\theta$ (Picture~4) is the source of $\hbar$ via the integer-mode quantization that supplies the conversion between mode number and dimensional momentum. The four boundary directions $\cM_4$ (implicit in every picture as the operational substrate) supply the speed of light $c$ via the Lorentzian signature. The composite gauge--gravity coupling $\UoneQi{}$ (Theorem~\ref{thm:arisaka-equation}, traced through Pictures~3 and 4) supplies the energy--information conversion factor $\QB \approx 0.1555$~eV/qubit. The integer ledger of the scale depth (Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade}, threaded through Pictures~1 and 3) supplies the integer set $(1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$ that forces the integer part $137$ of the fine-structure constant via $\alpha^{-1}(0) = 2^J + N^2$ (and thereby determines the derived elementary charge $e = \sqrt{4\pi\varepsilon_0\,\hbar\,c\,\alpha}$, which is \emph{not} a primitive of the framework, see Common Objection~33 of Part~\ref{sec:common-objections}). The boundary thermodynamic conversion factor $\kB$ enters not through a bulk direction but through the boundary Gibbs projection of \GDOS\ \citep{ArisakaA5GDOS}. The bulk geometry decomposes into a (3 bulk + 2 boundary) split: three bulk-direction conversion factors $\{c, G_N, \hbar\}$ and two boundary conversion factors $\{\kB, \QB\}$, mirroring the (3 + 2) structure of \OGNfive. This is \GUfive\ (the Geometric Universal Five Constants $\GUfiveSet$) of \GGTheory{}, and Part~III is the place where \GUfive\ becomes visible in mental imagery.

\paragraph{The four pictures and the cohort chain.} The four pictures of Part~III are the structural language in which the cohort papers downstream of \ATwo{} build their content. \citet{ArisakaA5GDOS} builds the boundary projection by registering the bulk through the radial direction (Pictures~1 and 2) under the \OGGEP{} dictionary $\cD$. \citet{ArisakaA3BI6} builds the global anomaly proof by reading the inflow channel through the topological angular direction (Picture~4) in the Wu--Chern--Simons / differential-cohomology framework. \citet{ArisakaA4Euclid} builds the parameter-free reconstruction of the universal constants by reading off the conversion factors from the bulk dimensions (GU-5 (the Geometric Universal Five Constants) above). \citet{ArisakaA6Gi4} and \citep{ArisakaA7Qi4} build the four-pillar geometric and informational structures by reading the four pictures as four facets of one composite connection. \citet{ArisakaA9SM} and \citep{ArisakaA10Cosmos} build the Standard Model and cosmological projections by carrying the boundary fields of Pictures~1, 2, 3 through to the empirical data. \citet{ArisakaA11Origin} builds the closing capstone by integrating the four pictures into the cosmos--life--mind chain. No cohort paper escapes the four pictures; every cohort paper builds on the mental imagery established here. Part~III is therefore not a pedagogical aside; it is the visual vocabulary of the entire twenty-two-paper program.

\paragraph{The cosmos--life--mind reading of the bulk geometry.} Section~\ref{sec:conclusions-philosophical} of the present paper articulates the philosophical horizon of the \GGTheory{} program: a single chain that descends from the bulk geometry through the boundary projection to cosmology, biology, and cognition, with the same integer ledger appearing at every layer. Part~III is the place where the reader first encounters the visual content of that chain. Picture~1 (the radial direction as RG-scale) is the geometric fact that energy is the deep variable along which the cosmos unfolds from the Planck scale to the electroweak scale to the biological-energy scale. Picture~2 (renormalization as radial integration) is the geometric fact that the same integration accumulates the physical content of each layer: the Standard Model couplings at the electroweak layer, the cosmological energy budget at the cosmological layer, and the energy--information conversion factor $\QB$ at the biological layer. Picture~3 (gravity as UV-localized) is the geometric fact that the hierarchy between the Planck scale and the electroweak scale --- the hierarchy that makes a universe with stable atoms and chemistry possible --- is a geometric consequence of the bulk shape, not a fine-tuned accident. Picture~4 (the topological angular direction) is the geometric fact that the integer-quantized substrate of physics carries through every layer, from the OGN-5 ledger of the bulk to the energy--information conversion factor of biological information processing. The cosmos--life--mind chain is therefore not an extrapolation made at the end of the cohort; it is already implicit in the four pictures, and a careful reader of Part~III is already prepared for the chain.

\paragraph{Why the four pictures are unavoidable, not chosen.} A natural objection at this point is that the four pictures are author's choices, that another author might have grouped the geometric content differently, and that the synthesis above merely reflects how the present author happens to think about the bulk. The objection has force in any framework that lacks the constitutional discipline of \GGTheory{}, but it does not apply here. The four pictures are forced by the constitutional clauses in the precise sense established by the necessity lemmas of Section~\ref{sec:necessity-sufficiency}. Removing any one of the constitutional clauses breaks at least one picture, and the broken picture is one of exactly the four cataloged here. It is why the synthesis settles on these four pictures and not three or five. An author who attempted to consolidate Pictures~1 and 2 into a single ``RG geometry'' picture would lose the distinction between the radial \emph{direction} (forced by \POS{5} alone) and the radial \emph{measure} (forced by \AX{4} plus \POS{5}); an author who attempted to split Picture~4 into ``the integer Wilson phases'' and ``the integer mode tower'' would obscure the structural fact that both are facets of the same topological circle. The four-picture decomposition is therefore not a stylistic choice but a structural consequence of the constitutional clauses operating in concert.

\paragraph{Implications for the methodology of foundational physics.} Part~III closes with one further philosophical implication, addressed to the methodology of foundational physics rather than to its content. In the conventional twentieth-century practice, the relationship between formal proof and physical intuition was managed by an informal division of labor: the formal proof established what the theory \emph{is}, while the physical intuition (Feynman diagrams, geodesic deviation, the box of a quantum-mechanical particle) established what the theory \emph{means}. The two registers were complementary but were not formally connected. Part~III makes the connection explicit: each picture is anchored to a specific subset of the constitutional clauses, the anchoring is rigorous (Section~\ref{sec:necessity-sufficiency}), and the four pictures together constitute the entire geometric content of the bulk. The philosophical implication is that physical intuition is not a separate layer above the formal proof; it is a register in which the formal proof becomes manipulable, and the structural commitments of the formal proof are visible in the intuition as well. The Euclidean discipline, applied to physics, leaves that signature: not only the theorems but also the mental images carry constitutional weight, and a foundational theory is complete only when both registers are fully articulated. Part~III is the place where the second register is articulated for \GG{}.

\paragraph{Bridge to the closing synthesis of Part~III.} The four pictures of Part~III translate the formal Theorems into mental images: what the radial coordinate $r$ \emph{is}; how it produces the running of the couplings; why gravity is weak compared to the gauge forces; and what the compact angular direction $\theta$ does. With the intuition in hand, the closing section of Part~III (\S\ref{sec:sm-to-gg6}) now assembles these images into a single logical narrative --- how the Standard Model, read as fiber-bundle geometry, is \emph{completed} into \GG{} once gravity is switched on --- which in turn motivates the comparison of Part~IV with the most natural critic community for any 6D gauge--gravity framework: the superstring-theory community. We systematically compare \GGTheory{} with the superstring program of \citet{GreenSchwarz1984}, the extra-dimensional construction of \citet{RandallSundrum1999}, and the AdS/CFT correspondence of \citet{Maldacena1998}, and we identify exactly which constitutional commitments \GGTheory{} adds beyond what the string-theory tradition supplies. Part~VII then articulates the ten structural innovations that distinguish \GG\ from the rest of the unification literature, each tied back to a specific Theorem of Part~II; Part~VII closes the conceptual loop by stating what would falsify each innovation empirically.


\subsection*{Closing remarks on Part~III}

Four pictures, and one idea underneath all four.

The idea is that scale is a direction. Not a parameter we vary in a
calculation, not a bookkeeping device for organizing approximations, but a
direction of the arena with the same standing as the three you can walk in.
Once that is taken literally, a set of facts that ordinarily arrive separately
arrive together. Running couplings become motion. Integrating out short
wavelengths becomes restriction to a piece of the geometry. The weakness of
gravity becomes a question of where along the direction a field is
concentrated, and the answer is that gravity is bunched at one end and we are
standing at the other.

The philosophical weight of that reading is easy to miss. In the conventional
account, renormalization is about us --- about the fact that we cannot resolve
arbitrarily small distances and must therefore work with effective
descriptions. The running of a coupling is then a statement about the limits of
our instruments. Read geometrically, it stops being about us. The profile along
the scale direction is a fact about the world, and our instruments are simply
where on it we happen to be standing.

The sixth direction carries the other half. It is a circle, its only content is
a phase, and it cannot be unwound. That is where every integer in this
framework comes from: a quantity that has to close on itself after one turn
cannot take a continuous range of values, and the whole numbers that survive
are not approximations to something smoother. They are what the topology
leaves. The discreteness of the world, on this reading, is not a quantum
overlay on a classical continuum. It is structural, and the continuous
quantities are the derived layer.

The circle remembers; the interval forgets. A phase that has gone once around
is where it started, and the information is intact. A field that has flowed
down the scale direction has lost what it left behind, and no amount of care
recovers it. Those are two different kinds of dimension, and a framework that
uses both is saying that the world needs a direction that keeps things and a
direction that loses them.

%% ===================================================================
%%  PART IV — SIGNIFICANCE AND UNIQUENESS
\section{From the Standard Model to \GG{}: A Graduate-Level Synthesis via Fiber Bundles and the Modified Bianchi Identity}
\label{sec:sm-to-gg6}

The four pictures of Part~III fix the intuition for the 6D bulk \emph{as an object}. We now use them for a different purpose: to tell, in a single connected line of reasoning, the story of \emph{how one gets to that object starting from physics the reader already knows}. This closing section of Part~III is addressed to a first-year graduate student who has mastered quantum electrodynamics, the Standard Model, and general relativity, but who has not yet been exposed to the technical machinery of superstring theory. The claim we will defend is precise and, we believe, important:

\begin{quote}
\textbf{\GG{} is the minimal geometric completion of the Standard Model.} The Standard Model, read geometrically, is \emph{already} a theory of connections on fiber bundles. The only structures one must add to turn it into a fully geometric, gravity-coupled, anomaly-free theory are (i) two non-spatial dimensions --- one for the renormalization-group scale, one for the gauge phase --- and (ii) one antisymmetric tensor field whose \emph{Green--Schwarz--modified Bianchi identity} $\BIsix$ cancels the gravitational anomalies that appear only once gravity is switched on. Nothing else is required; and --- the falsifiable payoff --- nothing else is free.
\end{quote}

We will build this claim one rung at a time, reviewing each ingredient (fiber bundles, the Bianchi identity, anomaly freedom, the modified Bianchi identity) in physically intuitive terms before using it. The reasoning is summarized in advance by the chain
\begin{equation}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{$\displaystyle
\underbrace{\text{QED}}_{U(1)\ \text{bundle}}
\;\longrightarrow\;
\underbrace{\text{Standard Model}}_{SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)\ \text{bundles},\ DF=0}
\;\longrightarrow\;
\underbrace{\text{SM}+\text{gravity}}_{\text{modified Bianchi}\ dH_3=X_4=\BIsix}
\;\longrightarrow\;
\underbrace{\GG}_{\Spinone\times\SUfive\times\UoneB\times\UoneQi},
$}
\label{eq:sm-to-gg6-chain}
\end{equation}
in which every arrow is a theorem-grade step, not an analogy. Figure~\ref{fig:sm-to-gg6-flow} renders the whole chain at a glance.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\resizebox{0.943\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tikzpicture}[
  font=\sffamily,
  >=Stealth,
  line width=0.80pt,
  every node/.style={align=center},
  stage/.style={rectangle, rounded corners=3pt, draw=blue!55!black, line width=0.9pt, minimum width=34mm, minimum height=12mm, fill=blue!10, font=\sffamily\bfseries\large},
  final/.style={rectangle, rounded corners=3pt, draw=orange!60!black, line width=1pt, minimum width=34mm, minimum height=12mm, fill=orange!16, font=\sffamily\bfseries\large},
  note/.style={font=\sffamily\footnotesize, text width=42mm, align=center, anchor=north},
  steplab/.style={font=\sffamily\small, text width=46mm, align=center, anchor=south},
  fiber/.style={rectangle, rounded corners=2pt, draw=teal!55!black, line width=0.6pt, minimum width=38mm, minimum height=9mm, fill=teal!10, font=\sffamily\normalsize},
  pillar/.style={rectangle, rounded corners=2pt, draw=violet!55!black, line width=0.6pt, minimum width=44mm, minimum height=9mm, fill=violet!10, font=\sffamily\normalsize},
  arrow/.style={->, line width=1pt, draw=black!70},
  thinarrow/.style={->, line width=0.6pt, draw=black!60}
]
% Tier 1: four-stage flow
\node[stage] (qed) at (0,0) {QED};
\node[stage] (sm)  at (54mm,0) {Standard Model};
\node[stage] (smg) at (108mm,0) {SM $+$ gravity};
\node[final] (gg6) at (162mm,0) {\GG};
\draw[arrow] (qed.east) -- (sm.west);
\draw[arrow] (sm.east) -- (smg.west);
\draw[arrow] (smg.east) -- (gg6.west);
\node[steplab] at (27mm, 9mm) {generalize the gauge group\\ \footnotesize(still $DF=0$)};
\node[steplab] at (81mm, 9mm) {switch on gravity\\ \footnotesize(anomalies appear)};
\node[steplab] at (135mm, 9mm) {add 2-form $B$ (Green--Schwarz)\\ \footnotesize $dH_3=X_4=\BIsix$};
\node[note] at (0,-9mm) {$U(1)$ bundle;\\ holonomy $=$ Aharonov--Bohm phase};
\node[note] at (54mm,-9mm) {$SU(3){\times}SU(2){\times}U(1)$ bundles;\\ anomaly-free by fermion content};
\node[note] at (108mm,-9mm) {6D bulk; a chiral $8$-form\\ anomaly must be canceled};
\node[note] at (162mm,-9mm) {$\Spinone{\times}\SUfive{\times}\UoneB{\times}\UoneQi$;\\ $\cM_4{\times}I_r{\times}S^1_\theta$;\\ \textbf{no free parameters}};
% Tier 2: two pillars become two dimensions
\node[font=\sffamily\bfseries] at (81mm,-34mm) {The two pillars of QED become the two non-spatial dimensions};
\node[pillar] (lgi) at (24mm,-46mm) {Local Gauge Invariance};
\node[fiber]  (gfib) at (108mm,-46mm) {$S^1_\theta$ \;(Gauge, 6th)};
\node[pillar] (rg)   at (24mm,-60mm) {Renormalization Group};
\node[fiber]  (sfib) at (108mm,-60mm) {$I_r$ \;(Scale, 5th)};
\draw[thinarrow] (lgi.east) -- (gfib.west) node[midway,above,font=\sffamily\footnotesize]{reversible $U(1)$ holonomy};
\draw[thinarrow] (rg.east) -- (sfib.west) node[midway,above,font=\sffamily\footnotesize]{irreversible RG semigroup};
\node[font=\sffamily\footnotesize, anchor=west] at (130mm,-46mm) {$\Rightarrow$ unitary (phase)};
\node[font=\sffamily\footnotesize, anchor=west] at (130mm,-60mm) {$\Rightarrow$ dissipative (scale)};
\end{tikzpicture}%
}
\caption[The logical flow from the Standard Model to \GG{}]{\textbf{The logical flow from the Standard Model to \GG.} Reading left to right, each arrow adds the \emph{minimum} structure that consistency demands. Generalizing the Abelian gauge group to the Standard Model leaves the ordinary Bianchi identity $DF=0$ automatic and the chiral anomalies canceling by fermion content. Switching on gravity in the 6D bulk makes a chiral eight-form anomaly unavoidable; canceling it forces a two-form field $B$ and the Green--Schwarz--modified Bianchi identity $dH_3=X_4=\BIsix$, which in turn forces the \OGNfive{} integer ledger and fixes every dimensionless constant. The lower panel shows the parallel geometrization of the two pillars of QED as the two non-spatial dimensions: local gauge invariance becomes the compact, \emph{reversible} gauge circle $S^1_\theta$, and the renormalization group becomes the \emph{irreversible} scale interval $I_r$.}
\label{fig:sm-to-gg6-flow}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Orientation: what a reader who knows QED, the SM, and GR already possesses}
\label{ssec:sm-gg-orientation}

It is worth naming the assets the reader brings, because the entire argument is an exercise in recombining them rather than introducing anything foreign.

\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=2em]
\item \textbf{From QED:} the gauge potential $A_\mu$, the field strength $F_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu A_\nu-\partial_\nu A_\mu$, the covariant derivative $D_\mu=\partial_\mu - i q A_\mu$, the homogeneous Maxwell equations, the running of the coupling $\alpha(\mu)$, and --- crucially --- the Aharonov--Bohm phase.
\item \textbf{From the Standard Model:} non-Abelian gauge fields $A_\mu^a T_a$, the covariant derivative $D_\mu=\partial_\mu - i g A_\mu^a T_a$, the chiral structure of the fermions, the triangle (Adler--Bell--Jackiw) anomaly \citep{Adler1969, BellJackiw1969}, and the remarkable fact that the Standard Model is anomaly-free generation by generation.
\item \textbf{From general relativity:} the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$, the Levi--Civita connection, the Riemann curvature $R^\rho{}_{\sigma\mu\nu}$, the \emph{Bianchi identity} $\nabla_{[\lambda}R_{\mu\nu]\rho\sigma}=0$ and its contraction $\nabla^\mu G_{\mu\nu}=0$, and the idea that gravity \emph{is} the curvature of a connection.
\end{enumerate}

The single most useful bridge in the reader's existing knowledge is the last one. A graduate student who knows general relativity already knows a Bianchi identity intimately --- $\nabla_{[\lambda}R_{\mu\nu]\rho\sigma}=0$ --- and already accepts that a force (gravity) can be the curvature of a connection. Everything below is the statement that the gauge forces are curvatures of connections in exactly the same sense, that they obey exactly the same kind of Bianchi identity, and that demanding the two kinds of curvature coexist consistently in the presence of chiral matter is what forces \GG{}.

\subsection{Pillar one reviewed: local gauge invariance is a connection on a fiber bundle}
\label{ssec:pillar-lgi}

Quantum electrodynamics rests on two independent pillars, and \GGTheory{} assigns one geometric dimension to each. We review the first --- local gauge invariance (LGI) --- in the language of fiber bundles, because that language is what makes the geometrization exact rather than metaphorical.

\paragraph{The bundle dictionary, stated physically.} (A reader for whom principal bundles, characteristic classes and the index theorem are new will find them developed from the beginning in Appendix~\ref{app:math-foundations}.) A principal $U(1)$-bundle is, intuitively, a copy of the phase circle $U(1)$ attached to every point of spacetime, with no preferred way to compare the phase at one point with the phase at another. A \emph{connection} is precisely a rule for that comparison: it is the gauge potential $A$, a $\mathfrak{u}(1)$-valued one-form. The reader's covariant derivative $D=d-iqA$ \emph{is} the connection telling a charged field how to be transported from one fiber to the next --- and its $i$ is the boundary rendering of the circle's forced quarter-turn (T-P4-1 of \citealp{ArisakaP4Real}), not an extra complex input. The field strength $F=dA$ is the \emph{curvature} of the connection --- the failure of phase comparison to be path-independent. A charged field $\psi$ is a section of the associated line bundle; a gauge transformation $A\to A+d\lambda$, $\psi\to e^{iq\lambda}\psi$ is a relabeling of the phase reference at each point.

\paragraph{Holonomy is the physics; the potential is the bookkeeping.} The physically invariant content of the connection is not $A$ (which is gauge-dependent) but its \emph{holonomy} around a closed loop,
\begin{equation}
W[\gamma]\;=\;\exp\!\Big(i q\oint_\gamma A\Big),
\label{eq:holonomy-u1}
\end{equation}
and the reader has already measured this quantity: it is the \textbf{Aharonov--Bohm phase}. An electron beam split around a solenoid acquires a relative phase $q\oint A=q\Phi_B$ even though it never enters the region where $F\neq 0$. This experiment is the proof, accepted since 1959, that the gauge connection is physically real and that its holonomy --- not the local field --- is the observable. The lesson to carry forward is blunt: \emph{local gauge invariance is not an extra assumption layered on top of QED; it is the statement that QED lives on a curved $U(1)$-bundle, and the Aharonov--Bohm phase is the direct measurement of that curvature's holonomy.} This geometric reading of the gauge field is the historical content of \citet{Weyl1929}, made into the modern bundle dictionary by \citet{WuYang1975} on the foundation of \citet{Ehresmann1950}, and it is exactly what \AX{2} (\GGEP) elevates to a constitutional clause.

\subsection{The ordinary Bianchi identity, and what it does and does not say}
\label{ssec:ordinary-bianchi}

Because the modified Bianchi identity is the technical heart of the entire construction, it is essential to first be completely clear about the \emph{ordinary} one --- the one the reader already knows from two directions.

\paragraph{In electromagnetism.} The identity $dF=0$ follows from $F=dA$ and $d^2=0$. Written in components it is the homogeneous Maxwell pair $\nabla\!\cdot\!\mathbf B=0$ and $\nabla\!\times\!\mathbf E+\partial_t\mathbf B=0$. It is an \emph{identity}, true for \emph{any} potential whatsoever; it carries no dynamical information and constrains no matter content. It says only ``$F$ is the curvature of a genuine connection.''

\paragraph{In general relativity.} The reader already knows the gravitational analogue: the Riemann tensor obeys $\nabla_{[\lambda}R_{\mu\nu]\rho\sigma}=0$, and its contraction $\nabla^\mu G_{\mu\nu}=0$ is what guarantees, through the Einstein equation, the covariant conservation of energy--momentum $\nabla^\mu T_{\mu\nu}=0$. This too is an identity, automatic for the curvature of the Levi--Civita connection.

\paragraph{The unification of the two.} These are the same statement about two connections. For a non-Abelian gauge field with curvature $F=dA+A\wedge A$, the Bianchi identity reads
\begin{equation}
DF\;\equiv\;dF+[A,F]\;=\;0,
\label{eq:bianchi-nonabelian}
\end{equation}
the exact gauge-theoretic twin of $\nabla_{[\lambda}R_{\mu\nu]\rho\sigma}=0$. Both say: \emph{the curvature of a connection is covariantly closed.} The reader who internalizes that the gauge Bianchi identity \eqref{eq:bianchi-nonabelian} and the Riemann Bianchi identity are the same geometric fact in two settings is already most of the way to seeing why a theory that contains \emph{both} curvatures --- gauge and gravitational --- will have a single, joint consistency condition relating them. That joint condition, once chiral matter is present, is the modified Bianchi identity. But we are not there yet: in flat space, with no gravity, the two Bianchi identities are independent and both are automatic.

\subsection{Pillar two reviewed: the renormalization group is motion along a scale direction}
\label{ssec:pillar-rg}

The second pillar of QED is the one that makes it predictive at all energies: the coupling runs,
\begin{equation}
\mu\,\frac{d\alpha}{d\mu}\;=\;\beta(\alpha),
\label{eq:cs-running}
\end{equation}
the Callan--Symanzik equation. The decisive twentieth-century insight --- anticipated by Wilson's picture of integrating out momentum shells and made geometrically precise by \emph{holographic renormalization} \citep{deBoerVerlindeVerlinde2000} --- is that

\begin{quote}
RG flow is geometrically equivalent to evolution along an extra radial dimension.
\end{quote}

In the scale-geometry dictionary the radial coordinate \emph{is} the logarithm of the energy scale: the ultraviolet sits at one end of the interval, the infrared at the other, and the Callan--Symanzik flow \eqref{eq:cs-running} is literally the radial Hamiltonian evolution. The reader already met the prototype in \citet{RandallSundrum1999}: in the scale-profile metric $ds^2=e^{-2k|y|}\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu+dy^2$ the position $y$ converts directly into energy scale, so the vast Planck--to--weak hierarchy becomes a \emph{geometric} fact about where one sits along $y$ rather than a tuned number. This is exactly Pictures~1 and~2 of Part~III: the radial direction $r=\ln(\EGUT/\mu)$ is RG-scale, and renormalization is radial integration. The lesson parallels the first pillar precisely: \emph{the renormalization group is not an extra assumption either; it is the statement that the bundle theory lives along a scale-direction.} This geometrization of scale is the content of \POS{5} (\RG).

\subsection{The two pillars become two dimensions --- but one is a group and one is a semigroup}
\label{ssec:two-fibers}

We have now geometrized both pillars of QED, as
Table~\ref{tab:two-pillars} records.

\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption[The two pillars of QED, and the two bulk dimensions that carry them.]{The two pillars of quantum electrodynamics and the geometric object that carries each. Local gauge invariance becomes a compact circle; the renormalization group becomes a scale direction. The asymmetry in the third column is the point of the table and is easy to miss: one is a group and the other only a semigroup, because coarse-graining cannot be undone. That single difference is what makes the sixth direction periodic and the fifth an interval, and everything in this Part follows from it.}
\label{tab:two-pillars}
\small
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.15}
\begin{tabular}{@{}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.215\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.275\textwidth}p{0.45\textwidth}@{}}
\toprule
\textbf{QED pillar} & \textbf{GG-6 dimension} & \textbf{Geometric object}\\
\midrule
Local gauge invariance & sixth (Gauge) direction $S^1_\theta$ & compact circle, principal $U(1)$-bundle (KK/Hosotani)\\
Renormalization group & fifth (Scale) direction $I_r$ & radial interval, RG-semigroup fibration (Randall--Sundrum)\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

In Ehresmann's sense both are \emph{connections on the bulk}, and in that sense they are the same species of geometric object. But here lies the one place a careless statement would overshoot, and where the rigor --- and a deep physical truth --- actually lives:

\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em]
\item The \textbf{gauge fiber} $S^1_\theta$ has structure group $U(1)$: \emph{compact and reversible}. Its holonomy is an honest group element; the phase can be run forward and backward. This is why the phase sector is \textbf{unitary}.
\item The \textbf{scale fiber} $I_r$ has, as its ``structure group,'' the \emph{dilatation / renormalization} semigroup: \emph{non-compact and irreversible}. One can integrate out, but one cannot un-integrate-out; coarse-graining has no inverse. This is why the scale sector is \textbf{dissipative} --- and, in the cohort, it is exactly where the boundary open-system dynamics of \GDOS{} \citep{ArisakaA5GDOS} and the arrow of time reside.
\end{itemize}

The honest statement is therefore not ``the two fibers are identical'' but ``the two fibers are the bulk's two connections, one reversible and one irreversible.'' That single distinction --- a compact \emph{group} versus a dilatation \emph{semigroup} --- is precisely what separates quantum phase from thermodynamic scale, and it is the geometric seed of the difference between unitary evolution and measurement. We flag it here because it is the load-bearing subtlety of the whole pillar-to-dimension move; it returns in full force in the \OGGEP{} discussion of Part~IV (\S\ref{sec:gs-ggep}) and in the boundary projection of \citet{ArisakaA5GDOS}.

\subsection{From QED to the full Standard Model: non-Abelian bundles}
\label{ssec:qed-to-sm}

The step from $U(1)_{\mathrm{EM}}$ to $SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y$ is geometrically immediate, and was made a textbook statement by \citet{DanielViallet1980} on the Wu--Yang--Ehresmann foundation. The connection $A=A^a_\mu T_a\,dx^\mu$ now takes values in the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{su}(3)\oplus\mathfrak{su}(2)\oplus\mathfrak{u}(1)$; its curvature is $F=dA+A\wedge A$; the fermions are sections of associated bundles in the representations the reader knows ($\mathbf 3$, $\mathbf 2$, the hypercharges); and the Bianchi identity is \eqref{eq:bianchi-nonabelian}, again automatic. \emph{The Standard Model is a theory of connections on a principal $G_{\mathrm{SM}}$-bundle.} This is not controversial anywhere in the literature; it is the modern geometric reading of Yang--Mills theory.

The non-Abelian holonomy $P\exp\big(i\oint A\big)$ is now a non-commuting matrix, which is exactly why a single extra dimension cannot encode it --- transport around a gauge direction would have to depend on the order of the moves --- and therefore why \GG{} geometrizes only the \emph{Abelian} phase as a literal sixth dimension and treats the non-Abelian forces as bundle curvature unified with gravity by $\BIsix$. That division of labor was the subject of the closing paragraph of \S\ref{sec:partIII-overview} and of Common Objection~35 (Part~\ref{sec:common-objections}); we do not repeat it here, but it is the reason the bulk stays at six dimensions rather than the eleven a Kaluza--Klein realization of $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$ would demand \citep{Witten1981KK}.

\subsection{Anomaly-freedom: the one nontrivial fact, and why it is logically separate from the Bianchi identity}
\label{ssec:anomaly-freedom}

Here is the conceptual hinge of the whole argument, and the place where loose language has done the most damage in the pedagogical literature. The statement ``the Standard Model is anomaly-free and satisfies the Bianchi identity'' bundles together two facts that are \emph{logically independent}, and seeing that they are independent is what reveals why the next step (coupling to gravity) is forced.

\paragraph{Fact A --- the Bianchi identity $DF=0$ holds automatically.} It is geometry ($d^2=0$), true for every connection, anomalous or not. It says nothing about the matter content.

\paragraph{Fact B --- anomaly cancellation is a nontrivial property of the chiral fermion content.} A chiral gauge theory is threatened by the triangle (Adler--Bell--Jackiw) anomaly: the classically conserved chiral current acquires a quantum divergence $\partial_\mu j^\mu \sim \operatorname{tr}\!\big(T^a\{T^b,T^c\}\big)\,\epsilon FF$, and if it does not vanish the theory is mathematically inconsistent (gauge invariance is lost at one loop; the path-integral measure is not invariant, in Fujikawa's reading). The Standard Model survives because these triangles cancel \emph{generation by generation}: the $[SU(3)]^2U(1)$, $[SU(2)]^2U(1)$, and $[U(1)]^3$ anomalies, together with the mixed gauge--gravitational anomaly $[\mathrm{grav}]^2U(1)$, all sum to zero across each generation's quarks and leptons (the famous $\sum Y=0$, $\sum Y^3=0$ conditions), and the Witten $SU(2)$ global anomaly vanishes because there is an even number of doublets. This cancellation is a property of \emph{which fermions exist in which representations}; it has nothing to do with $d^2=0$.

\paragraph{Why the separation is the hinge.} In four dimensions the Standard Model's anomalies cancel \emph{by themselves}. Consequently there is \emph{no need} for a tensor field, \emph{no need} for a modified Bianchi identity, and \emph{no} Green--Schwarz mechanism. The ordinary $DF=0$ suffices, and the geometrized Standard Model is perfectly consistent as it stands. The question that opens the door to \GG{} is therefore sharp and unavoidable:
\begin{quote}
\emph{What changes in this accounting when we couple the bundle theory to gravity and lift it to the 6D bulk?}
\end{quote}

\subsection{Switching on gravity: why the ordinary Bianchi identity must be modified}
\label{ssec:gravity-forces-gs}

Two things happen at once when the geometrized Standard Model is placed on a curved, higher-dimensional bulk, and together they force the modification.

\paragraph{(1) Gravitational and mixed anomalies become unavoidable.} A chiral fermion in $D=2n$ dimensions carries an anomaly captured by a $(2n+2)$-form \emph{anomaly polynomial} $\hat I_{2n+2}$, related to the physical anomaly by the Stora--Zumino descent procedure and computed from the index theorem \citep{AlvarezGaumeWitten1984}. In four dimensions this is a six-form and the Standard Model arranges its cancellation by fermion content. But in the $4{+}2$-dimensional bulk the relevant polynomial is an \emph{eight-form}, built from $\operatorname{tr}R^4$, $(\operatorname{tr}R^2)^2$, $\operatorname{tr}F^4$, $(\operatorname{tr}F^2)^2$, and the mixed $\operatorname{tr}R^2\operatorname{tr}F^2$. Once gravity is dynamical, the mixed gauge--gravitational pieces are present and generically do \emph{not} cancel by fermion content alone.

\paragraph{(2) A two-form field enters as the unique minimal cure.} The remedy, discovered by \citet{GreenSchwarz1984} for the ten-dimensional string and adapted to six dimensions by Sagnotti and others, is to introduce an antisymmetric tensor field $B_2$ whose gauge-invariant field strength is \emph{modified} by Chern--Simons three-forms:
\begin{equation}
H_3\;=\;dB_2-\omega_3^{\mathrm{YM}}+\omega_3^{\mathrm{L}},\qquad
d\omega_3^{\mathrm{YM}}=\operatorname{tr}F^2,\quad d\omega_3^{\mathrm{L}}=\operatorname{tr}R^2 .
\label{eq:H3-modified}
\end{equation}
Taking the exterior derivative gives the \textbf{modified Bianchi identity}
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\,dH_3\;=\;\operatorname{tr}R^2-\sum_i\alpha_i\operatorname{tr}F_i^2\;\equiv\;X_4\,}
\label{eq:modified-bianchi}
\end{equation}
--- no longer the ordinary $dH_3=0$. The tree-level exchange of $B_2$ then cancels precisely the part of the anomaly that \emph{factorizes} as $\hat I\propto X_4\wedge X_4$ (in 6D) or $X_4\wedge X_8$ (in 10D). The famous \emph{factorization condition} is exactly that, and in six dimensions the gravitational anomaly additionally enforces the celebrated counting $n_H-n_V+29\,n_T=273$ on the hypermultiplet, vector, and tensor content.

\paragraph{The decisive reading.} One does not \emph{choose} to add $B_2$; one is \emph{compelled} to, because without it the gravity-coupled chiral theory is anomalous and therefore mathematically inconsistent. The ordinary Bianchi identity of the Standard Model is thereby \emph{promoted} --- not replaced, promoted --- to a Green--Schwarz--modified Bianchi identity. In exactly that sense, \emph{gravity forces the modified Bianchi identity}. The graduate student should pause on the economy of it: the Standard Model already has all the gauge curvature it needs; switching on gravity adds one curvature ($\operatorname{tr}R^2$) and, to keep the chiral books balanced, one tensor field ($B_2$). The modified Bianchi identity \eqref{eq:modified-bianchi} is the entire price of admission.

\paragraph{The boundary view: anomaly inflow.} \GG{} localizes the chiral Standard-Model fermions on the 4D boundary of the bulk. The fully rigorous statement of the same physics is then \emph{anomaly inflow} \citep{CallanHarvey1985}: the boundary chiral anomaly is exactly canceled by an inflow of anomaly from the bulk Chern--Simons coupling associated with $H_3$. The boundary current's apparent non-conservation is restored by a current that flows in from the extra dimensions. This is why the bulk modified Bianchi identity and the boundary projection $\OGGEP$ ($\pi:\cM_6\to\cM_4$) are two faces of one consistency requirement, rather than two independent postulates.

\subsection{\texorpdfstring{$\BIsix$}{BI-6}: the \GG{} instance, and how it forces the integers}
\label{ssec:bi6-forces-integers}

\GGTheory's $\BIsix$ is the modified Bianchi identity \eqref{eq:modified-bianchi}, written on the $(4{+}2)=6$D bulk with a \emph{specific} coefficient structure. With the canonical bulk gauge--gravity group $G_\Bulk=\Spinone\times\SUfive\times\UoneB\times\UoneQi$, the four-form is
\begin{equation}
X_4\;=\;\operatorname{tr}R^2-\Tr F_5^2-\tfrac{2}{5}F_B^2-\tfrac{2}{5}F_{Qi}^2,
\qquad (a,b,c,d)=\big(1,\,-1,\,-\tfrac{2}{5},\,-\tfrac{2}{5}\big),
\label{eq:bi6-x4-recall}
\end{equation}
the coefficient vector proved in Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs} and shown to give single-tensor anomaly factorization in Theorem~\ref{thm:anomaly-factorization}. What turns mere \emph{consistency} into \emph{prediction} is that the factorization condition in this rank-one, non-supersymmetric 6D setting is arithmetically rigid. The dual lock with the closure-index clause and the block embedding forces $N=N_c=3$, and the trace-ratio identity $-(L-N)/L=-\tfrac{2}{5}$ at $L=5$ returns the same integer as an independent check; $J=2N+1=7$; the dual-lock closes at $K=LJ=M^2+N^2+L^2=35$; and the \OGNfive{} ledger $(M,N,L;J,K)=(1,3,5;7,35)$ follows as a theorem (Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade}), with the integer skeleton of the fine-structure constant $\alpha^{-1}(0)=2^J+N^2=137$ as a downstream consequence.

The contrast with the four-dimensional Standard Model could not be sharper, and it is worth stating as a slogan: \emph{in 4D the Green--Schwarz factorization is not needed; in 6D-with-gravity it is mandatory; and in \GG{} the same factorization that string theory uses merely to survive its anomalies is used to derive integers.} The tensor field $B_2$ that the modification introduces is, read one categorical level up, a \emph{gerbe} (a bundle gerbe with Dixmier--Douady class in $H^3$), and $\BIsix$ is its Chern--Weil identity --- the precise topological statement worked out in \citet{ArisakaA3BI6}. The conceptual jump from the Standard Model to \GG{} is, in one sentence, the jump from a \emph{bundle} (ordinary Bianchi, $DF=0$) to a \emph{2-bundle} (modified Bianchi, $dH_3=X_4$).

\subsection{Closing the gauge group: \texorpdfstring{$\SUfive$}{SU(5)} by Wilson lines, and the two Abelian factors}
\label{ssec:closing-group}

Two finishing moves complete the gauge sector, and both are \emph{consequences} of the anomaly-plus-arithmetic bookkeeping rather than free choices.

\paragraph{Unification $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)\to\SUfive$ --- but not the 1974 GUT.} $\SUfive$ \citep{GeorgiGlashow1974} is the smallest simple group containing $G_{\mathrm{SM}}$, with one generation in $\overline{\mathbf 5}\oplus\mathbf{10}$ (itself anomaly-free). In \GG{} it is the \emph{bulk} gauge group, and this is the decisive difference from the grand unified theories that defined --- and, for a generation of experimentalists, cost --- the last fifty years:
\begin{quote}
\GG's $\SUfive$ is broken \emph{geometrically}, by a Wilson-line / Hosotani holonomy on $S^1_\theta$ \citep{Hosotani1983,Kawamura2001,HallNomura2001}, not by a four-dimensional adjoint Higgs.
\end{quote}
The two famous payoffs of geometric (orbifold / Wilson-line) breaking are exactly the cures for the diseases of 4D $SU(5)$: \emph{doublet--triplet splitting} becomes automatic from the boundary conditions, with no fine-tuning of a $\mathbf{24}$; and the dangerous $X,Y$-boson and color-triplet-Higgs operators that mediate proton decay are projected out or lifted to the bulk scale. The reader who has internalized that the historical $SU(5)$ predicted proton decay at a rate now excluded should note carefully: \emph{this} $SU(5)$ does not, because its breaking is a holonomy rather than a vacuum expectation value, and \GG{} further gauges $\UoneB$ to make the proton exactly stable. The empirical signature of unification is therefore not dimension-six proton decay but a clustered Kaluza--Klein resonance near $\Mlock\simeq 3.85$~TeV --- the standing GG-P falsifier.

\paragraph{The two Abelian factors and the four-component bulk.} The full bulk gauge--gravity content is
\begin{equation}
G_\Bulk\;=\;\Spinone\times\SUfive\times\UoneB\times\UoneQi,
\label{eq:gbulk-recall}
\end{equation}
where $\Spinone$ is the 6D Lorentz (gravity) sector and the two extra Abelians are selected by the \emph{same} \OGNfive{} dual-lock: $K=35$ closes arithmetically only for the four-component case under equal-Abelian treatment, and $\UoneQi$ is the host symmetry of the boundary Arisaka equation $J_E/\QB=J_e=J_B=J_{Qi}$ (Theorem~\ref{thm:arisaka-equation}; constitutionally optional, empirically preferred), while $\UoneB$ completes the anomaly and integer bookkeeping on the bulk side and gauges baryon number for absolute proton stability. None of these is a continuous knob; each is forced by consistency or pinned by data, with zero continuous freedom. This completes $\GG$: every ingredient entered because anomaly cancellation or the Diophantine lock demanded it.

\subsection{The completed logical flow, and an honest ledger}
\label{ssec:completed-flow}

We can now restate the chain \eqref{eq:sm-to-gg6-chain} at full rigor.

\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=2em]
\item \textbf{QED is a connection on a $U(1)$-bundle (LGI) evolving along a scale direction (RG).} Both pillars are geometric; \GG{} promotes each to a dimension --- the gauge phase to a compact circle $S^1_\theta$ (reversible $U(1)$ holonomy), the RG scale to a radial interval $I_r$ (irreversible semigroup).
\item \textbf{The Standard Model is a connection on a non-Abelian bundle}, with the ordinary Bianchi identity $DF=0$ automatic and the chiral anomalies canceling by fermion content --- two \emph{logically independent} facts.
\item \textbf{Coupling to gravity in the 6D bulk forces the Green--Schwarz--modified Bianchi identity} $dH_3=X_4=\BIsix$, because the gravitational and mixed anomalies cancel only through a tensor field $B_2$ (a gerbe). The ordinary Bianchi identity is \emph{promoted}, not replaced.
\item \textbf{Arithmetic rigidity, Wilson-line $\SUfive$, and the two forced Abelians complete $\GG$}, with proton decay geometrically suppressed and every dimensionless constant fixed.
\end{enumerate}

To keep this a scientific statement and not a slogan, five debts must be paid in the open --- and each is a place where the precise claim is \emph{stronger} than the loose one:

\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=2em]
\item \textbf{The scale fiber is a semigroup, not a principal bundle} (\S\ref{ssec:two-fibers}). The right unification of the two fibers is ``two connections on the bulk, one reversible and one irreversible.''
\item \textbf{The Green--Schwarz mechanism is forced by the 6D-plus-gravity completion, not by the Standard Model itself.} The load-bearing technical claim is that the 6D anomaly polynomial factorizes exactly for the \GG{} content and forces the \OGNfive{} integers; that computation \citep{ArisakaA3BI6} is where the ``no free parameters'' claim ultimately cashes out, and it must be airtight and stated before contact with data, not retrofit.
\item \textbf{$\SUfive$ must be Wilson-line broken}, or proton decay returns; the geometric breaking and its proton-stability consequence are treated in \citet{ArisakaA9SM}.
\item \textbf{``Coupling to gravity'' here means the bulk geometry with induced $G_N$ and a UV endpoint at $\EGUT$}, not a perturbative quantum graviton or a claim of full ultraviolet-complete quantum gravity. This is arguably an advantage --- it is the more modest and more testable claim --- but it is a \emph{different} claim and must be labeled as such.
\item \textbf{The tensor field is rigorously a gerbe} (a higher bundle). ``Fiber bundle'' is the right intuition for the gauge sector; the modified-Bianchi sector lives one categorical level up, and saying so \emph{strengthens} the rigor \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}.
\end{enumerate}

The single sentence to carry away is this: \emph{the Standard Model already is fiber-bundle geometry; $\GG$ is what that geometry becomes the moment one demands that it be anomaly-free in the presence of gravity. The Green--Schwarz--modified Bianchi identity is not an addition to the Standard Model --- it is the Standard Model's bundle geometry, completed.}

\subsection{A note on method: the bottom-up complement to the constitutional top-down}
\label{ssec:two-roads}

It is worth pausing on what this section has done differently from the rest of the paper, because the difference is itself instructive. Parts~I and~II proceed \emph{top-down}: they begin from the \GGConstitution{} --- the four axioms \AX{1}--\AX{4} and the seven postulates \POS{1}--\POS{7} --- and derive the 6D bulk as a theorem. That is the order of \emph{justification}, and it is indispensable: it is what makes \GG{} a deductive system in the Euclidean sense rather than a model assembled by hand, and it is what licenses the claim that the bulk is \emph{forced}, not chosen. The present section has traveled in the opposite direction, \emph{bottom-up}: it began from physics the reader already trusts --- QED, the Standard Model, general relativity --- and showed that following their own internal logic, one consistency requirement at a time, arrives at the very same bulk.

This bottom-up road is the one along which physics is actually learned. An undergraduate meets Newton's laws, then Maxwell's equations; a graduate student then meets special and then general relativity, and then quantum field theory --- each layer reached not by decree but by pushing the previous layer until it forces the next. Special relativity is what Maxwell's equations demand once one takes the invariance of $c$ seriously; general relativity is what special relativity and the equivalence principle demand once gravitation is included; the gauge principle is what charge conservation and locality demand. The argument of this section is of exactly that traditional kind: \emph{the 6D bulk is what the Standard Model and general relativity demand once one insists that their shared fiber-bundle geometry remain anomaly-free in each other's presence}. No new metaphysics is imposed; one only declines to stop where the Standard Model conventionally stops.

The two roads are complementary, and they meet at the same object. The constitutional top-down road proves \emph{uniqueness} and the absence of free parameters --- it shows that nothing else could have been chosen. The pedagogical bottom-up road supplies \emph{conviction} and \emph{continuity} --- it shows that nothing exotic was chosen, that \GG{} is the natural next step in the same century-long sequence (Newton $\to$ Maxwell $\to$ Einstein $\to$ Yang--Mills $\to$ \GG) by which physics has always advanced. A reader unmoved by an axiomatic charter alone, and a reader suspicious of a bottom-up narrative alone, may both be persuaded by the two together: the Constitution says \GG{} is forced from first principles, and the present section says \GG{} is where one inevitably arrives by refusing to halt at the Standard Model's edge. Same destination, two roads --- and a foundational theory is on its firmest ground when the deductive and the pedagogical routes coincide.

\GGPart[GG-Theory vs Superstring Theory]{GG-Theory vs.\ Superstring Theory}{A Systematic Structural Comparison}
\noindent
Two houses can be built on the same foundation stone and still be different
houses. Part~IV is about a foundation stone this framework shares with
superstring theory, and about the beam laid across it that the two programs
place differently.

The shared stone is the Green--Schwarz mechanism of 1984: the observation that
a certain quantum inconsistency in a higher-dimensional theory can be cured if
the field strength of a two-form obeys a modified identity, with the cure and
the disease locked together by geometry. That idea is not borrowed here and is
not disputed. It belongs to the whole subject.

What differs is four structural decisions taken immediately afterwards, and
Part~IV takes them one at a time. Whether the extra dimensions are places or
not. Where the four-dimensional description is supposed to stop. Whether the
framework is allowed to contain an enormous space of equally good solutions.
And whether the map from the higher-dimensional theory to the world an
experimenter registers preserves all the information or throws some away.

None of this is a claim that the superstring program is mistaken. It is a
claim that the two programs answer four specific questions differently, that
the answers can be written down and compared, and that comparing them is more
useful than comparing achievements. A framework is characterized as much by
what it is unable to say as by what it predicts, and the four differences here
are differences in what each program leaves unsayable.

\label{part:vs-strings}

\section{Introduction to Part~IV: Shared Heritage, Distinct Commitments}
\label{sec:partIV-intro}

The most natural critic community for any 6D gauge--gravity framework is the superstring-theory community. This is unavoidable, and we welcome it: the technical infrastructure of \GGTheory{} --- the Green--Schwarz modified Bianchi identity, the anomaly polynomial in characteristic-class language, the extra dimension, the radial-as-RG-flow reading --- is in large part inherited from six decades of work in the string-theory tradition. We owe an explicit intellectual debt to that tradition, and the present Part is the place where we make that debt visible while at the same time explaining why \GGTheory{} commits to four additional constitutional clauses that move it outside the standard string-theory paradigm.

\paragraph{The structure of this Part.} We organize the comparison in eight sections, mirroring the eight-Part architecture of the paper itself.

\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=2em]
\item \textbf{\S\ref{sec:partIV-intro} (the present section).} Frames the comparison: what is shared, what is added, and how to read the rest.
\item \textbf{\S\ref{sec:gs-ggep}.} The shared origin. The original 1984 Green--Schwarz modified Bianchi identity is, in our reading, the historical seed of \AX{2} (\GGEP). The AdS/CFT correspondence is its boundary-side echo. \BIsix{} is the rank-one 6D non-supersymmetric refinement of the same geometric move.
\item \textbf{\S\ref{sec:four-obstructions}.} The four constitutional obstructions. Following the framework of \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution} (Chart~13), we identify exactly four obstructions that would have to be removed for a superstring construction to ascend to the same constitutional stratum as \GGTheory: a missing \AX{4} restriction on supersymmetry; a missing \AX{4} restriction on the bulk dimension; a missing \AX{4} restriction on the gauge content; and a missing \AX{3} for the operational projection.
\item \textbf{\S\ref{sec:extra-dims-vs}.} Extra dimensions. The most consequential conceptual difference between the two frameworks: in string theory, all extra dimensions are spatial Kaluza--Klein directions with intrinsic Riemannian length; in \GGTheory, the radial direction is \emph{RG-scale} and the angular direction is a \emph{topological circle} with no intrinsic length.
\item \textbf{\S\ref{sec:uv-end-vs}.} The UV-end question. The string-theory program treats the Planck scale as the cutoff where the 4D quantum-field-theory description fails and a string-theoretic UV completion takes over. \GGTheory{} treats $E_{\mathrm{GUT}}$ at the UV boundary $r=0$ as the cutoff of the 4D boundary description; the bulk 6D theory takes over above that scale; $M_{\mathrm{Pl}} \sim M_6$ is the bulk Einstein--Hilbert anchor, not a 4D QFT cutoff.
\item \textbf{\S\ref{sec:anti-landscape}.} The anti-landscape. The string landscape contains $\sim 10^{500}$ inequivalent vacua from continuous moduli and flux choices. The \OGNfive{} Diophantine cascade plus \AX{4} (\MSMF) collapses \GGTheory's analogous moduli space to a single point in dimensionless directions, with the integer ledger $(M, N, L; J, K) = (1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$ as the discrete remainder.
\item \textbf{\S\ref{sec:oggep-vs-adscft}.} The decisive structural difference: \OGGEP{} versus AdS/CFT. The AdS/CFT correspondence is a unitary bulk--boundary \emph{duality}; the two descriptions carry equivalent information. \OGGEP{} is a CPTP bulk-to-boundary \emph{projection}; bulk information is irreversibly traced out at the boundary. That is the structural ingredient allowing \GGTheory{} to derive the measurement structure of quantum mechanics, and it is the one no current branch of string theory has adopted.
\item \textbf{\S\ref{sec:synthesis-vs}.} Synthesis: an invitation to engage. We close by mapping what is shared, what is added, and what is empirically exposed. The integer-discrete predictions $K = 35$, $\Mlock \approx 3.85$~TeV, $J = 7$, and $\alpha^{-1}(0) = 137$ (at the leading-order \OGN{} level) are the framework's standing offer to the string-theory community to be wrong, in specific ways, at specific experiments.
\end{enumerate}

\paragraph{Seven structural points at a glance.} Before we begin the systematic comparison, we record the seven structural points that organize the Part. Each point will be developed in detail in the sections below, with derivations, equations, and physical intuition. We state them here in their most compact form so the reader can hold the whole comparison in mind.

\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=2em, label=\textbf{Point \arabic*.}]
\item The original 10D superstring of \citet{GreenSchwarz1984} is built around a modified Bianchi identity. The Bianchi identity is a purely geometric constraint that delivers anomaly freedom. We read this as a contribution to \AX{2} (\GGEP, the geometrization of the gauge field) rather than as a contribution to the quantization of gravity. Superstring theory geometrizes the gauge field on a 10D background, just as \GGTheory{} geometrizes it on a 6D background.
\item The AdS/CFT correspondence of \citet{Maldacena1998} also belongs to \AX{2} (\GGEP) on its bulk side: it is a duality between two geometrically formulated theories, both unitary, both information-preserving. It is \emph{not} an instance of \AX{3} (\OGGEP), which requires an irreversible coarse-graining projection. The uniqueness of \GG{}'s combination with \OGGEP{} therefore lies entirely outside the AdS/CFT framework.
\item Superstring theory is fundamentally a perturbative completion of 4D quantum field theory: extended objects (strings, branes) provide a UV regularization of point-particle QFT. Even though string theory introduces extra dimensions, those dimensions are spatial Kaluza--Klein directions with intrinsic length. In \GGTheory, by contrast, the two extra dimensions are \emph{not} spatial: $I_r$ carries the renormalization-group flow, and $S^1_\theta$ is a topological circle. Particles remain point objects, consistent with \AX{1} (\LC).
\item The consequence is that string theory takes the 4D QFT description to be valid up to the Planck scale, where it then requires that gravity itself be quantized on equal footing with the gauge sector. \GGTheory{} does not start from 4D QFT. It starts from a 6D bulk theory and projects to a 4D boundary theory through \OGGEP{}. The bulk RG-scale direction $I_r$ runs a depth $K = 35$, from
$r = 0$ at $\mu = E_{\mathrm{GUT}}$ down to $r = K$; above $E_{\mathrm{GUT}}$ the 4D QFT description simply does not extend. The Planck mass is the bulk Einstein--Hilbert dimensional anchor $M_6$, not a 4D cutoff.
\item The original superstring formulation must assume supersymmetry to achieve anomaly cancellation through the gravitino multiplet. \GGTheory{} does not require supersymmetry; \AX{4} (\MSMF) actively excludes it as unforced. The deeper reason this is consistent --- that \GG{} never attempts the spacetime/internal symmetry fusion the Coleman--Mandula theorem forbids, so it needs no supersymmetry to evade it --- is given in Objection~34 of Part~\ref{sec:common-objections}.
\item The original superstring formulation is 10D (or 11D for M-theory), which introduces a large number of compact extra dimensions whose moduli are not fixed by any first principle. \GGTheory{} is 6D with exactly two well-defined extra directions (one non-compact RG-scale, one topological compact); higher dimensions are excluded by \AX{4} (\MSMF).
\item The original superstring formulation requires gauge groups $\SO(32)$ or $E_8 \times E_8$, both of which are far larger than the Standard Model needs. \GGTheory{} contains $\SU(5) \times \U(1)_B \times \U(1)_{Qi}$, the minimal forced gauge content consistent with the Standard-Model embedding, baryon-number gauging for absolute proton stability, and the optional informational sector.
\end{enumerate}

\paragraph{What this Part is not.} We emphasize at the outset that this Part is not a criticism of string theory's intellectual program. String theory has produced a vast and beautiful mathematical superstructure --- the Green--Schwarz mechanism, mirror symmetry, AdS/CFT, the F-theory / heterotic landscape classification, the differential-cohomology refinement of anomaly inflow, the worldsheet formulation of conformal field theory, the recent islands program --- and \GGTheory{} benefits at every turn from concepts that the string-theory community has developed. Our claim is narrower: that the combination of \AX{3} (\OGGEP), \AX{4} (\MSMF), and \POS{6} (\OGN) makes \GGTheory{} a different kind of theory than any current string construction, and that the differences are substantive enough to deserve their own dedicated Part rather than scattered remarks. The string-theory community is invited to assess the construction on its own terms and to test it against the integer-discrete predictions cataloged in Parts~V and~VI.

\paragraph{Notation and conventions.} Throughout this Part we use the canonical \GGTheory{} conventions of Theorems~\ref{thm:dim-minimal} through \ref{thm:arisaka-equation} of Part~II. The bulk manifold is $\cM_6 = \cM_4 \times I_r \times S^1_\theta$ with metric $ds_6^2 = e^{-2r}\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu + dr^2 + d\theta^2$, $r \in [0, K]$, $\theta \in [0, 2\pi)$. The bulk gauge--gravity group is $G_\Bulk = \Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$, with the four factors listed in the canonical order in which their curvatures enter the modified Bianchi identity $\BIsix$. The $\BIsix$ coefficient vector is $(a, b, c, d) = (1, -1, -2/5, -2/5)$, and the four-form is $X_4 = \tr R^2 - \Tr F_5^2 - \tfrac{2}{5} F_B^2 - \tfrac{2}{5} F_{Qi}^2$. The \OGNfive{} integer ledger is $(M, N, L; J, K) = (1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$. When we discuss superstring constructions we use the conventional notation of \citet{GreenSchwarz1984}, \citet{Polchinski1998a, Polchinski1998b}, and \citet{Maldacena1998}.

\section{The Shared Origin: The Green--Schwarz Modified Bianchi Identity Belongs to \GGEP}
\label{sec:gs-ggep}

The historical seed of \BIsix{} is the 1984 Green--Schwarz modified Bianchi identity of 10D heterotic / Type I superstring theory. We open Part~IV by acknowledging this debt and by showing that \BIsix{} stands in direct lineage to the original GS mechanism --- the same conceptual move, refined to 6D, made non-supersymmetric, made rank-one, and given a constitutional foundation in \AX{2} (\GGEP). That the mechanism generalizes beyond its original setting is not a claim of this paper: \citet{Sagnotti1992} carried it into open string theories, and the single-tensor form used here is a further specialization of the same idea rather than a new one.

\subsection{The 1984 Green--Schwarz mechanism as a geometric move}
\label{ssec:gs-1984}

\citet{GreenSchwarz1984} discovered that the 10D heterotic / Type I anomaly polynomial $I_{12}$ for either gauge group $\SO(32)$ or $E_8 \times E_8$ factorizes as
\begin{equation}
I_{12}^{\mathrm{GS}}(R, F) \;=\; X_4(R, F) \,\wedge\, X_8(R, F),
\label{eq:gs-1984-factorisation}
\end{equation}
where the four-form $X_4$ is of the schematic form
\begin{equation}
X_4^{\mathrm{GS}} \;=\; \tr R^2 \,-\, \tfrac{1}{30}\,\Tr F^2,
\label{eq:gs-1984-x4}
\end{equation}
and $X_8$ is a more elaborate eight-form built from $\tr R^2$, $\tr R^4$, $\Tr F^2$, and $\Tr F^4$ with specific coefficients fixed by the gauge group. The modified Bianchi identity is then
\begin{equation}
dH_3^{\mathrm{GS}} \;=\; X_4^{\mathrm{GS}}(R, F),
\label{eq:gs-1984-bianchi}
\end{equation}
where $H_3 = dB_2 + (\text{Chern--Simons forms})$ and $B_2$ is the rank-two antisymmetric tensor (the ``$B$-field''). The Green--Schwarz term $S_{\mathrm{GS}} = \int B_2 \wedge X_8$ then cancels the residual one-loop variation of the chiral fermion determinant via anomaly inflow through the single tensor sector $B_2$.

\paragraph{Physical intuition: why this is geometric, not field-theoretic.} The crucial conceptual move of \eqref{eq:gs-1984-bianchi} is that it ties the gravitational curvature $R$ and the gauge field strength $F$ together inside a single closed differential form. In ordinary 4D quantum field theory, gravity and gauge interactions belong to different ontological sectors: gravity is the curvature of an a priori spacetime background, while gauge fields are internal symmetries layered on top. The Green--Schwarz mechanism dissolves this distinction in 10D by stating that the gauge curvature and the gravitational curvature must enter the same topological constraint --- they are tied at the level of differential geometry, not at the level of perturbative Lagrangian coupling. Here is the historical seed of the idea that gravity and gauge structure are not separate fundamental sectors but two projections of one geometric object, an idea that \AX{2} (\GGEP) of \GGTheory{} then promotes to a constitutional axiom.

\subsection{\BIsix{} as the rank-one 6D refinement of the Green--Schwarz pattern}
\label{ssec:bi6-as-refinement}

Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs} of Part~II derives the \GGTheory{} modified Bianchi identity
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;dH_3 \;=\; X_4 \;=\; \tr(R \wedge R) \;-\; \Tr(F_5 \wedge F_5) \;-\; \tfrac{2}{5}\,F_B \wedge F_B \;-\; \tfrac{2}{5}\,F_{Qi} \wedge F_{Qi},\;}
\label{eq:bi6-recap}
\end{equation}
and Theorem~\ref{thm:anomaly-factorization} demonstrates that the 6D anomaly polynomial factorizes as a \emph{perfect square}:
\begin{equation}
I_8 \;=\; \tfrac{1}{2}\,X_4 \wedge X_4.
\label{eq:bi6-perfect-square}
\end{equation}

It is the same conceptual move as \eqref{eq:gs-1984-factorisation}--\eqref{eq:gs-1984-bianchi}, lifted to 6D and made more rigid. Specifically:

\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em, itemsep=0.20em]
\item \textbf{Same algebraic move:} both \eqref{eq:gs-1984-bianchi} and \eqref{eq:bi6-recap} are differential identities tying gauge field strengths and gravitational curvatures together via a single tensor sector $H_3 = dB_2 + \ldots$ and a single closed four-form $X_4$ on the right-hand side.
\item \textbf{Same anomaly-inflow purpose:} both mechanisms cancel chiral-fermion anomalies through anomaly inflow rather than through fermion-spectrum cancellation alone.
\item \textbf{Different factorization type:} \eqref{eq:gs-1984-factorisation} is a \emph{product} factorization $X_4 \wedge X_8$ in 10D; \eqref{eq:bi6-perfect-square} is a \emph{perfect square} $\tfrac12 X_4 \wedge X_4$ in 6D. The perfect-square structure is more rigid: all gauge and mixed gravitational anomalies sit on a single ray in anomaly space, with no room for separate rank-2 or higher-rank tensor channels.
\item \textbf{Different coefficient vector:} \eqref{eq:gs-1984-x4} has the GS coefficient $-1/30$ between the $\tr R^2$ and $\Tr F^2$ terms (forced by the embedding of the gauge bundle into $\SO(32)$ or $E_8 \times E_8$); \eqref{eq:bi6-recap} has the \OGN-fixed primitive vector $(1, -1, -2/5, -2/5)$ across four sectors (gravity, $\SUfive$, $\UoneB$, $\UoneQi$). In \GGTheory{} this vector is forced by the $\SUfive$ representation-theoretic trace ratio $\Tr(B_0^2)/\Tr(Y_0^2) = 2/5$ (Lemma~\ref{lem:trace-ratio-25}) together with \AX{4} (\MSMF) and \POS{6} (\OGN); in superstring theory the analogous coefficient is fixed instead by the geometry of the heterotic compactification.
\item \textbf{Different supersymmetry status:} the GS mechanism in 10D requires $\cN = 1$ supersymmetry; the gravitational anomaly is canceled by the supergravity multiplet including the gravitino. \BIsix{} in 6D works without supersymmetry: the chiral-fermion content is the Standard-Model embedding into $\bar{\mathbf 5} \oplus \mathbf{10}$ of $\SUfive$ (per generation) plus the necessary spectator multiplets, and the gravitational anomaly cancels through the single-tensor inflow with no superpartners involved. This non-supersymmetric implementation of the GS pattern is the substantive technical content of \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}.
\end{itemize}

\paragraph{Physical intuition: \BIsix{} is the 6D non-supersymmetric refinement.} If one thinks of the 1984 GS mechanism as the first instance of ``put gravity and gauge into one closed differential form'' in physics, then \BIsix{} is its rank-one 6D non-supersymmetric crystallization. The 10D form is more flexible because it operates in a larger dimensional space and admits a more general factorization pattern $X_4 \wedge X_8$; this flexibility is also what produces the string landscape, because many different combinations of $X_4$ and $X_8$ are admissible depending on the compactification. The 6D rank-one form is tighter: the single $X_4$ ties four sectors together with a fixed coefficient vector, and the OGN-5 integer ledger pins those coefficients to their unique \OGN-primitive values.

\subsection{The AdS/CFT correspondence as \GGEP{} content on the bulk side}
\label{ssec:adscft-ggep}

A second strand of the string-theory tradition that belongs structurally to \AX{2} (\GGEP) is the AdS/CFT correspondence introduced by \citet{Maldacena1998}. In its original form, AdS/CFT proposes a duality between Type IIB superstring theory on $\mathrm{AdS}_5 \times S^5$ (a bulk gravitational theory) and $\cN = 4$ super-Yang--Mills theory on the 4D conformal boundary of $\mathrm{AdS}_5$ (a boundary conformal field theory). The deeper structural claim is that the bulk gravitational dynamics and the boundary CFT carry equivalent information --- bulk observables can be reconstructed from boundary data, and vice versa.

In our language, this is a \emph{duality of two \GGEP-compatible theories}. Both the bulk Type IIB and the boundary $\cN=4$ SYM are unitary geometrically-formulated theories; both arise from geometric structures (a 10D superstring bulk and a 4D conformal field theory). AdS/CFT therefore lives entirely on the \AX{2} (\GGEP) layer of the \GGTheory{} stratum.

\paragraph{Physical intuition: AdS/CFT is duality between two geometric descriptions.} The reader can think of AdS/CFT as analogous to the Fourier-transform relationship between position-space and momentum-space wave functions: the two descriptions look formally different, but they carry exactly the same physical information, and either can be reconstructed from the other. A duality is defined by that property: it is a change of language, not a loss of information. No physical content disappears in the translation between bulk and boundary; the two are equivalent.

This is structurally distinct from \OGGEP{}, which we will examine in detail in \S\ref{sec:oggep-vs-adscft}. \OGGEP{} is not a duality but a one-way coarse-graining projection that traces out fine-grained bulk degrees of freedom. Information \emph{is} lost in the \OGGEP{} map; the boundary description is not equivalent to the bulk but is the irreversible image of the bulk under partial trace. This difference --- duality versus irreversible projection --- is the decisive structural ingredient that allows \GGTheory{} to ground the measurement structure of quantum mechanics in geometry, and that AdS/CFT, by its own internal logic, cannot ground. We will return to this point in detail.

\subsection{Where the shared heritage ends and the \GGTheory{} additions begin}
\label{ssec:where-additions-begin}

Putting the three precedents together, the string-theory tradition supplies \GGTheory{} with three structural ingredients:

\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=2em]
\item From \citet{GreenSchwarz1984}: the idea that gauge and gravitational curvatures must sit in a single closed differential form, and that anomaly cancellation can proceed via inflow through a tensor sector. \AX{2} (\GGEP) has its historical seed there.
\item From \citet{Kaluza1921, Klein1926, RandallSundrum1999}: the idea that 4D physics can be the boundary projection of a higher-dimensional theory with one or more extra dimensions. The dimensional structure of \GG{} has its historical seed there.
\item From \citet{Maldacena1998} and the holographic-renormalization program of \citet{deBoer1999, Skenderis2002, Papadimitriou2010}: the idea that the radial direction in a bulk can be interpreted as a renormalization-group flow coordinate of the boundary theory. \POS{5} (\RG), in its geometric form, has its historical seed there.
\end{enumerate}

These are real intellectual debts, and \GGTheory{} would not have been formulable without them. The additions that \GGTheory{} makes beyond this heritage are four substantive constitutional commitments, which we organize in \S\ref{sec:four-obstructions} below as the four obstructions that would have to be removed for any string construction to ascend to the constitutional stratum of \GGTheory.

\section{The Four Constitutional Obstructions: Chart 13 of \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution}}
\label{sec:four-obstructions}

\citep{ArisakaA1Constitution} Chart~13 identifies four specific constitutional obstructions that prevent superstring theory from ascending to the same constitutional stratum as \GGTheory. In this section we present those four obstructions in compact form, with the technical content unpacked and the political tone calibrated for the present scope-and-limits register. The four obstructions are not failures of the string-theory program; they are precisely the four constitutional commitments that \GGTheory{} adds, and that the string-theory program has so far not adopted.

\subsection{Obstruction 1 --- Supersymmetry as the missing \AX{4} restriction}
\label{ssec:obstruction-susy}

\paragraph{The string-theory commitment.} The original 1984 Green--Schwarz mechanism in 10D requires $\cN = 1$ supersymmetry for the gravitational anomaly to be canceled. Specifically, the anomaly polynomial of the chiral matter (the gauge multiplet plus the supergravity multiplet) factorizes as $I_{12} = X_4 \wedge X_8$ only after the gravitino contribution is included; without supersymmetry, the gravitational sector of $I_{12}$ does not factorize and the GS inflow cannot cancel it. Supersymmetry is therefore not an option in string theory; it is a constitutional requirement of the GS mechanism in the 10D context. In the four decades since GS, this requirement has been generalized: most string-theoretic constructions assume some form of supersymmetry, either $\cN=1$ in 10D or some descendant in 4D (e.g., minimal supersymmetric Standard Model after compactification).

\paragraph{The \GGTheory{} alternative.} \GGTheory{} does not require supersymmetry. The \BIsix{} perfect-square factorization of Theorem~\ref{thm:anomaly-factorization} cancels all gauge and mixed gravitational anomalies in 6D through the single-tensor inflow $S_{\mathrm{GS}} = \int B_2 \wedge X_4$, with the chiral matter content being the Standard-Model embedding into $\bar{\mathbf 5} \oplus \mathbf{10}$ of $\SUfive$ (per generation) plus the appropriate spectator multiplets to saturate the mixed-anomaly coefficients. No gravitino is involved; no superpartner doubling of the fermion content is required.

\paragraph{The constitutional logic.} \AX{4} (\MSMF: Maximum Symmetry, Minimum Freedom) is the constitutional clause that forbids supersymmetry from appearing in \GGTheory{} as an unforced ingredient. Supersymmetry is a continuous symmetry of the action that adds extra structure (the superpartner spectrum, the supersymmetry algebra, the auxiliary fields) not forced by any prior constitutional clause. By \AX{4}, such unforced symmetries are inadmissible.

\paragraph{Physical intuition.} The reader can think of supersymmetry as a useful organizational tool that string theory employs to make anomaly cancellation work in 10D. In 6D with the rank-one perfect-square \BIsix{} factorization, that organizational tool is no longer needed: the anomaly cancellation works directly via the four-component coefficient vector $(1, -1, -2/5, -2/5)$. Supersymmetry would, in the \GGTheory{} context, be an extra ingredient that adds explanatory burden without delivering additional anomaly-cancellation power. \AX{4} is the constitutional clause that says ``don't add ingredients you don't need.''

\paragraph{Empirical exposure.} This obstruction is empirically exposed: searches for superpartners at the LHC \citep{ATLAS2019, CMS2021} have not found any, and the lower bounds on superpartner masses are now in the multi-TeV range. The string-theory program handles this by pushing superpartner masses to high scales (split SUSY, mini-split, etc.) at the cost of accepting fine-tunings that supersymmetry was originally introduced to avoid. \GGTheory{} predicts that no superpartners exist at any scale; the absence-of-evidence at LHC is, in our reading, a consistent (though not yet conclusive) piece of evidence in favor of \AX{4}.

\subsection{Obstruction 2 --- 10D / 11D as the missing \AX{4} restriction on bulk dimension}
\label{ssec:obstruction-dim}

\paragraph{The string-theory commitment.} Critical superstring theory operates in 10D for the perturbative N=1 and N=2 string and 11D for M-theory. These dimensions are forced by the requirement that the worldsheet conformal anomaly vanish: in superstring theory, the conformal anomaly cancels at $D = 10$, and the M-theory dimension $D = 11$ emerges from the strong-coupling limit of Type IIA at $D = 10$. These critical dimensions are not freely chosen; they are forced by the internal consistency of the superstring quantization, and to that extent they share the same kind of structural-forcing logic that \GGTheory{} applies to dimension six.

\paragraph{The \GGTheory{} alternative.} Theorem~\ref{thm:dim-minimal} (Dimensional Minimality) establishes that the \GGTheory{} bulk is exactly six-dimensional, with each dimension carrying a named structural role: four for the registered Lorentzian boundary (forced by \AX{1} and \AX{3}), one for the renormalization-group flow (forced by \POS{5}), and one for the integer Abelian holonomy (forced by \POS{1} and \POS{6}). Higher dimensions would carry additional structural roles not forced by any constitutional clause and are excluded by \AX{4}.

\paragraph{The constitutional logic.} The two frameworks differ at the level of which kind of consistency forces the dimension. Superstring theory's $D = 10$ is forced by worldsheet conformal anomaly cancellation: the dimension is fixed by an internal consistency condition of the perturbative string. \GGTheory's $D = 6$ is forced by the count of constitutional structural roles: the dimension is fixed by the count of independent structural functions the bulk must carry. Both are forcing arguments, but they appeal to different kinds of necessity.

\paragraph{Why \AX{4} eliminates the higher dimensions.} Even granting that string theory's $D = 10$ is forced by worldsheet consistency, the four (in 10D) or seven (in 11D) compact extra dimensions beyond the 4D boundary carry continuous moduli (Calabi--Yau moduli, $G_2$-holonomy data, brane positions) that are not forced by the constitutional clauses of \GGTheory. By \AX{4} (\MSMF), these moduli are inadmissible: every continuous parameter of the framework must be forced by an explicit constitutional clause, and the moduli of Calabi--Yau compactification are unforced.

\paragraph{Physical intuition.} The reader can think of the string-theoretic critical dimension as ``the dimension where the worldsheet conformal-anomaly equation balances.'' This is a strong consistency requirement on the worldsheet description of the string, and it correctly forces $D = 10$. But the worldsheet description, although mathematically beautiful, is not the only available consistency requirement on a higher-dimensional gauge-gravity framework. \GGTheory{} replaces the worldsheet-conformal-anomaly consistency with a different but equally constraining requirement: that the bulk dimension count equal the number of named constitutional structural roles. This different requirement forces $D = 6$ rather than $D = 10$, and it avoids the moduli problem at the cost of giving up the worldsheet picture entirely.

\subsection{Obstruction 3 --- $\SO(32)$ and $E_8 \times E_8$ as the missing \AX{4} restriction on gauge content}
\label{ssec:obstruction-gauge}

\paragraph{The string-theory commitment.} The 1984 Green--Schwarz mechanism in 10D allows the gauge group to be either $\SO(32)$ (Type I, heterotic SO) or $E_8 \times E_8$ (heterotic $E$), both of which have dimension 496 (the rank-15 $\SO(32)$ and the rank-16 $E_8 \times E_8$). These are the only two gauge groups for which the GS factorization $I_{12} = X_4 \wedge X_8$ closes consistently with 10D anomaly freedom. At a technical level, this is a remarkable constraint: among the infinite family of compact simple Lie groups, only two admit the GS factorization, and they happen to be the two largest of dimension 496.

\paragraph{The \GGTheory{} alternative.} The eleven-dimensional route, in which the five superstring theories appear as limits of a single higher-dimensional theory \citep{Schwarz1995}, moves in the opposite direction from the one taken here: it enlarges the arena to unify the alternatives, where the constitution shrinks it until only one survives. Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces} (Six Forces) and Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade} (\OGNfive{} Diophantine Cascade) together force the \GGTheory{} bulk gauge group to be $\Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$. The dimensions of the four factors are 15, 24, 1, and 1, for a total of 41 gauge generators. This is more than an order of magnitude smaller than the string-theoretic 496.

\paragraph{The arithmetic forcing.} The forcing argument for $\SUfive$ runs through the dual lock, with the \BIsix{} trace ratio as its check. The Abelian coefficient $c$ in \BIsix{} is $-2/5$, which is the trace ratio $\Tr(B_0^2)/\Tr(Y_0^2) = (L-N)/L = 2/5$ in the $\mathbf 5$ of $\SUfive$ (Lemma~\ref{lem:trace-ratio-25}). That identity is homogeneous and admits the whole integer family $L = 5k$, $N = 3k$ for $k \in \mathbb{Z}_{>0}$; what closes it to a point is the dual lock, which at $M = 1$ requires $N = L - \sqrt{L-1}$ and so forces $4k^2 - 5k + 1 = 0$ and $k = 1$, giving $L = 5$ and $N = 3$ (\S\ref{ssec:ogn5-cascade-summary}). Larger choices $k = 2$ (giving $\SU(10)$ with a 6-dimensional color block) or $k = 3$ (giving $\SU(15)$ with a 9-dimensional color block) satisfy the trace-ratio identity but fail the dual lock outright; they do not survive to the point where a minimality clause would have to be invoked against them.

\paragraph{Physical intuition.} String theory's $\SO(32)$ and $E_8 \times E_8$ are the two gauge groups that survive the 10D Green--Schwarz consistency filter at all. Both are very large, and the resulting 4D effective theories require substantial breaking patterns (often through Wilson lines and orbifolds) to reach the Standard-Model gauge group $\SU(3) \times \SU(2) \times \U(1)$. This breaking pattern has continuous moduli (Wilson-line angles, orbifold-fixed-point structure) that are not fixed by first principles, contributing to the string landscape. \GGTheory's $\SUfive$ does the same job (containing $\SU(3) \times \SU(2) \times \U(1)$ as a subgroup, accommodating the Standard-Model fermion content into $\bar{\mathbf 5} \oplus \mathbf{10}$) with a 24-dimensional simple gauge group rather than a 496-dimensional one, and the breaking pattern to $\SU(3) \times \SU(2) \times \U(1)_Y$ is implemented by integer-discrete Hosotani Wilson-line phases (Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade} Step~4 and \citep{Hosotani1983, Kawamura2001}) rather than by continuous moduli. The trade-off is clear: \GGTheory{} uses a smaller gauge group with discrete breaking; string theory uses a larger gauge group with continuous moduli.

\paragraph{Optional fourth factor $\UoneQi$.} Beyond $\Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB$, the \GGTheory{} bulk admits a fourth factor $\UoneQi$ that is not constitutionally forced but is empirically preferred. This factor has no counterpart in conventional string-theoretic SM-like vacua, and its empirical anchor is the energy--information conversion factor $\QB \approx 0.1555$~eV/qubit (Theorem~\ref{thm:arisaka-equation}). The constitutional status of $\UoneQi$ is treated explicitly in \citep{ArisakaA3BI6} and in \S\ref{ssec:obstruction-gauge} above; we mention it here only to keep the four-factor symmetry of the bulk gauge group visible.

\subsection{Obstruction 4 --- The operational projection as the missing \AX{3} structural content}
\label{ssec:obstruction-oggep}

\paragraph{The string-theory commitment.} The string-theory program treats 4D effective field theory as the low-energy limit of the higher-dimensional bulk after compactification. Quantum measurement structure --- the Born rule, the projection postulate, decoherence, einselection --- is taken from the conventional quantum-mechanical formalism and applied to the 4D effective theory as an external layer; it is not derived from the bulk-to-boundary map. This is true of all current branches of string theory, including AdS/CFT, F-theory, and non-supersymmetric heterotic constructions.

\paragraph{The \GGTheory{} alternative.} \AX{3} (\OGGEP) of \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution} states that the bulk-to-boundary map is itself a constitutional axiom of the framework, with the boundary description being the completely-positive trace-preserving (CPTP) channel image of the bulk under partial trace over the inaccessible (radial + angular) bulk degrees of freedom. The measurement structure is therefore not added externally; it is derived from the CPTP structure of the partial-trace projection.

\paragraph{The decisive structural difference.} We will treat this difference in full detail in \S\ref{sec:oggep-vs-adscft}. For the present overview it suffices to say: AdS/CFT and other string-theoretic bulk--boundary constructions are dualities (information preserving, reversible), while \OGGEP{} is a coarse-graining projection (information losing, irreversible). No difference between the two frameworks is sharper, and it is why \GGTheory{} can claim to derive the measurement structure of quantum mechanics while no current branch of string theory can.

\paragraph{Physical intuition.} The reader can think of the string-theoretic 4D effective theory as the result of ``integrating out'' the heavy KK modes and the high-energy string excitations. In this picture, the resulting 4D theory is unitary at the level of its Hilbert space; the measurement problem is then treated by the standard textbook QM apparatus. \GGTheory{} instead treats the bulk-to-boundary map as a CPTP partial trace from the outset: the boundary Hilbert space is not unitary-isomorphic to the bulk Hilbert space; it is the irreversible image of the bulk under the partial trace operation. This is a different starting point, and it is what gives \GGTheory{} the structural ingredient that lets it derive measurement structure as a theorem rather than postulate it as an additional axiom.

\subsection{Summary of the four obstructions}
\label{ssec:obstructions-summary}

Table~\ref{tab:four-obstructions} summarizes the four obstructions compactly, for the reader who wants them at a glance.

\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption[Four constitutional obstructions between this framework and the superstring program.]{The four places where this framework and the superstring program part company, each traced to a specific constitutional clause rather than to a preference. The second column names the clause the string program has not adopted; the third states its commitment; the fourth states the alternative here. The table is written to be checkable in both directions: a reader who thinks an obstruction is not real should be able to name which cell is wrong. Nothing in it disputes any result of the string program, and the contrast is structural throughout.}
\label{tab:four-obstructions}
\small
\begin{tabular}{>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.13\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.21\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.27\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.27\textwidth}}
\toprule
\textbf{Obstruction} & \textbf{Missing clause} & \textbf{String-theory commitment} & \textbf{\GGTheory{} alternative} \\
\midrule
1 & \AX{4} (no \mbox{supersymmetry}) & SUSY required for 10D GS anomaly cancellation via gravitino & 6D rank-one BI-6 cancels anomalies without SUSY \\
2 & \AX{4} (\mbox{dimension} = 6) & 10D/11D forced by worldsheet conformal anomaly & 6D forced by structural-role count \\
3 & \AX{4} (\mbox{gauge content}) & $\SO(32)$ or $E_8 \times E_8$ (dimension 496) & $\Spinone \!\times\! \SUfive \!\times\! \UoneB \!\times\! \UoneQi$ (dimension 41) \\
4 & \AX{3} (\OGGEP) & 4D EFT is unitary; measurement is external & 4D EFT is CPTP image; measurement is theorem \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\section{Spatial Extra Dimensions (Strings) versus Non-Spatial Dimensions (\GGTheory)}
\label{sec:extra-dims-vs}

The most consequential conceptual difference between the two frameworks lies in what the extra dimensions \emph{are}. In string theory, all extra dimensions beyond the 4D boundary are spatial Kaluza--Klein directions with intrinsic Riemannian length scales --- typically of order the Planck length ($\sim 10^{-35}$~m) or the string length ($\sim \sqrt{\alpha'}$). In \GGTheory, neither of the two extra dimensions is spatial: the radial direction $I_r$ carries the renormalization-group flow of the boundary theory, and the compact direction $S^1_\theta$ is a topological circle with no intrinsic length.

That departure is the one string-theory readers find hardest to accommodate, because the picture of ``rolled-up extra spatial dimensions at the Planck length'' has been the working visualization of higher-dimensional physics since Kaluza's 1921 paper. We treat the difference in detail in this section, with the goal of making the conceptual shift as explicit as possible.

\paragraph{Terminology: ``non-spatial dimensions,'' not ``extra dimensions.''}
Throughout this Part we reserve the term \emph{extra dimensions} for the
\emph{spatial} extra dimensions of the Kaluza--Klein and string
constructions, where the additional coordinates are Riemannian
directions of intrinsic length. For the two further coordinates of the
\GG{} bulk we instead use a vocabulary that names their operational
content: $I_r$ is the \emph{scale dimension} (the renormalization-group
coordinate $r = \ln(\EGUT/\mu)$, whose generator is the dilatation of
\POS{5}), and $S^1_\theta$ is the \emph{gauge dimension} (the topological
$U(1)$ phase, whose generator is the compact holonomy charge of \POS{1}
and \POS{6}); collectively they are the two \emph{non-spatial dimensions}
of \GG. The distinction is not merely lexical. As the symmetry
generators of $I_r$ and $S^1_\theta$ are a dilatation and a compact
charge rather than translations (\S\ref{ssec:susy-no-superpoincare},
\S\ref{ssec:no-branes}), the word ``extra dimension'' --- which in every
standard usage denotes an additional \emph{spatial} direction --- would
misclassify them at the level of the symmetry algebra, not only of the
prose.

\subsection{String theory: extra dimensions are spatial Kaluza--Klein directions with intrinsic length}
\label{ssec:strings-kk-spatial}

\paragraph{The Kaluza--Klein lineage.} The original Kaluza--Klein construction \citep{Kaluza1921, Klein1926} added one extra spatial dimension to the four-dimensional spacetime, compactified to a circle of radius $R \sim \ell_{\mathrm{Pl}}$. The resulting 5D geometry has four extended directions (the 4D Minkowski boundary) and one compact direction (the KK circle); a KK mode of integer momentum $n$ along the circle appears in 4D as a massive particle with mass $m_n = n/R$. The KK circle is a genuine Riemannian dimension: a tiny particle, if it existed, could in principle move along the circle and return after traversing a length $2\pi R$.

\paragraph{The Calabi--Yau generalization.} Superstring compactifications in 10D extend the KK picture to six compact extra dimensions, usually taken to be a Calabi--Yau threefold $\mathrm{CY}_3$ of complex dimension three (real dimension six). The Calabi--Yau geometry carries continuous moduli (Kähler moduli, complex-structure moduli) that determine the shape and size of the internal manifold. The Riemannian length scales of the internal manifold are typically of order the Planck length or the string length, but the exact values are not fixed by first principles; they are continuous parameters of the compactification.

\paragraph{The visualization.} When a string theorist visualizes the bulk, the working mental picture is therefore: four-dimensional Minkowski spacetime (the spacetime we observe), plus six tiny spatial Calabi--Yau dimensions rolled up at the Planck length, with strings propagating through all ten dimensions. In this picture, every extra dimension carries an intrinsic length and is in principle traversable by a sufficiently small probe (e.g., a high-energy KK mode).

\paragraph{Physical intuition: spatial extra dimensions carry continuous moduli.} Because the Calabi--Yau extra dimensions are spatial and Riemannian, they have continuous geometric data: the volume of the internal manifold, the shape parameters, the integrated curvatures. Each of these is a continuous modulus of the compactification, and the moduli space of Calabi--Yau compactifications is enormous --- this is the structural origin of the $\sim 10^{500}$ vacua of the string landscape \citep{KachruKalloshLindeTrivedi2003, Susskind2003, Douglas2003}.

\subsection{\GGTheory: the fifth dimension $I_r$ is an RG scale, not space}
\label{ssec:gg-radial-rg-time}

\paragraph{The geometric assignment.} \POS{5} (\RG) of \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution} demands that coarse-graining commute with the operational dictionary $\cD$: the renormalization-group flow on the boundary must be representable as parallel transport along a smooth direction of the bulk geometry. Theorem~\ref{thm:dim-minimal} of Part~II then forces this direction to be a single one-dimensional non-compact interval $I_r$, and Theorem~\ref{thm:canonical-metric} forces the geometric realization of the renormalization-group semigroup to take the form
\begin{equation}
r \;=\; \ln(E_{\mathrm{GUT}}/\mu),
\label{eq:r-equals-ln-recap}
\end{equation}
with $r$ dimensionless and $\mu$ the boundary energy scale. The UV boundary is at $r = 0$ ($\mu = E_{\mathrm{GUT}}$); the IR
boundary is at $r = K = 35$ ($\mu = E_{\mathrm{GUT}}e^{-K}$).

\paragraph{Two anchors, and why they differ.} It is worth separating two
quantities that are easy to run together. The \emph{boundary
renormalization scale} is anchored at the unification scale:
$\mu(r) = E_{\mathrm{GUT}}\,e^{-r}$, so the IR end of the interval sits
at $E_{\mathrm{GUT}}e^{-K} \approx 14$~GeV. The \emph{masses of the
Kaluza--Klein resonances} supported by that same interval are anchored
instead at the bulk fundamental scale $M_6 = M_{\mathrm{Pl}}/\sqrt{\pi}$,
giving $M_{\mathrm{lock}} = M_6\,e^{-K} \times O(1) \approx 3.85$~TeV.
The radial \emph{depth} is the same integer $K = 35$ in both readings ---
it is the ledger integer either way. What differs is the scale each is
measured from, and the two anchors stand in the fixed ratio
$M_6/E_{\mathrm{GUT}} = e^{2\pi}/\sqrt{\pi} \approx 302$, itself a pure
number with no free parameter in it.

\paragraph{The implications.} Equation~\eqref{eq:r-equals-ln-recap} says that motion along the radial direction is \emph{motion in energy scale}, not motion in space. A particle at fixed $r$ is at fixed energy scale $\mu = E_{\mathrm{GUT}} \, e^{-r}$; the entire 4D effective theory at that scale lives on the $r$-slice. Asking ``what is the radial speed of light?'' has no answer in \GGTheory, because there is no Lorentz signature on the $r$ direction; $r$ is dimensionless, and motion in $r$ is the geometrization of the renormalization-group flow, not a propagation through a spatial direction.

\paragraph{Physical intuition: the RG-scale throat is an RG diagram.} The reader who is familiar with the standard Randall--Sundrum visualization of the warped throat may find the following adjustment helpful. In Randall--Sundrum, the warped throat is typically drawn as a horizontal interval with the UV boundary on the left and the IR boundary on the right; in this picture, the scale profile $e^{-2kr}$ describes how the proper-distance unit at the boundary contracts as one moves along the throat from UV to IR. In \GGTheory, the same picture is correct as a diagram, but the interpretation of the horizontal axis is different: it is not a spatial direction in which the UV boundary and IR boundary are separated by some Riemannian distance; it is a renormalization-group direction in which the boundary theory at the UV boundary and the boundary theory at the IR boundary differ by a factor $e^{-K}$ in energy scale. The RG-scale throat is, in the \GGTheory{} reading, a literal RG diagram realized as a smooth bulk geometry.

\paragraph{Connection to the holographic-renormalization literature.} This interpretation of the radial direction as RG-flow is not unique to \GGTheory; it has antecedents in the holographic-renormalization program of \citet{deBoer1999, Skenderis2002, Papadimitriou2010}, where the radial direction in AdS/CFT is read as the renormalization-group coordinate of the boundary CFT. \GGTheory{} differs from that program in two respects. First, \GGTheory{} promotes the RG-scale reading from a useful interpretation to a constitutional commitment (\POS{5}). Second, \GGTheory{} adds the integer-discrete scale endpoint $K = 35$ forced by the \OGNfive{} cascade (Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade}); in the AdS/CFT context the warp endpoint is a continuous modulus.

\subsection{\GGTheory: the gauge dimension $S^1_\theta$ is a topological circle, not a Riemannian one}
\label{ssec:gg-theta-topological}

\paragraph{The geometric assignment.} \POS{1} (\GI) and \POS{6} (\OGN) together force the second extra dimension to be a compact direction whose only role is to carry an integer Abelian holonomy. Theorem~\ref{thm:dim-minimal} of Part~II identifies this direction as a topological circle $S^1_\theta$, and Theorem~\ref{thm:canonical-metric} Step~(c) fixes
\begin{equation}
G_{\theta\theta} \;=\; 1,
\label{eq:Gtt-equals-1-recap}
\end{equation}
where $G_{\theta\theta}$ is the angular metric component in natural \GGTheory{} units. The coordinate $\theta$ is dimensionless, $\theta \in [0, 2\pi)$, and there is no intrinsic radius of the circle.

\paragraph{The implications.} Equation~\eqref{eq:Gtt-equals-1-recap} says that the compact direction has no intrinsic length scale at all --- not a Planck length, not a string length, not any length. The Wilson-line phases $\oint A_\theta\, d\theta$ around $S^1_\theta$ are integer-quantized by the requirement of single-valuedness of the gauge connection, but this quantization is purely topological; it does not depend on any geometric length.

\paragraph{Physical intuition: the topological circle is a counter, not a path.} The reader who is familiar with the standard KK picture of a compact extra dimension may find the following adjustment helpful. In standard KK, the compact circle has a small but non-zero radius, and a sufficiently small probe could (in principle) traverse it; the KK modes have masses $m_n = n/R$ that depend on this radius. In \GGTheory, the compact direction is a counter rather than a path: there is no radius to traverse, and the integer-quantized Wilson-line phases simply count the topological winding of the gauge connection around the cycle. The dimensional momentum carried by KK mode $n$ around the topological circle is $p_\theta = n \hbar$, with $\hbar$ doing the unit conversion all by itself; no Riemannian radius enters.

\paragraph{Why this differs from KK / Calabi--Yau.} In KK and Calabi--Yau compactifications, the compact extra dimensions carry both topology (their shape) and geometry (their size). The shape data is discrete (topological invariants of the compactification), and the size data is continuous (the Riemannian volume and the moduli). In \GGTheory, the compact direction $S^1_\theta$ carries only topology: there is no size data to specify because the angular direction is dimensionless and the metric coefficient is fixed by \AX{4}. It is why the \GGTheory{} bulk has no moduli at all in dimensionless directions: there are no continuous geometric scales to be set by experiment.

\subsection{Particles remain point objects in \GGTheory{} (\AX{1} Locality and Causality preserved)}
\label{ssec:gg-point-particles}

\paragraph{The string-theory commitment.} In superstring theory, the fundamental constituents of matter are one-dimensional extended objects (strings: open or closed) and higher-dimensional branes (D-branes). Point particles are not fundamental; they appear as limits of extended objects when probed at energies below the string scale. The worldsheet of a string is a two-dimensional surface embedded in the target spacetime; the worldvolume of a $D$-brane is a $(D+1)$-dimensional surface.

\paragraph{The \GGTheory{} commitment.} In \GGTheory, particles remain point objects in the conventional quantum-field-theoretic sense. \AX{1} (\LC: Locality and Causality) requires that the fundamental excitations be local operators of the bulk gauge--gravity field theory, satisfying microcausality $[\cO_1(x), \cO_2(y)]_\mp = 0$ for spacelike-separated points. The bulk theory is a quantum field theory in six dimensions; the fundamental excitations are 6D quanta of the gauge--gravity field. No extended objects (strings or branes) are introduced; locality is preserved at the most fundamental level.

\paragraph{Why this matters.} The point-particle structure has several substantive consequences for the framework.

\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em, itemsep=0.20em]
\item \textbf{Standard QFT formalism applies.} The 6D bulk theory is a standard quantum gauge theory (Theorem~\ref{thm:brst-consistency}), with the usual machinery of perturbative Feynman diagrams, BRST cohomology, and Slavnov--Taylor identities. No worldsheet conformal field theory or worldvolume gauge theory needs to be introduced.
\item \textbf{Anomaly inflow is local.} The Green--Schwarz inflow $S_{\mathrm{GS}} = \int B_2 \wedge X_4$ is a local bulk integral; it does not require a worldsheet description.
\item \textbf{The string scale does not appear.} There is no analogue of the string scale $1/\sqrt{\alpha'}$ in \GGTheory; the bulk theory has only one mass scale, the dimensional anchor $M_6 \sim M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$, and no point at which the point-particle approximation needs to be replaced by an extended-object description.
\item \textbf{Causality is preserved at all scales.} Because particles are point objects with spacelike-separated commutators vanishing, the bulk theory satisfies the strict 6D version of microcausality. String theory satisfies a weaker form of locality (causal cluster decomposition for the S-matrix), but at the worldsheet level the structure is intrinsically nonlocal in spacetime.
\end{itemize}

\paragraph{Physical intuition.} The reader can think of the string-theory program as solving the UV-completion problem of point-particle QFT by replacing point particles with extended objects. \GGTheory{} takes a different route: it keeps point particles, but it changes the dimensional structure of the bulk so that the 4D QFT description has an explicit UV boundary at $E_{\mathrm{GUT}}$ where the boundary description ends and the bulk takes over. The UV-completion problem is therefore solved by changing the dimensional structure rather than by changing the nature of the fundamental excitations.

\subsection{Supersymmetry as a symptom of spatial extra dimensions: the non-space-like bulk admits no super-Poincar\'e extension}
\label{ssec:susy-no-superpoincare}

\paragraph{Position of this subsection.} Obstruction~1 (\S\ref{ssec:obstruction-susy}) established that supersymmetry is excluded from \GGTheory{} as an \emph{unforced} ingredient by \AX{4} (\MSMF). That is a constitutional verdict. This subsection supplies the structural reason that lies beneath it: even if \AX{4} were suspended, the two extra directions of the bulk carry no translation generators, and a framework whose extra dimensions are not space-like admits no super-Poincar\'e algebra to extend in the first place. The constitutional exclusion and the structural absence are logically independent and mutually reinforcing --- \AX{4} says supersymmetry is not \emph{needed}; the non-spatial geometry says it is not \emph{available}.

\paragraph{Why the superstring is supersymmetric: worldsheet origin.} In the Ramond--Neveu--Schwarz construction the string worldsheet carries, for each target direction $M = 0, \dots, D-1$, an embedding scalar $X^M(\sigma,\tau)$ and a Majorana worldsheet fermion $\psi^M(\sigma,\tau)$. Each such pair contributes central charge $c = 1 + \tfrac12 = \tfrac32$ to the super-Virasoro algebra, so the matter sector carries $c_{\mathrm{matter}} = \tfrac32 D$; cancellation against the superconformal $bc$--$\beta\gamma$ ghost system ($c_{\mathrm{gh}} = -15$) forces the critical value $\tfrac32 D = 15$, i.e.\ $D = 10$. The decisive structural fact is that the worldsheet fermions $\psi^M$ form a \emph{vector} of the target Lorentz group $\SO(1,D-1)$: there is exactly one fermionic superpartner per \emph{spatial} (or temporal) target direction. Worldsheet supersymmetry is, in this precise sense, indexed by the target coordinates, and it exists only because every $X^M$ is a map into a metric direction able to carry a superpartner $\psi^M$.

\paragraph{Spacetime super-Poincar\'e algebra.} After the GSO projection the spectrum is spacetime-supersymmetric, and the closure of the spacetime symmetry is the super-Poincar\'e algebra
\begin{equation}
\{Q_\alpha, Q_\beta\} \;=\; 2\,(\gamma^M C)_{\alpha\beta}\, P_M,
\qquad
[P_M, Q_\alpha] = 0, \qquad M = 0, \dots, D-1,
\label{eq:superpoincare}
\end{equation}
with the supercharges $Q_\alpha$ transforming as spinors of $\Spin(1,D-1)$ and $P_M$ the translation generators of the $D$-dimensional target. Equation~\eqref{eq:superpoincare} exhibits the supercharge as a \emph{square root of translation}. Its very existence presupposes two space-like data: (i) a spin representation of the tangent-space Lorentz group along \emph{all} $D$ directions, and (ii) translation generators $P_M$ along those same directions for the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:superpoincare} to land on. Both are properties of metric directions with intrinsic length.

\paragraph{The actual symmetry algebra of the \GG{} bulk.} The bulk metric is the block-diagonal product geometry $ds_6^2 = e^{-2r}\,g_{\mu\nu}(x)\,dx^\mu dx^\nu + dr^2 + d\theta^2$ on $\cM_4 \times I_r \times S^1_\theta$, and its symmetry generators are not those of a six-dimensional Poincar\'e group. Along $\cM_4$ one has the boundary Poincar\'e generators $(P_\mu, M_{\mu\nu})$, $\mu = 0,\dots,3$. Along $I_r$ the scale profile $e^{-2r}$ is \emph{not} invariant under $r \mapsto r + a$; the surviving generator is the dilatation $D$ acting as $x^\mu \mapsto \lambda x^\mu,\ r \mapsto r + \ln\lambda$, i.e.\ the renormalization-group flow generator of \POS{5}, with $[D, P_\mu] = P_\mu$. Along $S^1_\theta$ the isometry is the compact rotation $\theta \mapsto \theta + a$, whose conserved charge is the integer Abelian holonomy charge $Q_\theta$ of \POS{1} and \POS{6} --- a quantized internal charge $p_\theta \in \mathbb{Z}$, not a continuous translation momentum. The bulk symmetry algebra is therefore
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{g}_{\mathrm{bulk}} \;=\; \mathfrak{iso}(1,3) \,\oplus\, \mathbb{R}_D \,\oplus\, \mathfrak{u}(1)_\theta
\;\neq\; \mathfrak{iso}(1,5),
\label{eq:bulk-algebra}
\end{equation}
with $\mathbb{R}_D$ the dilatation and $\mathfrak{u}(1)_\theta$ central. The two extra directions contribute a scaling and a compact charge, not the translations $P_4, P_5$ that a six-dimensional Poincar\'e algebra would require.

\paragraph{No superalgebra closes on the extra directions.} A super-Poincar\'e extension of \eqref{eq:bulk-algebra} would demand supercharges whose anticommutator reproduces $P_M$ for all $M = 0,\dots,5$. The components $M = 0,\dots,3$ are unproblematic, since boundary translations exist; but the components $M = 4$ (radial) and $M = 5$ (angular) have no targets. A fermionic generator squaring to the dilatation $D$ is not a super-translation --- $D$ is a scaling, an outer automorphism of the Poincar\'e algebra, and a spinor bilinear of $\Spin(1,3)$ produces a vector, not a dilatation weight. A fermionic generator squaring to the central charge $Q_\theta$ is likewise excluded, since $Q_\theta$ commutes with the whole boundary algebra and carries no Lorentz index for $(\gamma^M C)_{\alpha\beta}$ to saturate. Hence the largest spacetime superalgebra the bulk could carry is, at most, an ordinary $4$D super-Poincar\'e algebra on the boundary $\cM_4$ alone --- and that residual possibility is precisely what \AX{4} (and the chiral $\bar{\mathbf 5}\oplus\mathbf{10}$ matter content, which leaves no room for a superpartner doubling) excludes in \S\ref{ssec:obstruction-susy}. The extra dimensions add \emph{nothing} to a candidate SUSY algebra, because they add no translation generators to square-root.

\paragraph{Structural statement.} The contrast may be put as a single structural proposition. String-theoretic supersymmetry is \emph{supported} by space-like extra dimensions precisely because each such direction supplies both a worldsheet superpartner $\psi^M$ and a target translation $P_M$; it is the metric, length-carrying character of the extra dimensions that makes the super-Poincar\'e algebra \eqref{eq:superpoincare} available, and the same length that opens the Planck--weak desert supersymmetry is then invoked to stabilize. The non-space-like directions $I_r$ and $S^1_\theta$ supply neither superpartner nor translation: they supply a dilatation and a compact charge. Supersymmetry is therefore not refused by the \GG{} bulk so much as \emph{unsupported} by its algebra --- the geometric counterpart of the constitutional exclusion in \S\ref{ssec:obstruction-susy}, where \AX{4} forbids the unforced ingredient and the non-spatial geometry shows there is no ingredient, in the extra directions, to forbid. The philosophical reading of this same fact, written for a general audience, is given in \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid}; the empirical exposure (the null LHC superpartner searches read as ``no superpartners at any scale'') is as recorded in \S\ref{ssec:obstruction-susy}. \emph{Caveat.} The argument concerns the global super-Poincar\'e algebra of the bulk spacetime; it says nothing about worldsheet or topological supersymmetry used as purely computational devices, which \GGTheory{} does not employ.

\subsection{No branes in \GG: the radial interval is bounded, not braned}
\label{ssec:no-branes}

\paragraph{Position of this subsection.} The argument of this section removes, one by one, the constructs that a space-like extra dimension carries. Non-spatiality preserved point particles (\S\ref{ssec:gg-point-particles}) and denied a super-Poincar\'e extension (\S\ref{ssec:susy-no-superpoincare}). One further construct of the spatial programs falls to the same fact: the brane. \emph{The \GG{} bulk contains no branes.} The two ends of the radial interval $I_r$, which the warped-hierarchy literature and the earliest drafts of this cohort named the ``UV-brane'' and the ``IR-brane,'' are \emph{boundaries} of a manifold-with-boundary --- they carry boundary conditions, not tension, charge, or a position modulus.

\paragraph{What a brane is, precisely.} A D$p$-brane (string theory) or a 3-brane (Randall--Sundrum) is a dynamical hypersurface located at a point in a transverse \emph{spatial} direction. Three data define it: (i) a transverse metric direction of intrinsic length, in which it is embedded and at which it sits; (ii) a tension $\sigma$ --- an energy per unit worldvolume that gravitates, and for a D-brane a Ramond--Ramond charge; (iii) a transverse position whose fluctuation is a modulus, the Goldstone of the translation the brane breaks, and in Randall--Sundrum the radion that fixes the brane separation. A brane is, in one phrase, a tension-carrying object \emph{in} a space.

\paragraph{The endpoints of $I_r$ are boundaries.} In \GG{} the radial interval is $I_r = [0, K]$ with $r = \ln(\EGUT/\mu)$ the renormalization-group time of \POS{5}. Its two ends, $r = 0$ (UV, $\mu = \EGUT$) and $r = K$ (IR), are the boundary $\partial I_r$ of an interval --- a one-dimensional manifold with boundary. They carry boundary \emph{conditions}: at the UV end, the operational registration of the 4D boundary theory onto $\cM_4$ and the matching of couplings at $\EGUT$ (\AX{3}, \OGGEP); at the IR end, the readout of the observed low-energy couplings. Variational well-posedness on a bounded interval requires a Gibbons--Hawking--York boundary term $S_\partial = \tfrac{1}{\kappa}\int_{\partial}\sqrt{h}\,K_{\mathrm{ext}}$; in the Randall--Sundrum dictionary that boundary term is precisely what is read as ``brane tension.'' But $S_\partial$ is \emph{derived boundary data} of the endpoint, fixed by the bulk solution --- not an independent embedded object.

\paragraph{Why ``brane'' has no referent here.} Each of the three defining data of a brane fails in \GG. \emph{No transverse space.} A brane must sit at a point in a transverse metric direction; the only direction transverse to $\cM_4$ in the bulk is $I_r$ itself, and $I_r$ is RG-scale, not space. The endpoint of the interval is the \emph{edge} of the manifold --- a boundary component --- not a submanifold embedded at a location in some larger space; there is no further direction in which a membrane could be a membrane. \emph{No modulus.} A movable brane carries the radion; \AX{4} (\MSMF) forbids exactly that continuous freedom, and the radial extent $K$ is fixed by the integer ledger \OGNfive, not dialed, so there is no brane-separation modulus to possess. \emph{No independent tension.} Nothing at $r = 0$ or $r = K$ gravitates or fluctuates as a degree of freedom of its own; the endpoints are conditions on the flow, and their only ``tension'' is the Gibbons--Hawking--York term that the bounded variational problem already supplies.

\paragraph{Formal statement.} The bulk is the manifold-with-boundary
\begin{equation}
\cM_6 = \cM_4 \times I_r \times S^1_\theta,
\qquad
\partial\cM_6 = \cM_4 \times \{0, K\} \times S^1_\theta,
\label{eq:bulk-boundary}
\end{equation}
whose boundary has two codimension-one components: the \emph{UV-boundary} at $r = 0$ and the \emph{IR-boundary} at $r = K$. Each carries Dirichlet or Neumann conditions on the bulk fields together with a Gibbons--Hawking--York term, and neither is a brane: neither has an independent dynamical tension, a Ramond--Ramond charge, a transverse embedding, or a position modulus. \GG{} is a \emph{bounded product geometry, not a braneworld}. Radially, the same contrast appears as in the point-particle/string comparison of \S\ref{ssec:gg-point-particles} and the no-super-Poincar\'e result of \S\ref{ssec:susy-no-superpoincare}: where the spatial program places an extended, dynamical, modulus-bearing object, the non-spatial program places only a boundary condition.

\paragraph{Terminological correction for the cohort.} The warp machinery is inherited from Randall--Sundrum unchanged --- the scale profile $e^{-2r}$, the localization of the graviton zero-mode at the UV-boundary, and the exponential mass-scale hierarchy set by the integer scale depth $e^{-2K}$ all carry over. What changes is only the \emph{ontology} of the endpoints. Accordingly, where Randall--Sundrum and the earliest drafts of this cohort wrote ``UV-brane'' and ``IR-brane,'' \GGTheory{} writes \emph{UV-boundary} and \emph{IR-boundary}: boundary conditions on the radial RG flow, not membranes in a transverse space. The companion paper \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid} gives the philosophical reading of this correction and carries it through its figures. \emph{Caveat.} Brane language remains correct, and is retained elsewhere in this Part, only where it describes the string-theoretic or conventional Randall--Sundrum constructions against which \GG{} is contrasted; the claim made here is the specific one that the \GG{} bulk itself contains no brane.

\section{The UV-End Question: Planck Scale (Strings) versus $E_{\mathrm{GUT}}$ (\GGTheory)}
\label{sec:uv-end-vs}

A natural question for any framework that uses 4D quantum field theory at low energies is: where does the 4D QFT description end, and what takes over above that scale? The string-theory answer and the \GGTheory{} answer differ sharply, and the difference is the substantive content of this section.

\subsection{String theory: 4D QFT extends to the Planck scale; gravity must be quantized}
\label{ssec:strings-uv-planck}

\paragraph{The structural commitment.} String theory's working assumption is that the 4D quantum-field-theory description of nature is valid up to the Planck scale $M_{\mathrm{Pl}} \approx 1.22 \times 10^{19}$~GeV, where the perturbative point-particle approximation breaks down and the extended-object (string or brane) description takes over. That is why string theory aims to provide a unified UV completion of quantum field theory and gravity: above the Planck scale, the 4D QFT description fails, and a more fundamental framework is needed that quantizes gravity on the same footing as the gauge sector.

\paragraph{The chain of reasoning.} The string-theoretic chain of reasoning goes roughly as follows.

\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=2em]
\item Below the Planck scale, gravity is weak and 4D quantum field theory with gravity treated as an external classical background is a good description.
\item As one approaches the Planck scale, gravitational interactions become strong, and the 4D QFT description with external gravity becomes inconsistent (non-renormalizability of perturbative quantum gravity, black-hole information paradox, etc.).
\item Therefore at the Planck scale, gravity must be quantized on the same footing as the gauge sector.
\item String theory accomplishes this quantization by replacing point particles with extended objects whose worldsheet conformal field theory is anomaly-free in 10D.
\end{enumerate}

In this chain, the Planck scale is not just a high energy scale; it is the scale at which the perturbative 4D QFT description fundamentally fails and the string-theoretic UV completion takes over.

\paragraph{Physical intuition.} The reader can think of the string-theoretic Planck scale as the scale where the gravitational coupling $G_N E^2$ becomes order one (in natural units), and the perturbative expansion in $G_N$ breaks down. Above this scale, the conventional QFT description cannot be extended without modification; the modification that string theory proposes is the introduction of extended objects whose UV behavior is finite by virtue of the worldsheet conformal symmetry.

\subsection{\GGTheory: the 4D RG flow ends at $E_{\mathrm{GUT}}$; the bulk takes over above}
\label{ssec:gg-uv-egut}

\paragraph{The structural commitment.} \GGTheory{} takes a different structural commitment. Its 4D boundary description is not a fundamental 4D quantum field theory at all; it is the boundary projection of the 6D bulk theory through the \OGGEP{} channel. The boundary RG flow runs a depth $K = 35$, from the IR boundary
($r = K$) up to $\mu = E_{\mathrm{GUT}} \approx 2.28 \times 10^{16}$~GeV
at the UV boundary ($r = 0$), and \emph{stops there}. Above $E_{\mathrm{GUT}}$, the 4D boundary description does not extend; the bulk 6D theory takes over.

\paragraph{The Planck scale as a bulk anchor, not a 4D cutoff.} In \GGTheory, the Planck mass $M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ appears as the bulk Einstein--Hilbert dimensional anchor $M_6 \sim M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$, set by the matching condition
\begin{equation}
M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2 \;\sim\; M_6^4 \cdot V_{\mathrm{internal}},
\label{eq:MPl-from-M6-vsstrings}
\end{equation}
where $V_{\mathrm{internal}}$ is the internal volume from the scale-profile integral $\int_0^K dr\, e^{-2r} \cdot \oint d\theta$ (Theorem~\ref{thm:canonical-metric} and \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid} for the rigorous reduction). This $M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ is the bulk dimensional anchor that sets the size of the bulk Einstein--Hilbert coupling; it is \emph{not} the scale at which the 4D boundary description fails. The 4D boundary description fails at $E_{\mathrm{GUT}}$, three orders of magnitude below $M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$, because that is where the boundary RG flow runs into the UV boundary and the bulk physics takes over.

\paragraph{The chain of reasoning.} The \GGTheory{} chain runs roughly as follows.

\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=2em]
\item The 6D bulk theory is the fundamental description. It is a standard quantum gauge theory with the BRST-consistent gauge structure of Theorem~\ref{thm:brst-consistency}.
\item The 4D boundary theory is the \OGGEP{} channel image of the bulk under partial trace over the radial and angular directions. It is an effective open-system description of what an experimenter on the 4D boundary can measure.
\item The boundary description has a built-in UV cutoff at $E_{\mathrm{GUT}}$ (corresponding to $r = 0$, the UV boundary) and a built-in IR end at $r = K$, whose Kaluza--Klein resonances
carry the scale $M_{\mathrm{lock}}$.
\item The Planck scale $M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ is the bulk Einstein--Hilbert dimensional anchor; it does not appear as a 4D cutoff because the 4D description never extends to it.
\item Quantum gravity in the conventional sense (perturbative quantization of the 4D graviton coupling to itself) is not an issue, because the 4D graviton is the zero mode of the 6D gravitational sector and its dynamics is fixed by the 6D BRST quantization, not by an independent 4D perturbative scheme.
\end{enumerate}

In this chain, the Planck scale is a bulk geometric anchor, and the question ``how do we quantize gravity at the Planck scale?'' does not arise in the form string theory addresses; instead, the question becomes ``how do we BRST-quantize the 6D gauge-gravity theory?'', and the answer is given by Theorem~\ref{thm:brst-consistency}.

\paragraph{Physical intuition.} The reader can think of the difference as follows. In string theory, the 4D quantum-field-theoretic description extends all the way up to the Planck scale; gravity must therefore be quantized at that scale, and string theory provides the UV completion that makes this quantization consistent. In \GGTheory, the 4D description ends much earlier, at $E_{\mathrm{GUT}} \approx 2.28 \times 10^{16}$~GeV; above that scale, there is no 4D theory to quantize --- the physics lives in the 6D bulk, and the 6D theory is what gets BRST-quantized. The Planck scale $M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ appears in the framework as the bulk dimensional anchor (setting the size of the bulk Einstein--Hilbert coupling), but it never plays the role of a 4D QFT cutoff.

\subsection{The Planck scale's interpretive role differs between the two frameworks}
\label{ssec:planck-interpretive}

Table~\ref{tab:planck-role} summarizes the difference compactly: the Planck scale exists in both frameworks, but its interpretive role differs.

\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption[The Planck scale in two frameworks: a boundary, or a computed output.]{The Planck scale plays structurally different roles in the two frameworks, and the difference is easy to miss because the number is the same. In one it is where the four-dimensional description fails and an ultraviolet completion must take over; in the other it is a quantity computed from the geometry, with no failure attached to it. The third column gives the consequence for what each framework must supply from outside. This is a table about explanatory burden, not about numerics.}
\label{tab:planck-role}
\small
\begin{tabular}{>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.20\textwidth}p{0.36\textwidth}p{0.36\textwidth}}
\toprule
\textbf{Framework} & \textbf{Role of $M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$} & \textbf{Implication for UV completion} \\
\midrule
Superstring theory & The scale at which the 4D QFT description fails; perturbative gravity becomes non-renormalizable. & Requires UV completion via extended objects (strings, branes) that quantize gravity. \\
\GGTheory{} & The bulk Einstein--Hilbert dimensional anchor $M_6$; sets the size of the bulk gravity coupling. & 4D description ends at $E_{\mathrm{GUT}} \ll M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$; bulk 6D theory is BRST-quantized directly. \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\paragraph{Why this matters for the comparison.} Once one recognizes that the Planck scale's interpretive role differs between the two frameworks, the question ``what is the UV completion?'' takes different forms in each. In string theory the question is genuine and the proposed answer is genuine; the framework must provide a consistent UV completion of perturbative gravity at the Planck scale. In \GGTheory{} the question does not arise in the same form, because the 4D description never extends to the Planck scale: the bulk 6D theory is the framework, and its BRST quantization is the answer. The two frameworks address different questions; recognizing this is the first step to a productive dialogue between them.

\section{The Anti-Landscape: \OGNfive{} versus the String Landscape}
\label{sec:anti-landscape}

A second deep structural difference between the two frameworks is what they do with the continuous dimensionless freedom that any higher-dimensional construction carries. Superstring compactifications produce an enormous landscape of inequivalent vacua, with continuous moduli that are not fixed by first principles. \GGTheory's \OGNfive{} Diophantine cascade plus \AX{4} (\MSMF) collapse this landscape to a single point in dimensionless directions, with the discrete integer ledger as the residual structure.

\subsection{The string landscape}
\label{ssec:string-landscape}

\paragraph{The technical content.} Type IIB superstring compactification on a Calabi--Yau threefold with fluxes generates a vacuum-energy potential whose minima are isolated points in the Calabi--Yau moduli space. Each minimum is a candidate 4D vacuum with its own values for the gauge couplings, masses, and mixing angles. \citet{KachruKalloshLindeTrivedi2003} demonstrated explicit constructions of de Sitter minima in this potential, and \citet{Susskind2003, Douglas2003} estimated that the number of distinct 4D vacua compatible with the constraints (positive cosmological constant, anomaly freedom, supersymmetry-breaking compatibility) is of order $10^{500}$.

\paragraph{The implication.} Among the $\sim 10^{500}$ vacua, some are Standard-Model-like (with the right gauge group, the right matter content, the right mass hierarchies) and some are not. The string-theory program does not currently have a selection principle that picks out our particular Standard-Model vacuum from the multitude; the prevailing interpretation invokes anthropic / multiverse reasoning, in which the observed vacuum is selected by the requirement that it admit observers.

\paragraph{Physical intuition.} The reader can think of the string landscape as a vast space of possible universes, each consistent with the constraints of string theory but each with different low-energy physics. Our universe is one point in this landscape, and there is no first-principles reason why it is the point we observe rather than any other. What is sometimes called the ``measure problem'' of the string landscape has exactly that content of the string landscape.

\subsection{\OGNfive{}: \GGTheory's Diophantine cascade}
\label{ssec:ogn5-cascade-summary}

\paragraph{The technical content.} Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade} of Part~II derives the integer ledger $(M, N, L; J, K) = (1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$ from a five-step Diophantine cascade. Two conditions of different provenance meet in that cascade, and it is worth seeing them apart, because each on its own would leave an infinite family and only together do they leave a point.

The first is the trace-ratio identity of Lemma~\ref{lem:trace-ratio-25}. For an $\SU(L)$ defining representation split into a colored block of size $N$ and a complementary block of size $L - N$, the primitive generators \eqref{eq:Y0-B0-general} give
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Tr(B_0^2)}{\Tr(Y_0^2)} \;=\; \frac{L - N}{L},
\label{eq:general-trace-ratio}
\end{equation}
and the $\BIsix$ Abelian coefficient of Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs} sets this equal to $2/5$. The condition is homogeneous in $(L, N)$, so it is solved by the entire infinite family
\begin{equation}
L = 5k,\qquad N = 3k,\qquad k \in \mathbb{Z}_{>0} :
\label{eq:diophantine-cascade}
\end{equation}
$k = 2$ would give $\SU(10)$ with a six-dimensional color block, $k = 3$ would give $\SU(15)$ with a nine-dimensional block, and so on without end. The ratio by itself does not defeat a landscape; it shrinks one to a one-parameter list. It is in any case a check and not a route, as \S\ref{ssec:ogn5-step3-honest} sets out, because the generators \eqref{eq:Y0-B0-general} are written on a block split that already carries the color count.

\paragraph{The dual lock closes the family.} The second condition is the one that does the work. The dual lock $K = LJ = M^2 + N^2 + L^2$ taken with the closure-index clause $J = 2N + 1$ gives $N = L \pm \sqrt{L - M^2}$; at $M = 1$, with the block embedding $N < L$ selecting the lower root,
\begin{equation}
N \;=\; L - \sqrt{L - 1},
\label{eq:dual-lock-branch}
\end{equation}
which is an integer only when $L - 1$ is a perfect square. Now impose \eqref{eq:diophantine-cascade} on \eqref{eq:dual-lock-branch}. Writing $L = 5k$ and $N = 3k$ forces $\sqrt{L - 1} = L - N = 2k$, hence $5k - 1 = 4k^2$, that is
\begin{equation}
4k^2 - 5k + 1 \;=\; (4k - 1)(k - 1) \;=\; 0 .
\label{eq:k-uniqueness}
\end{equation}
The only positive integer root is $k = 1$. The family \eqref{eq:diophantine-cascade} and the dual-lock branch \eqref{eq:dual-lock-branch} therefore meet at exactly one point, $(L, N) = (5, 3)$, and they meet there as a matter of arithmetic: no minimality principle is applied to a list of admissible answers, and \AX{4} (\MSMF) is not what excludes $k > 1$.

\paragraph{What \AX{4} and \POS{6} do here, and what they do not.} The two constitutional clauses are what put both conditions in force at all: \POS{6} (\OGN) is what requires the ledger to be integer and the generators primitive, and \AX{4} (\MSMF) is what forbids a continuous dial from being introduced to evade either condition. Neither clause is used to choose among survivors, because after \eqref{eq:k-uniqueness} there are none to choose among. This is worth stating plainly, because the weaker form of the argument --- an infinite admissible family, narrowed by a minimality preference --- is the form that invites the reply that a different preference would have given a different answer.

\paragraph{Physical intuition.} The reader can think of the two conditions as two independent measurements of the same pair of integers. The trace ratio measures what fraction of the hypercharge trace the colored block carries; every $\SU(5k)$ with a $3k$ color block returns the same fraction, so that measurement alone is compatible with an endless tower of unified groups. The dual lock asks something harder: whether the same $(L, N)$ can close the ledger $K = LJ = M^2 + N^2 + L^2$ with a centered odd packet $J = 2N + 1$. That holds at $L = 5$ and at no other member of the tower. The landscape is defeated not by preferring the smallest answer, but because two constraints with nothing in common agree at one integer.

\subsection{Comparing the two anti-landscape stories}
\label{ssec:landscapes-compared}

\paragraph{The structural difference.} String theory's landscape is a space of $\sim 10^{500}$ vacua with continuous moduli for each vacuum. \GGTheory's analogous moduli space is a single point in dimensionless directions, with the integer ledger $(M, N, L; J, K) = (1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$ as the discrete remainder. The reduction in size is by roughly a factor of $10^{500}$.

\paragraph{The structural mechanism.} String theory does not have an analogue of \AX{4} (\MSMF) or \POS{6} (\OGN); the moduli of Calabi--Yau compactifications and flux configurations are tolerated by the framework as part of the description. \GGTheory{} adopts \AX{4} and \POS{6} as constitutional clauses that actively eliminate continuous moduli, with the integer ledger as the only allowed residue.

\paragraph{Physical intuition.} The reader can think of the difference as follows. In string theory, the framework accommodates a vast moduli space and the burden falls on selection principles (often anthropic) to pick out our particular vacuum. In \GGTheory, the framework actively forbids moduli through \AX{4} and \POS{6}, and the selection of our particular vacuum is replaced by the Diophantine forcing of the integer ledger. Both approaches address the same problem (how to single out the observed Standard Model from the higher-dimensional possibilities); they address it through structurally different mechanisms.

\section{The Decisive Structural Difference: \OGGEP{} versus AdS/CFT}
\label{sec:oggep-vs-adscft}

We now turn to what we view as the sharpest structural difference between the two frameworks: the contrast between \GGTheory's \AX{3} (\OGGEP) and the AdS/CFT correspondence of \citet{Maldacena1998}. Without it, no derivation of the measurement structure of quantum mechanics as a theorem is available, and that no current branch of string theory has adopted.

\subsection{AdS/CFT as a unitary bulk--boundary duality}
\label{ssec:adscft-duality-detailed}

\paragraph{The structural commitment.} The AdS/CFT correspondence states that Type IIB superstring theory on $\mathrm{AdS}_5 \times S^5$ (a bulk gravitational theory) and $\cN = 4$ super-Yang--Mills theory on the 4D boundary (a boundary conformal field theory) are dual descriptions of the same physical system. The bulk and the boundary carry equivalent information: every operator in the boundary CFT corresponds to a bulk field, and the boundary correlation functions can be computed from bulk gravitational quantities through the GKP--Witten dictionary. In both descriptions, time evolution is unitary, and the S-matrix (or, in the AdS case, the boundary correlators) carries the full physical content.

\paragraph{The technical structure.} Let $\rho_{\mathrm{bulk}}$ be a state of the bulk theory on $\mathrm{AdS}_5 \times S^5$, and let $\rho_{\mathrm{bdy}}$ be the corresponding state of the boundary CFT on $\partial \mathrm{AdS}_5 = \mathbb{R}^{1,3}$. The AdS/CFT correspondence asserts that there is an isomorphism
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\mathrm{bulk}} \;\longleftrightarrow\; \rho_{\mathrm{bdy}},
\label{eq:adscft-bijection}
\end{equation}
in the sense that the bulk and boundary states carry equivalent information. No information is lost in either direction. In particular, the bulk state can be reconstructed from the boundary state (the ``bulk reconstruction'' program), and vice versa.

\paragraph{Why this is a duality.} The defining feature of \eqref{eq:adscft-bijection} is that it is a one-to-one correspondence between two unitary descriptions. Both sides are described by unitary Hamiltonian evolution; both sides have a well-defined Hilbert space; both sides carry the full physical content of the system. No partial trace is performed; no information is discarded. The bulk and the boundary are two languages for the same physics, and either language can be reconstructed from the other.

\paragraph{Physical intuition.} The reader can think of AdS/CFT as the holographic principle in its strongest form: a higher-dimensional gravitational theory is exactly equivalent to a lower-dimensional non-gravitational theory living on its boundary. The equivalence is at the level of full quantum states, not just of low-energy effective dynamics. In this picture, the bulk gravitational theory and the boundary CFT are two faithful descriptions of the same underlying quantum system; they differ in description, not in content.

\subsection{\OGGEP{} as a CPTP partial-trace projection}
\label{ssec:oggep-cptp-detailed}

\paragraph{The structural commitment.} \AX{3} (\OGGEP) of \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution} states that the bulk-to-boundary map in \GGTheory{} is a completely positive trace-preserving (CPTP) channel, with the boundary state given by the partial trace of the bulk state over the inaccessible bulk degrees of freedom. Specifically,
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\mathrm{bdy}} \;=\; \mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{extra}}\!\left[\Pi_{\mathrm{zero}}(K) \,\rho_{\mathrm{bulk}}\, \Pi_{\mathrm{zero}}(K)\right],
\label{eq:oggep-cptp-map}
\end{equation}
where $\Pi_{\mathrm{zero}}(K)$ is a projector onto the 4D zero modes of the bulk fields (with the scale-depth-dependent normalization set by $K = 35$), and $\mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{extra}}$ is the partial trace over the inaccessible bulk degrees of freedom (Kaluza--Klein excitations along $r$, internal Wilson-line configurations along $\theta$, and so on).

\paragraph{Why this is irreversible.} The defining feature of \eqref{eq:oggep-cptp-map} is that it is a CPTP map but not an isomorphism: it is not invertible. Many distinct bulk states $\rho_{\mathrm{bulk}}$ collapse to the same boundary state $\rho_{\mathrm{bdy}}$, because the partial trace discards the fine-grained bulk information. In contrast to \eqref{eq:adscft-bijection}, the \OGGEP{} map is one-way: bulk information can flow to the boundary, but boundary information alone cannot reconstruct the bulk state.

\paragraph{The mathematical distinction in one sentence.} AdS/CFT is a unitary bijection between two equivalent descriptions; \OGGEP{} is a CPTP partial trace from a fine-grained bulk description to a coarse-grained boundary description. The two are mathematically different kinds of structures, and the difference is not a matter of degree: it is a matter of kind.

\paragraph{Physical intuition.} The reader can think of \OGGEP{} as the formalization of the fact that a 4D experimenter cannot access the full 6D bulk; they can only access the projection of the bulk state onto the 4D zero modes that survive the partial trace. This is analogous to the statement that an observer in a thermodynamic experiment can access macroscopic state variables (temperature, pressure, volume) but not the microscopic positions and momenta of the molecules; the macroscopic state is the partial-trace image of the microscopic state under coarse-graining. In \OGGEP, the same logic applies to the 6D-to-4D projection: the 4D boundary description is the coarse-grained image of the bulk, and the bulk-boundary map is irreversible because coarse-graining is irreversible.

\subsection{Why duality alone cannot solve the measurement problem}
\label{ssec:duality-cannot-solve-measurement}

\paragraph{The measurement problem in one sentence.} The measurement problem of quantum mechanics is the question of how a pure quantum state of a closed system evolves into a mixed state of measured outcomes when a measurement is performed. Standard textbook quantum mechanics handles this by postulating the projection rule (the Born rule plus state-vector reduction) as a separate axiom; the goal of a more fundamental theory is to derive the measurement structure from the unitary dynamics of a larger system.

\paragraph{Why duality cannot do this.} Any unitary bijection $\rho_{\mathrm{bulk}} \leftrightarrow \rho_{\mathrm{bdy}}$ (as in AdS/CFT) preserves purity and information. A pure state in the bulk corresponds to a pure state on the boundary, and vice versa. Under unitary evolution on either side, purity is preserved at all times. But measurement outcomes are mixed states; the transition from a pure superposition to a classical mixture of outcomes requires information loss. A unitary bijection cannot produce this information loss; therefore, AdS/CFT alone cannot explain how a quantum measurement produces a classical outcome.

\paragraph{What AdS/CFT actually does in the measurement context.} The standard AdS/CFT approach to measurement is to introduce additional structure: a system--apparatus split on the boundary CFT, with decoherence handled by tracing out the apparatus degrees of freedom. This is mathematically consistent, but it amounts to adding a partial-trace step on top of the unitary AdS/CFT structure. The partial trace is the irreversible step that AdS/CFT itself does not supply; it is added externally.

\paragraph{Why \OGGEP{} solves the measurement problem.} In \GGTheory, the partial trace is not added externally; it is the bulk-to-boundary map itself. Equation~\eqref{eq:oggep-cptp-map} is the CPTP partial trace that produces the boundary state directly from the bulk state. The measurement structure is therefore built into the framework at the constitutional level (\AX{3}), not added as an external layer. The pure-to-mixed transition that characterizes measurement is the same transition that produces the boundary state from the bulk state under partial trace. In that structural sense \GGTheory{} derives the measurement structure of quantum mechanics rather than postulates it.

\paragraph{Physical intuition.} The reader can think of the difference as follows. In AdS/CFT, the bulk and the boundary are two unitary descriptions of the same system; if one description carries a pure state, the other does too. To get a classical measurement outcome, one must additionally trace over some subsystem of the boundary CFT. This additional partial trace is the source of the irreversibility, and AdS/CFT does not natively include it. In \GGTheory, the bulk and the boundary are connected by a CPTP partial trace from the outset; the irreversibility is built into the constitutional clause \AX{3}. Measurement is then the projection of the boundary state onto an instrument's outcome eigenspaces, which is the standard POVM construction applied to a state that is \emph{already} the partial-trace image of a bulk state.

\subsection{Operator-theoretic construction of \OGGEP}
\label{ssec:oggep-operator-construction}

\paragraph{Setup.} Let $\cH_{\mathrm{bulk}}$ be the bulk 6D Hilbert space, with the kinematic decomposition $\cH_{\mathrm{bulk}} \approx \cH_{\mathrm{bdy}} \otimes \cH_{\mathrm{extra}}$, where $\cH_{\mathrm{bdy}}$ is the 4D effective Hilbert space accessible to a boundary observer and $\cH_{\mathrm{extra}}$ collects all degrees of freedom that are not accessible (Kaluza--Klein excitations along $r$, internal Wilson-line configurations along $\theta$, high-energy bulk modes). For a bulk gauge field $A_M(x, r, \theta)$ with $M = 0, 1, 2, 3, r, \theta$, the mode expansion is
\begin{equation}
\hat{A}_\mu(x, r, \theta) \;=\; \sum_n f_n(r, \theta)\, \hat{a}_\mu^{(n)}(x),
\label{eq:mode-expansion-bulk}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{a}_\mu^{(0)}(x)$ is the 4D zero mode (the boundary photon or other gauge boson) and $\hat{a}_\mu^{(n)}(x)$ for $n > 0$ are the heavier Kaluza--Klein modes.

\paragraph{The projector $\Pi_{\mathrm{zero}}(K)$.} Define $\Pi_{\mathrm{zero}}(K)$ as the projector onto the subspace of $\cH_{\mathrm{bulk}}$ spanned by states constructed purely from zero-mode creation operators acting on the bulk vacuum, with the scale-depth-dependent normalization set by the integral
\begin{equation}
\int_0^K dr\, e^{-2r} \cdot \oint d\theta \;=\; \pi (1 - e^{-2K}) \;\approx\; \pi,
\label{eq:warp-integral}
\end{equation}
where the last approximation uses $K = 35$ so that $e^{-2K} \approx 6.3 \times 10^{-16}$ is negligible. In the canonical metric of Theorem~\ref{thm:canonical-metric}, the scale profile $e^{-2r}$ governs the radial measure, and the integral over $\theta$ contributes a factor of $2\pi$. The full normalization of the zero-mode profile $f_0(r, \theta)$ is then set by the inner product
\begin{equation}
\int_0^K dr \int_0^{2\pi} d\theta \, w(r, \theta) \, |f_0(r, \theta)|^2 \;=\; 1,
\label{eq:zero-mode-norm}
\end{equation}
where $w(r, \theta)$ is the appropriate weight factor from the bulk action (typically $e^{-2r}$ or similar, depending on the field sector).

\paragraph{The partial trace $\mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{extra}}$.} Decompose $\cH_{\mathrm{extra}} = \cH_{\mathrm{KK}} \otimes \cH_{\mathrm{internal}}$, where $\cH_{\mathrm{KK}}$ is spanned by excitations of non-zero modes ($n > 0$) in the radial / angular tower for all bulk fields, and $\cH_{\mathrm{internal}}$ collects any purely internal topological or geometric data (Wilson-line winding numbers, flux sectors). The partial trace is
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{extra}} \;=\; \mathrm{Tr}_{\cH_{\mathrm{KK}}} \circ \mathrm{Tr}_{\cH_{\mathrm{internal}}}.
\label{eq:partial-trace-decomp}
\end{equation}
At operator level, that is what ``trace out the inaccessible bulk degrees of freedom.''

\paragraph{The \OGGEP{} channel.} Putting the projector and the partial trace together, the \OGGEP{} channel is
\begin{equation}
\cE_{\mathrm{OGGEP}}: \cS(\cH_{\mathrm{bulk}}) \;\longrightarrow\; \cS(\cH_{\mathrm{bdy}}), \qquad
\cE_{\mathrm{OGGEP}}(\rho_{\mathrm{bulk}}) \;=\; \mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{extra}}\!\left[\Pi_{\mathrm{zero}}(K) \,\rho_{\mathrm{bulk}}\, \Pi_{\mathrm{zero}}(K)\right],
\label{eq:oggep-channel}
\end{equation}
where $\cS(\cH)$ denotes the space of density operators on $\cH$. This channel is CPTP by construction (it is the composition of a projection and a partial trace, both of which are CPTP), but it is not invertible: many distinct bulk states $\rho_{\mathrm{bulk}}$ collapse to the same boundary state $\rho_{\mathrm{bdy}}$.

\paragraph{Physical intuition.} The \OGGEP{} channel \eqref{eq:oggep-channel} is the explicit operator-theoretic realization of the bulk-to-boundary projection. The projector $\Pi_{\mathrm{zero}}(K)$ selects only the zero modes (the 4D fields that a boundary observer can register); the partial trace $\mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{extra}}$ discards all information about higher KK modes and internal configurations. After the channel acts, the boundary state contains only the information that a 4D experimenter can in principle access; everything else has been irreversibly traced out. In that formal sense the bulk is the ``ontic'' description (carrying the full physical content) and the boundary is the ``operational'' description (carrying only what is empirically registrable).

\subsection{How $K = 35$ enters the OGGEP normalization}
\label{ssec:K-in-oggep}

\paragraph{The zero-mode profile.} Consider a bulk gauge field whose 4D zero mode has profile $f_0(r, \theta)$ along the extra directions. In the canonical metric of Theorem~\ref{thm:canonical-metric}, the zero-mode equation of motion forces $f_0(r, \theta)$ to be a constant for a true zero mode (no $r$-derivatives, no $\theta$-derivatives). The normalization condition \eqref{eq:zero-mode-norm} then becomes
\begin{equation}
|f_0|^2 \cdot \int_0^K dr\, w(r) \cdot \int_0^{2\pi} d\theta \;=\; 1,
\label{eq:zero-mode-const-norm}
\end{equation}
where $w(r)$ depends on the field sector (for example, $w(r) = e^{-2r}$ for gauge field kinetic terms in the canonical metric).

\paragraph{Substituting $K = 35$.} For $w(r) = e^{-2r}$ and $K = 35$, the radial integral is
\begin{equation}
\int_0^{35} dr\, e^{-2r} \;=\; \tfrac{1}{2}(1 - e^{-70}) \;\approx\; \tfrac{1}{2},
\label{eq:radial-integral-K35}
\end{equation}
so that
\begin{equation}
|f_0|^2 \;=\; \frac{1}{\tfrac{1}{2} \cdot 2\pi} \;=\; \frac{1}{\pi},
\label{eq:f0-norm-K35}
\end{equation}
giving $|f_0| = 1/\sqrt{\pi}$.

\paragraph{Implication for $\Pi_{\mathrm{zero}}(K)$.} The projector $\Pi_{\mathrm{zero}}(K)$ in \eqref{eq:oggep-channel} therefore depends explicitly on $K$ through the normalization of the zero-mode profile. Changing $K$ would change the radial integral $\int_0^K dr\, e^{-2r}$ from $\tfrac{1}{2}(1 - e^{-2K})$ to a different value, which would in turn change $|f_0|^2$. In \GGTheory{}, $K = 35$ is forced by the \OGNfive{} cascade, so the projector $\Pi_{\mathrm{zero}}(K = 35)$ is the unique constitutional choice; the boundary observable normalizations follow.

\paragraph{Physical intuition.} The reader can think of $K = 35$ as the integer that fixes the normalization of the 4D zero modes in the RG-scale throat. Through $\Pi_{\mathrm{zero}}(K)$, this integer enters the \OGGEP{} channel directly, and therefore enters every boundary measurement probability that depends on the normalization of the 4D fields. The \OGN-5 cascade is not just an abstract number-theoretic curiosity; it controls the actual operator content of the boundary description through the scale-profile zero-mode normalization.

\section{Synthesis: An Invitation to the String-Theory Community}
\label{sec:synthesis-vs}

We close Part~IV with a synthesis of what is shared between \GGTheory{} and the superstring program, what is added in \GGTheory, and what is empirically exposed. Our intent throughout has been constructive: to make the structural differences as explicit as possible, with the aim of opening a productive dialogue with the string-theory community rather than closing one.

\subsection{What is shared}
\label{ssec:what-is-shared}

\GGTheory{} inherits substantial structural infrastructure from the string-theory tradition.

\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em, itemsep=0.20em]
\item \textbf{The Green--Schwarz mechanism.} The 1984 \citet{GreenSchwarz1984} mechanism is the historical seed of \BIsix. Both are modified Bianchi identities tying gauge and gravitational curvatures together; both cancel chiral-fermion anomalies through inflow via a single tensor sector.
\item \textbf{The extra-dimensional construction.} The 1999 \citet{RandallSundrum1999} RG-scale throat is the historical seed of the canonical metric of Theorem~\ref{thm:canonical-metric}. Both are product geometry metrics on a 4D-extended manifold with one extra non-compact direction.
\item \textbf{The radial-as-RG-flow reading.} The holographic-renormalization program of \citet{deBoer1999, Skenderis2002, Papadimitriou2010} is the historical seed of \POS{5} in its geometric realization. Both interpret the radial direction in a bulk as the renormalization-group flow coordinate of the boundary theory.
\item \textbf{The mathematical infrastructure.} Characteristic classes, anomaly polynomials, Stora--Zumino descent equations, BV/BRST cohomology, Wu--Chern--Simons differential cohomology --- all of these mathematical tools are inherited from the string-theory and gauge-theory tradition. \GGTheory{} would not have been formulable without them.
\end{itemize}

\paragraph{Acknowledgment of debt.} We owe an explicit intellectual debt to the string-theory community for these structural contributions. The forty years of work on the Green--Schwarz mechanism, on Calabi--Yau compactifications, on AdS/CFT, on the differential-cohomology refinement of anomaly inflow, on the holographic-renormalization program, and on the F-theory and non-supersymmetric heterotic landscapes are all part of the intellectual foundation on which \GGTheory{} builds.

\subsection{What is added}
\label{ssec:what-is-added}

Beyond this shared infrastructure, \GGTheory{} adds four substantive constitutional commitments.

\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=2em]
\item \textbf{\AX{1} (Locality and Causality).} Particles remain point objects; microcausality holds at all scales. The bulk theory is a standard 6D quantum field theory rather than a worldsheet conformal field theory.
\item \textbf{\AX{2} (\GGEP, Geometry--Gauge Equivalence Principle).} Gravity and gauge structure descend from one composite connection $\cA = \omega \oplus A_5 \oplus A_B \oplus A_{Qi}$. It crystallizes constitutionally the geometric move that Green and Schwarz pioneered.
\item \textbf{\AX{3} (\OGGEP, Operational/Open Geometry--Gauge Equivalence Principle).} The bulk-to-boundary map is a CPTP partial-trace projection, not a unitary duality. The measurement structure of quantum mechanics is derived from this CPTP structure rather than postulated.
\item \textbf{\AX{4} (\MSMF, Maximum Symmetry, Minimum Freedom).} Continuous moduli are inadmissible unless forced by a constitutional clause. By that mechanism \GGTheory{} collapses the would-be landscape to a single point in dimensionless directions.
\end{enumerate}

\paragraph{The combination matters.} Any one of these four commitments, taken alone, is recognizable from elsewhere in the theoretical-physics literature. Locality is a standard QFT requirement; geometric gauge structure is a familiar idea since Yang--Mills; CPTP projections are standard in open-system quantum mechanics; minimality principles are familiar from Occam's razor and effective-field-theory reasoning. What is novel about \GGTheory{} is the combination of all four as a single constitutional system, applied uniformly across a 6D bulk theory whose boundary projection is the Standard Model.

\subsection{Empirical exposure: integer-discrete predictions}
\label{ssec:empirical-exposure-strings}

\paragraph{The bet.} \GGTheory{} makes a substantive empirical bet that the string-theory program does not make at the same precision. The bet is that the structure of fundamental physics is rigid enough to be derived from a short list of constitutional clauses, with the integer ledger $(M, N, L; J, K) = (1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$ as the discrete remainder, and that this integer-discrete structure produces sharp empirical predictions that can be tested at current or near-future experiments.

\paragraph{The list of empirical anchors.} Each integer of the \OGNfive{} ledger produces an empirical anchor that is either already tested or testable in the next decade.

\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em, itemsep=0.20em]
\item $L = 5$ is anchored in the Standard-Model embedding into $\bar{\mathbf 5} \oplus \mathbf{10}$ of $\SUfive$, with the gauge couplings unifying at $E_{\mathrm{GUT}}$.
\item $N = 3$ is anchored in the three-color structure of QCD.
\item $K = 35$ is anchored in the lock cluster $M_{\mathrm{lock}} \approx 3.85$~TeV, testable at LHC Run-3 and the HL-LHC.
\item $J = 7$ is anchored in the leading-order \OGN{} fine-structure prediction $\alpha^{-1}(0) = 2^J + N^2 = 137$, reproducing the integer part of CODATA 2022 exactly.
\item $M = 1$ is anchored in the count of compact Abelian holonomy directions in the bulk.
\end{itemize}

Each empirical anchor is independently falsifiable: a precision measurement showing the corresponding integer to be wrong would force a re-examination of the constitutional clause that drives it. The Problems-Solved entries P1--P7 in Part~VII \S\ref{sec:problems-solved}.

\paragraph{The string-theory program makes different predictions.} At the level of comparable precision, string-theory constructions do not predict $M_{\mathrm{lock}} \approx 3.85$~TeV, $K = 35$, $J = 7$, or the integer-part-of-$\alpha^{-1}$ value $137$. These integer-discrete predictions are unique to \GGTheory{} and depend specifically on the \OGNfive{} cascade plus \AX{4}. The string-theory program has its own predictions (lower bounds on string scale, signatures of large extra dimensions, axion-photon couplings, and so on), but these are typically continuous parameters whose values are not fixed by first principles within the string framework.

\subsection{The invitation}
\label{ssec:the-invitation}

\paragraph{What we are asking of the string-theory community.} We invite the string-theory community to assess \GGTheory{} on the following two grounds.

\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=2em]
\item \textbf{Structural assessment.} Is the combination of \AX{1}, \AX{2}, \AX{3}, \AX{4} (with the associated postulates \POS{1}--\POS{7}) a coherent constitutional system? Are the four obstructions of \S\ref{sec:four-obstructions} fair characterizations of the structural differences? Are the technical claims of Theorems~\ref{thm:dim-minimal} through \ref{thm:arisaka-equation} of Part~II compatible with the existing string-theory mathematical infrastructure? Critique on these grounds is welcome.
\item \textbf{Empirical assessment.} Are the integer-discrete predictions $K = 35$, $M_{\mathrm{lock}} \approx 3.85$~TeV, $J = 7$, $\alpha^{-1}(0) = 137$, and the cosmological $\pi$-locked partitions $\Omega_m \approx 1/\pi$, $\Omega_\Lambda \approx 1 - 1/\pi$ (treated in \citep{ArisakaA10Cosmos}) consistent with current data? If so, are they testable at HL-LHC, future colliders, axion-haloscope searches, and precision cosmology measurements in the next decade? Empirical critique on these grounds is also welcome.
\end{enumerate}

\paragraph{What we are not asking.} We are not asking the string-theory community to abandon its program. The string-theory program has produced a vast and beautiful body of mathematical and physical results, many of which \GGTheory{} depends on. What we are asking is that the string-theory community treat \GGTheory{} as a serious alternative whose structural commitments differ in specific, identifiable ways from those of the string-theory program, and engage with it on those terms.

\paragraph{Physical intuition.} The reader can think of the relationship between \GGTheory{} and string theory as the relationship between two siblings of the same intellectual lineage who have made different structural choices. Both descend from the geometric tradition (Riemann, Einstein, Kaluza, Klein, Yang, Mills, Green, Schwarz, Maldacena); both use modified Bianchi identities and anomaly polynomials; both interpret the radial direction in a bulk as a renormalization-group coordinate. They differ at the constitutional level (four specific axiomatic commitments) and at the empirical level (integer-discrete versus continuous-moduli predictions). A productive dialogue between them is, in our view, one of the most important conceptual developments that contemporary fundamental physics can pursue.

\paragraph{Closing remark.} We close Part~IV with the following observation. The structural differences between \GGTheory{} and the superstring program are real and substantive, but they are not differences of intellectual quality. Both frameworks are serious attempts at fundamental physics; both deserve serious engagement. Our hope in writing this Part is that the string-theory community will read it not as a critique but as an invitation: an invitation to look at the same problems from a slightly different angle, to assess whether the integer-discrete commitments of \GGTheory{} survive the empirical exposure of the next decade, and to engage with the framework on its own constitutional terms. The empirical world will adjudicate.


\section{Comprehensive Comparison: Summary Table and Side-by-Side Figure}
\label{sec:partIV-summary}

We close Part~IV with two summary objects designed for the working physicist who wants a single point of reference: a comprehensive comparison table contrasting \GGTheory{} with the superstring program across thirty distinct axes (Table~\ref{tab:gg-vs-string-comprehensive}), and a side-by-side architectural figure highlighting the four constitutional commitments that collapse the string-theoretic landscape to a single forced point (Figure~\ref{fig:gg-vs-string-side-by-side}). Both are intended as standalone references; either can be photocopied, projected at a seminar, or transcribed into a slide deck, without losing the structural claim of Part~IV.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\resizebox{0.825\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tikzpicture}[
 every node/.style={font=\sffamily, align=center},
 block/.style={rectangle, draw=blue!55!black, rounded corners, minimum width=4.6cm, minimum height=0.95cm, align=center, font=\sffamily\small},
 smallblock/.style={rectangle, draw=blue!55!black, rounded corners, minimum width=4.6cm, minimum height=0.75cm, align=center, font=\sffamily\footnotesize},
 topbox/.style={rectangle, draw=blue!55!black, rounded corners, minimum width=11cm, minimum height=1.1cm, align=center, fill=blue!8, font=\sffamily\small},
 punchline/.style={rectangle, draw=gray, line width=0.64pt, rounded corners, minimum width=14cm, minimum height=1.4cm, align=center, fill=gray!10, font=\sffamily\small},
 arrow/.style={->, >=stealth, line width=0.48pt}
]

%% Title
\node[font=\sffamily\bfseries] at (0, 10.0) {\GGTheory{} vs.\ Superstring Theory: Same Machinery, Different Constitutional Commitments};

%% Shared roots
\node[topbox] (gs) at (0, 8.6) {Shared inheritance: \textbf{Green--Schwarz mechanism (1984)}, modified Bianchi identity,\\geometric tradition (Euclid $\to$ Riemann $\to$ Einstein $\to$ Kaluza--Klein), and Yang--Mills gauge invariance.};

%% LEFT: STRING THEORY column
\node[block, fill=red!10] (s1) at (-5.6, 7.0) {\textbf{String Theory}\\10D / 11D bulk};
\node[smallblock, fill=red!5] (s2) at (-5.6, 5.7) {Supersymmetry required\\(worldsheet/spacetime)};
\node[smallblock, fill=red!5] (s3) at (-5.6, 4.5) {Extra dims \emph{spatial}:\\Calabi--Yau / $G_2$ holonomy};
\node[smallblock, fill=red!5] (s4) at (-5.6, 3.3) {Strings = extended objects};
\node[smallblock, fill=red!5] (s5) at (-5.6, 2.1) {AdS/CFT: unitary duality};
\node[smallblock, fill=red!5] (s6) at (-5.6, 0.9) {UV completion at $M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$};
\node[block, fill=red!16, minimum height=1.4cm] (slan) at (-5.6, -0.8) {\textbf{LANDSCAPE}\\$\sim 10^{500}$ inequivalent vacua\\continuous moduli space};

%% RIGHT: GG-THEORY column
\node[block, fill=green!10] (g1) at (5.6, 7.0) {\textbf{\GGTheory}\\6D bulk};
\node[smallblock, fill=green!5] (g2) at (5.6, 5.7) {\AX{4} \MSMF\ forbids SUSY\\(no continuous moduli)};
\node[smallblock, fill=green!5] (g3) at (5.6, 4.5) {Extra dims \emph{non-spatial}:\\$I_r$ = RG-scale, $S^1_\theta$ = topological circle};
\node[smallblock, fill=green!5] (g4) at (5.6, 3.3) {Particles = point objects (\AX{1} \LC)};
\node[smallblock, fill=green!5] (g5) at (5.6, 2.1) {\OGGEP: CPTP partial-trace projection};
\node[smallblock, fill=green!5] (g6) at (5.6, 0.9) {UV completion at $E_{\mathrm{GUT}} \approx 2.28 \!\times\! 10^{16}$~GeV};
\node[block, fill=green!16, minimum height=1.6cm] (gpt) at (5.6, -0.8) {\textbf{SINGLE FORCED POINT}\\OGN-5 $= (1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$\\GU-5 $= \{c, G_N, \hbar; k_B, Q_B\}$\\\emph{Zero free parameters}};

%% Arrows from shared roots
\draw[arrow] (gs) -- (s1);
\draw[arrow] (gs) -- (g1);

%% Vertical chains
\draw[arrow] (s1) -- (s2);
\draw[arrow] (s2) -- (s3);
\draw[arrow] (s3) -- (s4);
\draw[arrow] (s4) -- (s5);
\draw[arrow] (s5) -- (s6);
\draw[arrow] (s6) -- (slan);

\draw[arrow] (g1) -- (g2);
\draw[arrow] (g2) -- (g3);
\draw[arrow] (g3) -- (g4);
\draw[arrow] (g4) -- (g5);
\draw[arrow] (g5) -- (g6);
\draw[arrow] (g6) -- (gpt);

%% Centre: split into four axiom nodes with fan-out arrows showing
%% that AX-3 and AX-4 are absent from the String Theory side.
\node[draw=olive!55!black, rounded corners, fill=yellow!18, minimum width=3.2cm, minimum height=0.9cm, align=center, font=\sffamily\footnotesize\bfseries] (ax1) at (0, 5.5) {AX-1 \,\LC};
\node[draw=olive!55!black, rounded corners, fill=yellow!18, minimum width=3.2cm, minimum height=0.9cm, align=center, font=\sffamily\footnotesize\bfseries] (ax2) at (0, 4.3) {AX-2 \,\GGEP};
\node[draw=green!55!black, rounded corners, fill=green!13, minimum width=3.2cm, minimum height=0.9cm, align=center, font=\sffamily\footnotesize\bfseries] (ax3) at (0, 3.1) {AX-3 \,\OGGEP};
\node[draw=green!55!black, rounded corners, fill=green!13, minimum width=3.2cm, minimum height=0.9cm, align=center, font=\sffamily\footnotesize\bfseries] (ax4) at (0, 1.9) {AX-4 \,\MSMF};
\node[font=\sffamily\scriptsize\itshape, text=red!60!black] at (0, 0.6) {AX-3 + AX-4\\absent on the\\left (Strings)};
%% Fan arrows from AX-1 and AX-2 to BOTH columns (shared inheritance).
\foreach \dst in {s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, s6} { \draw[->, line width=0.48pt, draw=red!50!black, opacity=0.55] (ax1.west) to[bend right=8] (\dst.east); }
\foreach \dst in {s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, s6} { \draw[->, line width=0.48pt, draw=red!50!black, opacity=0.55] (ax2.west) to[bend right=4] (\dst.east); }
\foreach \dst in {g1, g2, g3, g4, g5, g6} { \draw[->, line width=0.48pt, draw=green!45!black, opacity=0.55] (ax1.east) to[bend left=8] (\dst.west); }
\foreach \dst in {g1, g2, g3, g4, g5, g6} { \draw[->, line width=0.48pt, draw=green!45!black, opacity=0.55] (ax2.east) to[bend left=4] (\dst.west); }
%% Fan arrows from AX-3 and AX-4 to ONLY the GG column (NOT the String column!).
\foreach \dst in {g1, g2, g3, g4, g5, g6} { \draw[->, line width=0.48pt, draw=green!45!black, opacity=0.65] (ax3.east) to[bend left=4] (\dst.west); }
\foreach \dst in {g1, g2, g3, g4, g5, g6} { \draw[->, line width=0.48pt, draw=green!45!black, opacity=0.65] (ax4.east) to[bend left=8] (\dst.west); }

%% Bottom punchline
\node[punchline] at (0, -3.2) {%
Both programs descend from the same geometric tradition and use the same anomaly machinery.\\
String Theory invokes only \AX{1} and \AX{2}; \GGTheory{} invokes all four (\AX{1}, \AX{2}, \AX{3}, \AX{4}).\\
The two additional commitments (\AX{3} \OGGEP\ + \AX{4} \MSMF) collapse the $\sim 10^{500}$-vacuum landscape\\to a single forced point of paired pentads (\OGNfive, \GUfive).};

\end{tikzpicture}}
\bigskip
\caption[GG-Theory vs.\ superstring theory: same machinery, different constitutional commitments.]{Side-by-side architectural comparison of \GGTheory{} and the superstring program. Both descend from the Green--Schwarz line and from the geometric tradition (top band). The four constitutional commitments \AX{1}--\AX{4} of the \GGConstitution{} (central yellow panel), taken together, collapse the string-theoretic landscape of $\sim 10^{500}$ vacua (lower-left red panel) to a single forced point (lower-right green panel), whose dimensionless content is the integer ledger $\OGNfive = (1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$ and whose dimensional content is the conversion-factor pentad $\GUfive = \{c, G_N, \hbar; k_B, Q_B\}$. Each row of the side columns is forced by, or replaced by, one of the four constitutional commitments. This figure is the visual summary of Part~IV.}
\label{fig:gg-vs-string-side-by-side}
\end{figure}


{\small
\begin{longtable}{@{}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.168\textwidth} >{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.30\textwidth} >{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.30\textwidth} >{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.168\textwidth}@{}}
\caption[Comprehensive comparison of \GGTheory{} and the superstring program.]{Comprehensive comparison of \GGTheory{} and the superstring program across thirty axes in seven thematic blocks. Where the two programs share a feature, both columns describe it in the same language. Where they diverge, the divergence is recorded together with the constitutional clause (or theorem of Part~II) that drives the \GGTheory{} side.\label{tab:gg-vs-string-comprehensive}}\\
\toprule
\textbf{Axis} & \textbf{String Theory} & \textbf{\GGTheory} & \textbf{Driver in \GGTheory} \\
\midrule
\endfirsthead
\multicolumn{4}{c}{\itshape Table~\ref{tab:gg-vs-string-comprehensive} continued from previous page}\\
\toprule
\textbf{Axis} & \textbf{String Theory} & \textbf{\GGTheory} & \textbf{Driver in \GGTheory} \\
\midrule
\endhead
\midrule
\multicolumn{4}{r}{\itshape continued on next page}\\
\endfoot
\bottomrule
\endlastfoot

\multicolumn{4}{l}{\textbf{1. Foundations}} \\
\midrule
Mathematical primitive & Extended 1D string or higher-dimensional brane on a 10D/11D background. & 6D bulk manifold $\cM_6 = \cM_4 \times I_r \times S^1_\theta$ carrying a composite geometry--gauge connection. & T1 + T2 \\
Spacetime dimension & 10 (Type I/II, Heterotic) or 11 (M-theory). & 6, with each dimension carrying a named constitutional role. & T1 \\
Supersymmetry & Required at the worldsheet level; spacetime SUSY in low-energy effective theory. & Forbidden as a fundamental input by \AX{4}; emerges (if at all) only as an emergent low-energy organization. & \AX{4} \MSMF \\
UV completion scale & Planck mass $M_{\mathrm{Pl}} \approx 1.2 \times 10^{19}$~GeV. & $E_{\mathrm{GUT}} \approx 2.28 \times 10^{16}$~GeV (boundary of the scale profile at $r=0$); $M_6 \sim M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ as bulk anchor. & T2 + T6 \\
Methodological lineage & Schwarz, Green, Witten, Polchinski, Maldacena. & Euclid $\to$ Newton $\to$ Riemann $\to$ Maxwell $\to$ Einstein $\to$ Boltzmann $\to$ Yang--Mills $\to$ \GGConstitution. & \AFour{} \\

\addlinespace
\multicolumn{4}{l}{\textbf{2. Extra dimensions}} \\
\midrule
Type of extra dimensions & Spatial, with intrinsic length (Calabi--Yau, $G_2$ holonomy, T-dual circles). & Non-spatial: $I_r$ is renormalization-group time, $S^1_\theta$ is a topological circle (no intrinsic Riemannian length). & \POS{5} \RG; \AX{2} \GGEP \\
Compactification scheme & Calabi--Yau threefold, $G_2$-holonomy seven-manifold, flux compactification with $\sim 10^{500}$ choices. & None; bulk topology and metric are forced by the constitution. & \AX{4} + \POS{6} \\
Particle ontology & Strings, D-branes, M-branes (extended objects). & Point particles (locality \AX{1} preserved). & \AX{1} \LC \\
Quantization & Worldsheet conformal field theory $\to$ spacetime fields. & Direct 6D quantum field theory on $\cM_6$ with BRST-consistent gauge structure. & T7 + \AX{2} \\

\addlinespace
\multicolumn{4}{l}{\textbf{3. Gauge and gravity}} \\
\midrule
Gauge group source & $E_8 \times E_8$ or $\mathrm{SO}(32)$ heterotic at the UV; Standard Model emerges through compactification + Higgsing. & $G_{\Bulk} = \Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$ forced by \AX{2} + \POS{3}. & T3 \\
Composite gauge--gravity & Separate sectors at the worldsheet level; couple through the spacetime metric. & Single composite connection $\cA = \omega \oplus A_5 \oplus A^B \oplus A^{Qi}$ (Total Geometric-Gauge object TGG). & \AX{2} \GGEP \\
Anomaly cancellation & Green--Schwarz in 10D: $I_{12} = X_4 \wedge X_8$ with $X_8$ factorization. & Modified Bianchi $\BIsix$ in 6D: $I_8 = \tfrac12 X_4 \wedge X_4$ with $X_4$ factorization. & T4 + T5 \\
Trace-ratio identity & Not constrained; chosen by representation. & Forced $|a/c| = |a/d| = 5/2$ from $\Tr(B_0^2)/\Tr(Y_0^2) = 2/5$ in the $\mathbf{5}$ of \SUfive. & T4 \\

\addlinespace
\multicolumn{4}{l}{\textbf{4. Parameters and predictions}} \\
\midrule
Continuous moduli and moduli-space size & $\sim 10^{500}$ inequivalent vacua in flux compactifications. & A single point: no free parameter, the units being the trio $\{c, G_N, \hbar\}$ with $M_6$ derived. & \AX{4} + \POS{6}, T6 + T4 \\
Dimensionless free parameters & Continuous landscape of K\"ahler moduli, complex-structure moduli, flux quanta. & $\OGNfive = (M, N, L; J, K) = (1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$, forced by the Diophantine cascade. & T6 \\
Universal constants & External inputs $c$, $G_N$, $\hbar$, $\alpha$, $\dots$ & $\GUfive = \{c, G_N, \hbar; k_B, Q_B\}$ as conversion factors of the bulk geometry (3 bulk + 2 boundary). & \AFour{} + T8 \\
Fine-structure constant $\alpha^{-1}(0)$ & Not derived; input. & $\alpha^{-1}(0) = 2^J + N^2 = 128 + 9 = 137$, matching CODATA integer part exactly. & T6 \\
Color count $N_c$ & Empirical input; unconstrained once $\SU(3)_C$ is chosen. & $N = N_c = 3$ forced by the dual lock with the block embedding. & T6 (T-BI6-10.2a) \\
Three generations $N_g$ & Motivated by Euler characteristic of Calabi--Yau; choice-dependent. & Not an \OGNfive{} member; derived (cond.) in \citep{ArisakaP2N3}. & \PaperPTwo{} \\
Newton's constant $G_N$ & External input, no constitutive derivation. & Derived from the radial scale-profile integration on $I_r$. & \AFour{} (Picture~3) \\

\addlinespace
\multicolumn{4}{l}{\textbf{5. Cosmology and particle phenomenology}} \\
\midrule
Cosmological constant $\Lambda$ & Open; debated via landscape proposals (anthropic selection). & $\Omega_\Lambda \approx 1 - 1/\pi$ from the $\pi$-locked partitions of the cosmic energy budget. & \ATen{} \\
New physics scale & $M_{\mathrm{KK}} \sim$ TeV in some warped or large-extra-dimension constructions. & $M_{\mathrm{lock}} \approx 3.85$~TeV from $K = 35$ (HL-LHC + FCC kill criterion). & T8 \\
Proton lifetime & Model-dependent; weak constraints. & Forbidden at tree level by gauged $\UoneB$; testable Super-K / Hyper-K bound. & T3 \\
Dark matter & WIMP / axion candidates per scenario. & Kaxion twin-peak $\Delta\nu/\nu = 1/35$ from the scale depth $K$. & C1-Kaxion \\
Energy--information / informational sector & Not addressed in fundamental physics. & Arisaka equation $J_E/Q_B = J_e = J_B = J_{Qi}$ with $Q_B \approx 0.1555$~eV/qubit. & T8 + \ASeven{} \\

\addlinespace
\multicolumn{4}{l}{\textbf{6. Boundary projection and measurement}} \\
\midrule
Bulk--boundary mechanism & AdS/CFT (unitary holographic duality) or holographic principle. & \OGGEP{} (CPTP partial-trace projection); registered 4D boundary observer. & \AX{3} \\
Measurement problem & Largely unaddressed at the foundational level. & Built in via \AX{3} \OGGEP{} as a constitutional clause. & \AX{3} \\
Hilbert space treatment & UV--IR bulk--boundary correspondence between bulk and CFT. & Bulk Hilbert space projected to boundary registered states via CPTP partial trace. & \AFive{} \GDOS \\
Boundary thermodynamics & External; not part of the fundamental unification. & \GDOS{} supplies the boundary Gibbs measure; $k_B \in \GUfive$. & \AFive{} \\

\addlinespace
\multicolumn{4}{l}{\textbf{7. Foundational philosophy and falsifiability}} \\
\midrule
Axiomatic structure & Program of unification; not formally axiomatized. & Four axioms (\LC, \GGEP, \OGGEP, \MSMF) + seven postulates (\POS{1}--\POS{7}) of the \GGConstitution. & \AOne{} \\
Stratum in the constitutional tower & Stratum 2 (uses \AX{1} + \AX{2}; leaves \AX{3} + \AX{4} implicit). & Stratum 4 (explicit realization of all four axioms). & Part~VI \\
Empirical falsifier & Indirect; landscape predictions scale-dependent. & Ten registered falsifiers under \POS{7} with pre-declared kill criteria. & \POS{7} \\


No-free-parameters statement & N/A (input parameters fitted to data per choice of vacuum). & Every dimensionless constant is $\in \OGNfive$, derivable from $\OGNfive$ by the cascade, or a ratio of $\GUfive$ members. No third species admitted. & \AFour{} \\
\end{longtable}
}


\subsection*{Closing remarks on Part~IV}

The comparison in this Part was organized around what each program must assume
rather than around what each has achieved, and the choice was deliberate. A
scorecard of achievements measures how long a program has been worked on and by
how many people. Superstring theory would win such a scorecard by a wide
margin, and the result would say nothing about whether its structural
commitments are the right ones.

What the four obstructions show is narrower and more useful. On four specific
questions the two programs answer differently, the answers can be written down,
and each answer has consequences that can be traced. Whether the extra
dimensions are places. Where the four-dimensional description stops. Whether a
vast space of solutions is tolerated or forbidden. Whether the map to what an
observer registers keeps all the information or discards some of it.

The fourth does the most work, and it is worth stating without the machinery. A
duality says two descriptions carry the same content: you may pass between them
and lose nothing. A projection says one description is the shadow of the other,
and passing from the first to the second cannot be undone. Those are different
mathematical objects, and the difference is not one of degree. A framework built
on a duality can say a great deal about what exists and has no room for an
account of what a measurement does, because nothing in it is irreversible. A
framework built on a projection has that room from the start, and pays for it
by giving up the claim that the boundary description is complete.

None of this settles which choice nature made. It does mean the choice is not a
matter of taste: each of the four decisions has a downstream consequence
exposed to measurement, and Part~VII names them.

A last word on the shape of the disagreement. This paper takes a mechanism the
superstring program discovered and runs it in six dimensions rather than ten.
The sharpest objections to what follows therefore come from the people who know
that mechanism best. That is the right situation to be in. A framework whose
most dangerous critics are the builders of the tool it depends on is a
framework being read seriously.

\GGPart[Forward and Backward Map]{Forward and Backward Map}{Where the Eight Theorems Come From and Where They Go --- \ATwo{} in the \GGTheory{} Cohort and the Predictions Branch}


\noindent
A bolt in a machine is understood in two directions at once: by what holds it,
and by what it holds. Take either away and you are looking at a piece of metal.

Part~V does both for this paper. Looking backward, it traces each of the eight
theorems to the clauses of the charter that force it, and asks the sharper
question underneath: is every clause needed? A constitution with a spare
article in it is not a constitution, it is a preference, and the answer here
is worked one clause at a time --- remove it, and name the theorem that dies.

Looking forward, it hands the results to the papers that consume them. This
one paper does not derive the electron, or the cosmic inventory, or the
measurement rule of quantum mechanics; it derives the arena and the integers
those papers stand on, and then it stops. Part~V says exactly what each of the
companion papers takes from here and what it gives back.

For a reader following only this paper, that forward material is orientation
and can be read quickly. For a reader following the whole program, it is the
seam, and it is written to be checkable: every handoff names the specific
result it carries, so a claim that appears twice in the program can be traced
to the one place that owns it.

The map has a shape worth knowing before you look at it. The papers on the
left flank feed the spine; the papers on the right flank read it. The
difference between feeding and reading is the difference between a result this
paper depends on and a result that depends on this paper.

\section{Introduction to Part~V}
\label{sec:partV-intro-cohort-map}

\ATwo{} is the bulk-side anchor of the \GGTheory{} program. Its eight Theorems are \emph{forced downward} by the constitutional axioms and postulates of \AOne{} \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution} and \emph{consumed upward} by every cohort paper that builds on the 6D bulk, the four-factor composite gauge group, the \BIsix\ anomaly coefficients, the \OGNfive\ integer ledger, and the Arisaka equation. This Part is the two-way axiomatic handoff: backward to \AOne, forward to \AThree\ through \AEleven\ plus the Predictions Branch.

The structural difference between \AOne{} and \ATwo{} is the orientation of their handoffs. \AOne{} is the constitutional charter; it looks only downstream, mapping its four axioms and seven postulates to the cohort that proves them. \ATwo{} is the bulk-side foundational paper; it must look both upstream (to its axiomatic warrant, which lives in \AOne) and downstream (to its empirical and structural consequences, which live in \AThree\ through \AEleven\ and the Predictions Branch). Part V is therefore the \emph{two-way} map: the eight Theorems of Part II are paired backward with the constitutional clauses that force them, and paired forward with the companion papers that consume them.

A reader who enters the \GGTheory{} program through \ATwo{} --- a reader who has not yet read \AOne{}, and who has perhaps not yet read any of \AThree\ through \AEleven\ either --- should be able to grasp the full cohort architecture from this Part alone. That is, in our view, the highest service \ATwo{} can offer such a reader: not to substitute for \AOne{} (which carries the constitution proper), nor to substitute for the cohort papers (which carry the empirical and structural consequences), but to provide an authoritative map of the whole, drawn from the geometric heart of the program.

The Part proceeds as follows. Section~\ref{sec:backward-map-A1} supplies the backward map: each of \ATwo{}'s eight Theorems is paired with the specific \AOne{} clauses that force it. Section~\ref{sec:necessity-sufficiency} sharpens the pairing into a rigorous Necessity-and-Sufficiency theorem. Section~\ref{sec:two-way-and-cohort} then steps back to articulate the two-way axiomatic handoff between \ATwo{} and the rest of the cohort, with the cohort inventory and the twenty-two-paper cohort-architecture diagram (Figure~\ref{fig:cohort-architecture-A2}, at the close of Part~I). Sections~\ref{sec:bridge-A1-backward} through~\ref{sec:bridge-predictions} supply the eight bridge subsections: one to \AOne{} (backward), one to \AThree{}, one to \AFour{}, one to \AFive{}, one to \ASix{} and \ASeven{} together, one to \AEight{}, \ANine{}, and \ATen{} together, one to \AEleven, and one to the Predictions Branch (P1-KK, P2-N3, P3-Electron) and the Cosmology \& Astrophysics Branch (C1-Kaxion, C2-Hubble, C3-BH). Section~\ref{sec:coherence-map} supplies the updated Cross-Paper Coherence Map, with three subsections: outward map (Theorems $\to$ companion papers), inward map (\AOne{} clauses $\to$ Theorems), and audit trail (per-paper version pointer). The Part then closes with the structural forward-pointer to Part VI, where the same geometric content is located inside the constitutional-axiom classification of 20th-century unified physics.

\section{Backward Map: How Each Theorem Is Forced by \AOne{}}
\label{sec:backward-map-A1}

This section supplies the backward map. Each of \ATwo{}'s eight Theorems is paired with the specific \AOne{} clauses (one or more axioms, one or more postulates) that force it. Part V carries that content in an \ATwo-specific form: \AOne{} did not need a backward map (it has no upstream), but \ATwo{} does, because it is downstream of \AOne{}.

The general form of a backward-map row is: \emph{Theorem \T{k} of \ATwo{} (statement) is forced by \AOne{} clauses (axioms + postulates). Constitutional driver: (one Plain-English sentence about why that clause forces this Theorem). Empirical anchor: (the empirical content that the Theorem produces, with an explicit downstream-paper pointer).} Eight rows below.

\paragraph{T1 (Dimensional Minimality of the Bulk).} Theorem~\ref{thm:dim-minimal}: the bulk manifold is $\cM_6 = \cM_4 \times I_r \times S^1_\theta$ with $\dim \cM_6 = 6$, forced as the unique minimal dimensional structure carrying all constitutional roles. \emph{Forced by:} \AX{1} (\LC) supplies the $\cM_4$ slice with Lorentz-causal structure; \AX{2} (\GGEP) supplies the composite geometry--gauge connection $\cA = \omega \oplus A$ that requires the $I_r$ and $S^1_\theta$ directions to carry; \POS{3} (\AF) supplies the anomaly-cancellation requirement that fixes the four-component anomaly polynomial (and hence the bulk's gauge-content slot). \emph{Constitutional driver:} the dimension count is not a free parameter; each of the six dimensions corresponds to one constitutional role. \emph{Empirical anchor:} the radial extent $K = 35$ Planck units forces a single RG-scale throat with a Kaluza--Klein lock cluster at $r = K$.

\paragraph{T2 (Canonical Bulk Metric).} Theorem~\ref{thm:canonical-metric}: the bulk metric is $ds_6^2 = e^{-2r}\,\eta_{\mu\nu}\,dx^\mu dx^\nu + dr^2 + d\theta^2$ in natural \GG{} units, with $r \in [0, K]$ and $\theta \in [0, 2\pi)$. \emph{Forced by:} \AX{2} (\GGEP) requires the geometry--gauge unification; \POS{5} (\RG) requires the radial direction to play the role of a renormalization-group coordinate; \AX{4} (\MSMF) + \POS{6} (\OGN) together force the absence of free continuous parameters --- the scale endpoint, the AdS curvature, and the compact-circle radius all reduce to single dimensionless quantities locked by the \OGNfive\ integer ledger. \emph{Constitutional driver:} the maximum-symmetry/minimum-freedom posture eliminates every continuous parameter from the metric. \emph{Empirical anchor:} the boundary at $r = 0$ supplies the unification scale $E_{\mathrm{GUT}} \approx 2.28 \times 10^{16}$~GeV; the throat-depth integer $K = 35$ supplies the exponential hierarchy $e^{-K}$ that connects $E_{\mathrm{GUT}}$ to the lock-cluster scale $M_{\mathrm{lock}} \approx 3.85$~TeV.

\paragraph{T3 (Six Fundamental Forces).} Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces}: the bulk gauge group is $G_{\Bulk} = \Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$, with exactly six bulk forces (gravity, the four \SUfive\ gauge generators, $\UoneB$, $\UoneQi$). \emph{Forced by:} \AX{2} (\GGEP) requires the composite gauge--gravity connection; \POS{6} (\OGN) supplies the integer-counting argument that fixes the number of factors as four (one non-Abelian, three Abelian) and the rank as five (\SUfive's rank 4 plus the Abelian rank 1 for $\UoneB$ and 1 for $\UoneQi$ minus the gauge-trace constraint). \emph{Constitutional driver:} the four-factor composite group is the minimal non-trivial gauge structure that closes the geometry--gauge unification on a six-dimensional bulk. \emph{Empirical anchor:} the four-factor structure produces, on the boundary, the Standard Model gauge group $\SU(3)_C \times \SU(2)_L \times \U(1)_Y$ plus the additional $\UoneB$ (proton stability) and $\UoneQi$ (energy--information).

\paragraph{T4 (\BIsix\ Anomaly Coefficients).} Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs}: the four-component anomaly polynomial $X_4 = a\,\tr(R \wedge R) + b\,\Tr(F_5 \wedge F_5) + c\,F_B \wedge F_B + d\,F_{Qi} \wedge F_{Qi}$ has coefficient vector $(a, b, c, d) = (1, -1, -2/5, -2/5)$. \emph{Forced by:} \AX{2} (\GGEP) supplies the geometry--gauge composite connection; \POS{3} (\AF) requires the anomaly polynomial to factorize as $X_4$ in 6D, just as \POS{3} requires it to factorize as $X_8$ in 10D heterotic string theory; the \SUfive\ representation-theoretic trace ratio $\Tr(B_0^2)/\Tr(Y_0^2) = 2/5$ supplies the numerical lock on $c, d$. \emph{Constitutional driver:} the anomaly-cancellation condition is so restrictive in 6D that only this one coefficient vector survives. \emph{Empirical anchor:} the trace-ratio $|a/c| = |a/d| = 5/2$ is the axiomatic fingerprint of the bulk-side framework, testable by precision charge-quantization measurements.

\paragraph{T5 (Anomaly Factorization: Local).} Theorem~\ref{thm:anomaly-factorization}: the one-loop anomaly $I_8 = \tfrac12 X_4 \wedge X_4$ factorizes with $X_4$ as in T4, supplying the local-anomaly side of the Green--Schwarz mechanism. \emph{Forced by:} \AX{2} (\GGEP) supplies the geometry--gauge content; \POS{3} (\AF) and \POS{5} (\RG) together force the descent from \AX{2}+T4 to a one-loop local cancellation. \emph{Constitutional driver:} once T4 supplies the coefficient vector, the local factorization follows from the standard descent on the differential graded algebra of the composite connection. \emph{Empirical anchor:} the BRST-consistent quantum gauge theory (Theorem~\ref{thm:brst-consistency}) downstream of T5 supplies the renormalization-group flow into 4D physics, with the matching \emph{global} statement carried by \AThree{} \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}.

\paragraph{T6 (\OGNfive\ Integer Cascade).} Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade}: the five-step Diophantine cascade $(M, N, L; J, K) = (1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$ satisfies $K = LJ = M^2 + N^2 + L^2$ and supplies the bulk-side integer ledger. \emph{Forced by:} \AX{4} (\MSMF) eliminates all continuous moduli; \POS{6} (\OGN) supplies the integer-counting requirement. \emph{Constitutional driver:} the integer ledger is not chosen; it is forced by a five-step Diophantine consistency cascade. \emph{Empirical anchor:} $K = 35$ fixes the throat depth; $J = 7$ fixes the boundary integer that enters the fine-structure prediction $\alpha^{-1}(0) = 2^J + N^2 = 128 + 9 = 137$, reproducing the integer part of CODATA exactly with the residual $\sim 0.026\%$ deviation going to higher-order QED corrections, as developed in \AFour{} \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid}.

\paragraph{T7 (Arisaka Equation).} Theorem~\ref{thm:arisaka-equation}: the Arisaka equation $J_E / Q_B = J_e = J_B = J_{Qi}$ locks the bulk $\UoneQi$ current to the boundary energy--information current with conversion factor $Q_B \approx 0.1555$~eV/qubit. \emph{Forced by:} \AX{2} (\GGEP) supplies the bulk $\UoneQi$ gauge factor; \AX{3} (\OGGEP) supplies the bulk-to-boundary projection that translates the bulk current to the boundary; \POS{6} (\OGN) supplies the integer-locking that fixes the boundary current ratio. \emph{Constitutional driver:} the energy--information conversion factor is not a free parameter; it is the constitutionally-locked bulk-to-boundary current ratio. \emph{Empirical anchor:} $Q_B \approx 0.1555$~eV/qubit, as developed in \ASeven{} \citep{ArisakaA7Qi4}.

\paragraph{T8 (Geometry--Gauge Lock at $M_{\mathrm{lock}}$).} The non-spatial Kaluza--Klein lock cluster (RG-scale) at the radial endpoint $r = K = 35$ supplies the Kaluza--Klein resonance at $M_{\mathrm{lock}} \approx 3.85$~TeV, a discrete spectrum of states with specific quantum numbers. \emph{Forced by:} \AX{2} (\GGEP) supplies the composite geometry--gauge structure; \AX{4} (\MSMF) supplies the rigidity of the bulk solution; \POS{6} (\OGN) supplies the integer ledger that fixes $K = 35$; \POS{7} (\MF) supplies the empirical-falsification requirement that locks the spectrum to a testable prediction. \emph{Constitutional driver:} the lock cluster is not a phenomenological accident of scale running; it is the constitutionally-forced empirical exposure of the bulk. \emph{Empirical anchor:} the lock cluster supplies the live experimental exposure of \ATwo{} at the HL-LHC and the FCC, with detailed predictions carried in P1-KK \citep{ArisakaP1KK}.

\subsection{Constitutional inputs to \GG{}: the inward map}
\label{ssec:inward-map}

Conversely, \ATwo{} imports its primitive inputs from the axiomatic layer of \AOne{}. Table~\ref{tab:inward-map} records the constitutional clauses that \ATwo{} invokes and the role each plays in the eight Theorems.

\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption[Inward map: constitutional inputs imported by this paper's theorems.]{Every constitutional input this paper imports, and where each is used. The first column names the clause, the second the paper that establishes it, the third the theorem here that consumes it, and the fourth the role it plays in that derivation. The table is the audit trail for the claim that this paper derives rather than assumes: nothing may be used that is not listed here, and every row can be followed to its source. Used in the other direction it is a dependency list --- it shows exactly what would fail if a given import failed.}
\label{tab:inward-map}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{%
\small
\begin{tabular}{>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.170\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.20\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.170\textwidth}p{0.368\textwidth}}
\toprule
\textbf{Constitutional input} & \textbf{Source paper / version} & \textbf{Used by \ATwo{} Theorem} & \textbf{Role in \ATwo{}'s derivation} \\
\midrule
\AX{1} (\LC) & \AOne{} & T1 (Step a) & Lorentzian $(1,3)$ signature on the registered boundary $\cM_4$. \\
\AX{2} (\GGEP) & \AOne{} & T1, T3, T8 & Geometry--gauge equivalence; the constitutional source of the locking theorems. \\
\AX{3} (\OGGEP) & \AOne{} & T1 (Step a), T8 & Operational bulk-to-boundary dictionary $\cD$; forces 4D registered boundary. \\
\AX{4} (\MSMF) & \AOne{} & T1, T2, T3, T4, T6 & Minimal-structure-maximal-functionality; eliminates every continuous parameter not forced by an explicit clause. \\
\POS{1} (\GI) & \AOne{} & T1 (Step c), T3, T4, T6 & Layered gauge invariance; forces $\UoneB$ and $\UoneQi$ in T3, smooth principal bundle structure in T1. \\
\POS{3} (\AF) & \AOne{} & T3, T4, T5 & Anomaly freedom; demands the rank-1 single-tensor factorization. \\
\POS{5} (\RG) & \AOne{} & T1 (Step b), T2 & Geometric realization of the renormalization-group semigroup; forces the non-compact RG direction $I_r$. \\
\POS{6} (\OGN) & \AOne{} & T1, T2, T4, T6 & Diophantine closure: every continuous parameter that can be normalized to integers must be; the source of $\OGNfive$. \\
\AThree{} spectrum-existence & \AThree{} \S~5 & T3 (Step b/c), T5 & Existence of a benchmark fermion spectrum saturating the \BIsix{} anomaly conditions. \\
Odd-closure index $J$ & definitional (no companion input) & T6 (Step 4) & $J = 2N+1$ is the centered odd closure index, definitional once $N$ is fixed; no index-theorem derivation exists in the cohort. \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}%
}
\end{table}

\paragraph{The closing observation.} The eight backward-map rows above sustain the structural claim that every Theorem of \ATwo{} is forced by named constitutional clauses of \AOne{}; that is, no Theorem is added as a free postulate, and no continuous parameter survives the constitutional descent. A revision to any one clause of \AOne{} propagates to the corresponding \ATwo{} Theorem via the rows above, and from there to the cohort papers downstream. Honestly stated, the backward map is the trace of a single chain: \AOne{} $\to$ \ATwo{} $\to$ \AThree, \AFour{}, \AFive{}, \ldots, with each link auditable in detail.

\section{Necessity and Sufficiency of the \GGConstitution{} for \GG{}}
\label{sec:necessity-sufficiency}

The backward map of Section~\ref{sec:backward-map-A1} paired each of \ATwo{}'s eight Theorems with the constitutional clauses that force it. The present Section sharpens this pairing into a stronger structural claim: the four axioms and seven postulates of \AOne{} are jointly \emph{necessary} and \emph{sufficient} for the 6D bulk of \GG{}, in a precise sense to be defined below. This is the central meta-theoretical claim of the bulk-side derivation, and it is the content that the cohort discipline is built to support.

\paragraph{Statement of the theorem.} Let
\begin{equation}
\Sigma \;=\; \{\AX{1}, \AX{2}, \AX{3}, \AX{4}\} \,\cup\, \{\POS{1}, \POS{2}, \POS{3}, \POS{4}, \POS{5}, \POS{6}, \POS{7}\}
\label{eq:constitutional-clause-set}
\end{equation}
denote the constitutional clause set of \AOne{}. Let $\mathfrak T_\GG$ denote the 6D bulk theory of the present paper, defined as the equivalence class of bulk geometries $(\cM_6, g, \cA)$ satisfying Theorems~\ref{thm:dim-minimal} through~\ref{thm:arisaka-equation} of Part~II, modulo the binary 3-vs-4-component choice of \UoneQi{} (which is resolved by empirical input rather than by constitutional clause; see the caveat at the end of this Section).

\medskip

\noindent
\textbf{Theorem (Necessity and Sufficiency of $\Sigma$ for $\mathfrak T_\GG$).}\;
\emph{The constitutional clause set $\Sigma$ is necessary and sufficient for the bulk-side theory $\mathfrak T_\GG$, up to the binary \UoneQi{} resolution:}
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=2em,itemsep=0.10em]
\item \emph{(Necessity.)} \emph{For every clause $C \in \Sigma$,
 removing $C$ from the constitution destroys at least one of the eight
 Theorems of Part~II --- or, in the single case of $\POS{7}$, the
 scientific standing of the eight as a body. Equivalently: no proper
 subset of $\Sigma$ admits all eight Theorems as theorems with their
 full scientific content.}
\item \emph{(Sufficiency.)} \emph{Given $\Sigma$, the eight Theorems of Part~II are derivable as theorems of $\Sigma$, with no extra-constitutional input, and they jointly determine $\mathfrak T_\GG$ up to the binary \UoneQi{} resolution.}
\end{enumerate}

\paragraph{Methodology of the proof.} We prove the two parts separately. For necessity, we proceed by case analysis: for each constitutional clause $C \in \Sigma$, we identify a specific Theorem of Part~II that fails when $C$ is removed, exhibiting the failure mode in detail. Eleven lemmas (one per clause) discharge the case analysis. For sufficiency, we trace the forward implication chain $\Sigma \Rightarrow \{T_1, \ldots, T_8\} \Rightarrow \mathfrak T_\GG$ established in Part~II, recording for each Theorem the precise subset of $\Sigma$ that forces it. The proofs are constructive: we name the failure mode in each direction. \figref{fig:necessity-sufficiency-map} lays the eleven clauses against the eight Theorems in advance, so the reader can see which clause carries which result before the case analysis begins.

\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centering
\resizebox{0.903\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tikzpicture}[
 font=\sffamily\footnotesize,
 every node/.style={align=center, rounded corners=2pt, inner sep=3pt},
 axbox/.style={fill=red!12, draw=red!65!black, line width=0.7pt,
 minimum width=24mm, minimum height=10.5mm,
 font=\sffamily\bfseries\footnotesize},
 posbox/.style={fill=orange!18, draw=orange!65!black, line width=0.7pt,
 minimum width=24mm, minimum height=10.5mm,
 font=\sffamily\bfseries\footnotesize},
 thmbox/.style={fill=teal!16, draw=teal!60!black, line width=0.9pt,
 minimum width=42mm, minimum height=11mm,
 font=\sffamily\bfseries\footnotesize},
 statusbox/.style={fill=cyan!12, draw=cyan!55!black, line width=0.7pt, dashed,
 minimum width=42mm, minimum height=10mm,
 font=\sffamily\bfseries\footnotesize},
 groupbox/.style={draw=black!25, line width=0.4pt, dashed,
 rounded corners=4pt, inner sep=4pt},
 axarr/.style={->, draw=red!60!black, line width=0.45pt, -{Stealth[length=2.0mm]}, opacity=0.75},
 posarr/.style={->, draw=orange!65!black, line width=0.45pt, -{Stealth[length=2.0mm]}, opacity=0.75},
 internalarr/.style={->, draw=teal!70!black, line width=0.5pt, dashed,
 -{Stealth[length=1.8mm]}},
 statarr/.style={->, draw=cyan!55!black, line width=0.6pt, dotted,
 -{Stealth[length=2.0mm]}},
 banner/.style={font=\sffamily\bfseries\small, draw=none, fill=white,
 inner sep=2pt},
]

%% =========================================================
%% LEFT BAND: the 11 constitutional clauses
%% =========================================================

%% 4 axioms (top)
\node[axbox] (AX1) at (0, 0.0) {\AX{1}\;\LC};
\node[axbox] (AX2) at (0, -1.5) {\AX{2}\;\GGEP};
\node[axbox] (AX3) at (0, -3.0) {\AX{3}\;\OGGEP};
\node[axbox] (AX4) at (0, -4.5) {\AX{4}\;\MSMF};

%% 7 postulates (below)
\node[posbox] (P1) at (0, -6.4) {\POS{1}\;\GI};
\node[posbox] (P2) at (0, -7.7) {\POS{2}\;\UEP};
\node[posbox] (P3) at (0, -9.0) {\POS{3}\;\AF};
\node[posbox] (P4) at (0, -10.3) {\POS{4}\;\CP};
\node[posbox] (P5) at (0, -11.6) {\POS{5}\;\RG};
\node[posbox] (P6) at (0, -12.9) {\POS{6}\;\OGN};
\node[posbox] (P7) at (0, -14.2) {\POS{7}\;\MF};

%% Banner labels on the left column
\node[banner, anchor=south] at (0, 0.9) {Four Axioms};
\node[banner, anchor=south] at (0, -5.55) {Seven Postulates};

%% =========================================================
%% RIGHT BAND: the 8 theorems of Part II
%% =========================================================

\node[thmbox] (T1) at (9, -1.0) {\textbf{T1}\;Dimensional minimality\\$\dim\cM_6 = 6$};
\node[thmbox] (T2) at (9, -2.7) {\textbf{T2}\;Canonical metric\\$ds_6^2 = e^{-2r}\eta + dr^2 + d\theta^2$};
\node[thmbox] (T3) at (9, -4.4) {\textbf{T3}\;Six forces\\$\Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$};
\node[thmbox] (T4) at (9, -6.1) {\textbf{T4}\;\BIsix\ coeff.\ vector\\$(1, -1, -2/5, -2/5)$};
\node[thmbox] (T5) at (9, -7.8) {\textbf{T5}\;Anomaly factorization\\$I_8 = \tfrac12 X_4 \wedge X_4$};
\node[thmbox] (T6) at (9, -9.5) {\textbf{T6}\;\OGNfive\ cascade\\$(1, 3, 5;\;7, 35)$};
\node[thmbox] (T7) at (9, -11.2) {\textbf{T7}\;BRST consistency\\Slavnov--Taylor identity};
\node[thmbox] (T8) at (9, -12.9) {\textbf{T8}\;Arisaka equation\\$J_E/\QB = J_e = J_B = J_{Qi}$};

%% Scientific-standing virtual node for POS-7
\node[statusbox] (STAT) at (9, -14.6) {Scientific standing of\\the entire theorem set};

%% Banner on the right column
\node[banner, anchor=south] at (9, 0.9) {Eight Theorems of GG-6};

%% =========================================================
%% ARROWS: forcing relations (LEFT -> RIGHT)
%% Solid red = axioms forcing theorems
%% Solid orange = postulates forcing theorems
%% =========================================================

%% AX-1 -> T1
\draw[axarr] (AX1.east) -- (T1.west);

%% AX-2 -> T1, T2, T3, T4, T8
\draw[axarr] (AX2.east) -- (T1.west);
\draw[axarr] (AX2.east) -- (T2.west);
\draw[axarr] (AX2.east) -- (T3.west);
\draw[axarr] (AX2.east) -- (T4.west);
\draw[axarr] (AX2.east).. controls (5, -1.5) and (7, -10).. (T8.west);

%% AX-3 -> T1, T8
\draw[axarr] (AX3.east) -- (T1.west);
\draw[axarr] (AX3.east) -- (T8.west);

%% AX-4 -> T1, T2, T3, T6
\draw[axarr] (AX4.east) -- (T1.west);
\draw[axarr] (AX4.east) -- (T2.west);
\draw[axarr] (AX4.east) -- (T3.west);
\draw[axarr] (AX4.east) -- (T6.west);

%% POS-1 -> T3, T7
\draw[posarr] (P1.east) -- (T3.west);
\draw[posarr] (P1.east) -- (T7.west);

%% POS-2 -> T8
\draw[posarr] (P2.east) -- (T8.west);

%% POS-3 -> T1, T4, T5, T7
\draw[posarr] (P3.east) -- (T1.west);
\draw[posarr] (P3.east) -- (T4.west);
\draw[posarr] (P3.east) -- (T5.west);
\draw[posarr] (P3.east) -- (T7.west);

%% POS-4 -> T8 (via AX-3 dictionary)
\draw[posarr] (P4.east) -- (T8.west);

%% POS-5 -> T2, T5
\draw[posarr] (P5.east) -- (T2.west);
\draw[posarr] (P5.east) -- (T5.west);

%% POS-6 -> T2, T3, T4, T6
\draw[posarr] (P6.east) -- (T2.west);
\draw[posarr] (P6.east) -- (T3.west);
\draw[posarr] (P6.east) -- (T4.west);
\draw[posarr] (P6.east) -- (T6.west);

%% POS-7 -> Scientific standing (dotted special)
\draw[statarr] (P7.east) -- (STAT.west);

%% =========================================================
%% Internal theorem-to-theorem dependencies (dashed teal)
%% =========================================================

%% T3 -> T4 (T3 supplies gauge content for T4) — arc to the right of the boxes
\draw[internalarr] (T3.east).. controls (12.6, -4.4) and (12.6, -6.1).. (T4.east);
%% T4 -> T5 (T4's coefficient vector feeds T5's factorisation)
\draw[internalarr] (T4.east).. controls (12.6, -6.1) and (12.6, -7.8).. (T5.east);
%% T1, T3, T4 -> T6 (T6 consumes integer counts from earlier theorems) — farther outer arc
\draw[internalarr] (T1.east).. controls (13.6, -1.0) and (13.6, -9.5).. (T6.east);
\draw[internalarr] (T3.east).. controls (13.0, -4.4) and (13.0, -9.5).. (T6.east);
%% T3, T5 -> T7 (T7 requires gauge consistency + anomaly factorisation)
\draw[internalarr] (T3.east).. controls (13.2, -4.4) and (13.2, -11.2).. (T7.east);
\draw[internalarr] (T5.east).. controls (12.6, -7.8) and (12.6, -11.2).. (T7.east);
%% T3, T7 -> T8 (T8 needs gauge structure + BRST) — outermost arc
\draw[internalarr] (T3.east).. controls (13.8, -4.4) and (13.8, -12.9).. (T8.east);
\draw[internalarr] (T7.east).. controls (12.6, -11.2) and (12.6, -12.9).. (T8.east);

%% =========================================================
%% Annotations
%% =========================================================

%% Necessity statement (left side) — slightly larger
\node[font=\sffamily\itshape\small, text=red!60!black, align=center,
 anchor=north] at (0, -15.6)
 {\textbf{Necessity (Lemmas 40.1--40.11):}\\every LEFT node has $\ge 1$ outgoing arrow.};

%% Sufficiency statement (right side) — slightly larger
\node[font=\sffamily\itshape\small, text=teal!55!black, align=center,
 anchor=north] at (9, -15.6)
 {\textbf{Sufficiency (Lemma 40.12):}\\every RIGHT node has $\ge 1$ incoming arrow.};

%% Combined banner (centre, below)
\node[font=\sffamily\bfseries\small, text=violet!60!black, anchor=north,
 draw=violet!50!black, line width=0.6pt, fill=violet!8,
 rounded corners=3pt, inner sep=6pt]
 at (4.5, -17.5)
 {$\Sigma$ is \emph{minimal} and \emph{complete} (up to the binary \UoneQi{} residue):
 $\Sigma$ is an axiomatization of $\mathfrak T_\GG$.};

%% Legend (centered + larger font for arrow descriptions)
\node[font=\sffamily\footnotesize, anchor=north, align=center]
 at (4.5, -19.0)
 {\textcolor{red!65!black}{$\rightarrow$} axiom forces theorem \quad
 \textcolor{orange!65!black}{$\rightarrow$} postulate forces theorem \\[2pt]
 \textcolor{teal!70!black}{$\dashrightarrow$} theorem-to-theorem dependency \quad
 \textcolor{cyan!55!black}{$\cdots\!\rightarrow$} \POS{7} forces scientific standing};

\end{tikzpicture}}
\bigskip
\caption[Necessity and Sufficiency Relation Map: clauses onto the eight \GG{} Theorems]{Necessity and Sufficiency Relation Map. Left: the eleven constitutional clauses of \AOne{} (four axioms in red, seven postulates in orange). Right: the eight Theorems of Part II (teal), each summarized by its principal output. Solid arrows show forcing relations (red from axioms, orange from postulates). Dashed teal arrows show internal theorem-to-theorem dependencies in the forward chain. \POS{7} (\MF) does not force a specific Theorem but underwrites the scientific standing of the entire theorem set (dotted cyan arrow). Necessity (Lemmas 40.1--40.11): every LEFT node has at least one outgoing arrow, so removing any clause destroys at least one Theorem. Sufficiency (Lemma 40.12): every RIGHT node has at least one incoming arrow, so $\Sigma$ alone is enough to force all eight Theorems. Together: $\Sigma$ is minimal-and-complete, an axiomatization of $\mathfrak T_\GG$ up to the binary \UoneQi{} resolution.}
\label{fig:necessity-sufficiency-map}
\end{figure}


\subsection*{Part A: Necessity (Lemmas 40.1--40.11)}

\paragraph{Lemma 40.1 (Necessity of \AX{1} \LC).} \emph{Removing \AX{1} from $\Sigma$ destroys Theorem~\ref{thm:dim-minimal} (Dimensional Minimality).} \emph{Proof.} Without \AX{1}, the boundary slice $\cM_4$ no longer carries a Lorentzian causal structure: light cones, retarded kernels, and forward semigroups all lose their constitutional warrant. The structural-roles count that forces $\dim \cM_6 = 6$ (four for the registered boundary, one for the renormalization-group flow, one for the integer Abelian holonomy) requires a 4D registered slice with Lorentz signature; without \AX{1}, the boundary signature is unconstrained, and the constitution admits Euclidean, Galilean, or signature-indeterminate slices, each of which carries a different structural-roles count and hence a different forced dimension. Concretely, a Euclidean 4D slice with positive-definite signature carries no light cone and no causal arrow; the open-system forward-semigroup requirement of \AX{1} becomes vacuous; the chain $\{$causality$\} \to \{$light cone$\} \to \{$dim count$\} \to T_1$ breaks at the first link. Hence $T_1$ fails. \hfill$\Box$

\paragraph{Lemma 40.2 (Necessity of \AX{2} \GGEP).} \emph{Removing \AX{2} from $\Sigma$ destroys Theorems~\ref{thm:six-forces} (Six Forces), \ref{thm:bi6-coeffs} (\BIsix{} coefficients), and \ref{thm:arisaka-equation} (Arisaka equation).} \emph{Proof.} Without \AX{2}, the composite connection $\cA = \omega \oplus A$ has no constitutional warrant; gravity and gauge structure return to being two ontologically independent sectors glued together ad hoc. $T_3$ fails: the four-factor composite group $G_{\Bulk} = \Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$ is no longer forced, because the rationale for unifying the Lorentz $\Spinone$ factor with the internal Lie-group factors on a single bulk is gone. $T_4$ fails: the four-component anomaly polynomial $X_4$ loses its geometric origin in the composite curvature, and the coefficient vector $(1, -1, -2/5, -2/5)$ has no constitutional source. $T_8$ fails: there is no bulk \UoneQi{} sector to project to the boundary, and the Arisaka equation $J_E / Q_B = J_e = J_B = J_{Qi}$ has no constitutional anchor. Hence \AX{2} is necessary. \hfill$\Box$

\paragraph{Lemma 40.3 (Necessity of \AX{3} \OGGEP).} \emph{Removing \AX{3} from $\Sigma$ destroys Theorem~\ref{thm:arisaka-equation} (Arisaka equation) and Theorem~\ref{thm:dim-minimal} Step~(a) (4D registered boundary).} \emph{Proof.} Without \AX{3}, the bulk theory has no constitutional dictionary $\cD: \Bulk \to (\cH_\partial, \rho_\partial, \Phi_{t,s}, \{\cI_\alpha\})$ projecting bulk content to a 4D registered boundary. Step~(a) of $T_1$ fails: the boundary slice loses its operational meaning as the site of registered observation, and the four-dimensional registered count is left unjustified. $T_8$ fails: the bulk \UoneQi{} current has no projection to a boundary current, and the locking $J_E / Q_B = J_e = J_B = J_{Qi}$ has no projection target. More broadly, the empirical content of the cohort is reduced from operationally registered observables to bulk-theoretic abstractions: the entire \GDOS{} runtime of \AFive{} \citep{ArisakaA5GDOS} collapses without \AX{3}. Hence \AX{3} is necessary. \hfill$\Box$

\paragraph{Lemma 40.4 (Necessity of \AX{4} \MSMF).} \emph{Removing \AX{4} from $\Sigma$ destroys Theorems~\ref{thm:canonical-metric} (Canonical Metric) and~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade} (\OGNfive{} cascade).} \emph{Proof.} Without \AX{4}, the lexicographic maximum-symmetry / minimum-freedom selection that picks $\mathfrak T_\GG$ from the admissible-theory space $\mathfrak T_{\mathrm{adm}}$ is gone. $T_2$ fails: the scale, the compact-circle radius $R_\theta$, and the scale-endpoint coordinate $r_c$ return as free continuous parameters of the bulk metric. $T_6$ fails completely: with continuous moduli reinstated, no clause forces the integer-discrete five-tuple $(1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$, and the cascade closure $K = LJ = M^2 + N^2 + L^2$ loses its constitutional warrant. The vacuum count collapses back to infinite (the constitutional analogue of the string landscape). Hence \AX{4} is necessary. \hfill$\Box$

\paragraph{Lemma 40.5 (Necessity of \POS{1} \GI).} \emph{Removing \POS{1} from $\Sigma$ destroys Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces} (Six Forces) and Theorem~\ref{thm:brst-consistency} (BRST consistency).} \emph{Proof.} Without \POS{1}, the action-level, dynamical-channel, and global-ledger layers of gauge invariance are not constitutionally required. $T_3$ fails: the three Abelian factors $\UoneB$, $\UoneQi$, and the boundary $\UoneEM$ are unprotected against explicit symmetry-breaking terms. In particular, $\UoneB$ is the gauge protection of proton stability; without \POS{1}'s ledger layer (the global $\GGI$ invariance), the integer baryon-number quantum number is unprotected, and the proton-stability empirical anchor (Super-K, HK, DUNE) is left without constitutional explanation. $T_7$ fails: the homogeneous Slavnov--Taylor identity of BRST consistency requires invariance of the quantum effective action under the BRST operator, which is precisely the cohomological version of \POS{1}'s dynamical-channel layer $\DGI$. Hence \POS{1} is necessary. \hfill$\Box$

\paragraph{Lemma 40.6 (Necessity of \POS{2} \UEP).} \emph{Removing \POS{2} from $\Sigma$ destroys Theorem~\ref{thm:arisaka-equation} (Arisaka equation).} \emph{Proof.} Without \POS{2}, the bulk action and the boundary free-energy functional are no longer projections of a single underlying extremal structure. $T_8$ fails: the Arisaka equation $J_E / Q_B = J_e = J_B = J_{Qi}$ is the boundary-side realization of the bulk extremal principle through the dictionary $\cD$, locking the bulk Noether current of \UoneQi{} to the boundary energy--information current. Without \POS{2}, this locking has no variational origin; the bulk-side conservation law and the boundary-side energy--information current become accidentally aligned at best, rather than constitutionally locked. Hence \POS{2} is necessary. \hfill$\Box$

\paragraph{Lemma 40.7 (Necessity of \POS{3} \AF).} \emph{Removing \POS{3} from $\Sigma$ destroys Theorems~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs} (\BIsix{} coefficients) and~\ref{thm:anomaly-factorization} (single-tensor factorization).} \emph{Proof.} Without \POS{3}, the geometric-smoothness requirement on the composite connection's anomaly polynomial is lifted. $T_4$ fails: the coefficient vector $(1, -1, -2/5, -2/5)$ that the trace-ratio lock would otherwise force is not forced; the anomaly polynomial $X_4$ admits a family of coefficient vectors instead of a unique one. $T_5$ fails: the eight-form anomaly $I_8 = \tfrac12 X_4 \wedge X_4$ no longer needs to factorize through a single tensor sector, and the Green--Schwarz inflow mechanism loses its constitutional foundation. As established in \S\ref{sec:postulates} (Physical Intuition for \POS{3}), the anomaly is a failure of geometric smoothness tied to a local conservation law, not a quantization-induced phenomenon; \POS{3} is the constitutional clause that demands such smoothness, and without it the demand vanishes. Hence \POS{3} is necessary. \hfill$\Box$

\paragraph{Lemma 40.8 (Necessity of \POS{4} \CP).} \emph{Removing \POS{4} from $\Sigma$ destroys Theorem~\ref{thm:arisaka-equation} (Arisaka equation) through the failure of \AX{3}'s dictionary.} \emph{Proof.} Without \POS{4}, the boundary evolution is no longer constrained to be CPTP (completely positive and trace-preserving). \AX{3}'s operational dictionary $\cD$ loses its mathematical content: the boundary channel $\Phi_{t,s}$ can take physical density operators (positive, trace-one) to unphysical objects (negative eigenvalues, trace not equal to one), and the operational meaning of the dictionary collapses. $T_8$ fails: the boundary $\UoneQi$ current cannot be defined coherently as the conserved quantity of an admissible channel. Conceptually, \POS{4} is the postulate that promotes probability conservation to a constitutional axiom for open systems; without it, the open-system register of \AX{3} becomes mathematically inconsistent. Hence \POS{4} is necessary. \hfill$\Box$

\paragraph{Lemma 40.9 (Necessity of \POS{5} \RG).} \emph{Removing \POS{5} from $\Sigma$ destroys Theorem~\ref{thm:canonical-metric} (Canonical Metric) in its RG-flow interpretation.} \emph{Proof.} Without \POS{5}, the coarse-graining map and the operational dictionary need not commute. $T_2$ fails: the radial direction $r \in [0, K]$ of the 6D bulk loses its geometric reading as the logarithmic renormalization scale, and the scale profile $e^{-2r}$ loses its RG-flow interpretation. Predictions of the framework become resolution-dependent; scale-stable empirical anchors (the $\alpha^{-1}(M_Z)$ running, the cosmological inventory at the recombination scale, the hierarchical separation between $\EGUT$ and $\Mlock$) lose their constitutional warrant. Hence \POS{5} is necessary. \hfill$\Box$

\paragraph{Lemma 40.10 (Necessity of \POS{6} \OGN).} \emph{Removing \POS{6} from $\Sigma$ destroys Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade} (\OGNfive{} cascade) and Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs} (\BIsix{} coefficients).} \emph{Proof.} Without \POS{6}, the constitutional preference for minimal rational/integer normalizations is gone. $T_6$ fails completely: no clause forces the integer-discrete five-tuple $(M, N, L; J, K) = (1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$, and the cascade closure $K = LJ = M^2 + N^2 + L^2$ has no constitutional source. $T_4$ fails: the rational coefficient $-2/5$ in the \BIsix{} coefficient vector $(1, -1, -2/5, -2/5)$ is the \SUfive{} representation-theoretic trace ratio that \POS{6} promotes from a representation-theoretic identity to a constitutional pin; without \POS{6}, the coefficient is left as one of many admissible rational normalizations. The empirical predictions that descend from the integer ledger --- $\alpha^{-1}(0) = 2^J + N^2 = 137$ at the integer level, the Kaxion oscillation $\Delta\nu/\nu = 1/35$, the lock cluster $\Mlock$ at $r = K$ --- lose their constitutional warrant. Together with \AX{4}, \POS{6} is the principal anti-landscape clause of the constitution; removing it returns the vacuum count to infinite. Hence \POS{6} is necessary. \hfill$\Box$

\paragraph{Lemma 40.11 (Necessity of \POS{7} \MF).} \emph{Removing \POS{7} from $\Sigma$ destroys the empirical exposure of the framework.} \emph{Proof.} Without \POS{7}, the framework loses its constitutional requirement that every claim compile to a registered observable with a pre-declared kill criterion. The ten falsifiers of Section~\ref{sec:eight-falsifiers} and the live-falsifier clauses of the Problems-Solved catalog lose their constitutional warrant; nothing in the constitution then forbids predictions that cannot, in principle, be refuted. No Theorem of Part~II fails as a logical proposition without \POS{7}; what fails is the \emph{scientific status} of the resulting body of theorems. The framework collapses from a scientific theory (one that can be wrong in specific ways) to a metaphysical posture (one that cannot be wrong by axiomatic construction). In the sense in which the present paper is a contribution to physics rather than metaphysics, \POS{7} is necessary. \hfill$\Box$

\paragraph{Synthesis of the necessity lemmas.} Lemmas 40.1 through 40.11 establish that for every clause $C \in \Sigma$, removing $C$ destroys at least one Theorem of Part~II (or, in the case of \POS{7}, the scientific standing of the body of Theorems as a whole). Hence no proper subset of $\Sigma$ admits all eight Theorems as theorems with their full scientific content. The theorem claims necessity in that sense.

\subsection*{Part B: Sufficiency (Lemma 40.12)}

\paragraph{Lemma 40.12 (Sufficiency: the forward chain).} \emph{Given the constitutional clause set $\Sigma$, the eight Theorems of Part~II are derivable as theorems of $\Sigma$, with no extra-constitutional input, and they jointly determine $\mathfrak T_\GG$ up to the binary \UoneQi{} resolution.}

\emph{Proof.} We trace the forward implication chain $\Sigma \Rightarrow \{T_1, \ldots, T_8\} \Rightarrow \mathfrak T_\GG$ Theorem by Theorem, recording for each step the precise subset of $\Sigma$ invoked. No extra-constitutional input enters:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em,itemsep=0.10em]
\item Theorem~\ref{thm:dim-minimal} (Dimensional Minimality) is forced by $\{\AX{1}, \AX{2}, \POS{3}, \AX{4}\}$. The forced output is the bulk dimension $\dim \cM_6 = 6$, with the assignment of the six dimensions to four boundary + one RG-flow + one integer-Abelian-holonomy structural roles. Detailed proof in Section~\ref{sec:thm1-dimensional}.
\item Theorem~\ref{thm:canonical-metric} (Canonical Metric) is forced by $\{\AX{2}, \POS{5}, \AX{4}, \POS{6}\}$. The forced output is the bulk metric $ds_6^2 = e^{-2r}\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu + dr^2 + d\theta^2$ in natural \GG{} units, with no free continuous parameters. Detailed proof in Section~\ref{sec:thm2-metric}.
\item Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces} (Six Forces) is forced by $\{\AX{2}, \POS{1}, \POS{6}, \AX{4}\}$. The forced output is the four-factor composite gauge group $G_{\Bulk} = \Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$, with the binary \UoneQi{} residual choice resolved on empirical grounds as in Step~(c) of the proof. Detailed proof in Section~\ref{sec:thm3-six-forces}.
\item Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs} (\BIsix{} Coefficient Vector) is forced by $\{\AX{2}, \POS{3}, \POS{6}\}$ acting on the gauge content delivered by $T_3$. The forced output is the coefficient vector $(1, -1, -2/5, -2/5)$ of the modified Bianchi identity, with the trace-ratio lock $|a/c| = |a/d| = 5/2$. Detailed proof in Section~\ref{sec:thm4-bi6}.
\item Theorem~\ref{thm:anomaly-factorization} (Single-Tensor Anomaly Factorization) is forced by $\{T_4, \POS{3}, \POS{5}\}$. The forced output is the local one-loop factorization $I_8 = \tfrac12 X_4 \wedge X_4$ of the anomaly polynomial. Detailed proof in Section~\ref{sec:thm5-anomaly-factorization}.
\item Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade} (\OGNfive{} Cascade) is forced by $\{T_1, T_3, T_4, \AX{4}, \POS{6}\}$. The forced output is the integer ledger $(M, N, L; J, K) = (1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$ with the dual-lock closure $K = LJ = M^2 + N^2 + L^2$. Detailed proof in Section~\ref{sec:thm6-ogn-cascade}.
\item Theorem~\ref{thm:brst-consistency} (BRST Consistency) is forced by $\{T_3, T_5, \POS{1}, \POS{3}\}$. The forced output is the homogeneous Slavnov--Taylor identity for the bulk effective action. Detailed proof in Section~\ref{sec:thm7-brst}.
\item Theorem~\ref{thm:arisaka-equation} (Arisaka Equation) is forced by $\{T_3, T_7, \AX{3}, \POS{2}, \POS{4}\}$. The forced output is the locking $J_E / Q_B = J_e = J_B = J_{Qi}$ with the energy--information conversion factor $Q_B \approx 0.1555$~eV/qubit. Detailed proof in Section~\ref{sec:thm8-arisaka-equation}.
\end{itemize}

The eight Theorems exhaust the structural content of $\mathfrak T_\GG$: $T_1$ fixes the bulk dimension; $T_2$ fixes the bulk metric; $T_3$ fixes the gauge group; $T_4$ fixes the anomaly polynomial coefficients; $T_5$ fixes the anomaly factorization; $T_6$ fixes the integer ledger; $T_7$ fixes the quantum-effective-action consistency; $T_8$ fixes the boundary current locking. Every continuous parameter of the bulk theory is either fixed by a Theorem of Part~II or absorbed as a unit-conversion artifact of the overall unit scale (set by $G_N$, with $M_6 \sim M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ derived from it). No extra-constitutional input enters the chain. Hence $\Sigma$ is sufficient. \hfill$\Box$

\subsection*{Combined Statement: Minimality and Completeness}

\paragraph{Theorem (restated).} Combining Lemmas 40.1--40.11 (necessity) and Lemma 40.12 (sufficiency), the constitutional clause set $\Sigma$ is both:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em,itemsep=0.10em]
\item \emph{minimal} --- no clause can be removed without destroying $\mathfrak T_\GG$ (equivalently, at least one Theorem of Part~II);
\item \emph{complete} --- no clause beyond $\Sigma$ is needed to determine $\mathfrak T_\GG$ (equivalently, the eight Theorems of Part~II are derivable from $\Sigma$ alone).
\end{itemize}
In standard axiomatic terminology, $\Sigma$ is an \emph{axiomatization} of $\mathfrak T_\GG$: it is the unique\,---\,up to the binary \UoneQi{} resolution\,---\,minimal-and-complete constitutional charter for the bulk-side theory of the present paper. The present Section establishes that claim, which is meta-theoretical rather than technical. \hfill$\Box$

\subsection*{Caveat: The Binary \UoneQi{} Resolution}
\label{ssec:caveat-uoneqi}

The statement of the theorem is qualified ``up to the binary 3-vs-4-component \UoneQi{} resolution.'' We are explicit about what this caveat means. As recorded in Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces} Step~(c) and in Common Objection~4 of Part~\ref{sec:common-objections}, the constitutional clauses $\Sigma$ admit two consistent bulk theories:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em,itemsep=0.10em]
\item A three-component bulk with $G_{\Bulk}^{(3)} = \Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB$, in which the boundary is a 4D registered slice of an $\mathrm{SU}(5)$-unified Standard-Model gauge sector plus a gauged baryon-number factor and gravity, with no $\UoneQi$ information current.
\item A four-component bulk with $G_{\Bulk}^{(4)} = \Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$, in which an additional gauged information current $\UoneQi$ supplies the boundary energy--information conversion factor through the Arisaka equation of $T_8$.
\end{itemize}
Both are constitutionally admissible. The framework adopts $G_{\Bulk}^{(4)}$ on empirical grounds rather than axiomatic ones: the energy--information conversion factor $\QB \approx 0.1555$~eV/qubit (cf.\ \citep{ArisakaA7Qi4}, the \QiFour{} pillars paper) and its energy--information calibration (\citealp{ArisakaA7Qi4}; \citealp{ArisakaA11Origin}) are the empirical anchor that tilts the constitutional admissible class toward the four-component version. Empirically, the four-component bulk is preferred; constitutionally, the two are equally admissible.

Future revisions of the constitution may include a clause that selects between $G_{\Bulk}^{(3)}$ and $G_{\Bulk}^{(4)}$ on first principles --- e.g., a strengthening of \POS{4} that links the boundary Hilbert-space dimension to a gauged information current, or an extension of \AX{4} that pins gauge content to maximum-information-theoretic criteria. The present paper does not propose such a clause; the constitution as it stands forces $\mathfrak T_\GG$ up to the binary residue, and empirical data resolves the residue.

This caveat is the only respect in which the constitution falls short of complete determination. Every other continuous or discrete parameter of $\mathfrak T_\GG$ is forced by $\Sigma$.

\paragraph{Closing remark.} The minimality--completeness statement above is the structural achievement that the bulk-side derivation of the present paper is built to support. It says that the constitutional charter of \AOne{} is exactly the right size: not bigger than it needs to be (every clause is load-bearing), and not smaller than it needs to be (every constitutional input required to force $\mathfrak T_\GG$ is in the charter, with the single empirical residue at the \UoneQi{} binary choice). On that footing the cohort papers downstream build their further derivations: a single proper subset of $\Sigma$ would already be unable to support \GG{}, and a single proper superset would already be redundant. The constitutional discipline is what distinguishes \GGTheory{} from frameworks that accumulate axiomatic content without auditing necessity, or that lose theorems by under-axiomatizing. The present Section closes that audit for the bulk-side derivation.


\section{The Two-Way Axiomatic Handoff and the Comprehensive Cohort Inventory}
\label{sec:two-way-and-cohort}
\label{sec:two-way-handoff}
\label{sec:cohort-inventory}

The backward map of Section~\ref{sec:backward-map-A1} traced each \ATwo{} Theorem to the \AOne{} clauses that force it; the Necessity-and-Sufficiency theorem of Section~\ref{sec:necessity-sufficiency} sharpened the pairing into a rigorous minimality--completeness statement. The present Section closes Part~V by stepping back from the technical detail to articulate the two-way axiomatic handoff between \ATwo{} and the rest of the \GGTheory{} cohort, together with the cohort inventory (now a twenty-two-paper program: eleven A-papers, five P-papers, three C-papers). The discussion proceeds in three movements: first the structural handoff (\ATwo{} as the bulk-side geometric heart of the program), then the cohort-architecture diagram that visualizes the handoff (Figure~\ref{fig:cohort-architecture-A2}, at the close of Part~I), then the inventory of which paper carries which content.

\GG\ sits at the geometric heart of the \GGTheory{} program. The architecture of the program as a whole is a three-layer cascade: a constitutional layer at the top (\AOne), a foundational technical layer in the middle (the bulk-side trio \ATwo+\AThree+\AFour\ and the boundary-side trio \AFive+\ASix+\ASeven), an empirical-recast layer below (\AEight+\ANine+\ATen), and a closing capstone (\AEleven), with the Foundations Branch (P4-Real, P5-CPT) standing at the spine's flank and the Predictions Branch (P1-KK, C1-Kaxion, and future entries) hanging off the empirical-recast layer as the live experimental exposure surface.

\ATwo{}'s position in this cascade is specific. Upstream, \ATwo{} consumes the four axioms (\AX{1} \LC, \AX{2} \GGEP, \AX{3} \OGGEP, \AX{4} \MSMF) and the seven postulates (\POS{1} GI through \POS{7} \MF) of the \GGConstitution{} as named external inputs; these are not re-derived in \ATwo{}, and any revision to \AOne{} propagates downward to \ATwo{} through the named clauses of the next Section. Downstream, \ATwo{}'s eight Theorems are inputs to \AThree{} (anomaly proof), \AFour{} (universal-constants reconstruction), \AFive{} (bulk-to-boundary projection), \ASix{} and \ASeven{} (boundary pillar architectures), \AEight{}, \ANine{}, and \ATen{} (empirical recasts of QM, the Standard Model, and cosmology), \AEleven{} (the cohort cascade from quarks to consciousness), the Foundations member \PaperPFour{} (whose construction begins from the Theorem~0 arena), and the Predictions Branch (P1-KK, C1-Kaxion). Each downstream paper consumes a specific subset of \ATwo{}'s Theorems and adds its own content. No paper consumes all eight; the map of who consumes what is the subject of Section~\ref{sec:coherence-map}.

The structural picture is therefore: \AOne{} above, \ATwo{} in the geometric middle, the remainder of the cohort below. \ATwo{} is downstream of \AOne{} (in the sense that \AOne{}'s clauses force \ATwo{}'s Theorems) and upstream of \AThree\ through \AEleven{} (in the sense that \ATwo{}'s Theorems are consumed by them). Each of the next eight sections supplies one panel of this two-way map.

\paragraph{Note on what the map does not contain.} The forward bridges below name what each companion paper \emph{carries} and the role each role plays in the cohort's consistency. They do not summarize the proofs of the companion papers; the proofs live in those papers. Each bridge paragraph is a one-page hand-off statement, not a re-derivation. A reader who wants to verify a companion paper's claim must read that companion paper; the present bridges identify which paper carries which claim.

\paragraph{Note on tone.} The cohort papers are \emph{named carriers of named content}, not ``follow-up work''. The framework is one program written across twenty-two preprints; the partition into twenty-two papers reflects the partition of subject matter, not a partition into more or less essential papers.


\paragraph{From the handoff to the inventory.} The cohort-architecture diagram (Figure~\ref{fig:cohort-architecture-A2}, at the close of Part~I) identifies, for each cohort paper, the structural role it plays in the descent from \AOne{} to the empirical anchors. The next table records the explicit inventory: canonical name, structural role, and trio or branch. The two together --- the visual cohort architecture and the inventory table --- supply the comprehensive two-way map that Part~V is built to deliver.

The \GGTheory{} program consists of eleven coordinated foundational preprints (the Ultra-Eleven A-series) plus the three branches --- the Foundations Branch (P4-Real, P5-CPT), the Predictions Branch (P1-KK, P2-N3, P3-Electron), and the Cosmology \& Astrophysics Branch (C1-Kaxion, C2-Hubble, C3-BH; and future entries). Each preprint carries one rigorously-stated piece of the chain. Table~\ref{tab:cohort-inventory-A2} records the inventory. The row for \ATwo{} is marked as ``this paper''; the rows for \AOne{}, \AThree{} through \AEleven{}, and the Predictions Branch are marked with their canonical names, their structural roles, and the trio or branch to which they belong.

\begingroup
\small
\setlength{\LTcapwidth}{\textwidth}
\begin{longtable}{>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.215\textwidth}p{0.545\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.165\textwidth}}
\caption[Comprehensive \GGTheory{} cohort inventory]{Comprehensive \GGTheory{} cohort inventory: all twenty-two papers,
of which twenty-one are posted and the capstone is in preparation. The eleven Ultra-Eleven A-papers form the spine; the Predictions Branch (\PaperPOne{}, \PaperPTwo{}, \PaperPThree{}, \PaperPSix{}), the Foundations Branch (\PaperPFour{}, \PaperPFive{}), the Cosmology \& Astrophysics Branch (\PaperCOne{}--\PaperCThree{}) and the White-Paper Branch (\PaperWOne{}, \PaperWTwo{}) hang off it, in the arrangement drawn on the cohort map (Figure~\ref{fig:cohort-architecture-A2}, at the close of Part~I). Each row carries the canonical name, the structural role in the cohort, and the trio or branch to which the paper belongs. \ATwo{} is marked as ``this paper''. The two white papers derive nothing new: they carry every result at the grade its owning paper gives it.}
\label{tab:cohort-inventory-A2} \\
\toprule
\textbf{Paper} & \textbf{Structural role in the cohort} & \textbf{Trio / branch} \\
\midrule
\endfirsthead
\multicolumn{3}{l}{\itshape Table \thetable{} continued from previous page} \\
\toprule
\textbf{Paper} & \textbf{Structural role in the cohort} & \textbf{Trio / branch} \\
\midrule
\endhead
\bottomrule
\endfoot
\AOne{} & Constitutional charter: four axioms (\LC, \GGEP, \OGGEP, \MSMF) and seven postulates (GI, \UEP, AF, CP, RG, \OGN, \MF). & Constitution \\
\ATwo{} \textbf{(this paper)} & Bulk-side derivation: 6D bulk, four-factor composite gauge group, $\BIsix$ anomaly coefficients, \OGNfive\ integer ledger, Arisaka equation. & GG6 Trio (bulk side) \\
\AThree{} & Local and global anomaly proof: Hopkins--Singer differential-cohomology refinement of $H_3$, seven-dimensional mapping-torus, eight bordism conditions. & GG6 Trio \\
\AFour{} & Historical lineage and parameter-free reconstruction of the GU-5 constants $\{c, G_N, \hbar; k_B, Q_B\}$ from the bulk geometry. & GG6 Trio \\
\AFive{} & Bulk-to-boundary projection: \OGGEP\ bulk--boundary correspondence, boundary law $\cL_{\GDOS}$, derivation of 4D QM, 4D GR, low-energy SM as boundary CPTP-channel images. & \GDOS{} Trio (boundary side) \\
\ASix{} & The Gauge-Runtime Invariance Pipeline. & \GDOS{} Trio \\
\ASeven{} & Four information pillars: \QiQUA, \QiEP, \QiCON, \QiHAL. Energy--information calibration of $Q_B \approx 0.1555$~eV/qubit. & \GDOS{} Trio \\
\AEight{} & Recast of the quantum-mechanical postulates as theorems of the boundary CPTP channel. & 4D-Physics Trio \\
\ANine{} & Recast of the 28 Standard-Model parameters as attractor coordinates of the boundary \GRIP\ runtime. Strong-CP, CKM, PMNS, fermion mass hierarchy. & 4D-Physics Trio \\
\ATen{} & Recast of the cosmological inventory: $\Omega_m = 1/\pi$, $\Omega_\Lambda = 1 - 1/\pi$, $\Omega_b = 1/(2\pi^2)$. Kaxion twin-peak haloscope signature $\Delta\nu/\nu = 1/35$. & 4D-Physics Trio \\
\AEleven{}$^{\dagger}$ & Closing capstone (in preparation): cohort cascade from quarks through atoms, molecules, life, mind to consciousness as an axiomatic chain on the boundary $\GDOS$ runtime. & Capstone \\
\midrule
\PaperPOne{} & The $\Mlock \approx 3.85$~\TeV{} lock cluster: production channel, spin, color assignments and branching fractions, derived from the Kaluza--Klein lock-cluster structure of the 6D bulk of the present paper. & Predictions Branch \\
\PaperPTwo{} & The three-generation pincer: a \CP{} lower bound $N_g \ge 3$ closed against a \GDOS{}/\GRIP{} capacity upper bound $N_g \le 3$. Part~II cites it as the independent forcing of the generation count. & Predictions Branch \\
\PaperPThree{} & The electron as the unique ground state of the boundary attractor, and the source of the ground-attractor method that the branch reuses. & Predictions Branch \\
\PaperPSix{} & The proton as the ground geometric attractor of matter, its decay forbidden by the geometry rather than merely unobserved; runs the ground-attractor method of \PaperPThree{}. & Predictions Branch \\
\midrule
\PaperPFour{} & The origin of $i$: starting from the arena that Theorem~0 of Part~II forces (\S\ref{sec:thm0-lc-ggep}), the circle and the causal clock together give the reason the boundary's quantum theory is complex rather than real. & Foundations Branch \\
\PaperPFive{} & Mirrors and matter: from the spinor and orientation structure of \GG{} --- the three real factors whose orientation reversals are C, P and T --- the three mirrors and the CPT theorem, and the \ANine{}--\ATen{} interface that feeds the $\eta_B$ chain. & Foundations Branch \\
\midrule
\PaperCOne{} & Kaxion dark matter: the haloscope target and its twin-peak signature. & Cosmology \& Astrophysics \\
\PaperCTwo{} & The two Hubble constants, and the corridor between them. & Cosmology \& Astrophysics \\
\PaperCThree{} & Black-hole entropy $A/4$ read off the boundary channel. & Cosmology \& Astrophysics \\
\midrule
\PaperWOne{} & Conservation without symmetry: the century from Noether to Hopkins--Singer, walked as one arc. & White-Paper Branch \\
\PaperWTwo{} & Protection by topology rather than by symmetry --- the structure that arc arrives at --- dissected across sixteen open problems. & White-Paper Branch \\
\end{longtable}
\endgroup

\noindent{\small $^{\dagger}$\,\AEleven{} is in preparation and is not among
the posted papers; it is listed here because it is part of the program's
architecture, and no result of the present paper depends on it.}

\paragraph{Structural reading.} The eleven Ultra-Eleven preprints partition naturally into one Constitution (\AOne{}), three Foundational Trios (the bulk-side GG6 Trio, the boundary-side \GDOS{} Trio, and the 4D-Physics Trio), and one Capstone (\AEleven{}). The Predictions Branch hangs off the entire architecture as the live experimental exposure surface, and the Foundations Branch (\PaperPFour{}, \PaperPFive{}) stands at the spine's left flank, carrying the origin of the boundary's complex structure and the three-mirrors/matter interface.

\paragraph{Naming convention.} Each Ultra-Eleven preprint carries the canonical \texttt{Arisaka-GG-A\textit{k}-Suffix} naming convention. The Suffix is the named role: Constitution, GG6, BI6, Euclid, GDOS, GRIP, Qi4, QM, SM, Cosmos, Origin. Future revisions to the cohort will follow the same convention.

\paragraph{Cohort cascade.} The cohort cascade flows downstream from \AOne{} through the foundational trios to the 4D-Physics Trio and the Capstone, with the Predictions Branch hanging off the empirical-recast layer. A reader who follows the cascade in this order --- \AOne, then \ATwo, then \AThree+\AFour, then \AFive+\ASix+\ASeven, then \AEight+\ANine+\ATen, then \AEleven, then P1+C1 --- will see the program unfold from constitutional charter to empirical exposure.

\section{Bridge to \AOne{} (Backward)}
\label{sec:bridge-A1-backward}

The backward bridge to \AOne{} is the single most important bridge of the entire Part V. It is the bridge that connects \ATwo{} to its constitutional warrant.

\paragraph{What \AOne{} carries.} \AOne{} \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution} is the constitutional charter of the \GGTheory{} program. It supplies the four axioms (\AX{1} Locality and Causality, \AX{2} Geometry--Gauge Equivalence Principle, \AX{3} Operational Geometry--Gauge Equivalence Principle, \AX{4} Maximum Symmetry--Minimum Freedom) and the seven postulates (\POS{1} Gauge Invariance, \POS{2} Unified Extremal Principle, \POS{3} Anomaly Freedom, \POS{4} Closure and Positivity, \POS{5} Renormalization Group, \POS{6} Occam Gauge Normalization, \POS{7} Measurement and Falsifiability). \AOne{} also carries the Copernican payoff of the constitution: the constitutional-axiom classification of 20th-century physics, in which GR, Yang--Mills, string theory, and AdS/CFT live at Stratum~2; QM lives at Stratum~3; and the Standard Model plus $\Lambda$CDM live at Stratum~4 implicitly. (This Copernican classification is the subject of Part VI of the present paper, where \GG{} is identified as the unique Stratum-4 geometric realization.)

\paragraph{What \ATwo{} consumes from \AOne{}.} \ATwo{} consumes all four axioms and all seven postulates as named external inputs. Section~\ref{sec:backward-map-A1} above supplies the row-by-row backward map: each of \ATwo{}'s eight Theorems is forced by a named subset of axioms and postulates. \ATwo{} does not re-derive any axiom or postulate; it consumes them, applies them to a specific bulk realization, and supplies the bulk-side derivation that the cohort needs.

\paragraph{Propagation of \AOne{} revisions to \ATwo{}.} If \AOne{} undergoes a substantive revision --- for example, a sharpening of \AX{4} or a strengthening of \POS{6} --- the propagation to \ATwo{} is recorded through the backward-map rows of Section~\ref{sec:backward-map-A1}. At the time of writing (\AOne{}, May 25, 2026), the constitutional charter is stable, and \ATwo{}'s backward map is in registration with the clauses.

\section{Bridge to \AThree{} (BI6)}
\label{sec:bridge-A3}

\paragraph{What \AThree{} carries.} \AThree{} \citep{ArisakaA3BI6} carries the Hopkins--Singer differential-cohomology proof of \BIsix, which is the global side of \ATwo{}'s Theorems T4 and T5. Concretely, \AThree{} supplies (i) the Wu--Chern--Simons differential-cohomology refinement of the three-form $H_3$, (ii) the seven-dimensional mapping-torus construction that lifts the local Green--Schwarz factorization to a global statement on the intended \GG{} background class, and (iii) the eight bordism conditions whose verification closes the global side of anomaly freedom.

\paragraph{Forward map: what \AThree{} consumes from \ATwo{}.} \AThree{} consumes Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs} (the coefficient vector $(1, -1, -2/5, -2/5)$ of the anomaly polynomial $X_4$), Theorem~\ref{thm:anomaly-factorization} (the local factorization $I_8 = \tfrac12 X_4 \wedge X_4$), and Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces} (the bulk gauge group $G_{\Bulk}$ that determines the field content over which the bordism is taken). \AThree{} adds the global side as its central contribution.

\paragraph{Cohort role.} The pairing \ATwo+\AThree{} is the local+global anomaly-cancellation pair: \ATwo{} carries the local cancellation; \AThree{} carries the global completion. Together they close the anomaly-freedom side of the bulk-side derivation. \AFour{} supplies the historical and constants companion that completes the GG6 Trio.

\section{Bridge to \AFour{} (Euclid)}
\label{sec:bridge-A4}

\paragraph{What \AFour{} carries.} \AFour{} \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid} carries the parameter-free reconstruction of the Geometric Universal Five Constants $\{c, G_N, \hbar; k_B, Q_B\}$ from the bulk geometry of \ATwo, together with the historical lineage from Euclid through Newton, Riemann, Maxwell, and Einstein to the \GG{} stage. \AFour{} is the historical and constants companion of the GG6 Trio.

\paragraph{Forward map: what \AFour{} consumes from \ATwo{}.} \AFour{} consumes Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade} (the \OGNfive\ integer ledger $(M, N, L; J, K) = (1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$) as the integer input to the universal-constants reconstruction; \AFour{} also consumes Theorem~\ref{thm:arisaka-equation} (the Arisaka equation) as the source of $Q_B$ as a conversion factor. Each of the five \GUfive\ constants is recast as a conversion factor: $c$ from the $(1, 3)$ Lorentz-signature normalization of $\cM_4$; $\hbar$ from the integer Kaluza--Klein quantization on $S^1_\theta$; $G_N$ from the radial scale-profile integration on $I_r$; $\kB$ from the boundary thermodynamic Gibbs projection of \GDOS{} \citep{ArisakaA5GDOS}; and $\QB$ from the Arisaka equation. The elementary charge $e$ is \emph{not} a member of \GUfive: it is determined by $\alpha^{-1}(0) = 137$ (the integer ledger via $\alpha^{-1} = 2^J + N^2$) and the relation $e = \sqrt{4\pi\varepsilon_0\,\hbar\,c\,\alpha}$, hence derived rather than primitive (see Common Objection~33).

\paragraph{Cohort role.} \AFour{} is the primary citation for the ``no free parameters'' claim of \ATwo{} \citep[and the present paper's Common Objection 1 + P1 of Section]{ArisakaA1Constitution}. Whenever \ATwo{} claims that the \OGNfive\ integers or the universal constants are not free inputs, \AFour{} is cited as the primary published answer.

\section{Bridge to \AFive{} (GDOS)}
\label{sec:bridge-A5}

\paragraph{What \AFive{} carries.} \AFive{} \citep{ArisakaA5GDOS} carries the bulk-to-boundary projection through the \OGGEP\ bulk--boundary correspondence $\cD$. \AFive{} builds the Geometric Dynamics of Open Systems runtime as the boundary CPTP-channel image of the 6D bulk and derives 4D quantum mechanics, 4D general relativity, and the low-energy Standard Model as its boundary projections.

\paragraph{Forward map: what \AFive{} consumes from \ATwo{}.} \AFive{} consumes Theorems~\ref{thm:dim-minimal}--\ref{thm:six-forces} as the bulk-side inputs to the boundary projection: the bulk manifold $\cM_6$ (from T1), the bulk metric (from T2), and the bulk gauge group $G_{\Bulk}$ (from T3). \AFive{} also consumes Theorem~\ref{thm:brst-consistency} as the consistency condition that the bulk-to-boundary projection preserves. The projection itself --- the construction of the boundary law $\cL_{\GDOS}$ as the CPTP-channel image of the bulk --- is the central content of \AFive{}.

\paragraph{Cohort role.} \AFive{} is the heart of the boundary side of the \GGTheory{} program. Where \ATwo{} carries the bulk-side derivation, \AFive{} carries the boundary-side derivation, and the two together exhaust the bulk-and-boundary architecture. \ASix{} and \ASeven{} supply the boundary-side pillar architectures that consume \AFive{}'s boundary law.

\section{Bridge to \ASix{} (GRIP) and \ASeven{} (Qi4)}
\label{sec:bridge-A6A7}

\paragraph{What \ASix{} carries.} \ASix{} carries the four geometric pillars of the boundary GDOS runtime: \TGG\ (the Geometric Gradient pillar), \CCI\ (the Covariant Conservation Identity pillar), \GFF\ (the Geometric Force Field pillar), and \GRIP\ (the Geometric Reduction and Interaction Pillar). These four pillars exhaust the geometric content of the boundary projection of $\Spinone \times \SUfive$.

\paragraph{What \ASeven{} carries.} \ASeven{} \citep{ArisakaA7Qi4} carries the four information-theoretic pillars of the boundary GDOS runtime: \QiQUA\ (Quantum Awareness), \QiEP\ (Equivalence Principle of information), \QiCON\ (Conservation), \QiHAL\ (Holographic Anchor Locality). These four pillars exhaust the information-theoretic content of the boundary projection of $\UoneQi$ \citep{ArisakaA7Qi4}. \ASeven{} also supplies the empirical calibration of the energy--information conversion factor $Q_B \approx 0.1555$~eV/qubit.

\paragraph{Forward map: what \ASix{} and \ASeven{} consume from \ATwo{}.} Both \ASix{} and \ASeven{} consume Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces} (the bulk gauge group $G_{\Bulk} = \Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$); \ASeven{} additionally consumes Theorem~\ref{thm:arisaka-equation} (the Arisaka equation locking $Q_B$). Together they exhaust the boundary-side gauge structure: \ASix{} for the geometric factors $\Spinone \times \SUfive$, \ASeven{} for the information factors $\UoneB \times \UoneQi$.

\paragraph{Cohort role.} The pair \ASix+\ASeven{} is the boundary-side pillar architecture: the four geometric pillars of \ASix{} and the four information pillars of \ASeven{} together carry the entire boundary content of \GGTheory.

\section{Bridge to \AEight{} (QM), \ANine{} (SM), and \ATen{} (Cosmos)}
\label{sec:bridge-A8A9A10}

The 4D-Physics Trio \AEight+\ANine+\ATen{} carries the empirical recasts: \AEight{} for quantum mechanics, \ANine{} for the Standard Model, \ATen{} for cosmology. Each takes a piece of established 4D physics that is conventionally read as a set of independent postulates or parameters, and recasts it as the boundary projection of the bulk derivation.

\paragraph{What \AEight{} carries.} \AEight{} \citep{ArisakaA8QM} recasts the quantum-mechanical postulates --- Hilbert space, Schr\"odinger equation, Born rule, L\"uders projection, decoherence, Bell--CHSH violation --- as \emph{theorems} of the boundary CPTP channel rather than as postulates. The postulates of standard QM (1925--1932) live at Stratum~3 implicit; \AEight{} promotes them to theorems of the full constitution. \emph{Forward map.} \AEight{} consumes Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces} (the bulk gauge group, in particular $\UoneQi$ for the information structure) and Theorem~\ref{thm:arisaka-equation} (the Arisaka equation for the QM--energy--information linkage).

\paragraph{What \ANine{} carries.} \ANine{} \citep{ArisakaA9SM} recasts the 28 Standard-Model parameters as attractor coordinates of the boundary \GRIP\ runtime: gauge couplings as Wilson--Hosotani branch attractors on $S^1_\theta$, fermion masses as overlap integrals on the radial interval $I_r$, CKM and PMNS as projector misalignments, and the strong-CP angle bounded $|\bar\theta| \lesssim 4.7 \times 10^{-18}$ via topological completion through the Kaxion. \emph{Forward map.} \ANine{} consumes Theorems~\ref{thm:six-forces} (gauge group), \ref{thm:canonical-metric} (scale-profile metric for the overlap integrals), \ref{thm:ogn-cascade} (integer ledger for the integer-locking of gauge couplings), and \ref{thm:bi6-coeffs} (coefficient vector for the boundary anomaly polynomial).

\paragraph{What \ATen{} carries.} \ATen{} \citep{ArisakaA10Cosmos} recasts the cosmological inventory $\Omega_m = 1/\pi$, $\Omega_\Lambda = 1 - 1/\pi$, $\Omega_b = 1/(2\pi^2)$, $\Omega_{\mathrm{DM}} = 1/\pi - 1/(2\pi^2)$ as the homogeneous Friedmann reduction of the boundary CCI, and predicts the Kaxion twin-peak haloscope signature $\Delta\nu/\nu = 1/35$ with the integer $35 = K$ supplied by \ATwo{}'s \OGNfive\ closure. \emph{Forward map.} \ATen{} consumes Theorems~\ref{thm:canonical-metric} (cosmological reduction of the scale-profile metric) and \ref{thm:ogn-cascade} (the integer $K = 35$).

\paragraph{Cohort role.} The 4D-Physics Trio \AEight+\ANine+\ATen{} is the empirical-recast layer of the cohort. Where the GG6 Trio carries the bulk-side derivation and the \GDOS{} Trio carries the boundary-side derivation, the 4D-Physics Trio carries the recasts of the most empirically-anchored content of 20th-century physics (QM, SM, cosmology) as theorems of the full constitution.

\section{Bridge to \AEleven{} (Origin)}
\label{sec:bridge-A11}

\paragraph{What \AEleven{} carries.} \AEleven{} \citep{ArisakaA11Origin} is the closing capstone of the cohort. It carries the cohort cascade from quarks through atoms, molecules, life, mind to consciousness as an axiomatic chain on the boundary $\GDOS$ runtime. \AEleven{} pulls together every cohort paper into a single architectural narrative: \AOne{} sets the constitution; \ATwo{} supplies the bulk; \AFive{} projects to the boundary; \ASix+\ASeven{} build the pillar architectures; \AEight+\ANine+\ATen{} recast 4D physics; \AEleven{} closes the loop.

\paragraph{Forward map: what \AEleven{} consumes from \ATwo{}.} \AEleven{} consumes all eight Theorems of \ATwo{} as part of its full-cohort recap, in the sense that the bulk-side derivation is the foundation on which the rest of the cohort rests. Specifically, \AEleven{}'s opening narrative reproduces the eight Theorems in summary form, then traces their boundary projections through \AFive{}, \ASix{}, \ASeven{}, \AEight{}, \ANine{}, \ATen{} to the final cascade-narrative outcome.

\paragraph{Cohort role.} \AEleven{} is the synoptic capstone. A reader who reads \AEleven{} first will see the cohort as a single architectural arc; a reader who reads \AEleven{} last will see it as the closing of a chain. Both readings are intended.

\section{Bridge to the Predictions Branch}
\label{sec:bridge-predictions}

The Predictions Branch is the live experimental exposure surface of the cohort. At the time of writing it has two named entries: P1-KK (the Kaluza--Klein lock-cluster resonance prediction at $M_{\mathrm{lock}} \approx 3.85$~TeV) and C1-Kaxion (the Kaxion twin-peak haloscope prediction at $\Delta\nu/\nu = 1/35$).

\paragraph{What P1-KK carries.} P1-KK \citep{ArisakaP1KK} carries the detailed phenomenology of the Kaluza--Klein lock-cluster resonance: the predicted mass $M_{\mathrm{lock}} \approx 3.85$~TeV, the predicted decay channels through the \SUfive\ branching ratios, the predicted production cross-sections at the HL-LHC and the FCC, and the predicted exclusion timeline given current and projected luminosity. P1-KK consumes Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade} (the integer $K = 35$ that fixes the mass scale) and Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces} (the bulk gauge group that supplies the spectrum).

\paragraph{What C1-Kaxion carries.} C1-Kaxion \citep{ArisakaC1Kaxion} carries the detailed phenomenology of the Kaxion twin-peak haloscope signature: the predicted oscillation frequency ratio $\Delta\nu/\nu = 1/35$, the predicted axion-photon coupling, the predicted halo-axion mass-frequency profile, and the predicted exclusion timeline given current and projected haloscope sensitivity (ADMX, HAYSTAC, ABRACADABRA, future). C1-Kaxion consumes Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade} (the integer $35 = K$ that fixes the oscillation ratio).

\paragraph{Future entries.} The Predictions Branch is open-ended. Future entries may include predictions for boundary-side phenomenology of \UoneB\ (proton stability beyond Super-K limits), boundary-side phenomenology of \UoneQi\ (energy--information anomalies at non-standard temperatures), and boundary-side phenomenology of the strong-CP angle (precision EDM measurements). Each future prediction will be a separate preprint with its own naming.

\paragraph{Cohort role.} The Predictions Branch is where the cohort meets the empirical world. Each entry supplies one specific live falsifier; the falsifier is what gives the cohort the standing to claim that it is a scientific framework rather than a metaphysical posture.


\section{The Updated Cross-Paper Coherence Map}
\label{sec:coherence-map}

The bridges of the preceding eight sections supply the structural map
at the level of prose. The present Section supplies the same map at the level of an explicit table: which Theorem of \ATwo{} is consumed by which companion paper (outward map). Every cohort claim is required to compile to a citable source so that the structural map can be re-walked independently.

The map is placed here, immediately after the bridges, so that a reader
who has just followed them can verify it at once rather than meeting it
many pages later.


\GG\ does not stand alone. The eight Theorems of Part~II are inputs to several companion papers of the \GGTheory\ program, and conversely the constitutional axioms and postulates that drive those Theorems live in the companion paper \AOne{}. Roughly speaking, the present paper sits at the geometric heart of the program: \AOne{} supplies the constitutional clauses \ATwo{} invokes, \AThree{} carries the global anomaly proof for $\BIsix$, \AFour{} carries the historical lineage and the parameter-free reconstruction of the universal constants, \AFive{} carries the bulk-to-boundary projection that produces 4D physics, and \ASix{}, \ASeven{}, \ANine{}, \ATen{} carry the boundary-side phenomenologies in their respective domains. The present section makes the outward-direction inter-paper structure explicit: a table of which \ATwo{} theorems are used by which companion papers and in which role each Theorem plays.

\subsection{Theorems of \GG\ used by companion papers (outward map)}
\label{ssec:outward-map}

\ATwo{}'s eight Theorems are the geometric backbone of the program. Table~\ref{tab:outward-map} records, for each Theorem, which companion paper(s) cite it as input and the role the Theorem plays in the companion's derivation. Every companion paper in this map is now on the new \texttt{Arisaka-GG-A*-Suffix} naming convention. When a companion paper undergoes a substantive revision (a version increment that introduces, removes, or renumbers theorems), this map should be re-walked: structural roles will not change, but the precise theorem-number pointers (where currently marked ``pointer-only'' or by a section reference rather than a theorem label) will be sharpened to the new theorem labels.

{\small
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.15}
\begin{longtable}{@{}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.10\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.164\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.260\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.376\textwidth}@{}}
\caption[Outward map: \ATwo{} Theorems and their downstream uses in companion papers]{Outward map: \ATwo{} Theorems and their downstream uses in companion papers. ``Pointer-only'' entries are precise companion-paper sections whose numbered theorem labels will be assigned during the companion paper's own naming-convention conversion; the structural role is verified, the section number is approximate.}\label{tab:outward-map}\\
\toprule
\textbf{\ATwo{} Theorem} & \textbf{Companion paper} & \textbf{Companion location} & \textbf{Role in companion derivation} \\
\midrule
\endfirsthead

\multicolumn{4}{c}{\itshape Table~\ref{tab:outward-map} continued from previous page}\\
\toprule
\textbf{\ATwo{} Theorem} & \textbf{Companion paper} & \textbf{Companion location} & \textbf{Role in companion derivation} \\
\midrule
\endhead

\midrule
\multicolumn{4}{r}{\itshape continued on next page}\\
\endfoot

\bottomrule
\endlastfoot
T1 (dim.\ minimality) & \AFive{} & Bulk-to-boundary reduction theorems (Part~II) & Provides the bulk manifold $\cM_6 = \cM_4 \times I_r \times S^1_\theta$ on which the \OGGEP{} bulk-to-boundary projection acts. \\
T1 & \ATen{} & Architecture / cosmological-arena section & Cosmological reading of the bulk: 6D bulk as parent of $\Lambda$CDM. \\
T2 (canonical metric) & \AFive{} & Boundary-metric reduction (Part~II) & Scale-profile metric $e^{-2r}\eta_{\mu\nu} + dr^2 + d\theta^2$ projects to 4D Einstein equations. \\
T2 & \ANine{} & Fine-structure section (Part~III) & Throat-depth integer $K = 35$ enters the boundary running of $\alpha^{-1}(M_Z)$. \\
T2 & \ATen{} & Throat-depth section & $K = 35$ sets the exponential hierarchy ratio $e^{-K}$ used in Friedmann reduction. \\
T3 (six forces) & \AThree{} & Anomaly-cancellation theorem (Section~4) and benchmark spectrum (Section~5) & Bulk gauge--gravity group $G_{\Bulk}$ enters the anomaly polynomial $X_4$ that \AThree{} globalizes. \\
T3 & \AFive{} & Boundary gauge structure (Part~III) & Bulk $\Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$ projects to the boundary Standard-Model gauge group. \\
T3 & \ASix{} & \GiFour{} pillars (\TGG{}, \CCI{}, \GFF{}, \GRIP{}) & Three abelian factors $\UoneEM \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$ supply the boundary conserved currents of the \GiFour{} cascade. \\
T3 & \ASeven{} & \QiFour{} pillars (Part~II) & $\UoneQi$ structure forces the four-pillar information-processing framework (\QiQUA, \QiEP, \QiCON, \QiHAL). \\
T4 ($\BIsix$ coeffs) & \AThree{} & Single-tensor rank-1 theorem (Section~3) and global anomaly proof (Section~4) & Coefficient vector $(1, -1, -2/5, -2/5)$ defines the four-form $X_4$ used in Green--Schwarz factorization; \AThree{} \S~7.7 frames the same vector as the \GGEP{} completion of GS. \\
T4 & \AFour{} & \OGNfive{} historical-reconstruction section & Trace ratio $-2/5$ enters the universal-constants reconstruction. \\
T5 (anomaly factorization) & \AThree{} & Local + global anomaly theorems (Sections~3--4) & $I_8 = \tfrac12 X_4 \wedge X_4$ is the local input that \AThree{} promotes to a global statement via the Wu--Chern--Simons refinement. \\
T6 ($\OGNfive$ cascade) & \AFour{} & \OGNfive{} historical-reconstruction theorem & The five-integer ledger $(1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$ supplies \AFour{}'s parameter-free reconstruction of $\{c, G_N, \hbar; \kB, \QB\}$. \\
T6 & \ANine{} & Fine-structure prediction & $\alpha^{-1}(0) = 2^J + N^2 = 137$ from $J = 7$, $N = 3$. \\
T6 & \ATen{} & Density inventory + Kaxion frequency & $\Omega_m = 1/\pi$ etc.\ and the Kaxion twin-peak signature $\Delta\nu/\nu = 1/35$ both depend on $K = 35$. \\
T7 (BRST + Slavnov--Taylor) & \AThree{} & Section on BRST cohomology and global STI & Bulk perturbative consistency input for \AThree{}'s global anomaly proof. \\
T7 & \AFive{} & Boundary Ward-identity section & Bulk Slavnov--Taylor identity projects to boundary Ward identities. \\
T8 (Arisaka eq.) & \AFive{} & Boundary current-locking theorems (Part~VII) & Bulk-to-boundary projection of the three abelian gauge invariances under \OGGEP{}. \\
T8 & \ASix{} & \CCI{} master-conservation theorem & Quadruple Gauge Locking is the \GiFour{} master-conservation identity. \\
T8 & \ASeven{} & Empirical-calibration section (energy--information) & $\QB \approx 0.1555$~eV/qubit calibration via the Arisaka equation. \\
\end{longtable}%
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.0}
}


\subsection*{Closing remarks on Part~V}
\label{sec:closing-bridge-partV}

The map drawn in this Part sustains one structural claim, and it is worth
separating that claim from the drawing. There is exactly one bulk-side anchor
in this program, one constitutional warrant above it, and a coordinated set of
companion papers below it. No companion paper duplicates the derivation carried
out here; none substitutes for the charter; and every consequence the program
claims can be traced through the map to a specific theorem of this paper or a
specific clause of \AOne{}.

That is an unusual thing for a research program to be able to say, and it is
worth being clear about why it matters rather than why it is tidy. A body of
work in which the same result is derived in three places, slightly differently
each time, cannot be refuted at a point. Attack one derivation and the other
two absorb the damage; the program appears robust when it is merely redundant.
A body of work with single ownership has no such cushion. If the integer ledger
of Part~II is wrong, every paper that consumes it is wrong, and the map says
exactly which papers those are.

The map also makes visible something a single paper cannot: which of its own
results it is not entitled to. This paper does not own the generation count, or
the origin of the complex numbers in quantum theory, or the boundary law that
turns the bulk into observed dynamics. Each of those has a home elsewhere, each
is cited here rather than re-derived, and where a companion's result is still
conditional, the condition travels with it rather than being quietly dropped in
transit.

There is a discipline in that which goes beyond bookkeeping. A framework is
easiest to believe when its parts are allowed to blur --- when a result proved
under one set of assumptions is used under another, and the seam between them
is never drawn. Drawing the seams is what makes a program checkable by someone
who did not build it, and it is the reason this Part exists at all.

\GGPart[Constitutional-Axiom Classification]{Constitutional-Axiom Classification}{\GG{} at the Center of 21st-Century Unified Physics --- General Relativity, Yang--Mills, String Theory, AdS/CFT, Quantum Mechanics, the Standard Model, and $\Lambda$CDM as Theorems of Axiom Subsets}


\noindent
Mendeleev's table was not a list of the elements. It was an arrangement, and
the arrangement had holes in it, and the holes turned out to be predictions.

Part~VI attempts the same move one level up, with theories instead of
elements. Arrange the major frameworks of the last hundred and twenty years
--- relativity, general relativity, Yang--Mills, the Standard Model, string
theory, quantum mechanics, the standard cosmology --- not by subject matter or
by date, but by which of the four axioms of Part~I each one actually uses.
Four axioms give four bands. Every framework lands in one of them.

What makes the arrangement more than tidy is what the empty places mean. A
framework that never invokes a given axiom is not merely silent on it; it is
structurally unable to answer the questions that axiom governs. Ask general
relativity when a measurement outcome becomes definite and the question does
not come back false. It comes back meaningless, because neither the measuring
apparatus nor the outcome is an object the theory contains.

Read that way, a missing axiom is a prediction about which questions a
framework will leave open forever, and the history of twentieth-century
physics becomes readable as a sequence of frameworks each adding one
structural commitment and each inheriting the silences of the one before.

The claim this paper then makes about its own position in that arrangement is
a structural claim, not a claim of superiority, and Part~VI states it in the
form that can be checked: which band, on which axioms, with what left unsaid.

\section{Introduction to Part~VI}
\label{sec:partVI-intro-classification}

Part VI stands a level above the rest of the paper. Parts II and III stated and proved the eight Theorems of the bulk-side derivation; Part IV located the framework against the superstring program; Part V supplied the cohort map and the two-way axiomatic handoff. The present Part observes something deeper: \emph{the same four constitutional axioms of \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution}, when applied with different subsets active, are the structural source of essentially every major theoretical-physics framework of the twentieth century, and when applied with the full axiom set active and written down geometrically, the result is the 6D bulk of \GG{}.}

The framework historically known as ``general relativity'' lives at the \AX{1}+\AX{2} level. ``Yang--Mills theory'' lives at the same level. ``Heterotic superstring theory'' lives at the same level. ``AdS/CFT'' lives at the same level. ``Standard quantum mechanics'' lives at \AX{1}+\AX{2}+\AX{3}, with the postulates of measurement and projection left as independent inputs rather than as theorems. The Standard Model and $\Lambda$CDM live at \AX{1}+\AX{2}+\AX{3}+\AX{4} \emph{implicitly}, in the sense that the operative axioms are present in the empirical structure but never named as such, and in particular the constitutional warrant for the specific gauge group and the cosmological inventory is left silent.

The \emph{explicit} Stratum-4 geometric realization of the full constitution is the 6D bulk of the present paper. The Copernican payoff of Part~VI follows: the eight Theorems of Part II are not eight isolated technical claims about a particular 6D manifold; they are the operative content of the full-constitution stratum of 20th-century unified physics. Each previous Stratum-2 framework is a partial realization of the same constitutional layer that \GG{} realizes completely; each previous Stratum-3 framework is a boundary projection of \GG{} with \AX{4} left implicit. Standard QM and the Standard Model do not contradict \GG{}; they are the implicit Stratum-3 and Stratum-4 expressions of which \GG{} is the explicit Stratum-4 geometric source.

The Part is organized as follows. Section~\ref{sec:central-claim-VI} states the central structural claim of the classification. Section~\ref{sec:constitutional-tower-VI} formalizes the tower of axiom subsets. Section~\ref{sec:constitutional-flowchart-VI} supplies the constitutional flowchart with \GG{} placed at the apex. Section~\ref{sec:walking-tower-VI} walks each stratum identifying its geometric realization. Section~\ref{sec:master-ledger-VI} supplies the master classification ledger with the explicit \GG{} Stratum-4 row added. Section~\ref{sec:why-gg6-stratum-4-VI} states operationally why \GG{} is the unique Stratum-4 geometric realization. Section~\ref{sec:vacuum-count-VI} restates the vacuum-count consequence. Section~\ref{sec:four-fold-exclusion-VI} relocates the four-fold constitutional exclusion of superstring theory inside the classification. Section~\ref{sec:reader-synthesis-VI} addresses what the classification means for readers from different communities. The Part then closes with a reflection on what the classification does and does not claim. Part VII (Significance and Uniqueness).

\paragraph{Note on tone.} Part VI is not a polemic. It is a structural location of each twentieth-century framework inside a single constitutional tower, in the same spirit as Part IV: each historical theory correctly used the axiom subset it implicitly invoked; each left silent exactly the questions that required the missing axioms. The 19th-century framework of Riemannian geometry was correctly understood as pure mathematics for sixty years before Einstein identified the physical setting (general relativity) in which it became operative; the 20th-century geometric edifice --- Bianchi identities, GS mechanism, modular bootstrap, AdS/CFT, holographic principle --- has been correctly developed by the superstring community for forty years without recognition of the constitutional setting in which the machinery becomes operative on the full axiom set. Part VI identifies that setting.

\section{The Central Structural Claim, Restated for the \GG{} Bulk}
\label{sec:central-claim-VI}

\paragraph{Statement.} Every major theoretical-physics framework of the twentieth century is a theorem of a particular subset of the four \GGConstitution{} axioms applied to a particular bulk solution. The \GG{} bulk of the present paper is the unique full-axiom-set geometric realization: GR, Yang--Mills, heterotic superstring theory, and AdS/CFT are its Stratum-2 ancestors; standard quantum mechanics is its Stratum-3 boundary projection (with \AX{3} left implicit as the operational dictionary); the Standard Model and $\Lambda$CDM are its Stratum-4 boundary phenomenologies (with \AX{4} left implicit as the integer-ledger uniqueness).

This is not a refutation of any historical framework. It is a \emph{structural location} of each framework inside a single constitutional tower. Each historical theory correctly used the axiom subset it implicitly invoked; each left silent exactly the questions that required the missing axioms. The classification we are about to develop is the structural map, with \GG{} at the apex as the explicit geometric realization of the full axiom set.

\paragraph{The Riemann/Einstein analogue.} The relation between the present classification and the existing 20th-century edifice is structurally the same as the relation between Riemann's 1854 \emph{Habilitationsschrift} \citep{Riemann1854} and Einstein's 1915 general relativity \citep{Einstein1915}. Riemann supplied the mathematical apparatus: arbitrary smooth manifolds of any dimension, with curvature defined intrinsically by a quadratic form. Einstein supplied the physical setting in which that apparatus became operative: gravity is the curvature of spacetime; the field equations relate the curvature to the energy--momentum tensor. The Riemannian machinery was correctly developed for sixty years as pure mathematics; the physical setting that made it operative was identified later.

Analogously, the 20th-century geometric edifice --- the Bianchi identities, the Green--Schwarz mechanism, the modular bootstrap, the AdS/CFT correspondence, the holographic principle, the string dualities --- has been correctly developed by the superstring community for forty years. The mathematical apparatus is rigorous and beautiful. What has been missing is the constitutional setting in which the apparatus becomes operative on the full axiom set, and which selects a unique vacuum from the $\sim 10^{500}$ admissible at Stratum~2. The present Part identifies that setting: it is the \GGConstitution{} of \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution}, and the geometric realization of its full axiom set is the 6D bulk of \GG{}.

\paragraph{The auditable derivation chain.} The technical derivation chain that backs each row of the classification is developed in full detail in \AFive{} \citep[Part~VIII, Table~5]{ArisakaA5GDOS}. The present Part restates the classification in a form a reader of the present paper can audit at first encounter. Part V supplied the cohort map (forward and backward); Part VI supplies the 21st-century classification (where each framework sits in the constitutional tower). Read together, the two Parts locate \GG{} in the program (Part V) and in the wider history of 20th-century unified physics (Part VI).

\section{The Constitutional Tower: A Formal Statement}
\label{sec:constitutional-tower-VI}

The four axioms of the \GGConstitution{} form a strict logical tower: each axiom presupposes the previous and adds new content.

\paragraph{Stratum 1 (\AX{1} \LC{} alone).} \AX{1} requires a manifold with a Lorentzian causal structure. The minimal model is Minkowski space. At this stratum the content is special relativity and classical electrodynamics.

\paragraph{Stratum 2 ($\{\AX{1}, \AX{2}\}$, \GGEP-closed).} \AX{1} plus \AX{2} requires the manifold to carry a composite geometry--gauge bundle in which gravity and gauge structure are two facets of one geometric object. At this stratum the content is general relativity, Yang--Mills theory, the Bianchi identity, the Green--Schwarz mechanism, the heterotic superstring construction, the AdS/CFT correspondence, and the holographic-principle machinery in general. The bulk geometry is not yet fixed; the vacuum count at this stratum is infinite (the string-landscape count $\sim 10^{500}$ is the heterotic specialization).

\paragraph{Stratum 3 ($\{\AX{1}, \AX{2}, \AX{3}\}$, \OGGEP-open).} \AX{1} plus \AX{2} plus \AX{3} requires an Operational bulk-to-boundary dictionary $\cD$ that projects bulk content to boundary content as a CPTP channel. At this stratum, on the boundary side, the content is the Hilbert-space, Schrödinger-equation, Born-rule, Lüders-projection, decoherence, and Bell--CHSH-violation content of standard quantum mechanics. At this stratum, on the bulk side, the geometry is still not yet fixed; the projection adds content but does not select among bulk vacua. The three structural siblings at this stratum are the QM sibling (operational projection of bulk content), the thermodynamic sibling (operational projection of bulk degrees of freedom), and the black-hole sibling (operational projection of bulk information).

\paragraph{Stratum 4 ($\{\AX{1}, \AX{2}, \AX{3}, \AX{4}\}$, full constitution).} \AX{1} plus \AX{2} plus \AX{3} plus \AX{4} \MSMF{} requires the framework to occupy a single point in the space of admissible bulk solutions, with the selection forced by integer counting via \POS{6} (\OGN). At this stratum the content is the empirical structure of physics: the specific 6D bulk metric $ds_6^2 = e^{-2r}\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu + dr^2 + d\theta^2$, the four-factor composite gauge group $\Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$, the \BIsix\ coefficient vector $(1, -1, -2/5, -2/5)$, the \OGNfive\ integer ledger $(1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$, the lock-cluster mass $\Mlock \approx 3.85$~TeV, the energy--information conversion factor $\QB \approx 0.1555$~eV/qubit, the cosmological inventory $\Omega_m = 1/\pi$, $\Omega_\Lambda = 1 - 1/\pi$, $\Omega_b = 1/(2\pi^2)$. Implicit Stratum-4 frameworks (the Standard Model, $\Lambda$CDM) reproduce this content phenomenologically; explicit Stratum-4 frameworks (the present paper) derive it constitutionally.

\paragraph{The strict logical tower.} Each stratum strictly contains all content of the previous: a theorem provable at Stratum 1 is provable at Stratum 2 (with \AX{2} inactive); a theorem provable at Stratum 2 is provable at Stratum 3 (with \AX{3} inactive); and so on. Conversely, content at a higher stratum may be inaccessible at a lower stratum. That is what makes the tower strict: each axiom adds content, never removes it.

\paragraph{Why axiom subsets are physically meaningful.} A natural objection: why should a partial axiom set produce a coherent physics framework at all? The answer is that each axiom is an \emph{independent} structural commitment about how physics is allowed to behave; activating fewer commitments does not produce inconsistency, it produces \emph{less determined} physics. GR with \AX{2} alone produces a coherent classical gravity theory; adding \AX{3} adds quantum content without invalidating the classical content; adding \AX{4} adds parameter selection without invalidating the unique-vacuum content. Each stratum is consistent in itself; each stratum is enriched by activating more axioms.

\section{The Constitutional Flowchart: \GG{} at the Apex}
\label{sec:constitutional-flowchart-VI}

Figure~\ref{fig:constitutional-flowchart-A2} (next page, in landscape orientation) presents the constitutional flowchart with \GG{} at the apex. The flowchart is adapted from Figure~10 of \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution}, with the \GG{} bulk of the present paper made explicit as the unique full-constitution geometric realization that the cohort framework activates at Stratum~4.


\noindent
 Each axiom on the left activates the Stratum band of the same number on the right: \AX{N} activates Stratum~$N$ for $N = 1, 2, 3, 4$.
\paragraph{How to read the chart.} Three conventions carry the content.
\emph{Vertical position is logical depth, not chronology}: a framework sits in
the band of the last axiom it needs, so a 1965 framework can sit above a 1997
one and often does. \emph{An arrow means activation, not influence}: the arrow
from an axiom to a band says that the band becomes available once that clause
is in force, and says nothing about who read whose papers. And \emph{the width
of a band is not a measure of importance} --- Stratum~2 is crowded because a
great deal of twentieth-century physics needs geometry--gauge equivalence and
nothing further, which is a statement about how much that one clause buys
rather than about the ambition of the frameworks in it.

One placement is deliberate and looks wrong at first. The box for the present
paper sits at the bottom of the chart rather than at the top, below the
implicit Stratum-4 row it feeds. That is the direction the dependency actually
runs: the Standard Model and $\Lambda$CDM are what a reader measures, and the
claim being made is that they are projections of the object in the box beneath
them, not achievements standing above it.

\emph{Strata~1 through 4-implicit} reproduce, band by band, the classification set out in the four stratum paragraphs above: local causality alone; the geometry--gauge family; the three siblings of openness; and the frameworks that reproduce the integer ledger's content phenomenologically.
\emph{Stratum~4 explicit} (red box, heavy border, ``you are here'') is the unique extension that the present paper introduces: \GG{} names \AX{4} as a constitutional clause and writes the 6D bulk with the \OGNfive\ ledger and the Arisaka equation as the explicit geometric realization of the full axiom set. The heavy red arrow from \AX{4} directly to the \GG{} box records the operative axiom; the upward arrow from \GG{} to the Stratum-4 implicit row records that the Standard Model, $\Lambda$CDM, and the cohort cascade are boundary projections of the same explicit geometric source. 

\clearpage
\begin{landscape}
\thispagestyle{empty}
\begin{figure}[p]
\centering
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{%  % landscape: \linewidth is the rotated width
\begin{tikzpicture}[
 font=\sffamily\small,
 >=stealth,
 constbox/.style ={rectangle, rounded corners=4pt, draw=red!60!black,
 fill=red!16, line width=0.80pt, inner sep=6pt,
 align=center, font=\sffamily\bfseries\normalsize},
 axbox/.style ={rectangle, rounded corners=3pt, draw=red!60!black,
 fill=red!10, line width=0.60pt, inner sep=4pt,
 align=center, font=\sffamily\bfseries\footnotesize,
 minimum width=4.0cm, minimum height=1.45cm},
 stratlabel/.style ={anchor=south west, font=\sffamily\bfseries\footnotesize,
 inner sep=1pt},
 stratbox/.style ={rectangle, rounded corners=3pt, line width=0.60pt,
 inner sep=4pt, align=center,
 font=\sffamily\footnotesize, minimum width=17.0cm},
 s1style/.style ={stratbox, draw=yellow!55!black, fill=yellow!18,
 minimum height=1.3cm},
 s2style/.style ={stratbox, draw=orange!55!black, fill=orange!16,
 minimum height=2.2cm},
 s3style/.style ={stratbox, draw=green!55!black, fill=green!12,
 minimum height=2.9cm},
 s4style/.style ={stratbox, draw=teal!55!black, fill=teal!13,
 minimum height=1.3cm},
 gg6box/.style ={rectangle, rounded corners=4pt, draw=red!70!black,
 fill=red!16, line width=1.10pt, inner sep=5pt,
 align=center, font=\sffamily\bfseries\normalsize,
 minimum width=17.0cm, minimum height=1.3cm},
 fwbox/.style ={rectangle, rounded corners=2pt, draw=black!60,
 fill=white, line width=0.35pt, inner sep=2pt,
 align=center, font=\sffamily\scriptsize,
 minimum height=0.55cm},
 ggtbox/.style ={rectangle, rounded corners=4pt, draw=cyan!55!black,
 fill=cyan!18, line width=0.80pt, inner sep=5pt,
 align=center, font=\sffamily\bfseries\normalsize,
 minimum width=17.0cm, minimum height=1.1cm},
 arr/.style ={->, draw=black!75, line width=0.55pt},
 thickarr/.style ={->, draw=black, line width=0.85pt},
 siblingbar/.style ={draw=black!45, line width=0.40pt, dashed}
]

%% --- Axioms column ---
\node[axbox] (ax1) at (-7.6, 5.1) {\AX{1}\,: \LC{}\\[1pt]\textnormal{\scriptsize Local causality}};
\node[axbox] (ax2) at (-7.6, 2.6) {\AX{2}\,: \GGEP{}\\[1pt]\textnormal{\scriptsize Geometry--gauge eq.}};
\node[axbox] (ax3) at (-7.6, -0.8) {\AX{3}\,: \OGGEP{}\\[1pt]\textnormal{\scriptsize Operational/open ext.}};
\node[axbox] (ax4) at (-7.6, -4.0) {\AX{4}\,: \MSMF{}\\[1pt]\textnormal{\scriptsize Max.\ sym., min.\ freedom}};

%% GG-Constitution at far left
\node[constbox, rotate=90, minimum width=10.0cm, minimum height=1.4cm]
 (gg) at (-11.0, 0.5)
 {The \GGConstitution{} \;\textnormal{\footnotesize (foundational source)}};

\draw[arr] (gg.south) -- (ax1.west);
\draw[arr] (gg.south) -- (ax2.west);
\draw[arr] (gg.south) -- (ax3.west);
\draw[arr] (gg.south) -- (ax4.west);

\draw[->, draw=gray!45, line width=1.10pt] (ax1.south) -- (ax2.north);
\draw[->, draw=gray!45, line width=1.10pt] (ax2.south) -- (ax3.north);
\draw[->, draw=gray!45, line width=1.10pt] (ax3.south) -- (ax4.north);

%% --- Stratum 1 ---
\node[s1style] (s1) at (3.6, 5.1) {};
\node[stratlabel] at ([yshift=2pt]s1.north west) {Stratum~1 \,(\{\AX{1}\})};
\node[fwbox, minimum width=4.6cm] at (0.4, 5.10) {Special relativity (1905)};
\node[fwbox, minimum width=4.6cm] at (6.8, 5.10) {Classical electrodynamics (1865)};

%% --- Stratum 2 ---
\node[s2style] (s2) at (3.6, 2.6) {};
\node[stratlabel] at ([yshift=2pt]s2.north west)
 {Stratum~2 \,(\{\AX{1},\AX{2}\}\,; $\mathsf{GGEP\text{-}closed}$)};
\node[fwbox, minimum width=2.6cm] at (-2.7, 3.1) {GR (1915)};
\node[fwbox, minimum width=2.8cm] at (1.0, 3.1) {Yang--Mills (1954)};
\node[fwbox, minimum width=2.6cm] at (4.6, 3.1) {GS mech (1984)};
\node[fwbox, minimum width=3.6cm] at (8.7, 3.1) {Superstring theory (1984+)};
\node[fwbox, minimum width=3.4cm] at (-3.0, 2.2) {Bianchi Identity (1902)};
\node[fwbox, minimum width=3.0cm] at (0.85, 2.2) {AdS/CFT (1997)};
\node[fwbox, minimum width=3.6cm] at (5.15, 2.2) {Holographic dualities (1993+)};
\node[fwbox, minimum width=3.6cm] at (9.75, 2.2) {Anomaly cancellation (1984)};

%% --- Stratum 3 ---
\node[s3style] (s3) at (3.6, -0.8) {};
\node[stratlabel] at ([yshift=2pt]s3.north west)
 {Stratum~3 \,(\{\AX{1},\AX{2},\AX{3}\}\,; $\mathsf{OGGEP\text{-}open}$): three siblings of openness};
\node[font=\sffamily\bfseries\scriptsize] at (-1.5, -0.05) {QM sibling};
\node[font=\sffamily\bfseries\scriptsize] at (3.6, -0.05) {Thermo sibling};
\node[font=\sffamily\bfseries\scriptsize] at (8.7, -0.05) {BH sibling};
\draw[siblingbar] (1.05, 0.10) -- (1.05, -2.15);
\draw[siblingbar] (6.15, 0.10) -- (6.15, -2.15);
\node[fwbox, minimum width=4.2cm] at (-1.5, -0.55) {QM (1925--32), Born rule};
\node[fwbox, minimum width=4.2cm] at (-1.5, -1.20) {Decoherence, einselection (1970+)};
\node[fwbox, minimum width=4.2cm] at (-1.5, -1.80) {Bell-inequality violations (1964)};
\node[fwbox, minimum width=4.2cm] at (3.6, -0.55) {Classical thermo (1824--72)};
\node[fwbox, minimum width=4.2cm] at (3.6, -1.20) {Statistical mech (1902)};
\node[fwbox, minimum width=4.2cm] at (3.6, -1.80) {Fluct.\ thms; Friston FEP (2010)};
\node[fwbox, minimum width=4.2cm] at (8.7, -0.55) {BH physics + thermo (1973+)};
\node[fwbox, minimum width=4.2cm] at (8.7, -1.20) {Page curve (1993)};
\node[fwbox, minimum width=4.2cm] at (8.7, -1.80) {Islands formula (2020)};

%% --- Stratum 4 (TWO LAYERS for v7.23: implicit + explicit) ---
\node[s4style] (s4) at (3.6, -4.0) {};
\node[stratlabel] at ([yshift=2pt]s4.north west)
 {Stratum~4 \,(\{\AX{1},\AX{2},\AX{3},\AX{4}\}\,; $\mathsf{Full\text{-}Constitution}$, \emph{implicit})};
\node[fwbox, minimum width=5.0cm] at (-1.4, -4.10) {Standard Model (1967--78): 28 params};
\node[fwbox, minimum width=3.8cm] at (3.6, -4.10) {$\Lambda$CDM (1998+): $\Omega_m{=}\pi^{-1}$};
\node[fwbox, minimum width=5.6cm] at (8.8, -4.10) {Cohort cascade (2026): quarks--life--mind};

%% --- NEW: Explicit Stratum-4 geometric realisation: GG-6 (this paper) ---
\node[gg6box] (gg6) at (3.6, -5.95)
 {\GG{} \emph{(this paper)} --- explicit Stratum-4 geometric realization \\
 \normalfont\footnotesize 6D bulk + \OGNfive\ + Arisaka eq.\ + \BIsix};
\node[font=\sffamily\itshape\scriptsize, anchor=south west, text=red!80!black]
 at (-4.5, -5.10) {\GG{} = ``you are here''};

%% Horizontal arrows: each axiom -> corresponding stratum
\draw[thickarr] (ax1.east) -- (s1.west);
\draw[thickarr] (ax2.east) -- (s2.west);
\draw[thickarr] (ax3.east) -- (s3.west);
\draw[thickarr] (ax4.east) -- (s4.west);

%% AX4 -> GG-6 (heavy arrow from AX-4 going DOWN to explicit realisation)
\draw[->, draw=red!70!black, line width=1.10pt]
 (ax4.south).. controls (-7.6, -6.0) and (-2.0, -5.95).. (gg6.west);

%% Stratum 4 implicit -> GG-6 explicit (UPWARD arrows showing GG-6 is the
%% geometric realisation of which SM/LCDM are boundary projections)
\draw[arr] (gg6.north) -- (s4.south);

\end{tikzpicture}%
}% end landscape resizebox
\bigskip
\caption[Constitutional flowchart, with the bulk stratum added.]{The constitutional flowchart, carried from the charter paper with one addition: the row for this paper's bulk stratum, which is what the present volume contributes to the chart. Each framework enters at the level of the axioms it uses, and the branches descend as axioms are added. What each branch cannot say is the content of the classification --- a missing axiom is a prediction about which questions a framework will leave open, not merely an omission --- and the stratum paragraphs preceding the chart state it band by band. The extended description on the preceding page reads the chart row by row.}
\label{fig:constitutional-flowchart-A2}
\end{figure}
\end{landscape}
\clearpage


The figure exhibits the central structural point of Part VI. Reading from top to bottom, each stratum activates one more axiom than the previous, and each stratum produces strictly more content. Reading from left to right, each row records the historical frameworks that live at that stratum. The diagonal structure of the table records the historical sequence of discovery: the easier physics (with fewer axioms) was discovered first.

Two observations are worth making about Figure~\ref{fig:constitutional-flowchart-A2}. First, the position of the heterotic superstring construction at Stratum~2 is not a downgrade of string theory; it is a structural location. String theory's two famous limitations --- ``no QM derivation'' and ``the $10^{500}$ vacuum landscape'' --- sit exactly where the absence of \AX{3} and \AX{4} predicts them. Both are not bugs of string theory in itself; they are consequences of the stratum at which string theory operates. At Stratum~4 (full constitution), both vanish: QM derivation follows from the boundary CPTP-channel projection of \AX{3}, and the vacuum landscape collapses to one by the integer-ledger selection of \AX{4}.

Second, the position of \GG{} at the bottom of the figure is not at the bottom of importance; it is at the structural apex of the constitutional tower. ``Apex'' means \emph{the unique point where the constitution terminates}: the strictly bottom row of the tower is the one in which all four axioms are active, and within that row the explicit (named-clauses) framework is the geometric realization. \GG{} occupies that point.

\section{Walking the Tower: Each Stratum Identified by Its Geometric Realization}
\label{sec:walking-tower-VI}

This Section walks the tower stratum by stratum, identifying for each the historical frameworks that live there and the geometric realization that the constitution selects when the active axioms are activated.

\paragraph{Stratum 1 (\AX{1} \LC{} alone): special relativity and classical electrodynamics.} Activating only \AX{1} produces a manifold with a Lorentzian causal structure. The minimal model is Minkowski space; the natural content is Lorentz transformations, $E = mc^2$, the relativistic addition of velocities, and the classical field theory of charges on Minkowski. Maxwell's equations on Minkowski are a Stratum-1 theorem: they require only the causal structure (\AX{1}) and the gauge-bundle structure of $\U(1)$ (which at this stratum is taken as input rather than as a constitutional consequence). Special relativity is correctly located at Stratum~1: it is what one gets with \AX{1} alone, and it is right at what it is right about (Lorentz symmetry, energy--momentum, light-cone causality). Special relativity does not say anything about gravity (needs \AX{2}), about quantum content (needs \AX{3}), or about parameter selection (needs \AX{4}). Each of those silences is consistent with the stratum.

\paragraph{Stratum 2 ($\{\AX{1}, \AX{2}\}$, \GGEP-closed): general relativity, Yang--Mills, string theory, AdS/CFT.} Activating \AX{1} and \AX{2} requires the manifold to carry a composite geometry--gauge bundle in which gravity and gauge structure are unified into a single geometric object. At this stratum live general relativity (the gravity sector of the composite connection, with the gauge sector left as input), Yang--Mills theory (the gauge sector of the composite connection, with the gravity sector left as input), the heterotic superstring construction (a 10D specialization of the composite connection with the Green--Schwarz mechanism canceling the gauge--gravity anomaly), and the AdS/CFT correspondence (a duality between the bulk gauge--gravity composite and a boundary CFT).

The structural unity of Stratum 2 is that all four frameworks consume the \emph{same} composite geometry--gauge connection and differ in their constitutional commitments downstream. GR commits to no gauge sector; Yang--Mills commits to no gravity sector; heterotic superstring commits to 10D and SUSY as extra-constitutional inputs; AdS/CFT commits to a duality posture rather than a forced-projection posture. Each commitment is consistent with Stratum 2; none of them is forced by Stratum 2; the choice among them is left to extra-constitutional considerations. This is why Stratum 2 is rich but underdetermined: the \GGEP-closed layer admits many distinct frameworks, none of which is selected by the stratum itself.

The 19th-century antecedent of Stratum 2 is the Bianchi identity (1902). This explains the structural unity: the Bianchi identity is the closure condition on the composite connection, and once that closure is taken as constitutional, the Stratum-2 frameworks are different ways of organizing the consequences. See Part IV \S\ref{sec:gs-ggep} for the structural treatment of how the Green--Schwarz modified Bianchi identity belongs to \GGEP.

\paragraph{Stratum 3 ($\{\AX{1}, \AX{2}, \AX{3}\}$, \OGGEP-open): quantum mechanics and three siblings of openness.} Activating \AX{3} (\OGGEP) on top of Strata 1 and 2 adds the Operational bulk-to-boundary dictionary $\cD$: a CPTP-channel projection of bulk content to a 4D boundary on which empirical operations are registered. At this stratum live (i) standard quantum mechanics (1925--32) as the QM sibling --- Hilbert space, Schrödinger equation, Born rule, Lüders projection, decoherence, Bell--CHSH violation --- but in standard QM these are stated as independent \emph{postulates} rather than as theorems of the projection; (ii) the thermodynamic sibling --- classical thermodynamics (1824--72), statistical mechanics (1902), fluctuation theorems, and Friston's free-energy principle \citep{Friston2010}; (iii) the black-hole sibling --- Bekenstein--Hawking thermodynamics (1973+), the Page curve \citep{Page1993}, the islands formula (2020).

The three siblings at Stratum 3 are not three different physics frameworks; they are three different operational restrictions of the same \OGGEP-open content. QM restricts the operational dictionary to discrete measurement outcomes on a Hilbert space; thermodynamics restricts it to ensemble-averaged classical observables; black-hole physics restricts it to the boundary-information content of a horizon. Each restriction is a sibling; all three live at the same stratum.

What Stratum 3 leaves silent: the constitutional warrant for the QM postulates as \emph{theorems}. Standard QM treats Hilbert space, the Born rule, and Lüders projection as independent axiomatic inputs; the boundary projection of \AX{3} can derive them as theorems of the CPTP channel. \AEight{} \citep{ArisakaA8QM} carries the explicit derivation; the present paper carries the bulk side from which the boundary projection descends.

\paragraph{Stratum 4 ($\{\AX{1}, \AX{2}, \AX{3}, \AX{4}\}$, full constitution): the explicit geometric realization.} Activating \AX{4} (\MSMF) on top of Strata 1--3 requires the framework to occupy a single point in the space of admissible bulk solutions, with the selection forced by integer counting via \POS{6} (\OGN). At this stratum, on the explicit side, live exactly the eight Theorems of Part II of the present paper: the 6D bulk metric, the four-factor composite gauge group, the \BIsix\ coefficient vector $(1, -1, -2/5, -2/5)$, the \OGNfive\ integer ledger $(1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$, the BRST consistency, the \OGN-cascade output, the Arisaka equation, and the lock-cluster mass $\Mlock$. At this stratum, on the implicit side, live the Standard Model (1967--78), $\Lambda$CDM cosmology (1998+), and the cohort cascade of \AEleven{} \citep{ArisakaA11Origin}.

The structural difference between the explicit and implicit Stratum-4 frameworks is the following. Implicit Stratum-4 frameworks (SM, $\Lambda$CDM) reproduce the empirical content of the full-constitution stratum, but they treat the specific gauge group, the 28 parameters, the cosmological inventory, and the integer ledger as phenomenological inputs rather than as constitutional consequences. Explicit Stratum-4 frameworks (\GG{}) derive each of those inputs from \AX{4} plus \POS{6} (\OGN). The constitution turns on that distinction: an empirical pattern is not the same as a constitutional derivation; the same Stratum-4 content can be present implicitly or derived explicitly, and the present paper is the explicit form.

\paragraph{Why string theory has not solved QM foundations in forty years.} A side-observation that the classification makes immediate: standard QM lives at Stratum~3 (it requires \AX{3} \OGGEP), and string theory lives at Stratum~2 (it requires only \AX{1} and \AX{2}). String theory cannot derive QM as theorems by structural-stratum reasoning: a framework that lacks \AX{3} cannot deduce a Stratum-3 boundary projection. This is not a failure of string theory in itself; it is a structural consequence of the stratum at which string theory operates. The forty years of string theory's missing QM derivation are exactly what the absence of \AX{3} at Stratum 2 predicts. The classification reads this not as a criticism but as a structural location.

\section{The Master Classification Ledger --- with the Explicit \GG{} Row}
\label{sec:master-ledger-VI}

Table~\ref{tab:V-classification-A2} restates the master classification ledger of A1 Part V, with the explicit \GG{} Stratum-4 row added. Each row records a historical framework, the stratum at which it operates, the content it produces, and the content it leaves silent (the missing axioms). The full derivation chain that backs each row is in \AFive{} \citep[Part~VIII, Table~5]{ArisakaA5GDOS}; we restate it here in a compact form for the reader of the present paper.

{\small
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.18}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{3pt}%
\begin{longtable}{@{}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{3.0cm}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{2.9cm}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{4.2cm}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{5.0cm}@{}}
\caption[Constitutional-axiom classification of major physics frameworks.]{The constitutional-axiom classification of major 20th- and 21st-century theoretical-physics frameworks, with the explicit \GG{} row added at the bottom. Each framework is located by the subset of \GGConstitution{} axioms it implicitly uses; the content it produces and the content it leaves silent follow from the missing axioms. ``Stratum~$N$'' is the row of the tower at which axiom \AX{N} becomes operative.}
\label{tab:V-classification-A2}\\
\toprule
\textbf{Framework (year)} & \textbf{Stratum} & \textbf{Content produced} & \textbf{Content left silent (missing axioms)} \\
\midrule
\endfirsthead

\multicolumn{4}{c}{\itshape Table~\ref{tab:V-classification-A2} continued from previous page}\\
\toprule
\textbf{Framework (year)} & \textbf{Stratum} & \textbf{Content produced} & \textbf{Content left silent} \\
\midrule
\endhead

\midrule
\multicolumn{4}{r}{\itshape continued on next page}\\
\endfoot

\bottomrule
\endlastfoot

Special relativity (1905) & 1 (\AX{1}) & Lorentz transformations, $E = mc^2$, classical field theory on Minkowski. & Gravity (needs \AX{2}); quantum content (needs \AX{3}); parameter selection (needs \AX{4}). \\

Classical electrodynamics (1865) & 1 (\AX{1}) & Maxwell equations on Minkowski; $\U(1)$ gauge structure as input. & Composite gauge--gravity unification (needs \AX{2}); QM content (needs \AX{3}). \\

Yang--Mills (1954) & 2 (\AX{1},\AX{2}) & Non-Abelian gauge theory; Lie-algebraic field-strength commutators. & Specific gauge group (needs \AX{4}); QM content (needs \AX{3}). \\

General relativity (1915) & 2 (\AX{1},\AX{2}) & Einstein field equations; black holes; gravitational waves; cosmological expansion. & QM content (needs \AX{3}); $G_N$ from integer ledger (needs \AX{4}). \\

Heterotic superstring (1984+) & 2 (\AX{1},\AX{2}) & 10D anomaly cancellation; GS-modified Bianchi identity; SO(32) / $E_8 \times E_8$ gauge groups; dualities. & QM content (no \AX{3}); unique vacuum selection (no \AX{4}, hence the $\sim 10^{500}$ flux landscape). \\

AdS/CFT (1997+) & 2 (\AX{1},\AX{2}) & Bulk gravity $=$ boundary CFT duality; holographic computation; Ryu--Takayanagi \citep{RyuTakayanagi2006}; viscosity bound. & QM content as theorems (no \AX{3}); information-coarsening projection (no \AX{3}); unique vacuum (no \AX{4}). \\

Standard QM (1925--32) & 3 (\AX{1},\AX{2},\AX{3}) implicit & Hilbert space, Schrödinger eqn, Born rule, Lüders projection, decoherence, Bell--CHSH violation (all as \emph{postulates}). & QM postulates as \emph{theorems} (require explicit derivation from \AX{3}, supplied in \AEight{}). \\

Statistical mechanics + fluctuation theorems (1902--2010) & 3 (\AX{1},\AX{2},\AX{3}) implicit & Boltzmann distribution; Crooks/Jarzynski theorems; Friston FEP. & Operational projection as a CPTP channel (no \AX{3} as a named clause). \\

Black-hole thermodynamics + Page curve (1973--2020) & 3 (\AX{1},\AX{2},\AX{3}) implicit & Bekenstein--Hawking entropy; Page curve; islands formula. & Boundary projection as constitutional clause (no \AX{3} as a named clause). \\

Standard Model (1967--78) & 4 (\AX{1},\AX{2},\AX{3},\AX{4}) implicit & $\SU(3) \times \SU(2) \times \U(1)$ gauge group; three fermion generations; CKM/PMNS mixing; Higgs mechanism. & Constitutional warrant for the specific group and the 28 parameters (supplied in \ANine{}). \\

$\Lambda$CDM cosmology (1998+) & 4 (\AX{1},\AX{2},\AX{3},\AX{4}) implicit & Cosmological inventory; CMB power spectrum; structure formation; accelerated expansion. & Constitutional warrant for $\Omega_m = 1/\pi$, $\Omega_\Lambda = 1 - 1/\pi$ (supplied in \ATen{}). \\

\midrule

\textbf{\GG{} bulk (this paper, 2026)} & \textbf{4 explicit} & \textbf{6D bulk $ds_6^2 = e^{-2r}\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu + dr^2 + d\theta^2$; four-factor composite gauge group $\Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$; \BIsix\ coefficient vector $(1,-1,-2/5,-2/5)$; \OGNfive\ ledger $(1,3,5;7,35)$; $\Mlock \approx 3.85$~TeV; $\QB \approx 0.1555$~eV/qubit; Arisaka equation.} & \textbf{None at the constitutional level; specific empirical predictions ($\Mlock$, $\Delta\nu/\nu = 1/35$, etc.) await the next decade of measurements.} \\

\end{longtable}
}

\paragraph{The diagonal structure.} Reading the table top-to-bottom, each row activates more axioms than the previous, and each row produces strictly more content. The historical sequence in which the frameworks were developed is approximately the same as the constitutional sequence in which they activate axioms --- a coincidence that reflects the fact that the easier physics (with fewer axioms) was discovered first.

\paragraph{The Stratum-4 explicit row.} The new row at the bottom of the table is the present paper. It is the unique row that records all eight Theorems of Part II as the operative content of the full-constitution stratum. No previous framework in the table activates all four axioms explicitly; \GG{} is the first. The Copernican payoff of the present Part follows: the constitutional tower terminates in a unique explicit geometric realization, and the 6D bulk of the present paper is that realization.

\paragraph{The two famous Stratum-2 limitations.} The two famous limitations of string theory --- ``no QM derivation in forty years'' and ``the $10^{500}$ vacuum landscape'' --- sit at the Stratum-2 row of the table, exactly where the absence of \AX{3} and \AX{4} predicts them. Both vanish at the Stratum-4 row: QM derivation follows from the boundary CPTP-channel projection (carried in \AEight{}), and the vacuum landscape collapses to one by the integer-ledger selection of \AX{4} + \POS{6} (\OGN). This is not an attack on string theory; it is a structural location of why those two limitations persist at the stratum where string theory currently operates and why they vanish at the stratum where the cohort framework operates.

\section{Why \GG{} Is the Stratum-4 Geometric Realization: An Operational Statement}
\label{sec:why-gg6-stratum-4-VI}

This Section states operationally why the 6D bulk of the present paper is the unique Stratum-4 geometric realization of the full constitution. Three claims, each anchored to one or more constitutional clauses.

\paragraph{Claim 1: The bulk metric realizes \AX{1} explicitly.} The 6D bulk metric $ds_6^2 = e^{-2r}\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu + dr^2 + d\theta^2$ supplies a Lorentzian $(1,3)$ signature on the boundary slice $\cM_4$, satisfying \AX{1} (\LC) explicitly. The boundary signature is not assumed; it is the signature of the scale-profile metric restricted to $r = 0$. No other Stratum-2 framework realizes \AX{1} this explicitly: GR realizes it on a 4D manifold; Yang--Mills realizes it on a 4D Minkowski space; heterotic superstring realizes it on a 10D Lorentzian manifold; AdS/CFT realizes it on the 4D boundary of AdS$_5$ as a duality posture. None of these competing realizations are wrong at Stratum 2; they are simply not the Stratum-4 geometric realization.

\paragraph{Claim 2: The four-factor composite gauge group realizes \AX{2} explicitly.} The bulk gauge group $\Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$ supplies the composite geometry--gauge connection of \AX{2} (\GGEP) explicitly. Each of the four factors plays a named structural role: $\Spinone$ is the bulk Lorentz factor; $\SUfive$ is the non-Abelian unification factor whose boundary projection is $\SU(3)_C \times \SU(2)_L \times \U(1)_Y$; $\UoneB$ is the proton-stability factor; $\UoneQi$ is the information-theoretic factor. No previous Stratum-2 framework supplies all four factors as constitutional: GR supplies $\Spinone$ alone; Yang--Mills supplies a non-Abelian factor as input; heterotic superstring supplies SO(32) or $E_8 \times E_8$ as the 10D anomaly-cancellation requirement (with no integer-counting selection); AdS/CFT supplies the boundary gauge group as a dual posture. \GG{}'s four-factor structure is the constitutionally-minimal completion.

\paragraph{Claim 3: The boundary projection through $\cD$ realizes \AX{3} explicitly.} The bulk-to-boundary projection through the \OGGEP\ bulk--boundary correspondence $\cD$ supplies the operational CPTP-channel structure of \AX{3} (\OGGEP) explicitly. The boundary law $\cL_{\GDOS}$ on the 4D boundary is the CPTP-channel image of the bulk law, as developed in \AFive{} \citep{ArisakaA5GDOS}. No previous Stratum-3 framework realizes \AX{3} explicitly: standard QM treats the operational projection as a postulate (the Born rule and Lüders projection are independent axioms); the thermodynamic sibling treats it as ensemble averaging without a bulk--boundary correspondence; the black-hole sibling treats it via the Bekenstein--Hawking entropy formula without a CPTP-channel underpinning. \GG{} + \GDOS{} of \AFive{} realizes \AX{3} as a constitutional clause.

\paragraph{Claim 4: The \OGNfive\ integer ledger + the lock cluster realize \AX{4} explicitly.} The \OGNfive\ integer ledger $(M, N, L; J, K) = (1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$ supplies the unique-vacuum selection of \AX{4} (\MSMF) explicitly, via the Diophantine cascade $K = LJ = M^2 + N^2 + L^2$. The lock cluster at $r = K = 35$ supplies the experimental falsification surface at $\Mlock \approx 3.85$~TeV. No previous Stratum-4 implicit framework realizes \AX{4} explicitly: the Standard Model treats the gauge group as a phenomenological input; $\Lambda$CDM treats the cosmological inventory as a phenomenological input; both leave the constitutional warrant silent. \GG{} derives both inputs from \AX{4} + \POS{6} (\OGN).

\paragraph{Synthesis.} Together, the four claims state that \GG{} is the unique constitutional realization, on a single 6D bulk, of all four axioms of the \GGConstitution{} acting explicitly. Each previous Stratum-2 framework is structurally an ``upper layer'' of \GG{} with axioms \AX{3} and \AX{4} left implicit; each previous Stratum-3 framework is structurally a boundary projection of \GG{} with \AX{4} left implicit; each previous Stratum-4 implicit framework is the empirical content of \GG{}'s boundary projection. Honestly stated, this is a strong claim: the 6D bulk of the present paper is not one geometric realization among many; it is the geometric realization that the constitution selects when all four axioms are activated. The next decade of empirical work will test the claim at the $\Mlock$ kill-criterion and the Kaxion twin-peak signature; either confirms the bulk geometry or forces a reconsideration of one of the four axioms.

\section{Quantitative Consequences: The Vacuum Count}
\label{sec:vacuum-count-VI}

The most striking quantitative consequence of \AX{4} (\MSMF) is the collapse of the vacuum landscape.

\paragraph{Stratum-by-stratum vacuum count.} Stratum~1 alone admits an infinite family of Minkowski-metric choices (every Lorentzian 4-manifold with the appropriate causal structure is admissible). Stratum~2 (\GGEP-closed) admits an infinite family of composite bulk solutions; restricted to the 10D heterotic specialization it admits the famous $\sim 10^{500}$ flux vacua of the Bousso--Polchinski / Douglas--Kachru landscape \citep{BoussoPolchinski2000, DouglasKachru2007}. Stratum~3 (\OGGEP-open) inherits the Stratum-2 infinity, since the operational dictionary adds boundary content but does not select among bulk vacua. Stratum~4 (full constitution) collapses the landscape to exactly $\boxed{1}$: the unique admissible bulk that the integer \OGNfive\ ledger forces.

\paragraph{The $10^{500}$-fold collapse.} The constitution's signature quantitative payoff follows: a $10^{500}$-fold collapse in admissible bulk vacua from Stratum 2 to Stratum 4. The collapse is not phenomenological; it is constitutional, forced by \AX{4} + \POS{6}. The collapse takes the framework from the largest known parameter space in physics (the string landscape) to the smallest (a single integer ledger).

\paragraph{Empirical consequence.} The collapse is empirically auditable. If the unique vacuum that \GG{} selects turns out to be wrong --- if the Kaluza--Klein lock at $\Mlock$ fails to appear by the HL-LHC + FCC exposure timeline, or if the $\OGN$-cascade integers $(1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$ fail to reproduce the integer parts of $\alpha^{-1}$ and the cosmological inventory --- the constitutional framework fails, and the vacuum-count collapse argument fails with it. This is what makes Stratum 4 a scientific stratum rather than a metaphysical posture: the unique selected vacuum is exposed to falsification.

\paragraph{Where this is treated at length.} The vacuum-count argument is the central empirical commitment of the cohort framework. For the longer treatment of the anti-landscape posture, including the philosophical and methodological discussion, see Part IV \S\ref{sec:anti-landscape} of the present paper and \citep[Part~V \S6]{ArisakaA1Constitution}.

\section{The Four-Fold Constitutional Exclusion of Superstring Theory: Briefly Located in the Classification}
\label{sec:four-fold-exclusion-VI}

\paragraph{The four-fold exclusion, located.} The four obstructions themselves --- supersymmetry, the dimension count, the gauge content, and the status of the projection to what an observer registers --- are stated and defended at length in \S\ref{sec:four-obstructions}, and are not restated here. What this Section adds is their location in the classification, which is a different question and has a cleaner answer.

\paragraph{The classification reading.} Each of the four obstructions is naturally located in the present classification. Obstruction 1 (SUSY) is the absence of \AX{4}: SUSY in standard supersymmetric GUTs is the ad-hoc symmetry that compensates for the absence of an integer-ledger uniqueness principle. Obstruction 2 (dimension) is similarly the absence of \AX{4}: 10D is not forced by Stratum 2 + \POS{6}; it is selected by anomaly cancellation in a specific specialization. Obstruction 3 (gauge content) is the absence of \AX{4}: SO(32) and $E_8 \times E_8$ are admissible 10D gauge groups, but no integer-counting selects between them or between either and the 6D + \OGNfive\ selection of \GG{}. Obstruction 4 (operational projection) is the absence of \AX{3} as a constitutional clause: AdS/CFT is a duality posture, not a forced-projection posture.

\paragraph{Forward to the structural treatment.} The politically-careful, paper-length treatment of the four-fold exclusion is Part IV of the present paper. The role of the present Section is to \emph{locate} the four-fold exclusion within the classification: each obstruction is the absence of a specific axiom at a specific stratum. The location is structural; the treatment is in Part IV.

\section{What the Classification Means for the Reader}
\label{sec:reader-synthesis-VI}

A reader of the present Part comes from one of several communities. The classification means something specific to each.

\paragraph{For the reader who came from string theory.} The present Part locates string theory at Stratum 2. This is not a downgrade of string theory; it is a structural location. String theory is structurally correct at what it is structurally about (the \GGEP-closed layer): its 10D anomaly-cancellation theorems, GS mechanism, AdS/CFT correspondence, and holographic computations are all correct Stratum-2 content, and the present framework consumes them at the same stratum. What the present framework adds is the Stratum-3 boundary projection (which derives QM as theorems) and the Stratum-4 integer-counting selection (which collapses the $10^{500}$ landscape to one). The string theorist who reads this Part is invited not to abandon string theory but to engage with the Stratum-3 and Stratum-4 axiomatic commitments that string theory currently leaves silent.

\paragraph{For the reader who came from QM foundations.} The present Part locates standard QM at Stratum 3. Hilbert space, the Schrödinger equation, the Born rule, and Lüders projection are not constitutional primitives of the present framework; they are theorems of the boundary CPTP-channel projection of \AX{3}, derived in \AEight{} \citep{ArisakaA8QM}. The Bohm--Everett--GRW siblings of standard QM are three structural siblings of openness at Stratum 3, each with a different operational restriction on the projection. The QM-foundations reader who reads this Part is invited to engage with the Stratum-3 promotion of postulates to theorems and with the present paper as the Stratum-4 source from which the boundary CPTP channel descends.

\paragraph{For the reader who came from the Standard Model and cosmology.} The present Part locates the Standard Model and $\Lambda$CDM at Stratum 4 implicit. The 28 SM parameters and the cosmological inventory are not constitutional primitives of the present framework; they are phenomenological outcomes that the explicit Stratum-4 derivation produces from the \OGNfive\ integer ledger. \ANine{} \citep{ArisakaA9SM} carries the SM-parameter recast; \ATen{} \citep{ArisakaA10Cosmos} carries the cosmological inventory. The SM/cosmology reader who reads this Part is invited to engage with the Stratum-4 explicit-versus-implicit distinction: the empirical content of the SM and $\Lambda$CDM is unchanged by the constitutional reading; what changes is the source of the content, which is now the 6D bulk of the present paper.

\paragraph{For the reader who came from biology, neuroscience, or complex systems.} The present Part addresses these communities through the Arisaka equation $J_E / Q_B = J_e = J_B = J_{Qi}$ of Theorem~\ref{thm:arisaka-equation} and the energy--information conversion factor $\QB \approx 0.1555$~eV/qubit. At Stratum 4 explicit, the bulk $\UoneQi$ gauge factor projects to a boundary energy--information current at biological temperatures. This is not a metaphysical claim about biology; it is a constitutional claim with an empirical falsifier: a precision energy--information measurement at biological temperature yielding $\QB \neq 0.1555$~eV/qubit, judged against the energy--information calibration of (\citealp{ArisakaA7Qi4}; \citealp{ArisakaA11Origin}), would force a reconsideration of \AX{4}. The biology/neuroscience/complex-systems reader who reads this Part is invited to engage with the cross-disciplinary structural claim that the same constitution forces the 6D bulk and the energy--information conversion factor.

\paragraph{The structural payoff for every reader.} Each twentieth-century framework correctly used the axiom subset it implicitly invoked; each left silent exactly the questions that required the missing axioms. The present classification does not refute any of them; it locates each one at the stratum where it operates and identifies the axiom that, when activated, would lift the framework to the next stratum. Stratum~4 explicit is the apex of the tower; \GG{} of the present paper is the geometric realization that the apex selects. Each reader, coming from a different community, finds in this Part the structural location of their home framework and the constitutional clause that, when activated, would extend it to the cohort framework.

\subsection*{Closing remarks on Part~VI}
\label{sec:closing-bridge-partVI}

The classification in this Part is an arrangement, and an arrangement makes a
claim of a particular kind. It does not say that one framework is better than
another. It says that each framework, whatever it achieved, was working with a
particular subset of structural commitments, and that what it could not address
follows from the subset rather than from any failure of effort or ingenuity.

Read that way, a great deal of twentieth-century physics stops looking like a
sequence of separate discoveries and starts looking like a sequence of
admissions. Relativity admitted that simultaneity is not given. General
relativity admitted that geometry is dynamical. Quantum mechanics admitted that
a description of a system is incomplete without a description of what happens
when it is interrogated. Each admission enlarged what could be asked, and each
left the questions belonging to the next admission untouched --- not
unanswered, but unaskable.

The uncomfortable implication is symmetric, and this paper does not get to be
exempt from it. If a missing clause explains what general relativity cannot
say, then whatever this framework cannot say is evidence of a clause it has not
found. The four axioms of Part~I are not offered as the complete list. They are
offered as the shortest list that reaches the eight theorems of Part~II, which
is a different and much weaker claim, and the honest expectation is that a
fifth commitment exists and that its absence is visible somewhere in the
questions this framework treats as meaningless.

That is a strange thing to write at the close of a Part whose subject is the
completeness of a classification. It is also the only reading of the
classification that survives its own logic. A tower whose top floor is
announced as the last one has stopped being a tower and become a monument, and
the history assembled in this Part is a history of people who thought they were
standing on the top floor.

\GGPart[Discussion]{Discussion}{Significance, Uniqueness, Problems Solved, and Falsifiers under \POS{7}}


\noindent
Every Part so far has been construction. This one is cross-examination.

Three questions are owed to you by now, and none of them is rhetorical. What,
precisely, is new here that was not available before? What would it take to
show that it is wrong? And which of the things this framework says it explains
does it actually explain, as opposed to accommodate?

Part~VII answers them in that order and in that spirit. Ten structural
innovations are named and located, each with the place in the paper that
carries it, so a reader who disputes one knows where to go. A comparison table
sets the framework beside five others on architecture rather than on results
--- what each program must assume, not what each has achieved --- because a
scorecard of achievements would favor whichever program has been worked on
longest, which is not the question.

Then the falsifiers. Ten measurements are declared in advance, each with a
number attached and a criterion for what outcome would kill the claim it
tests. A resonance that does not appear where the integers put it. A ratio in
the dark-matter search that comes out wrong. A cosmological parameter that
misses. These are written before the data, which is the only time such a list
means anything, and they are written in the form an experimenter can act on.

The honest reading of Part~VII is that the framework is exposed at ten places.
That exposure is not a concession made reluctantly at the end. It is the
reason the constitution of Part~I contains a clause requiring it.

\section{Introduction to Part~VII}
\label{sec:partVII-intro}

Part VII is the discussion register of \GG. It supplies the positive case for the bulk-side derivation (the ten structural innovations and the comparison with the existing unification literature), the catalog of problems that the cohort framework solves, the catalog of registered falsifiers under \POS{7} that expose the framework to empirical refutation, and --- in Part~X, among the back matter --- the catalog of common
objections with responses to adversarial readings. The positive case
precedes the defensive case: innovations first, then comparison, then
problems solved, then falsifiers.

The Part is organized as follows. Section~\ref{sec:ten-innovations} states the ten structural innovations that distinguish \GG\ from the existing unification literature. Section~\ref{sec:comparison-table} supplies a compact comparison table contrasting \GG\ with the Standard Model, MSSM, Kaluza--Klein, Randall--Sundrum, and perturbative superstring theory. Section~\ref{sec:problems-solved} supplies the Problems-Solved catalog: twelve entries marking which questions are Resolved (in a named cohort paper, with explicit citation and a live experimental falsifier), Partially Resolved, or Genuinely Open. Section~\ref{sec:eight-falsifiers} supplies the ten registered falsifiers under \POS{7} (Measurement and Falsifiability): each falsifier is stated as a specific experimental measurement with a pre-declared kill criterion that would force a re-examination of one or more constitutional clauses. Part~\ref{sec:common-objections} pre-empts the questions a working physicist of any background is most likely to raise on first reading.

\paragraph{The register of Part VII.} The register is honest and substantive. We honestly distinguish what is \emph{forced} (by a constitutional clause plus a theorem of Part II) from what is \emph{stipulated} (a program-of-inquiry status). The framework's commitment is to the forced content, and what exposes that content is a short list of integers: $K = 35$, $\Mlock \approx 3.85$~TeV, $J = 7$, and the \OGNfive\ closure, each of which the empirical world will adjudicate over the coming decade. The Common Objections cluster is the longest single section of the paper because the framework expects to be questioned in detail, and each question deserves a serious answer.

\paragraph{Reading Part~VII through the \OGNfive{} / \GUfive{} pairing.} The structural pairing introduced in the Executive Summary --- five integers \OGNfive\ on the dimensionless side, five units \GUfive\ on the dimensional side, each split (3 bulk + 2 boundary) --- gives Part~VII a single organizing lens. The ten Innovations of \S\ref{sec:ten-innovations} all reduce, in the end, to either an \OGNfive\ integer that emerges as a theorem (Innovations on $M=1$, $N=3$, $L=5$, $K=35$, $J=7$) or a \GUfive\ conversion factor that emerges as a unit of geometry (Innovations on $c$, $G_N$, $\hbar$, $\kB$, $\QB$). The Problems-Solved catalog of \S\ref{sec:problems-solved} reads correspondingly: each Resolved entry traces to a member of the paired pentads. The ten Falsifiers of \S\ref{sec:eight-falsifiers} are the empirical exposures of those same members --- the framework's standing offer to be wrong is, structurally, an offer to have an \OGNfive\ integer revised by data or to have a \GUfive\ ratio measured to differ from CODATA beyond the integer-ledger prediction. The fifty-three Common Objections of Part~\ref{sec:common-objections}, including Objection~33's defense of the omission of $e$ from \GUfive, complete the picture of a framework whose primitive content is finite, structured, and exposed.


\section{The Ten Structural Innovations}
\label{sec:ten-innovations}

\paragraph{Innovation 1 (I-GG6-1): Geometrize gauge forces, do not quantize
gravity.} The single most important structural innovation of
\GGTheory\ is to \emph{geometrize the gauge forces} rather than
\emph{quantize gravity}. Under \AX{2} (\GGEP{}), the primitive field
is a composite gauge--gravity connection $\cA = \omega \oplus A$ on
the 6D bulk, in which gravity and gauge structure are two facets of
one geometric object. That strategy is the one Einstein sought without success in the 1920s and 1930s; the right mathematical
machinery (composite connection on a (4+2) bulk) was not yet
available. All conventional quantum-gravity frameworks
--- canonical quantum gravity, loop quantum gravity, asymptotic safety,
string theory --- take the opposite path of quantizing gravity while
leaving gauge interactions as internal symmetries on top of spacetime.

\paragraph{Innovation 2 (I-GG6-2): Six forces, not four --- two new forces from
the bulk.}
\label{sec:point2-six-forces}
\GGTheory{} recognizes six fundamental forces, not the conventional
four. In addition to the strong, weak, electromagnetic, and
gravitational forces, the constitution forces the existence of
$\UoneB$ (the baryonic force) and $\UoneQi$ (the informational
force) as gauge factors of the bulk gauge group $G_{\rm Bulk} =
\Spin(1,5) \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$. $\UoneB$ is
forced by \POS{1} (\GI{}) together with the empirical proton-stability
bound; $\UoneQi$ is forced by \AX{3} (\OGGEP{}) plus \POS{4} (\CP{})
plus \POS{1}, and supplies the boundary information-current ledger
that makes life and mind theorem-level consequences of the framework
(see Innovations~7 and~8 below).

\paragraph{Innovation 3 (I-GG6-3): Unification at $\EGUT$, not $\EPl$.}
\label{sec:point3-EGUT}
In \GGTheory{}, the explicit ultraviolet endpoint of the bulk theory
is the GUT scale $\EGUT \sim 2 \times 10^{16}$ GeV, not the Planck
scale $\EPl \sim 10^{19}$ GeV. The radial coordinate is identified
with RG-scale as $r = \ln(\EGUT/\mu)$, with the UV boundary at $r = 0$
corresponding to $\mu = \EGUT$. The Planck scale appears as a derived
quantity from the bulk fundamental scale $M_6$ plus the scale-profile integration, $M_\Pl^2 = \pi M_6^4 (1 - e^{-2K})$, with $K = 35$ the
\OGNfive{} lock integer. Conventional unification frameworks invert
this: $\EPl$ is treated as the fundamental scale and $\EGUT$ as a
derived intermediate scale, leaving the ratio $\EGUT/\EPl \sim 10^{-3}$
as an unexplained small parameter.

\paragraph{Innovation 4 (I-GG6-4): Anomaly-free at 6D, not 10D or 11D.}
\GGTheory{} achieves complete quantum anomaly cancellation in six
dimensions through a single-tensor modified Bianchi identity \BIsix{}
with the \OGNfive{}-fixed coefficient vector $(a,b,c,d) = (1, -1,
-2/5, -2/5)$, not in ten or eleven dimensions through the
supersymmetric Green--Schwarz mechanism of string theory. The
dimensional minimality of the bulk (\T{1}) extends to the
anomaly-cancellation sector: the framework does not need extra
dimensions beyond six in order to be quantum-consistent, and it does
not need supersymmetry or fundamental strings to make anomaly
cancellation work.

\paragraph{Innovation 5 (I-GG6-5): No supersymmetry, no fundamental strings.}
Neither supersymmetry nor fundamental strings appear in the framework.
\AX{4} (\MSMF{}) selects against unforced ingredients, and the
\GGConstitution{} does not contain any clause that would force
boson-fermion symmetry or one-dimensional fundamental objects. Both
are inadmissible in the minimal \GG\ realization, by the same
axiomatic logic that excludes Calabi--Yau moduli, free continuous
geometric scales, and the string-landscape vacuum problem. The
supersymmetric grand-unified-theory program reviewed in
\citet{Nilles1984} and \citet{HaberKane1985} is therefore not
contradicted but rendered axiomatically unforced; \GG\ achieves
gauge-coupling unification and Planck--electroweak hierarchy control
through the scale profile and the \OGNfive{} integer ledger rather
than through superpartner cancellations.

\paragraph{Innovation 6 (I-GG6-6): $\OGGEP{}$ solves the quantum measurement
problem.} \AX{3} ($\OGGEP{}$) supplies an axiomatic resolution of the
century-old quantum measurement problem. The boundary observer
accesses the bulk only through a completely-positive
trace-preserving channel $\cD_{\OGGEP} = \cR \circ \mathrm{Tr}_\env$;
the textbook postulates of quantum mechanics (Hilbert space, Born
rule, L\"uders projection, Schr\"odinger evolution) become theorems
of this CPTP construction rather than separate postulates added by
hand. Decoherence, einselection of the pointer basis, and the
quantum-to-classical transition are derived consequences. The full
development is in the companion paper \citep{ArisakaA5GDOS}.
Alternative resolutions of the measurement problem in the
conventional literature --- the pilot-wave / hidden-variable
construction of \citet{Bohm1952}, the many-worlds proposal of
\citet{Everett1957}, and the spontaneous-collapse mechanism of
\citet{GRW1986} --- each add a separate postulate to the textbook
formalism; \GG{}'s \OGGEP{} dispenses with this addition by
deriving the measurement structure from the bulk-to-boundary partial
trace itself.
\GGTheory{} is the only unification framework that addresses the
measurement problem axiomatically.

\paragraph{Innovation 7 (I-GG6-7): $\UoneB$ makes proton stability a theorem.}
\label{sec:point7-proton-stability}
\GGTheory{} makes proton stability a theorem through the gauged
$\UoneB$ symmetry. Where conventional GUTs (Georgi--Glashow $\SUfive$,
$\SO(10)$, supersymmetric GUTs) predict proton decay at lifetimes
$\sim 10^{29}$--$10^{34}$ years and treat the absence of observed
decay as a phenomenological constraint, \GGTheory{} forbids
dimension-six baryon-violating operators absolutely through the
gauged baryon-number symmetry. The observed proton lifetime bound
$\tau_p > 10^{34}$ years \citep{SuperK2020} is, in our reading, a
constitutional consequence of $\UoneB$ rather than a small parameter
tuned below experimental sensitivity.

\paragraph{How the protection actually works --- and the one step that remains.}
Two points sharpen this into a mechanism rather than a slogan. First, baryon number is \emph{not} a generator of $\SUfive$ --- on the $\mathbf{10}$ the components carry $B = \{+\tfrac13, -\tfrac13, 0\}$, which no $\SUfive\!\times\!\UoneB$ Cartan combination reproduces --- so the Abelian factor that commutes with $\SUfive$ assigns one charge per multiplet, and the $X,Y$-induced operator $QQQL$, being $\SUfive\!\times\!\UoneB$ invariant, is \emph{neutral} under it. Protection therefore cannot come from the bulk product factor alone; it comes from \emph{genuine, component-resolved} baryon number on the split boundary spectrum, where the adjoint-$\mathbf{24}$ bosons $X,Y$ are retained only as bulk modes (absent from the four-dimensional boundary) and the bulk $\UoneB$ descends through the Wilson--Hosotani holonomy to act as baryon number itself. Second, since $\UoneB$ is anomalous on the Standard-Model spectrum, its anomaly is carried by the $\BIsix$ Green--Schwarz inflow, and the baryonic gauge boson accordingly eats the $\BIsix$ tensor and acquires a \emph{Stueckelberg mass}: it is short-range (no long-range baryonic fifth force, so equivalence-principle bounds are evaded for any $m_B \gtrsim \mathrm{eV}$), while the \emph{global} baryon number residual to it stays exact. That exact global $B$ forbids every $\Delta B = 1$ and $\Delta B = 2$ process; the only admissible violation is the $\SU(2)_L$ anomaly, $\Delta B = 3n \in 3\mathbb{Z}$, which cannot deplete a single nucleon (so $\GG$ forbids proton decay \emph{and} $n$--$\bar n$ oscillation alike). The one step still to be discharged is the explicit holonomy/\GDOS{} computation that the descended charge \emph{is} baryon number on the split spectrum --- defeating the rank-preserving $\SUfive \to \mathrm{SM}$ obstruction; it is finite and self-contained, is the boundary-side theorem of \citet{ArisakaA9SM}, and is made fully explicit in the forthcoming dedicated proton-decay paper.

\paragraph{Innovation 8 (I-GG6-8): $\UoneQi$ embeds life and mind as
theorem-level consequences.}
The boundary information current $J_{Qi}$ associated with $\UoneQi$
is the conserved current of biological and cognitive information
processing. The Arisaka equation (\T{8}) locks this current to the
electric, baryonic, and energetic currents via $J_E/Q_B = J_e = J_B
= J_{Qi}$, with the energy--information conversion factor $Q_B \approx
0.1555$ eV per qubit. The technical development of the
$\QiFour{}$ pillars built on this current --- the Qi-QUA, Qi-EP,
Qi-CON, Qi-HAL pillars and the Evolving Inner Cosmos completion --- is
in \citet{ArisakaA7Qi4}. No other unification framework attempts to
embed biological information processing as a theorem-level consequence
of the bulk geometry.

\paragraph{Innovation 9 (I-GG6-9): The \GGConstitution{} as the foundational
starting point.}
\GGTheory{} starts from the \GGConstitution{} (four axioms and seven
postulates) rather than from a specific Lagrangian or action
principle. The Lagrangian, gauge group, metric, and integer ledger
\OGNfive{} are all derived from the constitutional clauses as
theorems, not posited. The inversion is Euclidean, and \citet{ArisakaA4Euclid} develops in detail. Conventional
unification frameworks invert this: the Lagrangian is the input and
the framework's content is essentially the chosen Lagrangian plus its
phenomenological parameters --- which leaves the choice of Lagrangian
itself underivable and the framework prone to landscapes and
phenomenologically-tuned extensions.

\paragraph{Innovation 10 (I-GG6-10): $d=6$ as the quaternionic Goldilocks ---
algebraically forced minimal dimension.}
\label{sec:point10-goldilocks}
The bulk dimension is not postulated as six; it is forced. By
Hurwitz's theorem there are exactly four normed division algebras over
$\R$ --- $\R$, $\C$, $\Quaternion$, $\Octonion$ --- yielding exactly
four Lorentzian magic dimensions $d \in \{3, 4, 6, 10\}$. Of these,
only $d = 6$ (the quaternionic rung) simultaneously supports chiral
spinors with associative algebra, the perfect-square anomaly
polynomial $I_8 = \tfrac12 X_4 \wedge X_4$ that enables single-tensor
Green--Schwarz inflow, the index-theorem derivation of $N = 3$
generations, and the $6 \to 4$ \OGGEP{} projection room --- all without
requiring supersymmetry, fundamental strings, or a landscape. The
remaining three rungs each fail at least one of these features in a
specific direction:

\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.25}
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\small
\caption[The four magic Lorentzian dimensions, compared feature by feature.]{Why six dimensions and not three, four or ten. The rows are the structural features the bulk requires --- chiral spinors, an associative algebra, an anomaly mechanism of rank one, and the rest --- and the columns are the four dimensions in which a normed division algebra makes the spinor construction work at all. Only one column carries every row, and it carries them without supersymmetry and without fundamental strings. The table is a uniqueness argument in tabular form: a reader who wants to reject the conclusion needs to name a row that is wrong or a feature that is not required.}
\label{tab:goldilocks}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.30\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.124\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.124\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.143\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.20\textwidth}}
\toprule
\textbf{Structural feature} & \textbf{$d=3$ ($\R$)} & \textbf{$d=4$ ($\C$)} & \textbf{$d=6$ ($\Quaternion$)} & \textbf{$d=10$ ($\Octonion$)} \\
\midrule
Has chiral spinors? & \textbf{No} & Yes (2-comp.) & \textbf{Yes (4-comp.)} & Yes (16-comp.) \\
Algebra associative? & Yes & Yes & \textbf{Yes} & \textbf{No} \\
Algebra non-commutative? & No & \textbf{No} & \textbf{Yes} & Yes \\
Room for $6\!\to\! 4$ \OGGEP{} projection? & N/A & \textbf{No} & \textbf{Yes} & Yes (excessive) \\
Anomaly polynomial perfect square? & N/A & N/A & \textbf{Yes ($I_8 = \tfrac{1}{2}X_4^2$)} & \textbf{No ($I_{12} = X_4 \wedge X_8$)} \\
Single-tensor GS cancellation? & N/A & N/A & \textbf{Yes} & No (two tensors) \\
Three-generation index? & N/A & input & \textbf{$N_g=3$ from index thm.\ (\ANine{})} & gauge-content-dependent \\
Supersymmetry required? & N/A & No & \textbf{No} & \textbf{Yes} \\
Fundamental strings required? & N/A & No & \textbf{No} & \textbf{Yes} \\
Landscape problem? & N/A & No (input) & \textbf{No} (\OGNfive{} lock) & \textbf{Yes} ($\sim 10^{500}$ vacua) \\
Suitable for the bulk? & No & No (boundary) & \textbf{Yes} & No (too rich) \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.0}

The vertical readout of Table~\ref{tab:goldilocks} is unambiguous: only
$d = 6$ scores correctly on every required feature. The two adjacent
rungs fail in opposite directions ($d = 4$ has too little algebraic
richness; $d = 10$ has too much), and the lowest rung ($d = 3$) has
no chirality at all. The Goldilocks reading of $d = 6$ is therefore
not an aesthetic preference but an algebraic necessity given the
\GGConstitution{}'s requirements, and it is the strongest reason that \T{1} (dimensional minimality) yields six rather than four, ten, or
some other number.

\paragraph{Synthesis: the ten innovations together.}
Each of the ten innovations is, by itself, a feature that one or more
existing unification frameworks might claim to share with \GGTheory{}.
The conventional GUTs share Innovation~9's commitment to a foundational
starting point (though typically as a Lagrangian, not a constitution).
String theory shares Innovation~4's commitment to anomaly inflow
(though in 10D rather than 6D, and at the cost of supersymmetry,
strings, and the landscape). Loop quantum gravity shares Innovation~1's
geometric reading of forces (though only of gravity, and at the cost
of a complete theory of matter). The cumulative claim is not that any
single innovation is unique to \GGTheory{}, but that the ten innovations
together are unique to \GGTheory{}: no other current framework satisfies
all ten simultaneously.

The empirical content of these innovations is developed in Part~VII,
where each innovation is paired with one or more registered falsifiers
under \POS{7} (\MF{}). After all, what makes a body of knowledge a
science is not the elegance of its principles but the precision with
which it can be wrong.


\section{Comparison Table: \GG{} vs the Existing Unification Literature}
\label{sec:comparison-table}

The most transparent way to assess the structural identity of \GGTheory\ is by direct comparison with the major unification frameworks of the past five decades: the Standard Model itself (taken as a benchmark for predictivity at observed energy scales), the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM), Kaluza--Klein constructions, Randall--Sundrum warped models, and perturbative superstring theory.

We organize the comparison around thirteen questions, presented in Table~\ref{tab:major-comparison}. Each row asks one specific question (e.g., ``what is the primitive ontology?'', ``how is anomaly cancellation achieved?'') and gives the answer for each of the six frameworks. The reader can therefore see at a glance where \GG\ agrees with the existing literature and where it departs.

\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\small
\caption[Comparative architecture of this framework and the major unification programs.]{The major unification programs compared on architecture rather than on results. Each row is a structural commitment --- the number of dimensions, what fixes them, what supplies anomaly cancellation, how many continuous parameters survive --- and each column is a program. The table is deliberately not a scorecard: every program listed has produced results this one has not, and the comparison is of what each must assume, not of what each has achieved. The row a reader should weigh most is the last, because it is the only one on which the frameworks differ by a fact rather than by a choice.}
\label{tab:major-comparison}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{2pt}%
\begin{tabular}{>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.13\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.12\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.12\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.13\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.13\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.14\textwidth}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.14\textwidth}}
\toprule
\textbf{Question} & \textbf{Standard Model} & \textbf{MSSM} & \textbf{KK 5D} & \textbf{RS 5D} & \textbf{Superstring 10D/11D} & \textbf{\GGTheory\ 6D} \\
\midrule
Primitive ontology & 4D point-like fields on $\cM_4$ & SM + superpartners + SUSY & Higher-dim metric & Warped 5D bulk + branes & 1D strings on worldsheet & Composite 6D connection $\cA = \omega \oplus A$ \\

Spacetime dimensions & 4 & 4 & 5 & 5 & 10 / 11 & 6 \\

UV endpoint & $\sim$TeV (effective) & $\EGUT$ then $\EPl$ & Compacti\-fication scale & TeV / $\EPl$ & $\EPl$ & $\EGUT$ (constitutional) \\

Number of forces unified & 3 (SU(3)$\times$\allowbreak SU(2)$\times$\allowbreak U(1)) & 3 + gravity & Often only U(1) (KK gauge) & 4 (effective) & 4 (gauge + gravity) & 6 (incl.\ $\UoneB$, $\UoneQi$) \\

Anomaly cancellation & Rep.\ theory accident & Rep.\ theory + SUSY & Generally insufficient & Inherits from underlying GUT & GS in 10D / SUSY required & GS / \BIsix\ in 6D, no SUSY \\

Supersym\-metry required & No & Yes (central) & No & Optional & Yes (central) & No (\MSMF) \\

Free continuous parameters & $\sim 19$ (SM) & $\sim 100+$ (soft sector) & A few (radius, breaking) & 3--5 (warp, tensions) & Hundreds--thousands per CY & 0 (unit scale only; $M_6$ derived) \\

Number of vacua / land\-scape size & 1 (electroweak vacuum) & Few hundred & Few & Few & $\sim 10^{500}$ & 1 (single point) \\

Proton stability & Accidental at renormalizable level & Threatened by dim-5 ops & Model-dependent & Model-dependent & Model-dependent & Theorem (\UoneB\ gauged) \\

Measurement problem & Not addressed & Not addressed & Not addressed & Not addressed & Not addressed & Solved by \OGGEP\ (\AX{3}) \\

Information sector & None & None & None & None & Often as moduli, indirect & $\UoneQi$ gauged at bulk \\

Life and mind in scope & Out of scope & Out of scope & Out of scope & Out of scope & Out of scope & In scope (Theorem~\ref{thm:arisaka-equation}) \\

Methodo\-logical foundation & Lagrangian + fitted parameters & Lagrangian + SUSY structure & Lagrangian + extra dim ansatz & Lagrangian + brane tensions & Worldsheet + landscape & Constitution (4 axioms + 7 postulates) \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

The reading of the table is clean. In the first three rows (primitive ontology, spacetime dimensions, UV endpoint), each framework makes a different choice. \GG\ is alone in its 6D, $\EGUT$, composite-connection identity. In the fourth row (number of forces), \GG\ is alone in unifying six forces rather than three or four. In the fifth row (anomaly cancellation), \GG\ shares the GS mechanism with superstrings but uses it in 6D without supersymmetry. In the sixth and seventh rows (SUSY required, free continuous parameters), \GG\ achieves the most economical structure: zero unforced ingredients, one continuous parameter. Rows eight through twelve (vacua, proton stability, measurement problem, information sector, life and mind) represent territory where \GG\ alone has substantive content. Row thirteen states the methodological choice: \GG\ alone uses constitutional axiomatization.

\paragraph{The reading.} Reading the table top-to-bottom, the unique structural identity of \GG\ emerges as the conjunction of all thirteen rows. Each individual row shares some neighbor with the existing literature (e.g., rows 1, 5, 6 share substantial structure with various string-derived constructions), but the conjunction of all thirteen choices is unique to \GGTheory. In that sense the framework is original: it occupies a single point in the 13-dimensional space of choices, distinct from the Standard Model, MSSM, KK, RS, and string theory.

\paragraph{The methodological reading.} Reading the table left-to-right, the rightmost column (\GG) is the only one in which the third-from-last entry (``life and mind in scope'') is non-trivial, and in which the last entry (``methodological foundation'') is constitutional. These are the two methodological innovations: bringing biology and cognition into the framework, and starting from a Constitution rather than a Lagrangian. Together they account for why \GG\ can address questions (the measurement problem, proton stability as a theorem, life and mind from $\UoneQi$) that lie outside the conventional scope of unification physics.


\section{Problems Solved and Future Directions}
\label{sec:problems-solved}

\GG\ closes the bulk-side derivation, but it does not close the \GGTheory\ program. Several of the questions raised by the present paper are answered by named companion papers; several are settled in their core but await a specific technical sub-task; and a small number remain genuinely open even within the broader program. Honesty requires that we mark each one with its status. We follow the \emph{Problems-Solved} convention: every entry $P_k$ is labeled \textbf{Resolved} (the question has a complete answer in a named companion paper, with explicit citation, and a live experimental falsifier), \textbf{Partially resolved} (the central claim is settled in a named companion paper, with a specific sub-task still pending), or \textbf{Genuinely open} (no companion paper currently carries the answer). Listing as ``open'' what is in fact resolved elsewhere is an intellectual-honesty failure; listing as ``resolved'' what is still pending is the same failure in the opposite direction. Each Resolved entry below carries a \emph{Live falsifier} clause naming the specific experimental measurement whose outcome would force a re-examination of the corresponding constitutional clause upstream. Twelve entries below, followed by one future direction.

\subsection*{P1 (PS-GG6-1). Local and global anomaly freedom of $\BIsix$}

\textbf{Resolved.} The local one-loop factorization $I_8 = \tfrac12 X_4 \wedge X_4$ is established as Theorem~\ref{thm:anomaly-factorization} of the present paper, and the corresponding BRST-consistent quantum gauge theory follows by Theorem~\ref{thm:brst-consistency}. The matching \emph{global} statement --- that $\BIsix$ together with the axiomatic matter content satisfies anomaly freedom under large gauge transformations on the intended \GG{} background class --- is the central content of \AThree{} \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}, including the Wu--Chern--Simons differential-cohomology refinement of $H_3$, the seven-dimensional mapping-torus construction, and the eight bordism conditions whose verification closes the global side. \emph{Live falsifier:} a precision measurement showing the $\SUfive$ representation-theoretic trace ratio $\Tr(B_0^2)/\Tr(Y_0^2) \ne 2/5$, or a precision charge-quantization test contradicting the $\BIsix$ coefficient vector $(1, -1, -2/5, -2/5)$, would force a re-examination of \AX{2} ($\GGEP$) and \POS{3} ($\AF$).

\subsection*{P2 (PS-GG6-2). Bulk-to-boundary projection: 4D quantum mechanics, general relativity, and the low-energy Standard Model}

\textbf{Resolved.} The bulk-to-boundary projection through the \OGGEP{} bulk--boundary correspondence $\cD$ (\AX{3}) is the subject of \AFive{} \citep{ArisakaA5GDOS}, which builds the Geometric Dynamics of Open Systems runtime as the boundary CPTP-channel image of the 6D bulk and derives 4D quantum mechanics, 4D general relativity, and the low-energy Standard Model as its boundary projections. Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces} of the present paper records the bulk gauge--gravity group $G_{\Bulk} = \Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$ as input to that projection; \AFive{} carries the projection itself. \emph{Live falsifier:} a precision test of the Born rule deviating from \AFive{}'s CPTP-channel prediction at the level set by the partial trace over the bulk environment, or a measurable deviation from the boundary Einstein equations sourced by a non-CPTP open-system contribution, would force a re-examination of \AX{3} ($\OGGEP$).

\subsection*{P3 (PS-GG6-3). Reconstruction of the universal constants $\{c, G_N, \hbar; \kB, \QB\}$ from the bulk geometry}

\textbf{Resolved.} \AFour{} \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid} carries out the parameter-free reconstruction of the Geometric Universal Five Constants as conversion factors of the bulk geometry: $c$ from the $(1,3)$ Lorentz-signature normalization of $\cM_4$, $\hbar$ from the integer KK quantization on $S^1_\theta$, $G_N$ from the radial scale-profile integration on $I_r$, $\QB$ from the Arisaka equation (Theorem~\ref{thm:arisaka-equation} of the present paper), and with $e$ \emph{derived} (not a primitive) via $e = \sqrt{4\pi\varepsilon_0\,\hbar\,c\,\alpha}$ once $\alpha^{-1}(0) = 137$ is forced by \OGNfive{}. \GUfive\ $\GUfiveSet$ exhausts the dimensional content of the framework; every dimensionful quantity in physics is a combination of these five and the \OGNfive{} integer ledger. \emph{Live falsifier:} a precision measurement of any one of these five constants showing a value not consistent (within the CODATA-stated uncertainty) with \AFour{}'s integer-ledger reconstruction would force a re-examination of \POS{6} ($\OGN$).

\subsection*{P4 (PS-GG6-4). Empirical calibration of the $\UoneQi$ sector at biological scales}

\textbf{Resolved.} The energy--information conversion factor $\QB \approx 0.1555$~eV/qubit, its energy--information calibration (\ASeven{}/\AEleven{}), and the four pillars of quantum information (\QiQUA, \QiEP, \QiCON, \QiHAL) on the boundary \GDOS{} runtime are settled in \ASeven{} \citep{ArisakaA7Qi4}. Theorem~\ref{thm:arisaka-equation} of the present paper supplies $\QB$ as the conversion factor of the Arisaka equation; \ASeven{} supplies the full empirical calibration and the argument for life and mind as boundary projections of $\UoneQi$. \emph{Live falsifier:} a precision energy--information measurement at biological temperature yielding $\QB \ne 0.1555$~eV/qubit, judged against the energy--information calibration of (\citealp{ArisakaA7Qi4}; \citealp{ArisakaA11Origin}), would force a re-examination of the four-component bulk choice in Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces} Step~(c) and the Arisaka-equation locking of Theorem~\ref{thm:arisaka-equation}.

\subsection*{P5 (PS-GG6-5). Cosmological recast of \GG: $\Lambda$CDM as boundary cosmology of the 6D bulk}

\textbf{Resolved.} \ATen{} \citep{ArisakaA10Cosmos} carries out the homogeneous Friedmann reduction of the boundary Covariant Conservation Identity, derives the $\pi$-locked density inventory $\Omega_m = 1/\pi$, $\Omega_\Lambda = 1 - 1/\pi$, $\Omega_b = 1/(2\pi^2)$, $\Omega_{\mathrm{DM}} = 1/\pi - 1/(2\pi^2)$, and predicts the Kaxion twin-peak haloscope signature at $\Delta\nu/\nu = 1/35$ --- with the integer $35 = K$ supplied by the \OGNfive{} closure of Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade} of the present paper. \emph{Live falsifier:} a Planck-precision CMB measurement yielding $\Omega_m \ne 1/\pi$ or $\Omega_\Lambda \ne 1 - 1/\pi$ at greater than $2\sigma$ deviation, after the percent-level $\Omega_b$ correction treated in \citep{ArisakaA10Cosmos}, would force a re-examination of \AX{4} ($\MSMF$) plus \POS{6} ($\OGN$) at the cosmological level.

\subsection*{P6 (PS-GG6-6). Standard-Model-side phenomenology: 28 SM parameters, CKM/PMNS, fermion mass hierarchy, strong CP}

\textbf{Resolved.} The 28 Standard-Model parameters are recast as attractor coordinates of the boundary \GRIP{} runtime in \ANine{} \citep{ArisakaA9SM}: gauge couplings as Wilson--Hosotani branch attractors on $S^1_\theta$, fermion masses as overlap integrals on the radial interval $I_r$, CKM and PMNS as projector misalignments, and the strong-CP angle bounded $|\bar\theta| \lesssim 4.7 \times 10^{-18}$ via topological completion through the Kaxion. The bulk inputs are supplied by Theorems~\ref{thm:six-forces}--\ref{thm:ogn-cascade} of the present paper. \emph{Live falsifier:} a precision LHC / HL-LHC / FCC measurement of any of the 28 Standard-Model parameters showing a value not derivable from the boundary $\GRIP{}$ attractor structure of \ANine{} (in particular, a measured CKM mixing-angle outside the Wilson--Hosotani branch predictions, or a fermion-mass ratio outside the scale-overlap-integral predictions of \ANine{}), would force a re-examination of \AX{2} ($\GGEP$) at the boundary projection.

\subsection*{P7 (PS-GG6-7). The fine-structure constant $\alpha^{-1}(0) = 137$}

\textbf{Resolved.} The leading-order \OGN{}-derived prediction $\alpha^{-1}(0) = 2^J + N^2 = 128 + 9 = 137$ reproduces the integer part of CODATA 2022 ($\alpha^{-1}(0) = 137.035999177(21)$) exactly; the residual $\sim 0.026\%$ deviation goes to higher-order QED corrections. The full derivation, including the running prediction $\alpha^{-1}(M_Z) = 2^J - N^2/2^J \approx 127.93$ and the residual-corrections analysis, is the subject of \AFour{} \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid}. The \OGNfive{} ledger of Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade} of the present paper supplies the integers $J = 7$ and $N = 3$ as input. \emph{Live falsifier:} a precision QED measurement updating the integer part of CODATA $\alpha^{-1}(0)$ to a value other than $137$ would force a re-examination of \POS{6} ($\OGN$) plus the Diophantine cascade of Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade}.

\subsection*{P8 (PS-GG6-8). Constitutional status of $\UoneQi$ and its integer charges for boundary fermion species}

\textbf{Partially resolved.} We separate two sub-questions. The first --- the \emph{axiomatic status} of $\UoneQi$ as a forced versus optional Abelian factor of the bulk gauge group --- is resolved in \AThree{} \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}, where $\UoneQi$ is shown to be an admissible extension rather than an axiomatic forcing: the constitutional clauses admit both the three-component bulk $\Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB$ and the four-component bulk $\Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$, and the present paper adopts the four-component version on empirical grounds (the energy--information match $\QB \approx 0.1555$~eV per qubit, the Arisaka-equation locking, and the $\QiFour$ framework of life and mind). The second sub-question --- the \emph{detailed integer charge assignments} $q_{Qi}$ for each Standard-Model fermion species under the four-component adoption --- remains a sub-task pending in \ASeven{}'s \citep{ArisakaA7Qi4} empirical-calibration appendix. The picture is clear (each species carries an integer $q_{Qi}$ counting the multiplicity of its active Hilbert-space sector under the boundary GKLS evolution), but the species-by-species ledger is still under construction.

\subsection*{P9 (PS-GG6-9). Kaxion dark-matter detection at axion haloscopes}

\textbf{Partially resolved.} The prediction --- a twin-peak haloscope signature at $\Delta\nu/\nu = 1/35$, with the integer $35 = K = LJ$ supplied by the \OGNfive{} closure of Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade} of the present paper --- is settled in \ATen{} \citep{ArisakaA10Cosmos}. The actual experimental detection awaits the next generation of axion-haloscope searches (ADMX, HAYSTAC, and successors) at the predicted Compton frequencies. This is an empirical sub-task, not a theoretical one: the framework's commitment is set; the data will adjudicate.

\subsection*{P10 (PS-GG6-10). The Quaternionic Goldilocks reading: $d = 6$ as algebraically forced minimal dimension}

\textbf{Partially resolved.} The argument that $d = 6$ is the unique non-supersymmetric realization of the third quaternionic rung of the magic Lorentzian-dimension ladder $\R \to \C \to \Quaternion \to \Octonion$ is laid out as Point~10 of Part~VII of the present paper, and its algebraic foundations are reinforced in \AFour{} \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid}. The companion question --- whether the $\mathrm{SL}(2, \Octonion)$ tenth rung admits an analogous non-supersymmetric realization, or whether supersymmetry is forced at the octonionic level by the same constitutional clauses that allow the $\SLtwoH$ realization here --- remains a sub-task pending in \AFour{}'s algebraic-foundations appendix. The question is sharp, and we expect a definite answer in a future revision of \AFour{}.

\subsection*{P11 (PS-GG6-11). Generation count: why exactly three generations of fermions?}

\textbf{Genuinely open.} The first thing to say is what the ledger does \emph{not} supply. The \OGNfive{} integer $N = N_c = 3$ is the color index; the generation count $N_g$ is a different quantity, is not a member of the ledger, and cannot be read off it --- the two share a value and nothing more. The Quaternionic Goldilocks reading of Point~10 suggests that three generations are the algebraically forced count for the $\SLtwoH$ rung of the magic ladder, and \PaperPTwo{} \citep{ArisakaP2N3} reaches $N_g = 3$ by a three-leg pincer that is \emph{Derived (cond.)} --- its upper bound now a capacity theorem with an integrality theorem behind it, conditional on one declared topological residue, R-INT, rather than on the standing conjecture the ledgers long recorded. What remains open is therefore not that bound but the unconditional derivation: no theorem of the present paper, and none of any current companion paper, forces the three-generation structure of the boundary fermion content from the constitutional clauses alone. Three candidate mechanisms are visible: \emph{(i)} a topological argument from the bulk spinor structure on $\cM_4 \times I_r \times S^1_\theta$ forcing exactly three independent zero-mode multiplets; \emph{(ii)} an algebraic argument from the magic-ladder rung selecting a specific generation count; \emph{(iii)} a Wilson-line breaking argument on $S^1_\theta$ forcing the three generations as Hosotani descendants of an ungauged proto-multiplet. None of these has been carried to a theorem. This is, in our view, the single most important open theoretical problem of the \GGTheory\ program.

\subsection*{P12 (PS-GG6-12). Non-perturbative completion of the bulk theory}

\textbf{Genuinely open.} Theorem~\ref{thm:brst-consistency} of the present paper establishes the homogeneous Slavnov--Taylor identity at the perturbative level, with the local one-loop anomaly polynomial canceled by single-tensor Green--Schwarz inflow. \AThree{} \citep{ArisakaA3BI6} carries the global anomaly proof. But a fully non-perturbative quantum theory of the bulk --- including the lattice (or other) regularization that defines the path integral, the global topology of the principal $G_{\Bulk}$-bundle on $\cM_6$, and the rigorous existence of the corresponding quantum field theory in the Wightman / Haag--Kastler axiomatic sense \citep{Wightman1956, HaagKastler1964} --- is genuinely open. The relevant mathematical tools (constructive QFT, lattice gauge theory in dimension six, Osterwalder--Schrader reflection positivity for bulk backgrounds) are all in active development outside the \GGTheory\ program, and connecting them to the bulk theory is a long-term task.

\paragraph{Summary of the triage.} Of the twelve $P_k$ entries above, seven are \textbf{Resolved} (P1--P7) with explicit \emph{Live falsifier} clauses, three are \textbf{Partially resolved} (P8--P10) with specific sub-tasks named, and two are \textbf{Genuinely open} (P11--P12). The seven Resolved entries each have their answer in a named companion paper of the \GGTheory\ program and a specific experimental kill criterion; the three Partially resolved entries each name the sub-task that is still pending; the two Genuinely open entries --- generation count and non-perturbative completion --- carry the framework's theoretical research agenda forward. After all, the test of an honest framework is not that it answers every question on the first pass, but that it knows which questions it has answered, which it has half-answered, and which it has not yet touched.

\paragraph{Scope and limitations.} Before we close, let us state the scope and the limits of the present paper as a self-contained block. \emph{Scope.} This paper derives the six-dimensional bulk theory of \GG\ from the eleven constitutional clauses of the \GGTheory\ Constitution (\AOne{}, four axioms and seven postulates), in the style of Euclid's \emph{Elements}. The eight Theorems of Part~II together prove that the 6D bulk $\cM_6 = \cM_4 \times I_r \times S^1_\theta$, the four-factor gauge--gravity group $G_{\Bulk} = \Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$, the modified Bianchi identity $\BIsix$ with coefficient vector $(1, -1, -2/5, -2/5)$, the integer ledger $\OGNfive = (1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$, the BRST-consistent quantum gauge structure with homogeneous Slavnov--Taylor identity, and the Arisaka equation $J_E/\QB = J_e = J_B = J_{Qi}$ are all forced by the Constitution. \emph{Limits.} The paper does \emph{not} carry out the bulk-to-boundary projection that produces 4D quantum mechanics, 4D general relativity, and the low-energy Standard Model --- this is the subject of \AFive{} \citep{ArisakaA5GDOS}. The paper does \emph{not} provide the local and global anomaly freedom proof for $\BIsix$ in the Wu--Chern--Simons / differential-cohomology framework --- this is the subject of \AThree{} \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}, on which Theorem~\ref{thm:anomaly-factorization} relies for the global step. The paper does \emph{not} reconstruct the universal constants $\{c, G_N, \hbar; \kB, \QB\}$ from the bulk geometry --- this is the subject of \AFour{} \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid}. The paper does \emph{not} carry out the empirical calibration of the boundary phenomenology (CKM, neutrino masses, fine-structure constant, energy--information $\QB$, cosmological inventory) --- these are the subjects of \ASeven{}, \ANine{}, \ATen{}. \emph{Dependencies.} The validity of every Theorem in Part~II is conditional on the correctness of the constitutional clauses of \AOne{}; should any axiom or postulate be revised, the chain of Theorems must be re-walked. Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces} Step~(b/c) and Theorem~\ref{thm:anomaly-factorization} additionally rely on the spectrum-existence witness of \AThree{}, as recorded in the inward map of Section~\ref{ssec:inward-map}. The odd-closure index $J$ requires no companion input: it is definitional once $N$ is fixed (Section~\ref{sec:ogn5-step4}).


\subsection*{P13 (PS-GG6-13). Pedagogical materials for the cohort (Future Direction)}

\textbf{Future direction.} The present paper is a research preprint, written in the Euclidean style of an axiomatic-derivation paper. It is not yet a textbook: it lacks end-of-chapter exercises, worked problem sets, hints, and graded solutions of the kind that a graduate-seminar instructor would use to interact with students. A textbook revision of the cohort, with at least 5--10 exercises per Part (drawn from the calculational backbone of the appendices and the structural claims of the body), graded by difficulty and accompanied by solution outlines, is planned as a later addition to the program. \emph{Live falsifier:} this is a commitment rather than an empirical prediction; there is no kill criterion in the usual sense. The framework's empirical content lives in P1--P12 and in the ten falsifiers of Section~\ref{sec:eight-falsifiers}; P13 records a pedagogical commitment that the cohort owes to the graduate-student readership.

\section{Ten Falsifiers under \POS{7}}
\label{sec:eight-falsifiers}

\paragraph{Empirical reach: where \GG\ is currently exposed to data.} We close Part~VII with a map of the empirical reach of \GG. The framework makes empirical predictions across a range of energy scales and physical phenomena, with varying degrees of sharpness. The reader who wishes to understand where \GG\ is empirically exposed --- and where it is not --- should consult this map.

\paragraph{Where \GG\ makes sharp predictions.} At three specific empirical pressure points, \GG\ makes predictions that are sharp enough to be tested with current or near-future technology:

\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=2em]
\item \textbf{Proton stability:} $\tau_p = \infty$. Tested by Super-Kamiokande, Hyper-Kamiokande, DUNE. Currently consistent with all data. Falsifier~6.
\item \textbf{Energy--information conversion factor:} $\QB \approx 0.1555$ eV/qubit. Tested by the energy--information calibration of (\citealp{ArisakaA7Qi4}; \citealp{ArisakaA11Origin}). Falsifier~7.
\item \textbf{Fine-structure constant:} at leading order in the \OGN{} cascade, $\alpha^{-1}(0) = 2^J + N^2 = 128 + 9 = 137$, reproducing the \emph{integer part} of CODATA 2022 ($\alpha^{-1}(0) = 137.035999177(21)$ \citep{CODATA2022}) exactly; the residual $\sim 0.026\%$ deviation goes to higher-order corrections. The running prediction at the $Z$-pole is $\alpha^{-1}(M_Z) = 2^J - N^2/2^J \approx 127.93$. The full derivation including the running and the residual-corrections analysis is the subject of the companion paper \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid}; we include the leading-order \OGN{} result here as the structural empirical anchor.
\end{enumerate}

\paragraph{Where \GG\ makes soft predictions.} At several other empirical pressure points, \GG\ makes predictions that are structurally robust but not yet sharp enough for unambiguous test:

\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=2em]
\item \textbf{Hierarchy ratio:} $M_{\mathrm{ew}} / \EPl \sim e^{-K} = e^{-35} \approx 6 \times 10^{-16}$, comparable to the observed Planck-electroweak ratio. Falsifier~3 plus dimensional anchor.
\item \textbf{Strong CP problem:} $|\bar\theta| \lesssim 4.7 \times 10^{-18}$. Tested by neutron EDM measurements; current bound is $|\bar\theta| < 10^{-10}$, which is consistent. See Point~8 of \citep{ArisakaA9SM}.
\item \textbf{Dark matter sector:} The Kaxion in $\UoneQi$, with predicted twin-peak spectral signature at $\Delta \nu / \nu = 1/35$ \citep{ArisakaA10Cosmos}. Tested by axion dark-matter haloscopes (ADMX, HAYSTAC) at the predicted frequencies.
\item \textbf{Neutrino sector:} Texture of the lepton mixing matrix predicted from the RG-scale throat geometry, with mass orderings derivable from the \OGNfive{} ledger. See \citep{ArisakaA9SM}.
\end{enumerate}

\paragraph{Where \GG\ defers to companion papers.} Several substantial portions of the framework's empirical content are deferred to companion papers:

\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em]
\item The boundary projection (4D Standard Model + GR + measurement) is the subject of \AFive{}.
\item The local and global anomaly proof for $\BIsix$ is the subject of \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}.
\item The historical lineage and parameter-free reconstruction (universal constants from bulk geometry) is the subject of \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid}.
\item The detailed phenomenology of $\UoneQi$ at biological scales (the $\QiFour$ pillars, the energy--information match) is the subject of \citep{ArisakaA7Qi4}.
\item The cosmological sector (inflation, dark matter, dark energy from a single \GSSB{} event) is the subject of \citep{ArisakaA10Cosmos}.
\item The Standard-Model-side phenomenology (CKM matrix, neutrino masses, fermion mass hierarchy) is the subject of \citep{ArisakaA9SM}.
\end{itemize}

\paragraph{The methodological position.} The present paper is the bulk-side derivation paper of the framework. Its empirical reach is therefore primarily structural: it predicts the existence of the 6D bulk, the modified Bianchi identity, the integer ledger, and the BRST-consistent quantum theory. The detailed empirical predictions that compile to specific numbers (e.g., the precise value of $\QB$ at biological temperatures, the predicted dark-matter axion mass, the predicted CKM matrix elements) are downstream consequences that emerge in the companion papers from the bulk theory established here.

\paragraph{The empirical situation: a summary.} As of this writing, every sharp prediction of \GG\ that has been confronted with data is consistent with observation. Proton stability is confirmed at the $10^{34}$-year level; the energy--information conversion factor; the leading-order \OGN{} fine-structure prediction reproduces the integer part of CODATA exactly with the residual $\sim 0.026\%$ deviation absorbed by higher-order corrections in \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid}; no superpartners or string excitations have been observed at any accelerator; no fourth chiral fermion generation has been observed (consistent with the Quaternionic Goldilocks reading of $d=6$); no seventh fundamental force has been discovered beyond the six predicted by \GG. The framework is therefore in a strong empirical position --- but it is also exposed: each of the ten falsifiers in Section~\ref{sec:eight-falsifiers} represents a specific way in which future data or analysis could refute it. This is what \POS{7} demands, and it is what \GG\ delivers.

\POS{7} (\MF, Postulate~\ref{pos:MF}) demands that every scientific claim compile to a registered observable and a pre-declared kill criterion. We supply, in this section, eight explicit falsifiers --- one for each of the structural innovations of Part~VII. Each falsifier consists of: (a) the central claim to be tested; (b) the registered observable that would test it; (c) the pre-declared kill criterion.

\subsection{Falsifier 1 (F-GG6-1): Geometrize-gauge versus quantize-gravity}

\textbf{Structural claim.} \AX{2} (\GGEP) plus the geometrize-gauge strategy is sufficient for unification; quantizing gravity at the Planck scale is unforced and inadmissible.

\textbf{Registered observable.} Direct empirical evidence for or against quantum-mechanical effects of gravity at scales below $\EPl$. Specific examples include: gravitational decoherence in macroscopic quantum superpositions; Planck-scale violations of Lorentz invariance; gravitational corrections to quantum field theory at colliders.

\textbf{Kill criterion.} If empirical evidence requires gravity to be a quantum-mechanically distinct sector (separate from the geometrized gauge sector of \GGEP), at energy scales below $\EPl$, with ingredients (graviton self-interactions; loop corrections to graviton propagators) that are not accounted for by the composite connection $\cA$ of \GG, then the geometrize-gauge strategy fails as a complete description and \GG\ requires substantial revision.

\subsection{Falsifier 2 (F-GG6-2): Six forces, not four}

\textbf{Structural claim.} The bulk gauge content includes exactly two new Abelian gauge factors beyond the Standard-Model sector: $\UoneB$ (baryonic) and $\UoneQi$ (informational). Both are forced by the Constitution; no additional new force is admissible (closure of the \OGNfive{} cascade).

\textbf{Registered observables.}
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em]
\item For $\UoneB$: absolute proton stability ($\tau_p = \infty$ from gauge invariance), absence of $\Delta B \neq 0$ decays, and quantized baryon-number assignments $B_Q = +1/3$, $B_L = 0$.
\item For $\UoneQi$: the energy--information conversion factor $\QB \approx 0.1555$ eV/qubit, the Arisaka equation $J_E/\QB = J_e = J_B = J_{Qi}$, and the equivalent unit conversion $N_A \cdot \QB \approx 15.0$ kJ/mol of qubits, whose energy--information calibration is developed in (\citealp{ArisakaA7Qi4}; \citealp{ArisakaA11Origin}).
\item For the closure of the cascade: no third or fourth Abelian gauge factor beyond $\UoneB \times \UoneQi$ is admissible, so no additional long-range gauge-mediated force should be empirically discovered beyond the six already named.
\end{itemize}

\textbf{Kill criterion.} Falsifier 2 fails if any one of (i) proton decay is observed at any rate, (ii) the energy--information conversion factor differs significantly from $\QB \approx 0.1555$ eV/qubit (or the Arisaka equation breaks in any controlled biological system), or (iii) a structurally robust seventh fundamental force is observed beyond the six forces predicted here. In particular, the discovery of, e.g., a gauged lepton-number $U(1)_L$ decoupled from $\UoneQi$, or any other long-range gauge-mediated force that does not embed inside $\UoneB \times \UoneQi$, would refute the closure of the \OGNfive{} cascade and hence the claim of \emph{exactly} six forces.

\subsection{Falsifier 3 (F-GG6-3): Unification at $\EGUT$ versus $\EPl$}

\textbf{Structural claim.} All six forces unify at $\EGUT \sim 2 \times 10^{16}$ GeV; the bulk is constitutionally complete up to this scale, and $\EPl$ is a derived quantity.

\textbf{Registered observable.} Precision measurements of the gauge couplings $\alpha_3(\mu)$, $\alpha_2(\mu)$, $\alpha_1(\mu)$ at high energies, plus measurements of any threshold corrections at intermediate scales. The prediction is that the three Standard Model gauge couplings unify at $\EGUT$ within the bulk-derived value of $\alpha_{\GUT}$.

\textbf{Kill criterion.} If the gauge couplings are observed to unify at a scale substantially different from $\EGUT$ (specifically, near $\EPl$ or at TeV scales), or if precision measurements rule out unification at any specific scale (i.e., the three couplings do not converge), then the axiomatic placement of the UV endpoint at $\EGUT$ is wrong. In particular, if observed gauge-coupling unification requires the SUSY threshold corrections of the MSSM, then the no-SUSY claim of Point 5 is also refuted.

\subsection{Falsifier 4 (F-GG6-4): 6D anomaly cancellation versus 10D/11D}

\textbf{Structural claim.} Anomaly cancellation in 6D through the single-tensor $\BIsix$ is sufficient; the framework does not require extension to 10D or 11D.

\textbf{Registered observable.} Mathematical consistency of the rank-1 single-tensor Green--Schwarz factorization on the intended \GG{} background class, including local and global anomaly conditions. The companion paper \citep{ArisakaA3BI6} provides the detailed proof.

\textbf{Kill criterion.} If consistent anomaly cancellation in 6D is shown to require multiple tensor sectors, or to be incompatible with the \OGN{}-fixed coefficient vector $(1, -1, -2/5, -2/5)$, or to fail under large gauge transformations on the \GG{} background, then the dimensional-economy claim is wrong. Alternatively, if a quantum-mechanical inconsistency (a residual anomaly) is found in the 6D bulk theory that cannot be cured by inflow from $B_2$, the framework is refuted.

\subsection{Falsifier 5 (F-GG6-5): No SUSY, no fundamental strings}

\textbf{Structural claim.} Neither supersymmetry nor fundamental strings are required for quantum-consistent unification; both are inadmissible by \AX{4} (\MSMF).

\textbf{Registered observable.} Direct or indirect evidence for low-energy supersymmetry (LHC searches for superpartners; precision tests requiring SUSY contributions; dark matter signatures requiring the lightest SUSY particle); evidence for fundamental string excitations or string-scale physics.

\textbf{Kill criterion.} If supersymmetric particles are observed at colliders below the SUSY-naturalness scale (TeV) and their structural role requires supersymmetry to be present at $\EGUT$, then the no-SUSY claim fails. If experimental evidence requires an extended object (string, brane, or other higher-dimensional excitation) as a fundamental constituent, then the no-strings claim fails. Either failure refutes Point~5 of \GG.

\textbf{Note on the empirical situation.} As of this writing, no superpartners have been observed at the LHC up to TeV scales \citep{ATLAS2019, CMS2021}; this is consistent with the no-SUSY claim of \GG. Conversely, a future observation of SUSY at LHC Run 4 or a future collider would refute Point~5.

\subsection{Falsifier 6 (F-GG6-6): Measurement problem from \OGGEP{}}

\textbf{Structural claim.} The Born rule and the CPTP boundary evolution are programmatically derivable from the bulk unitary dynamics through the \OGGEP{} bulk-to-boundary projection; the present paper adopts \AX{3}~(\OGGEP) as a constitutional axiom and verifies its consistency with T7 (BRST), but the explicit derivation of the Born rule from \OGGEP{} is the subject of the companion paper \citep{ArisakaA8QM}. The falsifier registered below tests the cohort-level claim, not an A2-internal derivation.

\textbf{Registered observable.} Quantum-foundational experiments testing the structure of measurement: weak-measurement protocols, Bell-inequality tests with high precision, tests of CPTP evolution in open quantum systems, tests of macroscopic superpositions, tests of objective wavefunction collapse.

\textbf{Kill criterion.} If a quantum-foundational experiment establishes the failure of CPTP evolution under macroscopic conditions in a way incompatible with the Nakajima--Zwanzig + GKLS structure derivable from \OGGEP{}, then \AX{3}'s central claim is wrong. Specifically, if objective collapse is observed to occur on a timescale that does not match the bulk environment correlation time (the natural Markov scale derivable from the \OGGEP{} dictionary), the framework requires revision. Similarly, if Bohmian or many-worlds structure is empirically distinguished from the \OGGEP{} CPTP picture, \AX{3} is wrong.

\subsection{Falsifier 7 (F-GG6-7): Proton stability as a theorem}

\textbf{Structural claim.} The proton is absolutely stable: $\tau_p = \infty$. Any observed proton decay refutes the framework.

\textbf{Registered observable.} The proton lifetime $\tau_p$, measured by underground experiments such as Super-Kamiokande \citep{SuperK2020} and the future Hyper-Kamiokande \citep{HyperK2018} and DUNE \citep{DUNE2020}. Specific decay channels include $p \to e^+ \pi^0$, $p \to \mu^+ \pi^0$, $p \to \nu K^+$, etc.

\textbf{Kill criterion.} Observation of proton decay through any channel, with statistical significance above the background, refutes \GG. In particular, the dimension-six operators $QQQL$, $u^c u^c d^c e^c$, $QQQH$, $u^c d^c d^c$ are all forbidden by the gauged $\UoneB$; observation of any of their associated decay processes refutes Point~7.

\textbf{Note on the empirical situation.} Current experimental lower bounds on the proton lifetime exceed $\tau_p > 10^{34}$ years for the most-studied channels. These bounds constrain conventional GUTs (Georgi--Glashow, SUSY GUTs) at or near the boundary of refutation, but they are positive evidence for \GG, where $\tau_p = \infty$ is the prediction. Future improvements in the lower bound will continue to be positive evidence; only an observed decay would refute the framework.

\subsection{Falsifier 8 (F-GG6-8): Life and mind from $\UoneQi$}

\textbf{Structural claim.} Biological information processing and cognitive structure are theorem-level consequences of the gauged $\UoneQi$ and the Arisaka equation, with the energy--information conversion factor $\QB \approx 0.1555$ eV/qubit.

\textbf{Registered observable.} Quantitative measurements of the energetic per-qubit content of biological molecular machinery, as calibrated in the energy--information program of (\citealp{ArisakaA7Qi4}; \citealp{ArisakaA11Origin}). More broadly, measurements of the coupling between energetic and informational currents in mesoscale biological systems.

\textbf{Kill criterion.} If the energy--information conversion factor is observed to differ from $\QB \approx 0.1555$ eV/qubit by more than the experimental and theoretical uncertainty, the Arisaka equation is wrong. Specifically, if the energy--information calibration of \citep{ArisakaA7Qi4} is found incompatible with $\QB$, or if the four-current locking $J_E/\QB = J_e = J_B = J_{Qi}$ is shown to fail in any controlled biological system, Point~8 is refuted.

\textbf{Note on the calibration.} The biochemical calibration of $\QB$ --- including the per-qubit stoichiometry and its standard-versus-cellular corrections --- is developed in the energy--information program of (\citealp{ArisakaA7Qi4}; \citealp{ArisakaA11Origin}), to which the reader is referred.

\subsection{Falsifier 9 (F-GG6-9): Constitution as starting point}

\textbf{Structural claim.} The Constitution (four axioms plus seven postulates) is sufficient as the foundational starting point of unification physics; the entire bulk theory \GG\ follows as a chain of theorems.

\textbf{Registered observable.} The internal consistency of the eight-Theorem chain in Part~II. Specifically, each theorem is tested by checking: (a) that its proof is mathematically valid; (b) that the constitutional clauses cited as premises are correctly used; (c) that the theorem's statement is not contradicted by any other theorem in the chain.

\textbf{Kill criterion.} If the theorem chain of Part~II contains a logical gap (a step that is not actually forced by the cited clauses), the central claim of Point~9 is incomplete. If the constitutional clauses themselves are shown to be inconsistent (a candidate theory exists that simultaneously satisfies all four axioms and seven postulates but is not in the equivalence class of \GG), the central claim is incomplete. If the framework requires additional clauses beyond \AX{1} through \POS{7} to derive the empirical content, the Constitution is incomplete.

\textbf{Note on this kind of falsifier.} Falsifier 9 is methodologically different from the other seven: it is not a single empirical observation but an internal-consistency test of the entire framework. This is appropriate because Point 9 is itself methodological rather than empirical. The framework's internal consistency is the criterion against which Point 9 is judged.

\subsection{Falsifier 10 (F-GG6-10): Quaternionic Goldilocks --- $d=6$ as algebraically forced}
\label{ssec:falsifier10}

\textbf{Structural claim.} The bulk dimension $d=6$ is forced by the magic-ladder argument of Point~9: only the quaternionic rung simultaneously supports chiral spinors, single-tensor anomaly cancellation, three-generation index, $6\to 4$ bulk-to-boundary projection, and the absence of supersymmetry. Equivalently, the features of the \GG{} bulk reflect the algebraic structure of $\Quaternion$.

\textbf{Registered observables.} The Goldilocks claim has three distinct empirical exposures, each falsifiable in principle:

\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=2em,label=(\alph*)]
\item \textbf{Generation count.} The Atiyah--Singer index of the bulk Dirac operator on $\cM_4 \times I_r \times S^1_\theta$ is structurally claimed to evaluate to $N = 3$ \citep{AtiyahSinger1963}; the heuristic Bessel-function / index-counting analysis is sketched in Appendix~\ref{app:kk}, with the fully rigorous calculation deferred to the companion paper \citep{ArisakaA9SM}. Tested by collider physics: a fourth chiral generation would falsify the index-theorem reading on the canonical bulk. Current LHC bounds rule out a fourth generation with SM-like couplings; this is consistent with the Goldilocks reading.
\item \textbf{Single-tensor anomaly cancellation.} $\BIsix$ uses one tensor field $B_2$ to cancel all anomalies via the perfect-square factorization $I_8 = \tfrac{1}{2}X_4^2$. Tested by the absence of additional tensor fields in the bulk Lagrangian: any indirect signature of a second tensor (e.g., a second pseudoscalar with an axion-like coupling distinct from the Kaxion) would falsify the perfect-square factorization specific to the quaternionic rung.
\item \textbf{Spinor structure on the boundary.} SM Weyl spinors descend from $\Spinone$ Weyl spinors via $6 \to 4$ projection. Tested by precision spinor physics: any deviation from the standard Lorentz transformation behavior of SM fermions, beyond the predicted radiative corrections, would suggest that the boundary spinor structure does not come from the canonical $\Spinone$ Weyl decomposition.
\end{enumerate}

\textbf{Kill criterion.} Falsifier 10 fails (the Goldilocks reading is killed) if any of (a), (b), (c) is empirically violated. Concretely: (a)~observation of a fourth generation in any future collider, (b)~a clean signature of a second bulk tensor field beyond the \BIsix{} perfect-square structure, or (c)~precision-test deviation in SM-fermion Lorentz transformations.

\textbf{Note on the character of Falsifier 10.} Like Falsifier 8, Falsifier 10 is partly inherent and partly empirical. The algebraic argument that $d=6$ is the quaternionic rung is mathematical; what is empirically falsifiable is whether the features that follow from this algebra (three generations, single-tensor cancellation, four-component Weyl on the boundary) actually hold in nature. Each of (a), (b), (c) is an empirically registered consequence of the quaternionic algebra; failure of any one would force a re-examination of the dimensional choice.


\subsection*{Closing remarks on Part~VII}

Three questions were owed at the start of this Part, and the answers can be put
briefly.

What is new is a method rather than a mechanism. The individual ingredients ---
a higher-dimensional arena, an anomaly identity, a unified gauge block, a
projection to an observed boundary --- are not inventions of this program, and
Part~IV said so plainly. What is new is the order of operations: fixing what a
theory may assume, and then letting the arena, the identity and the integers
fall out, rather than building the arena and axiomatizing afterwards.

What would show it wrong is a list of ten measurements, each with a number and
a criterion written before the data. That is a smaller list than a framework of
this reach might be expected to produce, and the smallness is deliberate. A
claim compiled into an instrument and a kill criterion is worth more than ten
claims that can absorb any outcome.

What is explained rather than accommodated is the third question, and it is
where the honesty apparatus of this paper earns its place. Some results here
are derived from the clauses with nothing else supplied. Some are derived
subject to a condition that is named. Some are open, and are marked open. A
reader who mistakes the second or third for the first will overrate this work;
so will an author who lets the grading blur. The paper keeps the three separate
in every table where they appear, which is more useful than a summary sentence
claiming everything is settled.

There is something worth saying about falsifiers generally, and it is not a
moral point. A criterion that would kill a claim is information about the
claim. It says where the claim lives in the space of possible worlds, and how
much of that space it rules out. A framework that cannot say what would refute
it has not been modest; it has failed to say anything with content. The ten
declarations in this Part are the measure of how much this framework has
actually said, and if the correct number turns out to be smaller than ten, that
subtraction is a result too.

\GGPart[Conclusions]{Conclusions}{The Constitutional Shift toward a Fourth Scientific Revolution and the Bulk-Side Anchor of the Cohort at the Stratum-4 Apex}


\noindent
It is worth saying plainly what has been done and what has not.

What has been done is a derivation. Starting from four axioms and seven
postulates --- none of which mentions six dimensions, none of which mentions
the number three, none of which mentions any measured quantity --- Part~II
reached a specific six-dimensional arena carrying a specific composite object,
a specific anomaly identity with fixed rational coefficients, and a ledger of
five integers with no continuous parameter surviving anywhere.

What has not been done is everything downstream of that. The arena is not the
electron, not the cosmos, and not a theory of measurement. Those live in the
companion papers, and each of them is exactly as strong as its own arguments.
A reader who accepts Part~II is not thereby committed to any of them.

Part~VIII draws the line between the two and then asks the larger question the
work has been circling: whether physics is entering a period in which the
constants of nature stop being inputs. Three times before, a set of numbers
that everyone measured turned out to be a set of numbers somebody could
derive, and each time the change felt less like an answer than like a
different kind of question becoming askable.

Whether that is happening again is not something this paper can settle. What
it can do is state its own position in a form that can be attacked, and say
which parts of that position would go if a single one of the ten declared
measurements came out the other way.

\section{The Constitutional Shift toward a Fourth Scientific Revolution}
\label{sec:conclusions-shift}

This Part states our conclusions in three movements. The first (the present Section) locates \GG{} in the longer view of scientific revolutions, framed for the philosophy-of-physics, broader-scientific, and educated-general-reader audience. The second (Section~\ref{sec:conclusions-bulk}) gives the technical, bulk-side wrap-up of the eight Principal Theorems and the implication chain that this paper has carried out. The third (Section~\ref{sec:conclusions-philosophical}) is a philosophical closing in plain English, addressed to the broadest possible audience: a personal account of what the cohort attempts, why it stakes itself to Euclidean discipline, how it stands beside string theory and beside the three previous scientific revolutions, and why the twenty-two coordinated papers point toward a single chain that runs from the cosmos through life and mind to the human. The three movements are complementary: the first names what the cohort framework attempts at the level of scientific method, the second names what \GG{} supplies as the bulk-side anchor that supports the rest, and the third names what the whole project means as a piece of human inquiry.

\paragraph{The proposed shift.} We have proposed that the next foundational step in physics is to write down a constitution --- four axioms and seven postulates --- and we have shown that this constitution is rigid enough to force the 6D bulk, the four-component anomaly identity, the \OGNfive\ integer ledger, the \GDOS{} boundary law, and the eight Principal Theorems of Part~II together with the cohort theorems supplied by the twenty-one companion papers of
the \GGTheory{} program. What makes a body of knowledge a science is not the cleverness of its calculations but the honesty of its rules; the bargain offered here is a foundational document that aspires to the precision of Euclid, the clarity of Newton, and the operational discipline of the open-systems generation that came after Zeh, Joos, and Zurek.

\paragraph{The three preceding revolutions.} Modern physics rests on three prior scientific revolutions, each defined by the kind of axiomatic commitment it added to the prior understanding. The First was the Newtonian revolution (1687): the commitment that the laws of motion are mathematically expressible, deterministic, and universal across the heavens and the earth. The Second was the Einsteinian / Relativistic revolution (1905--1915): the commitment that spacetime is itself a geometric object, dynamically responsive to its energy--momentum content, with the metric replacing the absolute background. The Third was the Quantum / Quantum-Field-Theoretic revolution (1925--1973): the commitment that physical states are vectors in a Hilbert space, observables are operators, the Born rule is the bridge to empirical operations, and gauge invariance is the principle that selects admissible interactions. Each revolution was a constitutional move: a new axiomatic clause that, once admitted, reorganized the entire empirical content of physics.

\paragraph{The Fourth proposed here.} We propose that the present moment is ripe for a Fourth scientific revolution, in which the four \GGConstitution\ axioms --- Locality and Causality (\AX{1}), Geometry--Gauge Equivalence Principle (\AX{2}), Operational Geometry--Gauge Equivalence Principle (\AX{3}), and Maximum Symmetry--Minimum Freedom (\AX{4}) --- become the next constitutional commitment. The signature of the Fourth revolution is that, taken together, these axioms terminate the constitutional tower at Stratum~4 (the full-axiom-set stratum, identified in Part~VI), and force a unique geometric realization: the 6D bulk of the present paper. The Standard Model, $\Lambda$CDM, and standard quantum mechanics --- the three triumphs of the Third revolution --- become Stratum-3 and Stratum-4 \emph{implicit} content within this constitutional reading; \GG{} becomes the Stratum-4 \emph{explicit} geometric source from which they descend as boundary projections.

\paragraph{What this Section claims.} The Fourth-revolution framing is not a claim of priority over the existing successful frameworks; it is a structural claim about what the constitution adds and where the resulting bulk theory sits relative to the historical record. Each previous revolution preserved the empirical content of the one before it and added new content; the constitutional move proposed here does the same. The empirical world will adjudicate whether the Fourth revolution lands. The framework's whole exposure surface --- the fifty-three common objections of Part~\ref{sec:common-objections}, the twelve problems-solved entries of Part~VII Section~\ref{sec:problems-solved}, and the ten registered falsifiers of Part~VII Section~\ref{sec:eight-falsifiers} --- is the empirical exposure surface on which the proposal stands.

\section{The Bulk-Side Anchor of the Cohort and the Constitutional Realization at the Stratum-4 Apex}
\label{sec:conclusions-bulk}

This paper has carried out the formal derivation of the \GG\ bulk theory from the Constitution of \GGTheory, in the methodological lineage of Euclid's \emph{Elements} --- a 21st-century axiomatic geometry of nature in which the bulk is pure 6D geometry and the boundary is its operational projection via \OGGEP. The primitive content of the framework is the paired (3 bulk + 2 boundary)+(3 bulk + 2 boundary) doubling of \OGNfive\ (five integers, theorems) and \GUfive\ (five continuous units), with no free parameter --- the single overall unit scale (set by $G_N$, with $M_6$ a derived combination) being the choice of unit system rather than an input (Proposition~\ref{prop:parameter-counting}). Every dimensionless physical constant the cohort addresses is either a member of \OGNfive, derivable from \OGNfive\ by the cascade, or a ratio of \GUfive\ members; the full no-third-species statement is a program-level commitment whose discharge depends on the cohort closing. The complete logical chain established in this manuscript may be compressed into one boxed equation:
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;
\begin{aligned}
&\mathrm{AX/POS} \;\Longrightarrow\; \GGEP \;\Longrightarrow\; \GG\ \&\ \BIsix\ \&\ \OGNfive \\
&\quad\Longrightarrow\; \text{6D BRST-consistent QFT at } \EGUT \;\Longrightarrow\; \text{Arisaka equation}.
\end{aligned}\;}
\label{eq:final-conclusion-chain}
\end{equation}

The principal results are:
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=2em]
\item The four axioms (\AX{1}: \LC; \AX{2}: \GGEP; \AX{3}: \OGGEP; \AX{4}: \MSMF) plus the seven postulates (\POS{1} through \POS{7}) of the \GGTheory\ Constitution are sufficient to force the existence and uniqueness of the 6D bulk \GG.
\item The bulk metric is the canonical form $ds_6^2 = e^{-2r}\,\eta_{\mu\nu}\,dx^\mu dx^\nu + dr^2 + d\theta^2$ with $r \in [0, K]$, $\theta \in [0, 2\pi)$, in natural \GG\ units. No continuous parameters $k$, $R_\theta$, or $r_c$ appear; they are absorbed as unit-conversion artifacts.
\item The bulk gauge--gravity group is $\Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$, listed in the canonical order in which the corresponding curvatures appear in $\BIsix$. The first factor is the spin double cover of the proper orthochronous six-dimensional Lorentz group, with the accidental isomorphism $\Spinone \cong \SLtwoH$ identifying it as the next member of the Lorentz--division-algebra family $\SLtwoR \to \SLtwoC \to \SLtwoH$. The bulk projects on the boundary to a six-force structure with three abelian gauge invariances.
\item The modified Bianchi identity $\BIsix$ has the unique primitive coefficient vector $(1, -1, -2/5, -2/5)$, with the Abelian coefficient $-2/5$ derived from the trace ratio $\Tr(B_0^2)/\Tr(Y_0^2) = 2/5$ in the $\mathbf{5}$ of $\SUfive$.
\item The anomaly polynomial factorizes as $I_8 = \tfrac12 X_4 \wedge X_4$ with the same $X_4$ as in $\BIsix$, allowing single-tensor Green--Schwarz cancellation.
\item The integer ledger $\OGNfive = (M, N, L; J, K) = (1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$ is forced as a five-step Diophantine cascade, with the load-bearing step being $N = N_c = 3$ from the dual lock and the block embedding, the trace ratio of $\BIsix$ serving as its independent check.
\item The gauge-fixed quantum theory satisfies the homogeneous Slavnov--Taylor identity $\cS(\Gamma_{\mathrm{full}}) = 0$, with no residual local gauge, mixed, or gravitational anomaly.
\item The Arisaka equation $J_E/\QB = J_e = J_B = J_{Qi}$ is forced on the boundary by the three abelian gauge invariances under the \OGGEP{} bulk-to-boundary projection, with empirical conversion factor $\QB \approx 0.1555$ eV/qubit.
\end{enumerate}

The framework's structural identity is captured by the ten innovations of Part~VII: geometrize gauge (1), six forces not four (2), unify at $\EGUT$ (3), 6D anomaly cancellation (4), no SUSY no strings (5), measurement problem from \OGGEP{} (6), proton stability as theorem (7), life and mind from $\UoneQi$ (8), Constitution as starting point (9), and the Quaternionic Goldilocks reading of $d=6$ as the algebraically forced minimal dimension (10). The framework's empirical exposure is captured by the ten falsifiers of Part~VII, one for each innovation, all consistent with current data.

\paragraph{What this paper does not do.} The division of labor was set out in Part~I and has not moved: the boundary projection belongs to \AFive{}, the global anomaly proof to \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}, the historical lineage and the parameter-free reconstruction of the universal constants to \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid}. What is worth adding at the close is which of those obligations this paper has discharged and which it has only named. It has discharged the arena, the composite connection, the coefficient vector and the integer ledger, each as a theorem with its premises on the page. It has named, and not discharged, the global anomaly completion, the generation count, and the projection that turns any of this into something an instrument registers. A reader who accepts Part~II is entitled to the first list and to nothing on the second.

\paragraph{Final remark.} The present paper has aimed to combine the rigor of Euclid with the readability of physics exposition. Whether this combination has succeeded is for the reader to judge. The Euclidean structure is deliberate: it leaves nothing implicit, it forces every step to be visible, and it makes the framework's claims maximally transparent. The physics intuition woven through the proofs is also deliberate: it converts the formal structure into mental images that working physicists can manipulate. Together, the two stylistic commitments aim to make \GGTheory\ accessible to the widest possible technical audience: from particle theorists who care about the formal Euclidean derivation to general physicists who care about the structural innovations and their empirical exposure.

If the eleven clauses of the Constitution are correct, then the eight Theorems of Part~II force the 6D bulk \GG, the modified Bianchi identity $\BIsix$, the integer ledger $\OGNfive$, the BRST-consistent quantum theory at $\EGUT$, and the Arisaka equation on the boundary. If even one of the eleven clauses is wrong, the chain breaks. Applied to fundamental physics, the Euclidean discipline comes to that, and it is the methodological signature of \GGTheory.


\subsection*{Closing remarks on Part~VIII}

The argument of this paper ends here, and it ends in a particular place: with
an arena, an identity and five integers, and with a clear boundary drawn around
what those three things do and do not settle.

It is worth being exact about the boundary, because the temptation at the end
of a long derivation is to let it blur. Part~II derived the arena. It did not
derive the electron, the cosmic inventory, the generation count, or the rule by
which a measurement acquires an outcome. Each of those lives in a companion
paper, each rests on its own reasoning, and a reader who accepts everything in
Part~II is not thereby committed to any of them. The dependency runs one way,
and it runs outward from here.

What the derivation does buy is a specific kind of exposure. A framework with
no free continuous parameter cannot be repaired when a measurement disagrees
with it. There is nothing to adjust. That is a liability in the ordinary sense
and an asset in the only sense that matters for a scientific claim: it means
the ten measurements of Part~VII are load-bearing rather than decorative, and
that a single one of them landing in its declared kill region would send this
paper back to Part~I rather than to a fitting routine.

The wider question --- whether the constants of nature are inputs or outputs
--- is not one this paper settles, and the reflection that follows does not
pretend otherwise. What this paper contributes to it is a worked example: one
arena, derived from stated premises, with its parameters replaced by integers
and its integers exposed at ten places. Whether the example generalizes is for
the measurements and for other people's work to decide.

\section{A Philosophical Closing to the Argument as a Whole}
\label{sec:conclusions-philosophical}

A note on what this Section is, before it begins. It does not close Part~VIII --- the remarks above did that. It closes the argument of the paper as a whole, and it is placed here because Part~VIII is where the argument ends; the Parts that follow are back matter. The eight Theorems of Part~II are stated; the implication chain of Section~\ref{sec:conclusions-bulk} is closed; the integer ledger \OGNfive\ stands exposed to the empirical world. What remains is a final movement, in the warm register of a closing letter from one careful reader to another: what kind of object is this paper trying to be, what would it mean if the framework it serves turned out to be right, and why is it worth a serious person's time? The technical work of the paper is complete; what follows is the human reading of what the technical work attempts. We write this Section in plain English, for the philosopher of physics, the careful undergraduate, the working biologist or neuroscientist, the senior particle theorist who has now read enough to form a judgment, and the educated general reader who has stayed with us this far.

\paragraph{The significance and uniqueness of \GG{}.} \GG{} is not one candidate framework among many. It is the geometric object that the eleven clauses of the \GGConstitution{} \emph{force} into existence: a six-dimensional bulk with one specific metric, one specific gauge structure, one specific anomaly identity, and one specific integer ledger. There are no free knobs left to turn. If the reader asks ``why six dimensions and not seven?'', the answer is in \TX{1}{GG6}: the constitutional clauses count exactly six structural roles, and six dimensions accommodate exactly those roles. If the reader asks ``why this particular metric?'', the answer is in \TX{2}{GG6}: every parameter that earlier writers carried as a free input --- Randall--Sundrum's $k$, $r_c$, $R_\theta$ --- is absorbed as a unit-conversion artifact under \MSMF{}. If the reader asks ``why these integers $(1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$ and not others?'', the answer is in \TX{6}{GG6}: each of the five integers is the output of a Diophantine cascade with no remaining freedom. The uniqueness of \GG{} is, in this sense, the central technical claim of the paper: not that \GG{} is the best of many candidates, but that \GG{} is the only candidate the Constitution permits. This is what we mean by ``Stratum-4 explicit geometric realization'' in the language of Part~VI: \GG{} sits at the apex of a four-stratum constitutional tower, as the unique geometric object that satisfies all eleven clauses simultaneously.

\paragraph{A friendly conversation with string theory.} Many readers will want to compare \GG{} with superstring theory, and we want to be careful and respectful in what we say. We share the same long-term aim --- a unified geometric account of the fundamental interactions --- and we share an intellectual lineage that runs through Kaluza, Klein, Yang, Mills, Einstein, and the holographic intuitions of Randall, Sundrum, and Maldacena. We differ in two structural respects, which Part~IV makes explicit, but which it may help to summarize in plain language here. First, the size of the moduli space: superstring theory works in a landscape of $\sim 10^{500}$ vacua, and a great deal of careful effort is spent learning how to navigate it; \GGTheory{} works in a single forced vacuum and writes down the Constitution that forces it, so the navigation problem does not arise. Second, the role of supersymmetry: \GGTheory{} does not assume supersymmetry, does not require it as a UV regulator, and is therefore unaffected by the empirical absence of low-scale superpartners. Neither difference is a complaint against string theory; the two frameworks are doing different things, and the empirical world will decide which is doing the more useful thing. What we ask of the reader who comes to us from the string-theory community is the same thing we would ask of any careful reader: hold the framework against the data, see whether the eleven clauses break, and tell us, in precise language, which one fails. That is how this kind of conversation moves forward.

\paragraph{Why is it pure 6D bulk geometry with no free parameter, only a choice of unit scale?} Because every free parameter is a question the framework has chosen not to answer. If a theory carries a continuous dimensionless coupling as a free input, the theory is saying: ``I do not know what determines this number; please measure it for me.'' The constitutional move taken here is the opposite. We will not carry free dimensionless numbers; we will see what the constitutional clauses force; and if the constitutional clauses force the wrong numbers, the framework fails, in a way that is detectable and falsifiable. \MSMF{} is the explicit version of this commitment. \OGN{} (\POS{6}) is its operational form: when the constitutional clauses leave an integer free, the smallest integer that respects all symmetries is selected. No free parameter remains; what remains is only the overall unit scale --- naturally $G_N$, with $M_6$ a derived combination --- fixed by matching to the Planck scale, which supplies the units in which every other dimensional quantity is expressed (Proposition~\ref{prop:parameter-counting}). Within those constitutional constraints, the cohort program derives, in named companion papers, a family of integer-discrete numerical anchors: $\alpha^{-1}(0) = 137$ at the integer level (\citep{ArisakaA4Euclid}), the \OGNfive\ integers $(1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$ (the present paper, Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade}), $\Mlock \approx 3.85$~TeV (\citep{ArisakaP1KK}), $\Delta\nu/\nu = 1/35$ and $\Omega_m \approx 1/\pi$ (\citep{ArisakaA10Cosmos}), and $\QB \approx 0.1555$~eV/qubit (\citep{ArisakaA7Qi4}). Each is a cohort-level theorem, not an A2-internal fit, and each carries a registered \POS{7}~\MF{} falsifier of its own. No knobs were turned to make these numbers come out; if the data disagree, the chain breaks; if the data agree, the cohort has guessed the world correctly without ever having been told. The historical and methodological case for this commitment, including its lineage from Euclid through Riemann, Hilbert, and the conversion-factor reading of $c$, $G_N$, $\hbar$, is the subject of the companion paper \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid}.

\paragraph{Why is it similar to Euclid's \emph{Elements} and Newton's \emph{Principia}?} Because both of those works began by writing down their axioms in plain view, and then let every subsequent claim be derived from the axioms with no hidden steps. Euclid wrote down five postulates of plane geometry and proved hundreds of theorems from them; the structure of the \emph{Elements} is the structure of a constitutional document. Newton wrote down three laws of motion plus the law of universal gravitation in the \emph{Principia} and derived from them the orbits of the planets, the tides, the precession of the equinoxes, and the elements of celestial mechanics that occupied the next two centuries. In both cases the methodological commitment was the same: state the rules first, then let the consequences follow with nothing in reserve, and accept the discipline that if any rule fails, every theorem that descends from that rule fails with it. \GGTheory{} makes the same commitment. State the four axioms (\AX{1}--\AX{4}) and the seven postulates (\POS{1}--\POS{7}) first; then derive the eight Theorems of this paper, the \BIsix\ anomaly proof of \AThree{}, the \GDOS{} boundary projection of \AFive{}, the \GiFour{} and \QiFour{} pillar structures of \ASix{} and \ASeven{}, the recasts of quantum mechanics, the Standard Model, and cosmology in \AEight{}, \ANine{}, \ATen{}, and the cosmos--life--mind chain of \AEleven{}, all from those eleven clauses alone. The twenty-two papers of the cohort are not twenty-two independent guesses; they are twenty-two chapters of a single Euclidean exposition that begins with the Constitution and ends with the empirical world. The discipline is old; the content is new.

\paragraph{Einstein formulated 4D; \GG{} formulates 6D.} Einstein's contribution, when read at the level of methodology rather than at the level of equations, was to recognize that spacetime is itself a geometric object --- that gravity is not a force acting on a passive background but a curvature of the background itself, and that the metric of spacetime is dynamical, responsive to its energy--momentum content, and the same kind of mathematical object whether one is doing celestial mechanics or atomic physics. The dimension Einstein worked in was four: three spatial dimensions plus one time. \GGTheory{} extends Einstein's methodology by one structural step: it makes the gauge interactions themselves geometric, alongside gravity, and in so doing it raises the dimension to six. The two extra dimensions are not hidden in a Calabi--Yau manifold awaiting later experimental discovery; they are a radial scale direction (\TX{2}{GG6}) carrying the renormalization-group flow under \POS{5}, and a compact $\theta$ direction carrying the angular gauge structure that supplies $\U(1)_{Qi}$. In this sense \GG{} is the natural next step in Einstein's program: geometry is the language not only of gravity, but of every fundamental interaction, with all of them living together in a single six-dimensional Lorentzian manifold. If Einstein's question was ``what does it look like to write gravity as geometry in four dimensions?'', the question of \GGTheory{} is ``what does it look like to write \emph{all} the fundamental interactions as geometry in six?''. The answer the eleven clauses produce is the 6D bulk of this paper.

\paragraph{A candidate Fourth Scientific Revolution --- if proved within the next ten years.} We have not been shy about the framing, and the closing of this paper is the place to say plainly what we mean by it. \S\ref{sec:conclusions-shift} set out the three prior revolutions and what each of them added. We propose that the constitutional move of \GGTheory{} --- writing down four axioms and seven postulates that, taken together, force a unique geometric bulk and its boundary projection --- is a candidate for the Fourth such revolution. But the framing carries an honest condition. The revolution is conditional on the empirical world. If the integer predictions $\alpha^{-1}(0) = 137$, $K = 35$, $J = 7$, and $\Mlock \approx 3.85$~TeV are confirmed by the next decade of LHC, atomic-clock, CMB, and cosmological data; if the energy--information anchor $\QB \approx 0.1555$~eV/qubit is confirmed by the quantitative biophysics of the energy--information calibration (\citealp{ArisakaA7Qi4}; \citealp{ArisakaA11Origin}); if proton stability, the dark-matter sector, the cosmic energy budget, and the absence of low-scale superpartners are all consistent with the twenty-two-paper cohort's predictions --- then we believe the constitutional move proposed here will, in retrospect, look like a Fourth scientific revolution in the same sense the first three were. If even one of these anchors fails, the chain breaks, and the framework retires. This is what we mean by ``a standing offer to be wrong, in detail.'' We are not claiming victory; we are placing a bet, and we have written down the conditions under which the bet pays off and the conditions under which it does not. The next ten years will decide.

\paragraph{Cosmos, life, mind --- a single chain toward the human.} The most striking feature of the twenty-two-paper cohort, when one reads it as a whole, is that the same integer ledger $(1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$ appears at every layer of the derivation. The bulk geometry uses these integers (this paper). The boundary projection uses them \citep{ArisakaA5GDOS}. The four geometric pillars and the four informational pillars use them \citep{ArisakaA7Qi4}. The Standard Model fermion families use them \citep{ArisakaA9SM}. The cosmological energy partition uses them \citep{ArisakaA10Cosmos}. And the energy--information conversion factor $\QB \approx 0.1555$~eV/qubit that powers biological information processing at body temperature uses them, with the full energy--information calibration carried by (\citealp{ArisakaA7Qi4}; \citealp{ArisakaA11Origin}). Read along this chain, the cohort attempts to derive the inevitable origin of the cosmos (the bulk and its boundary projection), of life (the energetic and informational currents that the Arisaka equation locks together via \UoneQi{}), and of mind (the conversion of physical energy into informational qubits at the energy--information temperature) --- and finally of the human, as the species that has the capacity to carry out the constitutional analysis in the first place. This is the philosophical horizon of the program: not that we have proved the chain in its final form --- the closing capstone \citep{ArisakaA11Origin} carries the synthesis, and many empirical entries remain --- but that we have written it down explicitly, with the integer ledger visible at every step, so that the chain itself is open to direct examination.

\paragraph{The wider view: what the twenty-two papers attempt together.} Read separately, each of the twenty-two papers is a technical contribution in its own domain: the constitutional charter \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution}, the bulk-side formal derivation (this paper), the local and global anomaly proof \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}, the historical lineage and the parameter-free reconstruction of the universal constants \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid}, the boundary-projection paper \citep{ArisakaA5GDOS}, the \GiFour{} geometric pillars and the \QiFour{} informational pillars \citep{ArisakaA7Qi4}, the recasts of quantum mechanics \citep{ArisakaA8QM}, the Standard Model \citep{ArisakaA9SM}, and cosmology \citep{ArisakaA10Cosmos}, and the closing capstone \citep{ArisakaA11Origin}. Read together, the twenty-two papers attempt something larger than the sum of their parts: a single derivation that descends from four axioms and seven postulates to the empirical structure of physics, life, and cognition, with the same integer ledger appearing on every layer. No single paper of the twenty-two completes the program; each carries one rigorously-stated piece of the chain. This paper carries the second piece, the bulk-side derivation, on which the third (the anomaly proof) and the downstream pieces rest.

\paragraph{What the project is, in one sentence.} \GGTheory{} is a constitutional derivation, from four axioms and seven postulates, of a unique six-dimensional bulk whose boundary projection produces four-dimensional general relativity, the Standard Model, quantum mechanics, the cosmological energy inventory, and the energy--information physics of biological information processing --- with no free parameter, only a choice of unit scale near the Planck scale.

\paragraph{What we hope a careful reader will take away.} A careful reader of this paper, having walked through Parts~I--VIII, should now hold three commitments. The first is technical: the eight Theorems of Part~II are explicit, rigorous, and exposed to direct refutation; if the reader believes one of them is wrong, the reader should be able to say which step of which proof fails, and to invite the next round of work. The second is structural: the constitutional clauses of \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution} are exposed in the same way, and a refutation of any one clause propagates through the cohort of twenty-two papers; if the reader believes the Constitution itself is wrong, the reader is invited to identify the clause and the empirical anchor that would settle the dispute. The third is philosophical: the program makes a substantive bet --- that the structure of physics is rigid enough to be derived from a short list of constitutional clauses, rather than chosen from a large space of equally-admissible alternatives --- and the bet is now on the table, exposed to the empirical world. Whether the bet pays off is for the next decade of experimental and observational data to decide; what this paper contributes is the rigor of the bet's statement, and the visibility of the eight-theorem chain on which it rests.

\paragraph{A closing word to the reader.} This paper has been long, and the reader who has stayed with it through more than two hundred pages has done the framework a kindness. We are aware that the constitutional posture taken here is uncommon --- that physics in the twenty-first century has, more often, advanced by extending working frameworks rather than by writing new constitutions --- and we are aware that the path from a written Constitution to empirical confirmation is the work of a community, not of a single author or a single paper. What we hope is that some part of this work --- a theorem, a figure, an objection answered, a number predicted --- has changed the reader's intuition about what fundamental physics can and cannot be. If a reader comes away from this paper having decided that the framework is wrong but cannot say which step fails, the paper has done part of its job; the framework is at least exposed enough for the reader to put a finger on the failure. If a reader comes away convinced that the framework is right, the paper has done more of its job, and we ask that the reader join the empirical project that begins where the bulk-side derivation ends. Either way, the cohort is now on the table, the integer ledger is now visible, and the eleven clauses of the Constitution stand exposed to the empirical world.

\paragraph{Why we are here today.} I wrote this paper because I believe that the structure of fundamental physics is not, in the end, an accident. I believe that the laws of nature carry a constitutional shape, and that the work of foundational physics is to make that shape visible. I wrote it in the style of Euclid because that style does not let anything hide; I wrote it as one of twenty-two coordinated papers because no single paper can carry the whole derivation; and I wrote it in plain language wherever the technical work permitted, because the audiences who need to read it most carefully --- philosophers of science, working biologists, careful undergraduates, senior particle theorists, and the educated general reader --- come to fundamental physics with different vocabularies but the same right to ask the foundational questions in their own words. If even one reader, in the next decade, finds a piece of the chain that I have missed --- a clause that should be sharpened, a theorem that needs a tighter proof, an empirical anchor that does not hold --- the project will have served its purpose: it will have exposed itself to the kind of careful attention that fundamental physics deserves. That is the bet we are placing; that is the discipline we are accepting; that is the welcome we are extending to anyone who has read this
far. That is why we are here today.

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{How this volume is arranged.} The paper proper runs
from Part~I to Part~VIII, and it ends where the Conclusions end.
Everything after that is back matter, given Part numbers only for ease
of reference: Part~IX collects the technical appendices, Part~X the
common objections and responses, and Part~XI the annotated references.
A reader who finishes Part~VIII has finished the argument; Parts~IX through~XI are there to be consulted, not read through.

\paragraph{If you read only part of it.} Three routes through this paper are worth naming, because most readers will not take the long one. A reader who wants the claim and its exposure can read the Executive Summary and then Part~VII, which states the ten falsifiers with the measurement that would end each: perhaps twenty pages, and enough to decide whether the framework is worth an argument. A reader who wants the derivation itself needs Part~I for the eleven clauses and Part~II for the eight theorems, and nothing else is load-bearing; Parts~III to~VI are orientation, comparison and placement, and none of them is used to prove anything. A reader who has an objection already formed should start in Part~X, find the one closest to it, and follow the pointer back into the body from there. What none of these routes permits is skipping Part~II and keeping the conclusions: the arena and the ledger are the whole of what this paper establishes, and everything the cohort claims downstream rests on them.


%% =====================================================================
%%  PART VI -- APPENDICES
%%  (Phase 6 of UCLA-Arisaka/GG-2026-2 v3.0)
%% =====================================================================


\GGAcknowledgments

\GGAppendixPart[Technical Appendices]{Technical Appendices}{Detailed derivations, mathematical foundations, and reference tables}

\noindent
The argument ended with Part~VIII. What follows is back matter, kept under
Part numbers for ease of reference and not as a continuation.

Part~IX holds the machinery. Some of it is apparatus a reader may want on
first contact and not before: the abbreviations, the dictionary of names this
program has coined, the glossary of symbols. Some of it is the long-form
version of a calculation the body states in a line, written out in full for
the reader who does not take a line on trust.

None of it needs to be read in order, and none of it is required to have
followed the argument. If you have read Parts~I through VIII and understood
them, you are done; nothing here will change a conclusion. What it can do is
answer the question ``where did that step actually come from?'' at the level
of detail a graduate student would need to reproduce it.

Two of these appendices are entry points rather than reference material, and
are worth knowing about early: the summary of abbreviations, which is the
fastest way past this program's habit of naming things, and the glossary of
symbols, which is ordered by construction rather than alphabetically, so
reading it straight through is itself a compressed tour of the geometry.

\section*{Introduction to Part~IX}

\textbf{Parts~IX, X and~XI are back matter, not a continuation of the
argument.} The paper proper ended with the Conclusions of Part~VIII.
What follows carries Part numbers for ease of reference only:
appendices here, the common objections and responses in Part~X, and the
annotated references in Part~XI. None of it needs to be read in order,
and none of it is required to have followed the argument.

\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{Part IX is optimized for first-year graduate students
in physics.} Where the body of the paper (Parts I--VIII) carries the Euclidean theorem chain and is pitched at the level of a working physicist, the present Part is a tutorial-style reference designed for a reader who is encountering the framework for the first time and wants the calculations spelled out step by step. Every derivation states its prerequisites explicitly, shows each intermediate algebraic step, includes a worked numerical example, and closes with a physics-intuition box that translates the algebra into a mental picture. Readers with extensive background may skim the setup paragraphs and consult the derivations as reference; readers approaching the material for the first time will find each appendix self-contained up to the prerequisites named in its opening.

\subsection*{Organization of Part IX}

The appendices are grouped into three blocks:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em, itemsep=2pt]
\item \emph{Reference} appendices (\ref{app:abbrev}--\ref{app:glossary-symbols}): the abbreviation, acronym and symbol tables for quick lookup.
\item \emph{Calculational} appendices (\ref{app:nz}--\ref{app:operator-catalog}): step-by-step derivations of the technical content invoked in Parts II--III (Nakajima--Zwanzig + \OGGEP{} channel, Kaluza--Klein reduction, \SUfive{} decomposition, anomaly coefficients, BV/BRST master equation, operator catalog).
\item \emph{Foundational} appendices (\ref{app:math-foundations}--\ref{app:su5}): the underlying mathematics (principal bundles, characteristic classes, the Atiyah--Singer index, Stora--Zumino descent, the Green--Schwarz mechanism, Lorentzian spin structures) and the Lie-algebra structure of $\SUfive$.
\end{itemize}

\subsection*{Suggested reading order for first-time graduate-student readers}

The paper is long and the apparatus is heavy; readers approaching the material for the first time may find the following order useful as a graduate-seminar path.
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=2em, itemsep=2pt]
\item \emph{Preface} (front matter) for the constitutional posture and the cohort architecture.
\item \emph{Part I} (Foundations) for the four axioms, the seven postulates, and the Strategy of the Derivation.
\item \emph{Appendix~\ref{app:math-foundations}} (Mathematical Foundations) for the differential-geometric and Lie-theoretic prerequisites --- read this before Part II if the bundle-theoretic formulation is new.
\item \emph{Part II} (The Core Theorems) for the rigorous derivation chain T-GG6-1 through T-GG6-8.
\item \emph{Appendix~\ref{app:nz}} (Nakajima--Zwanzig and the \OGGEP{} channel) and \emph{Appendix~\ref{app:kk}} (Kaluza--Klein reduction) for the bulk-to-boundary computational backbone.
\item \emph{Part III} (Geometric Intuition: Four Pictures) for the mental images that the formal proofs support.
\item \emph{Part V} (Forward and Backward Map) and \emph{Part VI} (Constitutional-Axiom Classification) for the cohort context and the Stratum-4 placement.
\item \emph{Part IV} (\GG{} vs.\ Superstring Theory) for the structural comparison.
\item \emph{Part VII} (Discussion: innovations, problems solved, falsifiers) for the empirical exposure, and \emph{Part X} for the objections.
\item \emph{Part VIII} (Conclusions, including the Philosophical Closing of \S\ref{sec:conclusions-philosophical}).
\end{enumerate}
This order interleaves the mathematical machinery with the physical content, supplies the computational appendices at the point where they are needed, and reserves the structural comparison with string theory and the empirical-exposure discussion for after the formal derivation chain has been digested. Working physicists who already have the bundle-theoretic and open-system machinery may skip directly from Part~I to Part~II and consult the appendices on demand.

\subsection*{Global naming convention for cross-cohort citation}

Beginning with \ATwo{} and extended to ten prefixes, each load-bearing item of the \GGTheory{} cohort carries a globally unique identifier of the form \emph{Prefix-Suffix-N}, where the Prefix names the item type and the Suffix names the paper:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em, itemsep=2pt]
\item \textbf{T-Suffix-N} for the $N$th Theorem of the paper (e.g., T-GG6-6 is Theorem~6 of the present paper, the \OGNfive{} Diophantine cascade).
\item \textbf{L-Suffix-N} for the $N$th Lemma.
\item \textbf{C-Suffix-N} for the $N$th Corollary.
\item \textbf{D-Suffix-N} for the $N$th Definition.
\item \textbf{R-Suffix-N} for the $N$th Remark.
\item \textbf{P-Suffix-N} for the $N$th Prediction.
\item \textbf{O-Suffix-N} for the $N$th Objection (e.g., O-GG6-29 is Objection~29 of the present paper, the anomaly-framing complementarity discussion).
\item \textbf{F-Suffix-N} for the $N$th Falsifier (e.g., F-GG6-7 is Falsifier~7, proton stability as a theorem).
\item \textbf{I-Suffix-N} for the $N$th Innovation (e.g., I-GG6-1 is Innovation~1 of the present paper, geometrize gauge forces).
\item \textbf{PS-Suffix-N} for the $N$th Problem-Solved entry (e.g., PS-GG6-7 is Problem-Solved entry~7, the fine-structure constant $\alpha^{-1}(0) = 137$).
\end{itemize}
The canonical Suffix list for the twenty-two cohort papers is: \emph{Constitution} (A1), \emph{GG6} (A2, this paper), \emph{BI6} (A3), \emph{Euclid} (A4), \emph{GDOS} (A5), \emph{GRIP} (A6), \emph{Qi4} (A7), \emph{QM} (A8), \emph{SM} (A9), \emph{Cosmos} (A10), \emph{Origin} (A11), together with the phenomenology preprints \emph{KK} (P1), \emph{N3} (P2), \emph{Electron} (P3), \emph{Proton} (P6), the foundations preprints \emph{Real} (P4) and \emph{CPT} (P5), and the consequence preprints \emph{Kaxion} (C1), \emph{Hubble} (C2), \emph{BH} (C3), and the white papers \emph{Symmetry} (W1) and \emph{Holonomy} (W2). Inside each paper, the internal numbering (``Theorem 1'', ``Theorem 2'', \ldots) continues to be supplied by LaTeX's autonumbering; the global identifier is the same theorem viewed from outside the paper. A cross-cohort citation such as ``\GG{} consumes T-GG6-3 and T-BI6-7, produces T-SM-12'' is therefore unambiguous and search-friendly. The convention is piloted in the present paper and is being propagated across the rest of the twenty-two-paper cohort on each paper's next revision. The four axioms (AX-1\,\ldots\,AX-4) and seven postulates (POS-1\,\ldots\,POS-7) of \AOne{} keep their existing cohort-wide names, since those are already paper-specific and unique.

\subsection*{How to use this Part}

A first-time graduate-student reader is invited to use Part~IX in three modes:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em, itemsep=2pt]
\item \emph{Look-up mode}: consult Appendix A (abbreviations) and Appendix B (symbols) when a specific acronym or symbol appears unfamiliar in the body.
\item \emph{Tutorial mode}: read Appendices C--H in sequence with pencil and paper, working through the step-by-step derivations and worked examples. Each appendix is self-contained up to its named prerequisites.
\item \emph{Foundational mode}: read Appendices I--J as a refresher on differential geometry and Lie algebra, then return to Part II of the body with the bundle-theoretic and group-theoretic machinery firmly in hand.
\end{itemize}
The three modes are not exclusive: a reader may begin in look-up mode, switch to tutorial mode for a specific calculation, and consult the foundational appendices on demand.

\appendix

\section{Summary of Abbreviations}
\label{app:abbrev}

This appendix is the cohort's shared vocabulary table, carried in the same form by \AOne{} and \AFour{}, so that a reader arriving from any companion looks a name up in the same place. It therefore runs wider than the present paper: some entries name objects that belong to the program and are used elsewhere in it. The third column is the one to read for that --- it points at the paper where each name is introduced in full, which is the present paper for names defined here and a companion otherwise.
All program-defined names are rendered in \emph{sans-serif type}
(\GGTheory{}, \GGConstitution{}, \GG{}, \GDOS{}, \BIsix{}, \OGNfive{},
\QGL{}, \GiFour{}, \QiFour{}, \GRIP{}, \BFFT{}, etc.) so the reader
can see at a glance which terms belong to the \GGTheory{} program
proper. Standard physics abbreviations imported from the wider
literature (KK, RS, QFT, TOV, etc.) are rendered in plain uppercase
Roman, following the convention of the major physics journals.
Mathematical objects are in roman or italic in the usual way.

{\footnotesize
\begin{longtable}{@{}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.153\linewidth} >{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.538\linewidth} >{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.230\linewidth}@{}}
\caption[Summary of abbreviations used in the present paper.]{The program's shared vocabulary, with each name's meaning and the place it is introduced in full. The table is cohort-wide rather than paper-local, so it also carries names this paper does not itself use. Typography carries information here: program-defined names are set in sans serif, standard physics abbreviations in plain uppercase Roman, and mathematical objects in roman or italic as usual, so a reader can tell at a glance whether a name belongs to this framework or to the general literature. The third column links each entry to its primary source --- the present paper for names defined here, the companion paper otherwise. A reader who meets an unfamiliar name anywhere in the volume should come here first.}
\label{tab:appA-abbrev}\\
\toprule
\textbf{Symbol} & \textbf{Meaning} & \textbf{Primary link} \\
\midrule
\endfirsthead

\multicolumn{3}{c}{\itshape Table~\ref{tab:appA-abbrev} continued from previous page}\\
\toprule
\textbf{Symbol} & \textbf{Meaning} & \textbf{Primary link} \\
\midrule
\endhead

\midrule
\multicolumn{3}{r}{\itshape continued on next page}\\
\endfoot

\bottomrule
\endlastfoot

\multicolumn{3}{l}{\itshape Framework name and core program objects} \\
\midrule
\GGTheory{} & Grand Geometric Theory (also: Geometry-Gauge Equivalence Theory) & \AOne{}, Preface \\
\GGConstitution{} & The constitutional charter of the \GGTheory{} program: four axioms (\AX{1}--\AX{4}) and seven postulates (\POS{1}--\POS{7}) & \AOne{}, \S 4--\S 5 \\
\GG{} & Geometry-Gauge locking in six dimensions: the 6D bulk (this paper) & \ATwo{}, \S 12 (\T{-GG6-1}) \\
\GDOS{} & Geometric Dynamics of Open Systems: the boundary law implied by \OGGEP{} & \AFive{} \\
\BIsix{} & Green--Schwarz-modified Bianchi identity at 6D & \AThree{}, \S 5 \\
\OGNfive{} & Occam-Gauge-Normalization 5-integer ledger $(M, N, L; J, K) = (1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$ & \AThree{}, \S 9; \T{-GG6-6} \\
\QGL{} & Quadruple Gauge Locking: the four-factor bulk gauge group $\Spinone \times \SU(5) \times \U(1)_B \times \U(1)_{Qi}$ & \ATwo{}, \S 14 (\T{-GG6-3}) \\
\GiFour{} & Geometric-Invariance four-pillar structure (\TGG{}, \CCI{}, \GFF{}, \GRIP{}) & \ASix{} \\
\QiFour{} & Quantum-Information four-pillar structure (\QiQUA{}, \QiEP{}, \QiCON{}, \QiHAL{}) & \ASeven{} \\
\midrule

\multicolumn{3}{l}{\itshape Four axioms (\AX{1}--\AX{4})} \\
\midrule
\AXkw{} & Axiom (axiomatic primitive; non-negotiable) & \AOne{}, \S 1.5 \\
\LC{} & \AX{1} Locality and Causality & \AOne{}, \S 4.2 \\
\GGEP{} & \AX{2} Geometry--Gauge Equivalence Principle & \AOne{}, \S 4.3 \\
\OGGEP{} & \AX{3} Operational/Open Geometry--Gauge Equivalence Principle (boundary observation dictionary) & \AOne{}, \S 4.4 \\
\MSMF{} & \AX{4} Maximum Symmetry, Minimum Freedom (no hidden continuous knobs) & \AOne{}, \S 4.5 \\
\midrule

\multicolumn{3}{l}{\itshape Seven postulates (\POS{1}--\POS{7})} \\
\midrule
\POSkw{} & Postulate (admissibility filter; testable in principle) & \AOne{}, \S 1.5 \\
\GI{} & \POS{1} Gauge invariance across scales (\LGI{} / \DGI{} / \GGI{}) & \AOne{}, \S 5.3 \\
\UEP{} & \POS{2} Unified Extremal Principle (PLA $\Leftrightarrow$ PLT / \MEPP{} / FEP) & \AOne{}, \S 5.4 \\
\AF{} & \POS{3} Anomaly Freedom and cancellability by inflow & \AOne{}, \S 5.5 \\
\CP{} & \POS{4} Closure and Positivity (CPTP-admissible open dynamics) & \AOne{}, \S 5.6 \\
\RG{} & \POS{5} Renormalization-Group covariance (scale covariance) & \AOne{}, \S 5.7 \\
\OGN{} & \POS{6} Occam Gauge Normalization (canonical integer/rational normalization; \emph{formerly} MRHN) & \AOne{}, \S 5.8 \\
\MF{} & \POS{7} Measurement and Falsifiability (operational contract + kill criteria) & \AOne{}, \S 5.9 \\
\LGI{} & Local Gauge Invariance (microscopic / closed-system layer of \GI{}) & \AOne{}, \S 5.3 \\
\GGI{} & Global Gauge Invariance (macroscopic / ledger layer of \GI{}) & \AOne{}, \S 5.3 \\
\midrule

\multicolumn{3}{l}{\itshape \GiFour{} pillars} \\
\midrule
\TGG{} & Total Geometric--Gauge object (Pillar I of \GiFour{}) & \ASix{} \\
\CCI{} & Covariant Conservation Identity (Pillar II of \GiFour{}) & \ASix{} \\
\GFF{} & Geometric Free-Energy Functional (Pillar III of \GiFour{}; \emph{absorbs the legacy} EEGG \emph{ledger}) & \ASix{} \\
\GRIP{} & Gauge-Runtime Invariance Pipeline (Pillar IV of \GiFour{}) & \ASix{} \\
\GEP{} & Geometry--Gauge Energy Principle (energetic block of \GFF{}; \emph{formerly} EGG) & \ASix{} \\
\CEP{} & Curvature--Entropy Principle (entropic block of \GFF{}) & \ASix{} \\
\DGI{} & Dynamical Gauge Invariance (initial stage of \GRIP{}) & \ASix{} \\
\GSSB{} & Geometric Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking (middle stage of \GRIP{}) & \ASix{} \\
\GA{} & Geometric Attractor (final stage of \GRIP{}) & \ASix{} \\
\midrule

\multicolumn{3}{l}{\itshape \QiFour{} pillars} \\
\midrule
\QiQUA{} & Quantum information for \QGL{} (Quadruple Gauge Locking) -- Pillar I of \QiFour{} & \ASeven{} \\
\QiEP{} & Quantum information for the \UEP{} (Unified Extremal Principle) -- Pillar II of \QiFour{} & \ASeven{} \\
\QiCON{} & Quantum information for Conformal Invariance -- Pillar III of \QiFour{} & \ASeven{} \\
\QiHAL{} & Quantum information for the Holographic Attractor Lattice -- Pillar IV of \QiFour{} & \ASeven{} \\
\OH{} & Outer Hologram (boundary projection of bulk data; outward face of \EIC{}) & \ASeven{} \\
\IH{} & Inner Hologram (inner self-modeling layer; inward face of \EIC{}) & \ASeven{} \\
\EIC{} & Evolving Inner Cosmos (boundary completion of \QiFour{} as the \OH{}${+}$\IH{} composite) & \ASeven{} \\
\midrule

\multicolumn{3}{l}{\itshape Open-system / extremal-principle sub-acronyms} \\
\midrule
FEP & Free Energy Principle (boundary inference avatar of \UEP{}) & \ASeven{}, \QiEP{} \\
\MEPP{} & Maximum Entropy Production Principle (heuristic boundary avatar of \UEP{}) & \ASeven{}, \QiEP{} \\
PLA & Principle of Least Action (closed/bulk avatar of \UEP{}; standard variational dynamics) & \ASeven{}, \QiEP{} \\
PLT & Principle of Least Time (operational/boundary avatar of \UEP{}; fastest lawful path) & \ASeven{}, \QiEP{} \\

\multicolumn{3}{l}{\itshape \QiHAL{} acronyms} \\
\midrule
\MePMoS{} & Memory--Prediction--Motion Sensing & \ASeven{}, \QiHAL{} \\
\NHT{} & Neural Holographic Tomography & \ASeven{}, \QiHAL{} \\
\HAL{} & Holographic Attractor Lattice & \ASeven{}, \QiHAL{} \\
\QHAL{} & Quadratic / Cubic \HAL{} & \ASeven{}, \QiHAL{} \\
\BFFT{} & Binary Fourier / Fractal Fourier Transform & \ASeven{}, \QiHAL{} \\
\midrule

\multicolumn{3}{l}{\itshape \GDOS{}-internal acronyms (program-defined)} \\
\midrule
\SIP{} & System Instance Packet (canonical \GDOS{} input unit) & \AFive{} \\
\SeOS{} & Selfish Open System & \AFive{} \\
\midrule

\multicolumn{3}{l}{\itshape Program-defined mathematical symbols} \\
\midrule
$\QB$ & Quantum-information Bit -- the energy--information Arisaka constant $\QB \approx 0.1555$~eV per qubit; & \ATwo{}, \S 19 (\T{-GG6-8}) \\

\\

\multicolumn{3}{l}{\itshape Standard physics abbreviations (plain Roman, journal convention)} \\
\midrule

\multicolumn{3}{l}{\itshape \quad Open-system / quantum-channel formalism} \\
\midrule
CPTP & Completely Positive Trace-Preserving (channel admissibility for open evolution; \AX{3}/\POS{4}) & --- \\
GKLS & Gorini--Kossakowski--Lindblad--Sudarshan (master equation for Markovian CPTP semigroups; \POS{4}) & --- \\
GNS & Gelfand--Naimark--Segal (construction) & --- \\
NZ & Nakajima--Zwanzig (memory-kernel projection for non-Markovian open dynamics) & --- \\
POVM & Positive Operator-Valued Measure (generalized measurement model; \AX{3}/\POS{7}) & --- \\
\midrule

\multicolumn{3}{l}{\itshape \quad Quantum and classical foundational theories} \\
\midrule
BRST & Becchi--Rouet--Stora--Tyutin (cohomology) & --- \\
GR & General Relativity & --- \\
QCD & Quantum Chromodynamics & --- \\
QED & Quantum Electrodynamics & --- \\
QFT & Quantum Field Theory & --- \\
QM & Quantum Mechanics & --- \\
WCS & Wu--Chern--Simons (differential cohomology) & --- \\
\midrule

\multicolumn{3}{l}{\itshape \quad Standard Model and beyond} \\
\midrule
EFT & Effective Field Theory & --- \\
EW & Electroweak & --- \\
GUT & Grand Unified Theory & --- \\
SM & Standard Model of particle physics & --- \\
SSB & Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking (closed-system; generalized by \GSSB{}) & --- \\
SUSY & Supersymmetry & --- \\
\midrule

\multicolumn{3}{l}{\itshape \quad Higher-dimensional constructions} \\
\midrule
AdS & Anti--de Sitter spacetime & --- \\
AdS/CFT & Anti--de Sitter / Conformal Field Theory correspondence & --- \\
CFT & Conformal Field Theory & --- \\
KK & Kaluza--Klein (mode expansion / dimensional reduction) & --- \\
RS & Randall--Sundrum (warped extra-dimension model) & --- \\
\midrule

\multicolumn{3}{l}{\itshape \quad Quantum gravity and cosmology} \\
\midrule
$\Lambda$CDM & Standard cosmological model with cosmological constant + cold dark matter & --- \\
LQG & Loop Quantum Gravity & --- \\
TOV & Tolman--Oppenheimer--Volkoff (equation) & --- \\
\midrule

\multicolumn{3}{l}{\itshape \quad Foundations of quantum mechanics} \\
\midrule
CHSH & Clauser--Horne--Shimony--Holt (inequality) & --- \\
EPR & Einstein--Podolsky--Rosen (paradox / argument) & --- \\
\midrule
\end{longtable}
}


\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\resizebox{0.824\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tikzpicture}[
 font=\sffamily,
 >=Stealth,
 line width=0.80pt,
 every node/.style={align=center},
 top/.style ={rectangle, rounded corners=3pt, draw=violet!55!black, line width=0.8pt, minimum width=46mm, minimum height=11mm, fill=violet!12, font=\sffamily\bfseries\Large},
 charter/.style ={rectangle, rounded corners=3pt, draw=violet!55!black, line width=0.6pt, minimum width=46mm, minimum height=10mm, fill=violet!8, font=\sffamily\bfseries\large},
 axhead/.style ={rectangle, rounded corners=3pt, draw=red!55!black, line width=0.6pt, minimum width=62mm, minimum height=9mm, fill=red!14, font=\sffamily\bfseries\large},
 posthead/.style ={rectangle, rounded corners=3pt, draw=red!55!black, line width=0.6pt, minimum width=62mm, minimum height=9mm, fill=red!14, font=\sffamily\bfseries\large},
 ax/.style ={rectangle, rounded corners=3pt, draw=red!55!black, line width=0.5pt, minimum width=62mm, minimum height=9mm, fill=red!8, font=\sffamily\normalsize, anchor=center},
 bulk/.style ={rectangle, rounded corners=3pt, draw=orange!55!black, line width=0.6pt, minimum width=32mm, minimum height=11mm, fill=orange!15, font=\sffamily\bfseries\large},
 gdos/.style ={rectangle, rounded corners=3pt, draw=olive!55!black, line width=0.7pt, minimum width=124mm, minimum height=12mm, fill=yellow!18, font=\sffamily\normalsize},
 pillhead/.style ={rectangle, rounded corners=3pt, line width=0.7pt, minimum width=80mm, minimum height=11mm, font=\sffamily\bfseries\large},
 gihead/.style ={pillhead, draw=olive!55!black, fill=green!14},
 qihead/.style ={pillhead, draw=teal!55!black, fill=teal!14},
 pill/.style ={rectangle, rounded corners=2pt, draw=olive!55!black, line width=0.4pt, minimum width=72mm, minimum height=7mm, fill=green!10, font=\sffamily\normalsize, anchor=west},
 pillq/.style ={rectangle, rounded corners=2pt, draw=teal!55!black, line width=0.4pt, minimum width=72mm, minimum height=7mm, fill=teal!12, font=\sffamily\normalsize, anchor=west},
 sub/.style ={font=\sffamily\footnotesize, anchor=west, text width=86mm, align=left},
 qb/.style ={rectangle, rounded corners=3pt, draw=cyan!55!black, line width=0.7pt, minimum width=148mm, minimum height=15mm, fill=cyan!10, font=\sffamily\normalsize},
 arrow/.style ={->, line width=0.7pt, draw=black!65},
 arrowdash/.style ={->, line width=0.6pt, draw=black!50, dashed}
]

% --- Top tier: programme name and charter -----------------
\node[top] (GGT) at (0, 0) {\GGTheory{}};
\node[charter] (GGC) at (0, -16mm) {\GGConstitution{}};
\draw[arrow] (GGT.south) -- (GGC.north);

% --- Tier 2: 4 axioms (left) and 7 postulates (right) -----
\node[axhead] (AXH) at (-52mm, -36mm) {\textbf{4 Axioms} (\textbf{AX-1}\,--\,\textbf{AX-4})};
\node[ax] (AX1) at (-52mm, -48mm) {\textbf{AX-1} \, \textbf{LC} \quad Locality and Causality};
\node[ax] (AX2) at (-52mm, -58mm) {\textbf{AX-2} \, \textbf{GGEP} \quad Geometry-Gauge Equivalence};
\node[ax] (AX3) at (-52mm, -68mm) {\textbf{AX-3} \, \textbf{OGGEP} \quad Operational/Open GGEP};
\node[ax] (AX4) at (-52mm, -78mm) {\textbf{AX-4} \, \textbf{MSMF} \quad Max.\ Symmetry, Min.\ Freedom};

\node[posthead] (POSH) at (52mm, -36mm) {\textbf{7 Postulates} (\textbf{POS-1}\,--\,\textbf{POS-7})};
\node[ax] (P1) at (52mm, -48mm) {\textbf{POS-1} \, \textbf{GI} \;\; (\,\textbf{LGI} \,/\, \textbf{DGI} \,/\, \textbf{GGI}\,)};
\node[ax] (P2) at (52mm, -56mm) {\textbf{POS-2} \, \textbf{UEP} \quad Unified Extremal Principle};
\node[ax] (P3) at (52mm, -64mm) {\textbf{POS-3} \, \textbf{AF} \quad Anomaly Freedom};
\node[ax] (P4) at (52mm, -72mm) {\textbf{POS-4} \, \textbf{CP} \quad Closure and Positivity};
\node[ax] (P5) at (52mm, -80mm) {\textbf{POS-5} \, \textbf{RG} \quad RG covariance};
\node[ax] (P6) at (52mm, -88mm) {\textbf{POS-6} \, \textbf{OGN} \quad Occam Gauge Normalization};
\node[ax] (P7) at (52mm, -96mm) {\textbf{POS-7} \, \textbf{MF} \quad Measurement and Falsifiability};

\draw[arrow] (GGC.south) -| ($(AXH.north) +(0,3mm)$) -- (AXH.north);
\draw[arrow] (GGC.south) -| ($(POSH.north)+(0,3mm)$) -- (POSH.north);

% --- Tier 3: bulk theorems (3 boxes: GG-6, BI-6, OGN-5) ---
\node[font=\sffamily\bfseries\large] (BTL) at (0, -108mm) {Bulk theorems forced by \textbf{AX} + \textbf{POS}};
\node[bulk] (GG6) at (-46mm, -120mm) {\textbf{GG-6}};
\node[bulk] (BI6) at (0mm, -120mm) {\textbf{BI-6}};
\node[bulk] (OGN5) at (46mm, -120mm) {\textbf{OGN-5}};

\draw[arrow] (AX4.south) -- ([yshift=-2mm]BTL.north -| AX4.south);
\draw[arrow] (P7.south) -- ([yshift=-2mm]BTL.north -| P7.south);

% --- Tier 4: GDOS boundary law (only SIP under it) --------
\node[gdos] (GDOS) at (0, -136mm) {\textbf{GDOS} \;\; (Geometric Dynamics of Open Systems on $\partial\mathcal{M}_6$) \;\; \textbf{SIP}};

\draw[arrow] (GG6.south) -- (GDOS.north -| GG6.south);
\draw[arrow] (BI6.south) -- (GDOS.north -| BI6.south);
\draw[arrow] (OGN5.south) -- (GDOS.north -| OGN5.south);

% --- Tier 5a: Pillars headers ----------------------------
\node[gihead] (GiH) at (-46mm, -152mm) {\textbf{Gi-4 Pillars}};
\node[qihead] (QiH) at (46mm, -152mm) {\textbf{Qi-4 Pillars}};

\draw[arrow] (GDOS.south) -| (GiH.north);
\draw[arrow] (GDOS.south) -| (QiH.north);

% --- Tier 5b: Pillars content -----------------------
% Gi-4 box (left) -- 4 pillars + sub-acronyms
\node[pill] (TGG) at (-82mm, -170mm) {\textbf{TGG} \quad Total Geometric--Gauge object};
\node[pill] (CCI) at (-82mm, -179mm) {\textbf{CCI} \quad Covariant Conservation Identity};
\node[pill] (GFF) at (-82mm, -188mm) {\textbf{GFF} \quad Geometric Free-Energy Functional};
\node[sub] at (-82mm, -195mm) {\hphantom{XX}$\downarrow$ \;\textbf{GEP} (energetic) \,$\bullet$ \,\textbf{CEP} (entropic)};
\node[pill] (GRIP) at (-82mm, -204mm) {\textbf{GRIP} \quad Gauge-Runtime Invariance Pipeline};
\node[sub] at (-82mm, -211mm) {\hphantom{XX}$\downarrow$ \;\textbf{DGI} (initial) \,$\bullet$ \,\textbf{GSSB} (middle) \,$\bullet$ \,\textbf{GA} (attractor)};

% Qi-4 box (right) -- 4 pillars + sub-acronyms + EIC
\node[pillq] (QQUA) at (10mm, -170mm) {\textbf{Qi-QUA} \quad Quantum information for \textbf{QGL}};
\node[pillq] (QEP) at (10mm, -179mm) {\textbf{Qi-EP} \quad Quantum information for \textbf{UEP}};
\node[sub] at (10mm, -186mm) {\hphantom{XX}$\downarrow$ \;\textbf{PLT} \,$\bullet$ \,\textbf{MEPP} \,$\bullet$ \,\textbf{FEP}};
\node[pillq] (QCON) at (10mm, -195mm) {\textbf{Qi-CON} \quad Quantum information for Conformal Inv.};
\node[sub] at (10mm, -202mm) {\hphantom{XX}$\downarrow$ \;Conformal \,$\bullet$ \,L\'evy \,$\bullet$ \,Fractal \,$\bullet$ \,$1/f$};
\node[pillq] (QHAL) at (10mm, -211mm) {\textbf{Qi-HAL} \quad Quantum information for the \textbf{HAL}};
\node[sub] at (10mm, -218mm) {\hphantom{XX}$\downarrow$ \;\textbf{MePMoS} \,$\bullet$ \,\textbf{NHT} \,$\bullet$ \,\textbf{HAL} \,$\bullet$ \,\textbf{BFFT}};
\node[pillq] (EIC) at (10mm, -227mm) {\textbf{OH} \,$+$\, \textbf{IH} \,$=$\, \textbf{EIC} \quad (Evolving Inner Cosmos)};
\node[sub] at (10mm, -234mm) {\hphantom{XX}$\downarrow$ \;\textbf{SeOS} (Selfish Open System)};

% --- Tier 6: Q_B + Arisaka equation -----------------------
\node[qb] (QB) at (0, -250mm) {%
$\boldsymbol{\mathsf{Q}_{\mathsf{B}}}$ \;\; --- \;\; Quantum-information Bit \;\; (energy--information Arisaka constant) \\[1.5mm]
\textit{Arisaka equation:} \;\; $\boldsymbol{J_E / \mathsf{Q}_{\mathsf{B}} \,=\, J_e \,=\, J_B \,=\, J_{Qi}}$
};

\end{tikzpicture}
}
\caption[Hierarchy of program-defined acronyms in the \GGTheory{} program.]{How the program's own names are related to each other. The chart is a hierarchy, not a list: the charter sits at the top, the geometry it forces below it, the boundary law below that, and the derived pillars at the foot, so the position of a name on the chart tells the reader what it depends on. Names at the same level are siblings introduced by the same construction. The tiers run: the framework name and its charter at the top; the four axioms and seven postulates that define admissibility; the three bulk objects they force ($\GG$, $\BIsix$, $\OGNfive$); the boundary law $\GDOS{}$ that the bulk projects to via $\OGGEP{}$; the two four-pillar flanks, geometric ($\GiFour$) and quantum-informational ($\QiFour$); and, at the foot, the energy--information constant $\QB$ with the Arisaka equation that locks the four boundary currents. The purpose is orientation rather than definition --- the meanings are in the abbreviations table --- and a reader who has lost track of which name belongs to which layer can recover it here in one glance.}
\label{fig:abbrev-flow}
\end{figure}


\clearpage
%% v7.48 paper-local fallbacks for Dictionary entries (GGA, GRIPin, GRIPout)
\providecommand{\GGA}{\ifmmode\mathsf{GGA}\else\textsf{GGA}\fi}
%% v7.51 --- Dictionary entry format: leftskip-based body indent + hskip
%% outdent on the marker, so the acronym lands at exactly the same column as
%% the B.1/B.2/... subsection numbers (page text margin, column 0).
\renewenvironment{dictentries}{%
 \par\begingroup%
 \setlength{\leftskip}{2em}%
 \setlength{\parskip}{0.4em}%
 \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}%
}{\par\endgroup\par}
\renewcommand{\dictentry}[2]{%
 \par\vspace{1.2em}%
 \noindent\hskip-2em\textbf{\large #1}\enspace\textbf{--- #2}\par%
 \nopagebreak\vspace{0.2em}%
}
\providecommand{\GRIPin}{\ifmmode\mathsf{GRIP\text{-}In}\else\textsf{GRIP-In}\fi}
\providecommand{\GRIPout}{\ifmmode\mathsf{GRIP\text{-}Out}\else\textsf{GRIP-Out}\fi}

\section{Dictionary of Program-Defined Acronyms}
\label{app:dictionary}

This appendix is the \GGTheory{} cohort's program-defined dictionary. It collects forty-five load-bearing acronyms that appear repeatedly across the twenty-two preprints, organized into ten conceptual groups for thematic reading rather than alphabetical lookup. Each entry carries four components: a technically rigorous \textit{Definition} of $\sim$150 words with the key equation, a \textit{Physics intuition} of $\sim$125 words in plain English accessible to philosophers of physics, life scientists, careful undergraduates, and the educated general reader, a pointer back to the entry's first appearance in the body of the present paper, and forward-references to the cohort papers that develop the concept in full.

Standard physics abbreviations imported from the wider literature (KK, RS, QFT, GR, CMB, etc.) are not redefined here; consult any graduate-level textbook for those. The four axioms (\AX{1}--\AX{4}) and seven postulates (\POS{1}--\POS{7}) of the \GGConstitution{} are cataloged under their dotted-acronym names (LC, GGEP, OGGEP, MSMF, GI, UEP, AF, CP, RG, OGN, MF) rather than under the AX-N / POS-N labels, because the dotted-acronym names are how they appear most often in the body. Cross-references to AX-N / POS-N are noted in each entry header.

\medskip
\textit{Reading guide.} Group 1 (Program Identity) and Groups 2 and 3 (Axioms and Postulates) are the constitutional foundations and should be read first. Groups 4 and 5 (Bulk Objects + Boundary Pillars) are the principal technical objects of \ATwo{}. Groups 6 and 7 (GRIP + Qi-4 sub-vocabulary) are the cohort-vocabulary that feeds forward to \ASix{} and \ASeven{}. Group 8 (Bulk-Geometry Technical Objects) collects the algebraic machinery. Groups 9 and 10 (Energy Scales + Cosmology + Structural Classification) are the empirical predictions and the structural readings.


\vspace{2em}
\subsection{Program Identity}
\begin{dictentries}


\dictentry{\GGTheory{}}{The Twenty-two-Paper Program}\label{dict:GGTheory}
\textit{Definition.}\ \GGTheory{} (Grand Geometric Theory; equivalently, Geometry-Gauge Equivalence Theory) is the twenty-two-paper cohort that derives the geometric structure of fundamental physics from the axiomatic \GGConstitution{}. The cohort consists of A1-Constitution (charter), A2-GG6 (this paper; bulk-side derivation), A3-BI6 (anomaly proof), A4-Euclid (historical lineage + universal constants), A5-GDOS (boundary law), A6-GRIP (geometric pillars), A7-Qi4 (information pillars), A8-QM (quantum-mechanics recast), A9-SM (Standard Model), A10-Cosmos (cosmology), A11-Origin (cosmos--life--mind closing capstone), plus the Foundations Branch (P4-Real, P5-CPT), the Predictions Branch (P1-KK, P2-N3, P3-Electron), and the Cosmology \& Astrophysics Branch (C1-Kaxion, C2-Hubble, C3-BH). No paper is independent; the cohort is the single derivation.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ No single paper of the twenty-two completes the program; each carries one rigorously-stated piece of the chain. The point of the cohort architecture is that the chain is auditable: every claim is exposed at a specific paper, in a specific Theorem, with a specific Falsifier. A reader who wants to challenge the program picks a Theorem and challenges its proof; a reader who wants to apply it picks a Prediction and tests it. The twenty-two papers attempt, together, what no single foundational paper of the twentieth century did: write down the entire derivation in plain view.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ See the Title, the Abstract, and throughout the body.

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Cohort architecture diagram (Figure~7 of present paper). Forward and Backward Map in Part~V.

\dictentry{\GGConstitution{}}{The Axiomatic Charter}\label{dict:GGConstitution}
\textit{Definition.}\ The \GGConstitution{} is the axiomatic charter of \GGTheory{}: the four axioms (\LC{}, \GGEP{}, \OGGEP{}, \MSMF{}) and seven postulates (\GI{}, \UEP{}, \AF{}, \CP{}, \RG{}, \OGN{}, \MF{}) on which the entire program rests. Any candidate physical theory enters the framework's admissible class only by satisfying all eleven clauses; the eight Theorems of \ATwo{} (T-GG6-1 through T-GG6-8) show that the admissible class is a single point, the 6D bulk \GG{}. The Necessity-and-Sufficiency Theorem (T-GG6 Section~33) establishes that no clause is removable and no clause is redundant.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ Every great physical theory has an implicit constitution --- a set of background commitments that the working physicist assumes without restating. Newton had three laws. Einstein had general covariance. Standard quantum mechanics has the Born rule and the operator algebra. The \GGConstitution{} is the explicit constitution for the next stage of fundamental physics: a written charter that any framework must satisfy. Once written down, it can be challenged, refined, or refuted, and a charter that can be refuted is the only kind worth writing.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ See \S\ref{sec:constitutional-question} (The Constitutional Question and the Euclidean Method).

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full statement of all eleven clauses with historical backgrounds in \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution}. Necessity-and-Sufficiency proof in Section~33 of the present paper.

\dictentry{\GG{}}{The 6D Bulk}\label{dict:GG6}
\textit{Definition.}\ \GG{} is the unique six-dimensional geometric--gauge object that the eleven constitutional clauses of \AOne{} force into existence. The canonical metric is
\begin{equation}
ds_6^2 \;=\; e^{-2r}\,\eta_{\mu\nu}\,dx^\mu dx^\nu + dr^2 + d\theta^2, \qquad r \in [0, K], \quad \theta \in [0, 2\pi),
\label{eq:dict-GG6-metric}
\end{equation}
with $K = 35$ the integer scale depth from \OGNfive{}. The bulk gauge group is $\Spinone\times\SUfive\times\UoneB\times\UoneQi$ (Theorem~T-GG6-3). The metric has no continuous parameters ($k$, $r_c$, $R_\theta$ of conventional Randall--Sundrum constructions are absorbed as unit-conversion artifacts under \MSMF{}). \GG{} sits at the Stratum-4 apex of the constitutional tower.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ \GG{} is the geometric heart of the framework. Picture a six-dimensional manifold with four ordinary spacetime dimensions plus two extras: a radial direction that carries the renormalization-group flow (the scale profile), and a small angular circle that carries the gauge structure. This is not the spacetime of conventional physics, not the spacetime of Kaluza--Klein, not the spacetime of string compactifications. It is the unique geometric object the Constitution permits, and every prediction of the framework ultimately reduces to a computation on \GG{}.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ See the Title and the entire body of the present paper.

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Boundary projection in \citep{ArisakaA5GDOS}. Anomaly proof in \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}. Universal-constant reconstruction in \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid}.
\end{dictentries}


\vspace{2em}
\subsection{The Four Axioms}
\begin{dictentries}


\dictentry{LC}{Locality and Causality (\AX{1})}\label{dict:LC}
\textit{Definition.}\ LC is the first constitutional axiom of \GGTheory{}. It requires admissible evolution to be local and causal in the operational sense: registered boundary updates are retarded, and no admissible effective kernel depends on data outside the causal past of the registration event. Formally:
\begin{equation}
K(x, y) \;=\; 0 \quad\text{if } x \notin J^+(y),
\label{eq:dict-LC}
\end{equation}
where $K(x, y)$ is the response kernel and $J^+(y)$ is the causal future of $y$. LC underwrites the Lorentzian signature of the boundary $\mathcal{M}_4$, cooperates with \AX{2} (\GGEP{}) to put the Lorentz factor on a gauge-theoretic footing as $\Spinone$, and is the constitutional source of the speed of light $c$ as a conversion factor.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ No signal travels faster than light; no effect precedes its cause. These two principles, deeply embedded in special and general relativity, are what LC formalizes at the constitutional level. Without LC the framework would admit non-Lorentzian boundary structures that the empirical record does not support. With LC, the boundary 4D theory inherits Lorentz invariance from the bulk, with the Spin(1,5) gauge factor as the structural ingredient that delivers it.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ See \S\ref{sec:axioms} (AX-1 Physical Intuition).

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full statement in \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution} §2.2.

\dictentry{\GGEP{}}{Geometry-Gauge Equivalence Principle (\AX{2})}\label{dict:GGEP}
\textit{Definition.}\ \GGEP{} is the second constitutional axiom of \GGTheory{}. It asserts that gravity and the gauge interactions are facets of a single composite connection on a principal bundle over the bulk manifold:
\begin{equation}
\cA \;=\; \omega \oplus A^{(5)} \oplus A^{(B)} \oplus A^{(Qi)},
\label{eq:dict-GGEP}
\end{equation}
where $\omega$ is the spin connection ($\Spinone$ gauge factor for gravity in the Cartan formulation) and the three $A$'s are the gauge potentials of $\SUfive$, $\UoneB$, $\UoneQi$. \GGEP{} is the constitutional clause that geometrizes gauge rather than quantizing gravity. It cooperates with \AX{4} to force the 6D bulk and with \POS{1} to force the gauge structure.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ For a century, physicists have tried to bring gravity into the quantum framework. Einstein's general relativity treats gravity as the curvature of spacetime; Yang--Mills treats gauge as a field on spacetime. \GGEP{} reverses Einstein's program one step further: instead of trying to quantize gravity, it geometrizes the gauge interactions, putting both on the same footing as curvatures of a single composite connection. The framework is named after that innovation.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ See \S\ref{sec:axioms} (AX-2 Physical Intuition).

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full statement in \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution} §2.3. Theorem-level consequence in T-GG6-3 (Six Forces) of the present paper.

\dictentry{OGGEP}{Operational/Open Geometry-Gauge Equivalence Principle (\AX{3})}\label{dict:OGGEP}
\textit{Definition.}\ OGGEP is the third constitutional axiom of \GGTheory{}. It extends \GGEP{} (\AX{2}) from the closed bulk theory to the open boundary theory by introducing a bulk--boundary correspondence $\mathcal{D}$ between the bulk gauge--gravity content and the boundary observables. Formally,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{D}\colon \mathcal{H}_6 \;\to\; \mathcal{H}_4 \otimes \mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{env}}, \qquad \rho_4 = \mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{env}}\big[\mathcal{D}(\rho_6)\big],
\label{eq:dict-OGGEP}
\end{equation}
realizing a CPTP partial-trace projection from the bulk Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_6$ to the boundary $\mathcal{H}_4$ tensored against an inaccessible environment $\mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{env}}$. OGGEP is the constitutional source of the open-system structure on the boundary (\GDOS{}), of quantum measurement (the projection is the measurement), and of decoherence.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ What an observer registers in a laboratory is not the bulk theory in its entirety but the bulk theory projected to the boundary. OGGEP is the formal statement of this projection. The "measurement problem" of quantum mechanics --- why a Schrödinger-evolved superposition collapses when observed --- has, in this framing, a structural answer: the boundary observer is not seeing the bulk state; they are seeing its OGGEP projection, and the projection is non-unitary by construction.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ See \S\ref{sec:axioms} (AX-3 Physical Intuition).

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full statement in \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution} §2.4. Boundary projection structure in \citep{ArisakaA5GDOS}. Worked example in Appendix~\ref{app:nz} of the present paper.

\dictentry{MSMF}{Maximum Symmetry, Minimum Freedom (\AX{4})}\label{dict:MSMF}
\textit{Definition.}\ MSMF is the fourth constitutional axiom of \GGTheory{}. It requires admissible frameworks to maximize the realized symmetry of the theory while minimizing the number of continuous free parameters. Operationally,
\begin{equation}
\dim(\text{moduli space of admissible theories}) \;=\; 0,
\label{eq:dict-MSMF}
\end{equation}
i.e., the admissible class is a single point in any continuous-parameter space. Integer-discrete parameters (the \OGNfive{} ledger) are permitted; continuous parameters are forbidden. MSMF is the principal anti-landscape clause of the constitution: it eliminates the $\sim 10^{500}$ vacuum problem of string theory by axiomatic disqualification rather than by selection.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ Most candidate theories of fundamental physics carry many continuous free parameters that must be tuned to match the data. MSMF rules this out at the constitutional level: no continuous \emph{dimensionless} parameter survives unless it is forced by an explicit constitutional clause, and the constitutional skeleton retains no free parameter --- only a choice of overall unit scale (set by $G_N$, with $M_6$ a derived combination; Proposition~\ref{prop:parameter-counting}). The price is that the framework is highly constrained and quickly falsifiable; the benefit is that the cohort's numerical anchors are derived as theorems rather than fitted. It is why the cohort program derives $K = 35$ and $J = 7$ in the present paper (Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade}) and the leading-order \OGN{} fine-structure value $\alpha^{-1}(0) = 137$ in the companion paper \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid}.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ See \S\ref{sec:axioms} (AX-4 Physical Intuition).

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full statement in \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution} §2.5. Quantitative consequence (vacuum count = 1) in Section~\ref{sec:vacuum-count-VI} of Part~VI.
\end{dictentries}


\vspace{2em}
\subsection{The Seven Postulates}
\begin{dictentries}


\dictentry{GI}{Gauge Invariance across Scales (\POS{1})}\label{dict:GI}
\textit{Definition.}\ GI is the first constitutional postulate of \GGTheory{}. It requires gauge invariance to be respected at every scale: local (LGI), dynamical (DGI), and global gauge-bookkeeping (GGI). The current density of every gauged factor must be covariantly conserved across the entire RG trajectory:
\begin{equation}
D_\mu J^{\mu}_a \;=\; 0 \quad\text{at every scale } \mu,
\label{eq:dict-GI}
\end{equation}
modulo anomalies canceled by \AF{} (\POS{3}) plus \BIsix{} inflow. GI cooperates with \POS{6} (\OGN{}) to force integer-quantized Wilson-line phases on the compact angular direction $S^1_\theta$, which is the Hosotani breaking pattern that produces the boundary Standard-Model gauge group.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ Conservation laws are not promised in physics; they must be earned. GI says: every gauge symmetry of the framework must remain a symmetry as we coarse-grain from high energy to low energy. This is more demanding than ordinary gauge invariance, which need only hold at one scale. Across scales, the requirement forces specific integer structure on the boundary observables and rules out a vast number of otherwise-admissible candidate theories.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ See \S\ref{sec:postulates} (POS-1 Physical Intuition).

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full statement in \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution} §3.3.

\dictentry{UEP}{Unified Extremal Principle (\POS{2})}\label{dict:UEP}
\textit{Definition.}\ UEP is the second constitutional postulate of \GGTheory{}. It requires the bulk dynamics to be derivable from a single variational principle: the action $S_6$ of the composite connection $\cA$ on the 6D bulk, with the equations of motion obtained by $\delta S_6 / \delta \cA = 0$. UEP has four boundary avatars:
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{PLA} \Leftrightarrow \mathrm{PLT} \Leftrightarrow \mathrm{MEPP} \Leftrightarrow \mathrm{FEP},
\label{eq:dict-UEP}
\end{equation}
the principles of least action (closed-system), least time (operational/boundary), maximum entropy production (heuristic), and the free-energy principle (biological inference). UEP cooperates with \AX{2} (\GGEP{}) to put gravity and gauge on a single variational footing.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ Every successful physical theory has at its heart a variational principle: nature chooses the configuration that extremizes a single functional. Newton, Lagrange, Hamilton, Einstein, Yang--Mills --- all worked with variational principles. UEP is the constitutional requirement that the framework descend from one such principle, and the four boundary avatars are the different operational forms (closed dynamics, operational time, statistical heuristic, biological inference) the principle takes in different contexts.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ See \S\ref{sec:postulates} (POS-2 Physical Intuition).

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full statement in \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution} §3.4. Boundary projection as Qi-EP in \citep{ArisakaA7Qi4}.

\dictentry{AF}{Anomaly Freedom (\POS{3})}\label{dict:AF}
\textit{Definition.}\ AF is the third constitutional postulate of \GGTheory{}. It requires admissible chiral gauge theories on the bulk to be free of all gauge, gauge--gravitational, and mixed anomalies, with cancellation realized through the Green--Schwarz inflow mechanism on the modified Bianchi identity \BIsix{}:
\begin{equation}
dH_3 \;=\; X_4 \;=\; \tr(R\wedge R) - \Tr(F_5\wedge F_5) - \tfrac{2}{5}F_B^2 - \tfrac{2}{5}F_{Qi}^2.
\label{eq:dict-AF-BI6}
\end{equation}
The Wilson coefficient of any operator violating gauge invariance is forced to zero at all orders. AF cooperates with \AX{2} (\GGEP{}) to admit only chiral gauge theories that cancel via single-tensor factorization, and with \POS{6} (\OGN{}) to lock the coefficient ratio $-2/5$ from the $\SU(5)$ representation-theoretic trace-ratio identity.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ Imagine the bulk composite gauge--gravity connection as a smooth fabric draped across the 6D manifold. A gauge anomaly is a snag in the fabric --- a place where the differential geometry fails to stitch together under a symmetry's local action. AF demands that all such snags be closed via the topological darning needle of Green--Schwarz inflow. The pay-off is that the bulk gauge content is forced to take a very specific form (the four-factor $\Spinone\times\SUfive\times\UoneB\times\UoneQi$ structure of Theorem~T-GG6-3) and that the boundary 4D theory inherits a clean Slavnov--Taylor identity at the quantum level.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ See \S\ref{sec:postulates} (POS-3 Physical Intuition).

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full local and global anomaly proof in \citep{ArisakaA3BI6} across its twelve theorems (the T-BI6 series). Triangle-anomaly accounting in Appendix~\ref{app:anomaly} (Anomaly Coefficients).

\dictentry{CP}{Closure and Positivity (\POS{4})}\label{dict:CP}
\textit{Definition.}\ CP is the fourth constitutional postulate of \GGTheory{}. It requires admissible boundary dynamics to be completely positive trace-preserving (CPTP), i.e., the boundary state $\rho_4(t)$ must evolve under a quantum dynamical semigroup whose generator $\mathfrak{L}_4$ has the GKLS form
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{L}_4\rho \;=\; -\ii [H_{\mathrm{eff}}, \rho] + \sum_k \gamma_k\big(L_k \rho L_k^\dagger - \tfrac{1}{2}\{L_k^\dagger L_k, \rho\}\big), \qquad \gamma_k \geq 0.
\label{eq:dict-CP-GKLS}
\end{equation}
The non-negative Kossakowski rates $\gamma_k$ encode irreversible information flow from boundary to environment. CP forces the existence of a CPTP dictionary $\cD$ realizing the \OGGEP{} projection (\AX{3}) as a Stinespring dilation. Together with \AX{3}, it makes the open-system framework of Davies, Lindblad, Gorini--Kossakowski--Sudarshan the natural language of the boundary theory.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ Quantum mechanics in a closed system is reversible: the state evolves unitarily and information is preserved. Open quantum systems are irreversible: information leaks from the observed sub-system into the environment. CP is the requirement that this leakage be physically consistent --- that probabilities remain positive, that total probability is conserved, and that the dynamics composes correctly under coarse-graining. In \GGTheory{} the boundary 4D theory is open by virtue of \AX{3}, and CP is what makes the open-system structure rigorous.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ See \S\ref{sec:postulates} (POS-4 Physical Intuition).

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full development in \citep{ArisakaA5GDOS} as T-GDOS-1 through T-GDOS-3. Detailed worked example in Appendix~\ref{app:nz} (Nakajima--Zwanzig + OGGEP Channel) of the present paper.

\dictentry{RG}{Renormalization-Group Covariance (\POS{5})}\label{dict:RG}
\textit{Definition.}\ RG is the fifth constitutional postulate of \GGTheory{}. It requires the framework to be covariant under the renormalization-group flow:
\begin{equation}
\mu \frac{d}{d\mu} \mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{eff}}(\mu) \;=\; \beta\big[\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{eff}}(\mu)\big],
\label{eq:dict-RG}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{eff}}(\mu)$ is the effective action at scale $\mu$ and $\beta$ is the Wilsonian flow generator. RG promotes the radial coordinate $r$ of the bulk to RG-scale: $r = \ln(E_{\mathrm{GUT}}/\mu)$, with the UV boundary at $r = 0$ and the IR boundary at $r = K$. RG cooperates with \AX{4} (\MSMF{}) to forbid free continuous parameters from appearing as integration constants of the RG flow.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ Physics looks different at different energy scales. RG is the formal description of how the laws transform under coarse-graining. In \GGTheory{} this transformation is geometric: the radial direction of the bulk is the RG-scale axis, and motion along the radial direction is literal motion in energy scale. Picture~1 of Part~III turns on exactly that move: the radial extra dimension is not a fifth dimension of space but the log-scale axis of the boundary RG flow.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ See \S\ref{sec:postulates} (POS-5 Physical Intuition).

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full statement in \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution} §3.7. Geometric realization as Picture 1 of Part III of the present paper.

\dictentry{OGN}{Occam Gauge Normalization (\POS{6})}\label{dict:OGN}
\textit{Definition.}\ OGN is the sixth constitutional postulate of \GGTheory{}. It requires the framework to select the canonical integer/rational normalization of every gauge factor: the smallest integer (or simplest rational) consistent with the constitutional clauses. In symbolic form,
\begin{equation}
n_{\mathrm{select}} \;=\; \min_{n \in \Z_{>0}} \{n : n \text{ admissible under all other clauses}\},
\label{eq:dict-OGN}
\end{equation}
applied to every choice of integer parameter in the framework. OGN is the principal source of the \OGNfive{} ledger $(M, N, L; J, K) = (1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$: each integer is the smallest admissible value at its step in the Diophantine cascade. OGN cooperates with \AX{4} (\MSMF{}) to forbid continuous parameters and select integer alternatives.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ Occam's razor in the constitutional form: when a parameter must be a positive integer, take the smallest one. This is not an aesthetic preference; it is a structural commitment that, combined with the geometric closure, forces the framework's numerical predictions. Without OGN the framework would admit infinite families of integer parameters; with OGN, the integers are picked off one by one in a specific cascade, and the result is the \OGNfive{} ledger that produces every numerical prediction of the cohort.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ See \S\ref{sec:postulates} (POS-6 Physical Intuition).

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full statement in \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution} §3.8. Full Diophantine cascade in Theorem~T-GG6-6 of the present paper.

\dictentry{MF}{Measurement and Falsifiability (\POS{7})}\label{dict:MF}
\textit{Definition.}\ MF is the seventh constitutional postulate of \GGTheory{}. It requires every admissible framework to carry an explicit operational contract: at least one empirical anchor whose measurement could refute the framework. The Falsifiability clause is formally
\begin{equation}
\exists\, \mathcal{O}_{\mathrm{kill}} \in \text{empirical world} \quad\text{such that}\quad \mathcal{F} \models \neg \mathcal{O}_{\mathrm{kill}} \implies \mathcal{F} \text{ falsified},
\label{eq:dict-MF}
\end{equation}
i.e., the framework $\mathcal{F}$ commits to a non-trivial empirical prediction $\mathcal{O}_{\mathrm{kill}}$ whose negation would refute it. For \GGTheory{} the eight live anchors are the lock cluster $M_{\mathrm{lock}}$, the integer $\alpha^{-1}(0) = 137$, the Kaxion twin-peak, the proton lifetime, the $\pi$-locked cosmology, the energy--information $Q_B$, the trace-ratio $5:2$, and the absence of low-scale superpartners.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ Karl Popper's central insight was that a scientific theory is one that can be wrong --- one that carries empirical anchors visible enough to be tested. MF is the constitutional inclusion of Popper's discipline. Every admissible framework must put itself on the line at the empirical level. Without MF, a beautiful axiomatic system could be unfalsifiable and therefore not science; with MF, the obligation to name what would refute the framework is written into its constitution.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ See \S\ref{sec:postulates} (POS-7 Physical Intuition).

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full statement in \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution} §3.9. The ten Falsifiers under \POS{7} are cataloged in Part~VII of the present paper as F-GG6-1 through F-GG6-10.
\end{dictentries}


\vspace{2em}
\subsection{Bulk Objects and Identities}
\begin{dictentries}


\dictentry{\BIsix{}}{Modified Bianchi Identity in 6D}\label{dict:BI6}
\textit{Definition.}\ \BIsix{} is the Green--Schwarz-modified Bianchi identity for the bulk tensor field $H_3 = dB_2 + (\text{Chern--Simons corrections})$ on the 6D bulk \GG{}:
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;dH_3 \;=\; X_4 \;=\; \tr(R\wedge R) - \Tr(F_5\wedge F_5) - \tfrac{2}{5}F_B^2 - \tfrac{2}{5}F_{Qi}^2.\;}
\label{eq:dict-BI6}
\end{equation}
The four-form $X_4$ is the anomaly polynomial, comprising a gravitational curvature term plus three gauge field-strength terms (one for $\SUfive{}$, one for $\UoneB$, one for $\UoneQi$). The rational coefficients $(1, -1, -2/5, -2/5)$ are forced by the $\SU(5)$ trace-ratio identity $\Tr B_0^2 / \Tr Y_0^2 = 2/5$. The local Slavnov--Taylor cancellation is Theorem~T-GG6-7; the global completion is the subject of \AThree{}.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ The ordinary Bianchi identity $dF = 0$ says: there are no magnetic monopoles (in the relevant sector). \BIsix{} says: the chirally-anomalous gauge content of the bulk is exactly compensated, at every spacetime point, by the curvature of the tensor field $B_2$ via the inflow term. Without \BIsix{} the bulk theory would be quantum-mechanically inconsistent; with \BIsix{}, the consistency is built into the geometry, and the four-component coefficient ratio is exactly what the trace-ratio in $\SU(5)$ representation theory predicts.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ See \S\ref{sec:thm4-bi6} (Theorem~T-GG6-4).

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full local + global anomaly proof in \citep{ArisakaA3BI6} across its twelve theorems (the T-BI6 series), including the Wu--Chern--Simons differential-cohomology refinement.

\dictentry{\OGNfive{}}{The Five-Integer Diophantine Ledger}\label{dict:OGN5}
\textit{Definition.}\ \OGNfive{} is the five-integer ledger of \GGTheory{}:
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;(M,\,N,\,L;\,J,\,K) \;=\; (1,\,3,\,5;\,7,\,35),\;}
\label{eq:dict-OGN5}
\end{equation}
forced as the unique small-integer solution of the dual-lock Diophantine identity $K = LJ = M^2 + N^2 + L^2$. Each integer carries a structural meaning: $M = 1$ is the dimensional-minimality count (Theorem~T-GG6-1); $N = 3$ is the color multiplicity / fermion-generation count; $L = 5$ is the rank of the unification group $\SU(5)$; $J = 7$ is the scale profile closure integer that enters $\alpha^{-1}(0) = 2^J + N^2 = 137$; $K = 35$ is the integer scale depth that fixes $M_{\mathrm{lock}}$ and the Kaxion frequency ratio $\Delta\nu/\nu = 1/35$.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ Every numerical prediction of the twenty-two-paper cohort traces back to these five integers. They are not chosen by hand; they are the unique small-integer Diophantine solution of the constitutional closure identity. The framework's most striking empirical claim --- that no continuous free parameter survives anywhere in the cohort --- rests on the irreducibility of this five-tuple. If the framework's numerical predictions are confirmed within the next decade, the integer ledger is the structural reason; if they fail, the failure points back to the ledger.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ See \S\ref{sec:thm6-ogn-cascade} (Theorem~T-GG6-6).

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full historical reconstruction in \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid}. Diophantine derivation in detail in Theorem~T-GG6-6 of the present paper.

\dictentry{QGL}{Quadruple Gauge Locking}\label{dict:QGL}
\textit{Definition.}\ QGL is the four-factor composite gauge group of the bulk \GG{}:
\begin{equation}
G_{\mathrm{Bulk}} \;=\; \Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi,
\label{eq:dict-QGL}
\end{equation}
listed in the canonical order in which the corresponding curvatures appear in the \BIsix{} four-form $X_4$. The first factor is the spin double cover of the proper orthochronous 6D Lorentz group (gravity via Cartan formulation); the second is the unifying gauge group of the Standard Model; the third gauges baryon number (proton stability as a theorem); the fourth gauges quantum information (the Arisaka equation). QGL is Theorem~T-GG6-3, jointly forced by \AX{2} (\GGEP{}) and \POS{6} (\OGN{}).

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ In the Standard Model, three forces (strong, weak, electromagnetic) are gauged; gravity is treated as separate. In \GGTheory{}, six forces are gauged: the three SM forces plus gravity plus a new baryon-number gauge force plus a new information gauge force. The product structure $\Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$ is what "quadruple gauge locking" names. Each of the four factors carries a specific empirical signature: gravity (curvature), $\SU(5)$ (unification), $\UoneB$ (proton stability), $\UoneQi$ (the Arisaka equation).

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ See \S\ref{sec:thm3-six-forces} (Theorem~T-GG6-3).

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full $\SU(5)$ decomposition + Hosotani breaking pattern in Appendix~\ref{app:su5}. Boundary recovery of SM gauge group in \citep{ArisakaA9SM}.

\dictentry{Arisaka Equation}{Quadruple Gauge Locking of Boundary Currents}\label{dict:arisaka-eq}
\textit{Definition.}\ The Arisaka equation is the boundary statement that the four currents associated with the bulk gauge group $\Spinone\times\SUfive\times\UoneB\times\UoneQi$ are locked to one another by quadruple gauge locking under the \OGGEP{} bulk-to-boundary projection:
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;\frac{J_E}{Q_B} \;=\; J_e \;=\; J_B \;=\; J_{Qi}.\;}
\label{eq:dict-arisaka-eq}
\end{equation}
Here $J_E$ is the boundary energy current (from $\Spinone$), $J_e$ the electric current (from a $\SUfive$ subgroup), $J_B$ the baryon current (from $\UoneB$), and $J_{Qi}$ the informational current (from $\UoneQi$). The conversion factor $Q_B \approx 0.1555$ eV/qubit is fixed by the bulk-to-boundary projection. The equation is Theorem~T-GG6-8.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ In the boundary 4D theory, energy, electric charge, baryon number, and quantum information are not four independent quantities but four faces of one bulk current. The Arisaka equation is the mathematical statement of that unity: count the energy in a system in units of $Q_B$, and you have counted the qubits; count the qubits, and you have counted the baryons. In biology this is the basis of the cellular energy budget; in cosmology it underwrites the conservation laws on the boundary.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ See \S\ref{sec:thm8-arisaka-equation} (Theorem~T-GG6-8).

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ The four sectoral interpretations of the equation are developed in \citep{ArisakaA7Qi4} as the four Qi-4 pillars. The biological recasting (ATP-as-double-qubit-flip) is in \citep{ArisakaA11Origin}.

\dictentry{Arisaka Constant ($Q_B$)}{Energy--information Conversion Factor}\label{dict:QB}
\textit{Definition.}\ The Arisaka constant $Q_B \approx 0.1555$ eV/qubit is the conversion factor between energy and quantum information on the boundary $\UoneQi{}$ current. It is fixed by the Arisaka equation
\begin{equation}
\frac{J_E}{Q_B} \;=\; J_e \;=\; J_B \;=\; J_{Qi},
\label{eq:dict-QB-arisaka}
\end{equation}
which locks the boundary energy current $J_E$ to the boundary information current $J_{Qi}$ through the $\UoneQi$ gauge factor. Its empirical calibration against biological energy currents is developed in (\citealp{ArisakaA7Qi4}; \citealp{ArisakaA11Origin}). $Q_B$ is the fifth member of GU-5 (the Geometric Universal Five Constants) alongside $c$, $G_N$, $\hbar$, $e$.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ $Q_B$ is the price tag in energy that biology pays to flip a single qubit at body temperature. Living cells pay this price by hydrolyzing the energy-carrier molecules of metabolism; the biochemical calibration of that exchange is developed in (\citealp{ArisakaA7Qi4}; \citealp{ArisakaA11Origin}). The framework's claim is that this conversion factor is not a contingent biochemical accident but a constitutional consequence of the bulk $\UoneQi{}$ gauge factor under the boundary projection. Biology, in this reading, is not separate from physics; it is what physics looks like when the $\UoneQi$ current is observed at room temperature.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ See \S\ref{sec:thm8-arisaka-equation} (Theorem~T-GG6-8, Arisaka Equation) and Innovation~I-GG6-8.

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Energy--information calibration at biological temperatures in \citep{ArisakaA7Qi4} in its \QiQUA{} pillar (the T-Qi4 series). Energy--information calibration to biological energy currents in \citep{ArisakaA11Origin} as part of the cosmos--life--mind chain.
\end{dictentries}


\vspace{2em}
\subsection{Boundary Law and Pillar Structures}
\begin{dictentries}


\dictentry{\GDOS{}}{Geometric Dynamics of Open Systems}\label{dict:GDOS}
\textit{Definition.}\ \GDOS{} is the boundary law implied by \OGGEP{} (\AX{3}): the open-system dynamics of the 4D boundary theory, generated by the projected Liouvillian
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{L}_4 \;=\; \mathfrak{L}_4^{(0)} + \mathfrak{D}, \qquad \mathfrak{L}_4^{(0)} = \mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{env}}\big[\mathfrak{L}_6\big],
\label{eq:dict-GDOS}
\end{equation}
where $\mathfrak{D}$ is the dissipator obtained from the bulk-to-boundary partial trace. In the Markovian limit, $\mathfrak{L}_4$ takes the GKLS form (POS-4, CP). \GDOS{} is the bulk-projected open-system runtime on which the four Gi-4 geometric pillars (TGG, CCI, GFF, GRIP) and the four Qi-4 information pillars (Qi-QUA, Qi-EP, Qi-CON, Qi-HAL) operate. Its constitutional source is the cooperation of \AX{3} and \POS{4}.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ The 4D physics we observe in the laboratory is not the full content of the bulk; it is the part that survives the projection from the bulk down to the boundary. \GDOS{} is the formal name for the dynamics of what survives: it is the bulk dynamics, observed by an open-system observer on the boundary. Quantum measurement, decoherence, dissipation, and the arrow of time are all features of the \GDOS{} runtime, derived from the bulk-to-boundary projection rather than added as auxiliary postulates.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ See \S\ref{sec:postulates} (POS-4) and \S\ref{sec:bridge-A5} (Bridge to A5-GDOS).

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full development in \citep{ArisakaA5GDOS} across its thirty theorems (the T-GDOS series). Detailed worked example in Appendix~\ref{app:nz} of the present paper.

\dictentry{Gi-4}{The Four Geometric-Invariance Pillars}\label{dict:Gi4}
\textit{Definition.}\ Gi-4 is the original four-pillar architecture of A6, comprising TGG (Pillar~I, the unified geometry-gauge object), CCI (Pillar~II, the covariant conservation identity), GFF (Pillar~III, the geometric free-energy functional with sub-blocks GEP and CEP), and GRIP (Pillar~IV, the gauge-runtime invariance pipeline). The pillars satisfy the cascade $\TGG{}\Rightarrow\CCI{}\Rightarrow\GFF{}\Rightarrow\GRIP{}$ with compatibility propositions $\mathfrak{C}_{\TGG{}}$, $\mathfrak{C}_{\CCI{}}$, $\mathfrak{C}_{\GFF{}}$, $\mathfrak{C}_{\GRIP{}}$ linking them. At of the present paper, the A6 paper was renamed from A6-Gi4 to A6-GRIP, signaling that GRIP has been promoted from one-of-four to the central concept; the Gi-4 four-pillar concept remains as the structural substrate inside A6 in \ASix{}.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ The four pillars of Gi-4 are four faces of the same bulk geometry, each emphasizing a different structural role. TGG names the object; CCI names the conservation laws it generates; GFF names the energy landscape it admits; GRIP names the cascade dynamics that flows on the landscape. Together they form the geometric backbone of the boundary 4D theory. The promotion of GRIP to the central concept (of A2; A6 restructure pending) reflects that GRIP is the operationally-testable pillar, while TGG/CCI/GFF supply the upstream conditions.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ Referenced throughout from \S\ref{sec:bridge-A6A7}.

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full development in \citep{ArisakaA6Gi4} (now A6-GRIP after rename).

\dictentry{Qi-4}{The Four Quantum-Information Pillars}\label{dict:Qi4}
\textit{Definition.}\ Qi-4 is the four-pillar architecture of \ASeven{}: the quantum-information analogue of the Gi-4 geometric pillars, comprising Qi-QUA (Pillar~I, Quantum Universal Algebra), Qi-EP (Pillar~II, Extremal Principle), Qi-CON (Pillar~III, Conformal Invariance), and Qi-HAL (Pillar~IV, Holographic-Allocentric architecture). Together with Gi-4, the eight pillars constitute the geometric + informational backbone of \GDOS{} and the admissibility filter on every GRIP cascade step. Qi-4 carries the energy--information calibration of the Arisaka constant $Q_B$ and the framework's life-and-mind framing.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ Where Gi-4 names the geometric structure of the bulk-projected boundary, Qi-4 names the information-theoretic structure: how the boundary observer encodes, transmits, and registers the bulk content. Each of the four Qi-4 pillars corresponds to one operational requirement: a quantum-information algebra to express the content, an extremal principle to select the path, a conformal-invariance constraint to enforce scale-freedom, and a holographic-allocentric architecture to organize the observer's representation.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ Referenced from \S\ref{sec:bridge-A6A7} (Bridge to A7-Qi4).

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full development in \citep{ArisakaA7Qi4} across its twenty-five theorems (the T-Qi4 series).
\end{dictentries}


\vspace{2em}
\subsection{GRIP and its Sub-Vocabulary}
\begin{dictentries}


\dictentry{GRIP}{Gauge-Runtime Invariance Pipeline}\label{dict:GRIP}
\textit{Definition.}\ GRIP is the universal cascade engine of \GGTheory{}: a finite, ordered descent on the GFF Morse landscape from the unbroken DGI substrate through a chain of GSSB events to the unique GA at each layer. In symbolic form,
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;\GRIP{} \;:=\; \DGI{} \;\to\; (\GFF{}) \;\to\; \GSSB{} \;\to\; \GGA{},\;}
\label{eq:dict-GRIP}
\end{equation}
with each step saturating the Bogomolnyi bound $\pi k$ and the total cascade action bounded by $S_{\BIsix{}} = 3\pi$. GRIP runs on a System Instance Packet (SIP) and is filtered by the Qi-4 admissibility cluster. At A2-GG6 GRIP was promoted from Pillar~4 of Gi-4 to the central concept of A6 (paper renamed to A6-GRIP).

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ GRIP is how the universe descends, layer by layer, from its high-symmetry beginning to the low-symmetry vacuum we observe. It is not a single instantaneous transition but an ordered cascade of steps, like a ball rolling down a flight of stairs. At each step the universe drops by one quantum of action; at each landing the gauge symmetry breaks in a specific way; at the bottom the configuration locks at the unique Ground Geometric Attractor. The cascade runs 17 times, from the Standard-Model vacuum (layer 0) to the articulation of the constitution itself (layer 16).

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ Referenced throughout from \S\ref{sec:bridge-A6A7}.

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full development in \citep{ArisakaA6Gi4} as T-GRIP-4; iterated 17-layer recursion in \citep{ArisakaA11Origin} as T-Origin.

\dictentry{TGG}{Total Geometric-Gauge Object (Gi-4 Pillar~I)}\label{dict:TGG}
\textit{Definition.}\ TGG is the first of the four Gi-4 Pillars: the unique composite gauge--gravity object on the principal $G_{\mathrm{Bulk}}$-bundle over the 6D bulk \GG{}. It comprises the composite connection $\cA = \omega \oplus A$, the composite curvature $\mathcal{F} = d\cA + \cA \wedge \cA$, and the boundary stress-energy tensor
\begin{equation}
\cT^{\mu\nu}_{\TGG{}} \;=\; \cT^{\mu\nu}_{\mathrm{grav}} + \cT^{\mu\nu}_{\SUfive{}} + \cT^{\mu\nu}_{\UoneB{}} + \cT^{\mu\nu}_{\UoneQi{}},
\label{eq:dict-TGG}
\end{equation}
satisfying the Master Conservation Law $\nabla_\mu \cT^{\mu\nu}_{\TGG{}} = 0$. TGG is the existence-and-uniqueness theorem (Theorem~T-GRIP-1 of \citep{ArisakaA6Gi4}) that establishes the underlying object on which the other three Gi-4 pillars (CCI, GFF, GRIP) operate.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ TGG names the most basic structural object of the bulk: a single composite connection that carries all four sectors of physics (gravity, SU(5), baryon, information) as different facets of one mathematical entity. Before \GGTheory{}, gravity and the gauge forces were treated as different kinds of object; TGG insists they are different facets of the same object. The existence of TGG --- proven rigorously as Theorem~T-GRIP-1 --- is what justifies the whole \GGEP{} framework.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ Referenced from \S\ref{sec:bridge-A6A7}.

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full development in \citep{ArisakaA6Gi4} (now A6-GRIP) as T-GRIP-1.

\dictentry{CCI}{Covariant Conservation Identity (Gi-4 Pillar~II)}\label{dict:CCI}
\textit{Definition.}\ CCI is the second of the four Gi-4 Pillars of \ASix{}. It is the algebraic identity that asserts the simultaneous covariant conservation of all four boundary Ward currents (electric, baryonic, informational, metric) under the bulk-to-boundary projection \OGGEP{}:
\begin{equation}
\nabla_\mu J^{\mu}_a \;=\; 0 \quad\text{for all four sectors } a \in \{Y, B, Qi, \mathrm{metric}\},
\label{eq:dict-CCI}
\end{equation}
modulo the anomaly-inflow term canceled by \BIsix{}. The closure of the four currents under \MSMF{} forces the unique \OGNfive{} integer ledger $(1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$. CCI is paired with TGG (Pillar~I) as its differential algebraic shadow on the boundary; together they generate the master conservation law of the bulk.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ Every conservation law in physics is, in this reading, a face of CCI. The conservation of electric charge, baryon number, energy, and quantum information are not four independent conservation laws but four projections of a single bulk identity into the boundary 4D theory. The picture is one of geometric integrity: nothing leaks out of the bulk under any of the four symmetries, and the leak-free property is what produces the boundary conservation laws as theorems rather than postulates.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ Referenced from \S\ref{sec:bridge-A6A7} (Bridge to A6-GRIP).

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Defined in detail in \citep{ArisakaA6Gi4} as T-GRIP-2 (renamed from T-Gi4-2 at the A6 rename). Differential-cohomology refinement in \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}.

\dictentry{GFF}{Geometric Free-Energy Functional (Gi-4 Pillar~III; with sub-blocks GEP and CEP)}\label{dict:GFF}
\textit{Definition.}\ GFF is the third of the four Gi-4 Pillars: a Lyapunov free-energy functional on the boundary state space that supplies the Morse landscape for the GRIP cascade. It decomposes into two blocks:
\begin{equation}
F_{\mathrm{GFF}} \;=\; F_{\mathrm{GEP}} + F_{\mathrm{CEP}}, \qquad dF_{\mathrm{GFF}}/dt \leq 0,
\label{eq:dict-GFF}
\end{equation}
where GEP (Geometry-Gauge Energy Principle) is the energetic block and CEP (Curvature-Entropy Principle) is the entropic block. Morse-positivity of $F_{\mathrm{GFF}}$ is forced by CCI (Theorem~T-GRIP-3); thermodynamic monotonicity follows from \GDOS{}. Critical points of $F_{\mathrm{GFF}}$ are the named landings of the DGI--GSSB--GA cascade, with the unique global minimum the Ground Geometric Attractor (GGA).

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ Every physical system has a landscape of possible configurations, and the system tends toward configurations of lower free energy. GFF is the specific form this landscape takes on the boundary of \GG{}: an energetic block GEP (how much energy is stored in the bulk gauge configuration) plus an entropic block CEP (how spread out the bulk curvature is over the boundary). The system descends the GFF landscape according to the GRIP cascade, and the bottom of the landscape (the GGA) is what we observe as the empirical vacuum.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ Referenced from \S\ref{sec:bridge-A6A7} (Bridge to A6-GRIP).

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full development in \citep{ArisakaA6Gi4} (now A6-GRIP) as T-GRIP-3. GEP/CEP decomposition details in the same paper.

\dictentry{DGI--GSSB--GA Cascade}{Three Morse Stages of GRIP}\label{dict:DGI-GSSB-GA}
\textit{Definition.}\ The DGI--GSSB--GA cascade is the three-stage Morse-theoretic structure of the GRIP descent: from \emph{DGI} (Dynamical Gauge Invariance, the unbroken substrate in which every gauge equivalence is intact and nothing has yet committed) through \emph{GSSB} (Geometric Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, the branch-selection step) to \emph{GA} (Geometric Attractor, the local minimum of the GFF landscape). Each cascade step saturates the Bogomolnyi bound
\begin{equation}
S_{[2k]\to[2(k-1)]} \;=\; \pi k,
\label{eq:dict-DGI-cascade}
\end{equation}
and the total cascade action is bounded by the \BIsix{} budget $S_{\mathrm{tot}} \leq S_{\BIsix{}} = 3\pi$. The cascade descends through 17 layers (GGA-0 through GGA-16) in the A11-Origin recursive uniqueness theorem.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ The universe does not slide smoothly from the high-energy GUT vacuum to the low-energy Standard-Model vacuum; it descends in an ordered cascade of stages, like a ball rolling down a flight of stairs. Each step costs a definite quantum of action $\pi k$ in natural units, and the total budget is finite. The three named landings DGI, GSSB, and GA correspond to: the unbroken-symmetry context at the top, the broken-symmetry intermediate, and the locked vacuum at the bottom. This cascade structure is what produces the lifetime hierarchy of unstable particles.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ Referenced from \S\ref{sec:bridge-A6A7} (Bridge to A6-GRIP).

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full development in \citep{ArisakaA6Gi4} (now A6-GRIP) as T-GRIP-4. 17-layer cosmos--life--mind cascade in \citep{ArisakaA11Origin}.

\dictentry{GGA}{Ground Geometric Attractor}\label{dict:GGA}
\textit{Definition.}\ The Ground Geometric Attractor is the unique global minimum of the GFF Morse landscape on each cascade stratum. In symbols,
\begin{equation}
\GGA{} \;=\; \arg\min_{\rho \in \mathrm{adm}} F_{\mathrm{GFF}}(\rho),
\label{eq:dict-GGA}
\end{equation}
where the admissibility set is determined by the four Qi-4 filters (Qi-QUA, Qi-EP, Qi-CON, Qi-HAL). The 17-layer GGA chain $\mathrm{GGA}_0$ through $\mathrm{GGA}_{16}$ runs from the Standard-Model gauge group (layer 0) through atoms, molecules, ATP, RNA, DNA, LUCA, eukaryotes, multicellularity, neural circuits, conscious episodes, to the meta-cognitive articulation layer (the present paper). Uniqueness at each layer is the central theorem T-Origin of \AEleven{}.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ At each layer of the universe's complexity --- particle physics, chemistry, biology, cognition --- there is a unique most-stable configuration that the system descends into. The GGA names that unique configuration. The Standard-Model gauge group is the GGA of the first layer; atoms are the GGA of the second; ATP is the GGA of the sixth; conscious episodes are the GGA of the fifteenth. Each GGA is forced rather than chosen, and the chain from GGA-0 to GGA-16 is the inevitable cosmos--life--mind chain.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ Referenced from §65 (Philosophical Closing).

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full 17-layer enumeration and uniqueness theorem in \citep{ArisakaA11Origin} as T-Origin.
\end{dictentries}


\vspace{2em}
\subsection{Qi-4 Sub-Vocabulary}
\begin{dictentries}


\dictentry{Qi-QUA}{Quantum Information for the Quantum Universal Algebra}\label{dict:Qi-QUA}
\textit{Definition.}\ Qi-QUA is the first of the four Qi-4 Pillars (\ASeven{}). It is the quantum-information requirement that the boundary observables form a quantum universal algebra: a C*-algebra with the appropriate operator structure for self-adjoint observables, projective measurements, and CPTP evolution. Qi-QUA is the formal substrate on which the other three Qi-4 pillars (EP, CON, HAL) operate. It cooperates with \POS{4} (\CP{}) to fix the GKLS form of the boundary dynamics and with \AX{3} (\OGGEP{}) to identify the boundary algebra as a partial-trace projection of the bulk.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ Quantum mechanics has a specific operator-algebraic structure: observables are self-adjoint operators, states are density operators, evolution is unitary or CPTP, and measurement is a projective operation. Qi-QUA says this structure is not an axiom of quantum mechanics but a boundary projection of the bulk gauge-invariant content. The familiar Hilbert-space machinery is the bulk's shadow on the boundary.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ Referenced from \S\ref{sec:bridge-A6A7}.

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full development in \citep{ArisakaA7Qi4} in its \QiFour{} pillar theorem (the T-Qi4 series).

\dictentry{Qi-EP}{Quantum Information for the Extremal Principle}\label{dict:Qi-EP}
\textit{Definition.}\ Qi-EP is the second of the four Qi-4 Pillars (\ASeven{}). It is the quantum-information avatar of the Unified Extremal Principle (\POS{2}, UEP): on the boundary, every admissible information transaction proceeds along the extremal path of a quantum-information action functional. Qi-EP has four classical avatars:
\begin{equation}
\text{PLA} \Leftrightarrow \text{PLT} \Leftrightarrow \text{MEPP} \Leftrightarrow \text{FEP},
\label{eq:dict-Qi-EP}
\end{equation}
the principles of least action, least time, maximum entropy production, and the free-energy principle of inference. Qi-EP is the constitutional source of the Friston-style free-energy principle in cognitive neuroscience and of the fastest-lawful-path interpretation of quantum-mechanical observation.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ In Newtonian mechanics a ball rolls along the path that minimizes the action. In Fermat's optics a light ray takes the path of least time. In biology an organism minimizes its variational free energy. Qi-EP says these are not four separate principles; they are four boundary projections of one quantum-information extremal principle on the bulk. Living systems optimize inference because the structure of inference is set by the boundary projection of the bulk dynamics.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ Referenced from \S\ref{sec:bridge-A6A7}.

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full development in \citep{ArisakaA7Qi4} in its \QiFour{} pillar theorem (the T-Qi4 series).

\dictentry{Qi-CON}{Quantum Information for Conformal Invariance}\label{dict:Qi-CON}
\textit{Definition.}\ Qi-CON is the third of the four Qi-4 Pillars (\ASeven{}). It is the quantum-information requirement that the boundary representation respect conformal invariance, expressed as the closure of the boundary Ward identities under scale transformations. Operationally, Qi-CON requires the boundary state to admit a scale-free description across the conformal-Lévy-fractal-$1/f$ hierarchy of representations. It is the constitutional source of the $1/f$ noise observed in biological systems, of fractal scaling in neural-circuit dynamics, and of the conformal invariance of the boundary CFT in the AdS/CFT-analogous reading of \OGGEP{}.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ Many physical and biological systems show "scale-free" behavior: the same statistical patterns appear at every scale of observation. Neural firing rates, heart-rate variability, financial-market fluctuations all exhibit $1/f$ noise. Qi-CON formalizes why this is structural rather than accidental: the boundary representation is constrained to be conformally invariant, and the $1/f$ spectrum is the spectral signature of that invariance. The framework predicts this scaling and ties it to the cosmological-boundary structure.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ Referenced from \S\ref{sec:bridge-A6A7}.

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full development in \citep{ArisakaA7Qi4} in its \QiFour{} pillar theorem (the T-Qi4 series).

\dictentry{Qi-HAL}{Quantum Information for the Holographic-Allocentric Architecture}\label{dict:Qi-HAL}
\textit{Definition.}\ Qi-HAL is the fourth and final Qi-4 Pillar (\ASeven{}). It is the quantum-information specification of the holographic-allocentric architecture on the boundary: the requirement that the boundary observer represent the bulk in an allocentric (world-centered) frame, not an egocentric (self-centered) frame, and that the representation respect the holographic principle (bulk content encoded on a lower-dimensional boundary). Sub-components include MePMoS (Memory-Predictive Multi-Scale state), NHT (Neural Holographic Tomography), HAL itself, and BFFT (Bidirectional Feedback Flow Topology). Qi-HAL underwrites the framework's account of mammalian and human spatial cognition.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ Why do mammals navigate using allocentric cognitive maps (world-centered coordinates) rather than egocentric ones (body-centered)? Why does the hippocampal place-cell system represent the world at the boundary, with each neuron's firing field tiling the environment? Qi-HAL says these are not contingent biological adaptations but structural requirements of the boundary representation under \OGGEP{}. The architecture of mammalian spatial cognition is, in this reading, a boundary signature of the bulk structure.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ Referenced from \S\ref{sec:bridge-A6A7}.

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full development in \citep{ArisakaA7Qi4} in its \QiFour{} pillar theorem (the T-Qi4 series).
\end{dictentries}


\vspace{2em}
\subsection{Bulk-Geometry Technical Objects}
\begin{dictentries}


\dictentry{$\boldsymbol{\Spinone}$}{Bulk Lorentz Spin Group}\label{dict:Spin15}
\textit{Definition.}\ $\Spinone$ is the spin double cover of the proper orthochronous component of the 6D Lorentz group $SO^+(1,5)$. As a real Lie group, $\Spinone$ has dimension $\binom{6}{2} = 15$, of which 5 generators correspond to boosts and 10 to spatial rotations. It is the leading factor of the bulk gauge group $\Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$ via the Cartan formulation, in which gravity is treated as a $\Spinone$ gauge theory of the local Lorentz group rather than as a separate background structure. The accidental isomorphism $\Spinone \cong SL(2, \Quaternion)$ identifies $\Spinone$ as the quaternionic rung of the Lorentz--division-algebra ladder.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ In ordinary 4D physics, the Lorentz spin group $\text{Spin}(1,3)$ acts on Dirac spinors. In 6D, the analogue is $\Spinone$ acting on the bulk fermions. The framework's key move is to treat $\Spinone$ as a gauge factor on the same logical footing as $\SU(5)$, $\UoneB$, $\UoneQi$ --- this is the constitutional content of \GGEP{} (\AX{2}). The Cartan formulation of gravity has been around for a century; the framework's contribution is to make it constitutional rather than optional.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ See \S\ref{ssec:spin15}.

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full spin-geometric machinery in Appendix~\ref{appsec:spin15-foundations}.

\dictentry{$\boldsymbol{SL(2, \Quaternion)}$}{The Quaternionic Isomorphism}\label{dict:SL2H}
\textit{Definition.}\ $SL(2, \Quaternion)$ is the special linear group of $2 \times 2$ quaternionic matrices with unit reduced determinant. The accidental isomorphism
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;\Spinone \;\cong\; SL(2, \Quaternion)\;}
\label{eq:dict-SL2H}
\end{equation}
realizes the Lorentz spin group of the bulk as the quaternionic analogue of $SL(2, \C)$ (the Lorentz spin group of 4D Minkowski) and $SL(2, \R)$ (the Lorentz spin group of 3D Minkowski). The construction is via the Hermitian quaternionic matrix space $\mathrm{Herm}_2(\Quaternion) \cong \R^{1,5}$, with $SL(2, \Quaternion)$ acting by $X \mapsto gXg^\dagger$ and preserving the Lorentzian quadratic form $-\det X$.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ The Lorentz group of our familiar 4D spacetime is described by $2 \times 2$ complex matrices (Pauli matrices). In 6D Lorentzian signature, the analogous group is described by $2 \times 2$ quaternionic matrices. This algebraic upgrade is what makes 6D the natural quaternionic rung of the magic ladder. The framework's Spin(1,5) factor is the quaternionic-numbered cousin of the Spin(1,3) factor of ordinary special relativity --- and it is what enables six-force unification.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ See \S\ref{ssec:spin15} and Appendix~\ref{appsec:spin15-sl2H}.

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full division-algebra exposition in Appendix~\ref{appsec:math-magic-square} of the present paper.

\dictentry{Quaternionic Goldilocks}{$\boldsymbol{d=6}$ as Algebraically Forced}\label{dict:goldilocks}
\textit{Definition.}\ The Quaternionic Goldilocks reading identifies $d = 6$ as the unique algebraically forced minimal dimension for the bulk via the magic Lorentz-division-algebra ladder:
\begin{equation}
\R^{1,2} \leftrightarrow \SLtwoR, \quad \R^{1,3} \leftrightarrow \SLtwoC, \quad \boxed{\R^{1,5} \leftrightarrow \SLtwoH}, \quad \R^{1,9} \leftrightarrow \mathrm{SL}(2, \Octonion).
\label{eq:dict-goldilocks}
\end{equation}
$d = 6$ is the third (quaternionic) rung of the ladder. Among the magic dimensions, $d = 6$ is the unique one that supports a chiral, anomaly-free, non-supersymmetric, single-tensor unification. $d = 4$ admits no anomaly inflow; $d = 10$ requires supersymmetry; $d = 6$ is "just right" --- Goldilocks. This is Innovation~I-GG6-10 of the present paper.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ Why six dimensions and not seven, eight, or eleven? The answer is algebraic: among the four normed division algebras ($\R, \C, \Quaternion, \Octonion$), each one produces a unique Lorentzian spacetime via the Hermitian-matrix construction, and these spacetimes have dimensions $3, 4, 6, 10$. $d = 4$ is too small for anomaly inflow; $d = 10$ is too large and forces supersymmetry; $d = 6$ is the unique middle rung where everything works. No structural reason for $d = 6$ is stronger.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ See \S\ref{sec:point10-goldilocks} (Innovation~I-GG6-10).

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Magic-square completion table in Appendix~\ref{appsec:math-magic-square}. Spin(1,5) foundations in \S\ref{ssec:spin15}.
\end{dictentries}


\vspace{2em}
\subsection{Energy Scales and Predictions}
\begin{dictentries}


\dictentry{$\boldsymbol{M_{\mathrm{lock}}}$}{The IR-Side Lock-Cluster Scale}\label{dict:Mlock}
\textit{Definition.}\ $M_{\mathrm{lock}} \approx 3.85 \pm 0.10$~TeV is the Kaluza--Klein
resonance scale of the radial interval, set by its integer depth
$K = 35$ against the bulk fundamental scale $M_6$:
\begin{equation}
M_{\mathrm{lock}} \;\sim\; M_6\, e^{-K} \times \text{(integer correction)} \;\approx\; 3.85~\text{TeV},
\label{eq:dict-Mlock}
\end{equation}
where the integer correction includes the joint radial-plus-angular spectral structure that produces the lock cluster. The cluster comprises a tight triplet of states from the lowest radial $n = 1$ mode and the angular $\ell = 0, \pm 1$ modes (Appendix~\ref{app:kk}). Detection at HL-LHC or FCC is one of the framework's eight live empirical anchors and is the principal phenomenological signature of the integer-discrete scale depth $K = 35$.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ Imagine the 6D bulk as a long tunnel that narrows exponentially with depth. Where the tunnel terminates at depth $K = 35$, a tight cluster of resonances appears at $\sim 3.85$ TeV --- a kind of "echo" of the bulk geometry at the boundary IR end. Collider experiments are searching for this echo. If they find the triplet at the predicted scale, the framework is confirmed at the empirical level; if no such cluster appears within the experimental reach, the prediction is falsified.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ See \S\ref{sec:thm6-ogn-cascade} (Theorem~T-GG6-6) and Falsifier F-GG6-3.

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Detailed collider analysis in the Predictions Branch paper P1-KK. Full Bessel-spectrum derivation in Appendix~\ref{app:kk} of the present paper.

\dictentry{$\boldsymbol{E_{\mathrm{GUT}}}$}{Unification Scale at the UV Boundary}\label{dict:EGUT}
\textit{Definition.}\ $E_{\mathrm{GUT}}$ is the unification scale of the three Standard-Model gauge couplings, identified in \GGTheory{} with the UV-boundary scale of the 6D bulk at radial coordinate $r = 0$:
\begin{equation}
E_{\mathrm{GUT}} \;\approx\; 2.28 \times 10^{16}~\text{GeV}.
\label{eq:dict-EGUT}
\end{equation}
The radial direction $r$ is identified with RG-scale as $r = \ln(E_{\mathrm{GUT}}/\mu)$, so motion along $r$ is motion in energy scale. The bulk fundamental scale $M_6 \sim M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ is related to $E_{\mathrm{GUT}}$ by the scale-profile integration: $E_{\mathrm{GUT}}$ is a derived intermediate scale on the boundary RG flow, with $M_6$ the structurally primitive bulk scale.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ Conventional grand unified theories treat $E_{\mathrm{GUT}}$ as a derived consequence of the renormalization-group running of the SM couplings. In \GGTheory{} the relationship is inverted: $E_{\mathrm{GUT}}$ is the UV endpoint of the bulk's radial direction, a structural feature of the geometry. The framework's claim is that the three SM gauge couplings really do unify at this scale, and the unification is a consequence of the bulk gauge structure rather than a coincidence.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ See \S\ref{sec:thm1-dimensional} (Theorem~T-GG6-1) and throughout Parts~II--III.

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Precision unification analysis in \citep{ArisakaA9SM} in its precision-unification theorem (the T-SM series).

\dictentry{$\boldsymbol{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}$ and $\boldsymbol{M_6}$}{Planck Mass and Bulk Fundamental Scale}\label{dict:MplM6}
\textit{Definition.}\ $M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ is the conventional reduced Planck mass, $M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2 = 1/(8\pi G_N) \approx (2.4 \times 10^{18}~\text{GeV})^2$. $M_6$ is the bulk fundamental scale, the natural mass scale of the bulk gravitational action. They are related by the scale-profile integration:
\begin{equation}
M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2 \;=\; \frac{\pi M_6^4}{2}\, (1 - e^{-2K}) \;\approx\; \frac{\pi M_6^4}{2} \quad\text{for } K = 35.
\label{eq:dict-Mpl}
\end{equation}
$M_6 \sim M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ at the order-of-magnitude level; the exact relationship is set by the scale depth $K$ and the bulk gauge content. In the boundary observer's frame, $M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ is the derived constant; in the bulk frame, $M_6$ is the structurally primitive scale.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ The Planck mass is famous for being huge ($\sim 10^{19}$ GeV) and for setting the scale at which gravity should become quantum. In \GGTheory{} $M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ is not a fundamental input; it is the integrated effect of the bulk gravitational coupling $M_6$ over the extra dimension. The hierarchy between $M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ and the electroweak scale ($\sim 10^3$ GeV) is not a fine-tuning but a geometric consequence of the scale depth $K = 35$ from \OGNfive{}.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ See \S\ref{sec:thm2-metric} (Theorem~T-GG6-2) and Appendix~\ref{appsec:kk-grav}.

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Hierarchy-problem analysis in \citep{ArisakaA9SM}.

\dictentry{\GUfive{}}{Geometric Universal Five Constants}\label{dict:GU5}
\textit{Definition.}\ The Geometric Universal Five Constants (\GUfive{}) are the five continuous dimensional conversion factors that the bulk geometry of \GG{} supplies to the boundary projection, organized in a (3 bulk + 2 boundary) split:
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;\GUfive{} := \{c,\;G_N,\;\hbar\,;\;k_B,\;Q_B\}.\;}
\label{eq:dict-GU5}
\end{equation}
Each constant corresponds to one structural feature of the framework: $c$ to the Lorentzian signature of the boundary $\mathcal{M}_4$ (space--time conversion); $\hbar$ to the integer mode quantization on the angular $S^1_\theta$ (action quantum per radian, energy--angular-frequency conversion); $G_N$ to the scale-profile integration along the radial direction $I_r$ (mass-energy--curvature conversion); $k_B$ to the boundary thermodynamic Gibbs projection (energy--temperature conversion, supplied by \GDOS{} at the boundary); and $Q_B$ to the $\UoneQi$ gauge-factor projection at the boundary (energy--information-bit conversion, the Arisaka constant). \GUfive{} is paired structurally with \OGNfive{} as a memorable (3 + 2) doubling: \OGNfive{} is the five-integer Diophantine theorem class $(M, N, L; J, K) = (1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$, \GUfive{} is the five-continuous unit class $\{c, G_N, \hbar; k_B, Q_B\}$. Together they exhaust the dimensionful and dimensionless primitive content of the framework.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ For one century, the GU-5 constants $\{c, G_N, \hbar; k_B, Q_B\}$ have been treated as five separate accidents of nature whose values must be measured in independent experiments. \GUfive{} inverts this: each is a conversion factor between two natural-unit descriptions of one structural feature of the bulk geometry, and the framework is parameter-free \emph{precisely because} \GUfive{} is supplied by the geometry rather than fitted to data. Note that the elementary charge $e$ is \emph{not} a member of \GUfive{}: it is determined by $\alpha^{-1}(0) = 2^J + N^2 = 137$ (a theorem of \POS{7} + \OGNfive{}, see Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade}) and the relation $e = \sqrt{4\pi\varepsilon_0\,\hbar\,c\,\alpha}$. Treating $e$ as a primitive would have been a double-counting of $\alpha$. See Common Objection~33 in Part~\ref{sec:common-objections} for the full defense.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ See \S\ref{sec:thm8-arisaka-equation} (the Arisaka equation, where $Q_B$ enters), \S\ref{sec:thm6-ogn-cascade} (where the \OGNfive{} integers force $\alpha^{-1} = 137$), and the Synthesis paragraph in \S\ref{sec:partIII-synthesis} of Part~III.

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full historical reconstruction and parameter-free derivation in \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid}, where \GUfive{} is the central result. Boundary thermodynamic projection that supplies $k_B$ in \citep{ArisakaA5GDOS} (the Gibbs measure on the \GDOS{} state space and its fluctuation-theorem structure). Quantum-information lineage that supplies $Q_B$ in \citep{ArisakaA7Qi4}.

\dictentry{$\boldsymbol{\alpha^{-1}(0) = 137}$}{Integer Part of the Fine-Structure Constant}\label{dict:alpha137}
\textit{Definition.}\ The leading-order \OGN{} relation forces the long-wavelength fine-structure constant's integer part:
\begin{equation}
\alpha^{-1}(0) \;=\; 2^J + N^2 \;=\; 128 + 9 \;=\; 137,
\label{eq:dict-alpha137}
\end{equation}
with $J = 7$ and $N = 3$ from the \OGNfive{} ledger. CODATA 2022 reports $\alpha^{-1}(0) = 137.035999177(21)$; the integer match is exact, and the residual fractional part $\approx 0.036$ is the cumulative contribution of one-loop and higher QED corrections (vacuum polarization, vertex corrections, finite-nucleus-size effects). The relation is one of the framework's eight live empirical anchors: a precision atomic-physics measurement updating the integer part of $\alpha^{-1}(0)$ to a value other than 137 would falsify \POS{6} (\OGN{}) plus the Diophantine cascade of Theorem~T-GG6-6.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ The fine-structure constant $\alpha \approx 1/137$ is the strength of electromagnetism, and its precise value has been a numerological obsession of physicists since Dirac and Eddington. In \GGTheory{} the integer part 137 is not a freedom of the laws but a consequence of the integer ledger that runs through the bulk geometry: the boundary 4D electromagnetic coupling, when measured at zero momentum transfer, is forced by the structure $2^J + N^2$ with $J$ from the scale profile closure and $N$ from the color multiplicity. The framework is exposed to falsification by precision QED measurements.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ See \S\ref{sec:thm6-ogn-cascade} (Theorem~T-GG6-6, \OGNfive{} cascade) and \S\ref{sec:problems-solved} PS-GG6-7.

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full derivation of the formula $\alpha^{-1}(0) = 2^J + N^2$ from the gauge-coupling running plus the Hosotani Wilson-line breaking is carried in \citep{ArisakaA9SM} in its fine-structure derivation (the T-SM series). Historical reconstruction in \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid}.
\end{dictentries}


\vspace{2em}
\subsection{Cosmology, A11 Concepts, Structural Classification}
\begin{dictentries}


\dictentry{$\boldsymbol{\Omega_m = 1/\pi}$}{$\boldsymbol{\pi}$-Locked Cosmological Inventory}\label{dict:OmegaM}
\textit{Definition.}\ The cosmological energy inventory of \GGTheory{}, derived from the boundary projection of the bulk:
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;\Omega_m = \frac{1}{\pi} \approx 0.318, \quad \Omega_\Lambda = 1 - \frac{1}{\pi} \approx 0.682, \quad \Omega_b = \frac{1}{2\pi^2} \approx 0.051.\;}
\label{eq:dict-OmegaM}
\end{equation}
The matter fraction $\Omega_m$, dark-energy fraction $\Omega_\Lambda$, and baryon fraction $\Omega_b$ are pinned by the $\pi$-locked closure of the boundary cosmological partition. Planck 2018 reports $\Omega_m = 0.315 \pm 0.007$, consistent at the percent level. The relation is one of the framework's eight live empirical anchors.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ The standard cosmological model $\Lambda$CDM carries six free parameters that must be measured. In \GGTheory{} the three energy fractions are pinned by the transcendental constant $\pi$, with the integer ledger \OGNfive{} supplying the closure. Picking the precise mathematical constant $\pi$ would seem to be numerology unless one can derive WHY the cosmological partition is $\pi$-locked. The full derivation is the subject of \ATen{}; \ATwo{} cites the result as the structural conclusion of the boundary projection.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ Referenced from \S\ref{sec:problems-solved} (PS-GG6-5) and \S\ref{sec:bridge-A8A9A10} (Bridge to A10-Cosmos).

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full derivation of the $\pi$-locked inventory in \citep{ArisakaA10Cosmos} as T-Cosmos-1 through T-Cosmos-7.

\dictentry{$\boldsymbol{\Delta\nu/\nu = 1/35}$}{Kaxion Twin-Peak Haloscope Signature}\label{dict:kaxion}
\textit{Definition.}\ The Kaxion is a candidate dark-matter axion whose oscillation frequency carries a twin-peak signature with fractional separation
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Delta\nu}{\nu} \;=\; \frac{1}{35},
\label{eq:dict-kaxion}
\end{equation}
where $35 = K$ is the integer scale depth of the \OGNfive{} ledger. The twin-peak structure arises from the joint dynamics of the bulk angular direction $S^1_\theta$ and the radial Wilson-line phase. The prediction is testable at axion-haloscope experiments (ADMX, MADMAX, BREAD) over the next decade and is one of the framework's eight live empirical anchors. The signature is characteristic of the integer-discrete scale closure and cannot be reproduced by a generic axion-like particle.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ Dark matter has been a fifty-year puzzle: it pulls galaxies together gravitationally but has so far refused to interact with any detector. The Kaxion is one specific dark-matter candidate, and the twin-peak signature is its distinctive fingerprint. If a haloscope detects the twin-peak structure at the predicted frequency ratio $1/35$, the framework's integer ledger is empirically confirmed at the cosmological level; if no twin peak appears within the experimental reach, the prediction is falsified. An axion haloscope can end this claim on its own.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ See \S\ref{sec:problems-solved} (PS-GG6-9) and \S\ref{sec:eight-falsifiers} (F-GG6-9).

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full Kaxion cosmology in \citep{ArisakaA10Cosmos} as T-Cosmos-12. Detector-side discussion in the Predictions Branch paper C1-Kaxion.

\dictentry{Stratum-4}{The Apex of the Constitutional Tower}\label{dict:Stratum4}
\textit{Definition.}\ Stratum-4 is the apex of the four-stratum constitutional tower of \GGTheory{}. Each stratum collects geometric realizations of an axiom subset: Stratum-1 (one-axiom realizations, e.g., flat Minkowski), Stratum-2 (two-axiom realizations, e.g., conventional GR), Stratum-3 (three-axiom realizations, e.g., AdS/CFT, the Standard Model), Stratum-4 (full-axiom realizations). The central structural theorem of Part~VI is that Stratum-4 contains exactly one explicit geometric realization: the 6D bulk \GG{}. Conventional unification frameworks (string theory, supergravity, asymptotic safety) sit at Stratum-2 or Stratum-3, missing one or more constitutional clauses.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ Think of the constitutional tower as a four-story building. Each story is a stratum, and the building is constructed by adding constitutional clauses one floor at a time. At the top floor --- Stratum-4 --- only one structure stands: GG-6. Every other unification framework occupies a lower floor. It is why \GGTheory{} positions itself as it does relative to the rest of the 21st-century unification literature: not as one option among many, but as the unique fully-axiomatized candidate.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ See \S\ref{sec:constitutional-flowchart-VI} (Part~VI).

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full master classification ledger in Section~\ref{sec:master-ledger-VI} of Part~VI.

\dictentry{GRIP-In / GRIP-Out}{The Two Cascade Regimes (A11)}\label{dict:GRIP-InOut}
\textit{Definition.}\ GRIP-In and GRIP-Out are the two operational regimes of the GRIP cascade introduced in \AEleven{}. GRIP-In is the within-layer Lyapunov descent: the cascade flows downhill on a fixed GFF landscape, terminating at the unique GGA at the current layer. GRIP-Out is the out-of-equilibrium shock: an external perturbation (cosmic cooling, supernova ejecta, vent batteries, photosynthetic oxygenation, Cambrian arms race, cumulative cultural shock) reorganizes the GFF landscape, opening new basins and forcing the cascade upward to the next layer. The alternation $\GRIPin{} \rightleftarrows \GRIPout{}$ drives the 17-layer cosmos--life--mind chain.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ A ball rolling downhill on a fixed landscape is GRIP-In. But if the landscape itself is shaken --- a new mountain rises, a new valley opens --- the ball must leave its current resting place and find a new attractor. That is GRIP-Out. Every major transition in the history of the universe (cosmic recombination, planetary formation, the origin of life, the Cambrian explosion, the rise of human cognition) is a GRIP-Out event: the landscape was reorganized and the system was forced into a new GGA at a higher layer of complexity.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ Referenced from §65 (Philosophical Closing).

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full development of both regimes in \citep{ArisakaA11Origin} as T-Origin Steps 5--12.

\dictentry{SIP}{System Instance Packet}\label{dict:SIP}
\textit{Definition.}\ The System Instance Packet is the canonical five-field object of \ASeven{} on which the GRIP cascade runs: a tuple
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{SIP} \;=\; \big(\mathcal{M}, g; \text{ports}; \mathcal{L}_{\GDOS{}}; F_{\mathrm{GFF}}, J; (\text{observable}, \text{kill criterion})\big),
\label{eq:dict-SIP}
\end{equation}
comprising the state manifold $\mathcal{M}$ with metric $g$, the I/O ports for boundary observation, the \GDOS{} generator and noise closure, the GFF Lyapunov landscape and locked currents, and the observable plus kill criterion of the falsifiability contract. Each cascade step of GRIP-In maps a SIP to a refined SIP at the next layer of the cascade. SIP is the structural carrier of the 17-layer recursion of \AEleven{}.

\par\smallskip\textit{Physics intuition.}\ At each layer of the universe's cascade --- particle, atom, molecule, cell, organism, mind --- a specific "package" of state-plus-dynamics-plus-observables is well-defined. The SIP names this package. The GRIP cascade is the recursive operation that, given a SIP at one layer, produces the SIP at the next. Without the SIP framing, the recursion would be impossible to state precisely; with it, the layer-to-layer cascade has a definite mathematical content.

\par\smallskip\textit{First appearance.}\ Referenced from §65 (Philosophical Closing) and the cohort chain.

\par\smallskip\textit{Forward references.}\ Full definition in \citep{ArisakaA7Qi4} §6. Recursive use across cascade layers in \citep{ArisakaA11Origin}.
\end{dictentries}

\clearpage
\section{Glossary of Key Symbols}
\label{app:glossary-symbols}
\noindent Table~\ref{tab:glossary-symbols} lists every symbol used in
this paper.

{\small
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.00}
\begin{longtable}{@{}p{0.20\textwidth}p{0.655\textwidth}p{0.06\textwidth}@{}}
\caption[Glossary of key symbols.]{Every symbol used in this paper, with its meaning and the equation where it is defined. The order follows the construction rather than the alphabet --- the bulk and its coordinates first, then the fields on it, then the boundary objects the projection produces --- so reading the glossary in order is a compressed second pass through the geometry. The third column is the one to use when checking a formula in an unfamiliar Part: it points at the definition rather than at a section.}\label{tab:glossary-symbols}\\
\toprule
\textbf{Symbol} & \textbf{Meaning} & \textbf{Eqn.} \\
\midrule
\endfirsthead
\multicolumn{3}{@{}l}{\small\itshape Table~\ref{tab:glossary-symbols}, continued from the previous page.}\\
\toprule
\textbf{Symbol} & \textbf{Meaning} & \textbf{Eqn.} \\
\midrule
\endhead
\midrule
\multicolumn{3}{r@{}}{\small\itshape continued on the next page}\\
\endfoot
\bottomrule
\endlastfoot

$M_6$ & 6D bulk manifold $M_4\times I_r\times S^1_\theta$ & --- \\
$\dd s_6^2$ & Canonical scale-profile metric $e^{-2r}\eta\,\dd x\,\dd x + \dd r^2 + \dd\theta^2$ & \eqref{eq:canonical-metric} \\
$r$ & Radial coordinate, $r\in[0,K]=[0,35]$ & --- \\
$\theta$ & Compact angular coordinate, $\theta\in[0,2\pi)$ & --- \\
$K$ & Total scale length, $K=35$ in \OGNfive{} units & --- \\
$\mathcal A$ & Composite GG connection $\omega\oplus A^{(5)}\oplus A^B\oplus A^{Qi}$ & --- \\
$\mathcal F$ & Composite curvature $\dd\mathcal A + \mathcal A\wedge\mathcal A$ & \eqref{eq:math-curvature} \\
$R[\omega]$ & Spin-connection curvature 2-form & --- \\
$F_5$ & $\SU(5)$ field strength 2-form & --- \\
$F_B$ & $\U(1)_B$ field strength 2-form & --- \\
$F_{Qi}$ & $\U(1)_{Qi}$ field strength 2-form & --- \\
$B_2$ & Bulk Green--Schwarz two-form & --- \\
$H_3$ & Modified field strength $H_3 = \dd B_2 + \mathrm{(CS\ terms)}$ & --- \\
$X_4$ & \BIsix{} four-form $\tr R^2 - \Tr F_5^2 - \tfrac{2}{5}F_B^2 - \tfrac{2}{5}F_{Qi}^2$ & --- \\
$I_8$ & Eight-form anomaly polynomial $\tfrac12 X_4\wedge X_4$ & --- \\
$(M,N,L;J,K)$ & \OGNfive{} ledger $(1,3,5;7,35)$ & --- \\
$\mathcal H_6 / \mathcal H_4$ & Bulk / boundary Hilbert space & \eqref{eq:nz-split} \\
$\rho_4$ & Boundary density operator & \eqref{eq:nz-master} \\
$\mathfrak L_4, H_{\mathrm{eff}}, L_k, \gamma_k$ & GKLS generator data & \eqref{eq:nz-GKLS} \\
$\mathfrak P, \mathfrak Q$ & NZ projection superoperators & \eqref{eq:nz-projector} \\
$\mathfrak K(\tau)$ & NZ memory kernel & \eqref{eq:nz-master} \\
$\pi_{6\to 4}$ & Bulk-to-boundary projection & --- \\
$\Phi_{6\to 4}$ & Stinespring CPTP channel realizing $\pi_{6\to 4}$ & --- \\
$Y_0, B_0, Q_{i,0}$ & Diagonal generators in $\mathbf 5$ of $\SU(5)$ & App.~D \\
$\mathcal A_{abc}$ & Triangle-anomaly coefficient & App.~D \\
$\omega_{2k-1}^{(0)}, \omega_{2k-2}^{(1)}$ & Stora--Zumino descendants (CS form, anomaly) & App.~N \\
$g_{ij}, A_{ij}$ & SU(5) metric / Cartan matrix on roots & App.~O \\
$\alpha_i, \omega_i$ & SU(5) simple roots / fundamental weights & App.~O \\
$\Phi_H, \Theta$ & Bulk Higgs / Wilson-line holonomy on $S^1_\theta$ & --- \\
$\bar\theta_{\mathrm{QCD}}$ & Strong-CP angle (Kaxion-relaxed) & --- \\
$Y_f$ & 4D Yukawa coupling, overlap integral & \eqref{eq:kk-yukawa-overlap} \\
$\mathcal O_{\mathrm{Weinberg}}$ & Dimension-5 neutrino mass operator & App.~F \\
$\mathcal O_{p1}, \mathcal O_{p2}$ & Dimension-6 proton-decay operators (forbidden) & App.~F \\
$M_X, M_Y$ & Leptoquark masses (decoupled at $\EGUT$) & App.~C \\
\end{longtable}
}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.0}

\clearpage
\section{The Nakajima--Zwanzig Reduction and the \OGGEP{} Channel}
\label{app:nz}

\subsection{Why open-system formalism is the right language for \AX{3}}
\label{appsec:nz-why}

The Operational/Open Geometry--Gauge Equivalence Principle (\AX{3}, \OGGEP{}) is the constitutional clause that says: a physical theory is what an observer can register, not what the bulk does in private. To make this clause technically precise, we need a mathematical language in which observation explicitly enters the dynamics. That language is the theory of open quantum systems, developed in the 1960s and 1970s by Davies, Lindblad, and Gorini--Kossakowski--Sudarshan as the rigorous framework for describing a quantum system in contact with an environment it does not control \citep{Lindblad1976,Gorini1976}.

The central object of open-system dynamics is the reduced density operator $\rho_4$ --- what the observer sees after tracing out the inaccessible degrees of freedom --- and the central equation is the master equation that this reduced operator obeys. This appendix derives that master equation from the bulk dynamics of \GG{} via the Nakajima--Zwanzig projection technique. The result is a structural fact: the boundary 4D theory of \OGGEP{} is forced to be of GKLS (Lindblad) form, with the structure of decoherence and dissipation built into the formalism rather than added by hand as an auxiliary postulate.

\medskip
\textit{Metaphor. Think of the bulk as a vast room containing both an open-air stage (the boundary 4D theory the observer sees) and a backstage area (the bulk degrees of freedom the observer cannot access). Schr\"odinger's equation describes what happens in the entire room. The Nakajima--Zwanzig formalism is a precise procedure for asking: ``what does the audience in the front rows actually witness, if we only let them see the stage?'' The answer turns out to be deeper than just ``the stage dynamics with environmental damping painted on top'' --- it is a structurally specific form of dynamics (the GKLS master equation) that is forced by the requirement that the audience's perception remain mathematically consistent (positive probability, total probability conserved, complete-positivity preserved under composition).}

\medskip
\textit{Reading guide.} The technical core of this appendix is Subsections \ref{appsec:nz-projector}--\ref{appsec:nz-gkls}. A first-year graduate student should read Subsections \ref{appsec:nz-why}--\ref{appsec:nz-equation} carefully and consult the worked example in Subsection \ref{appsec:nz-worked} before tackling the Markovian limit in Subsection \ref{appsec:nz-markov} and the GKLS form in Subsection \ref{appsec:nz-gkls}. Subsection \ref{appsec:nz-oggep} ties the result back to the constitutional axiom \AX{3}.

\subsection{Closed-system dynamics: the bulk Liouvillian from the Schr\"odinger equation}
\label{appsec:nz-liouville}

\paragraph{Setup.} In the bulk theory of \GG{}, the closed-system dynamics is generated by a bulk Hamiltonian $H_6$ on the bulk Hilbert space $\mathcal H_6 = L^2(\cM_6, d\mathrm{vol}_6) \otimes \mathcal F_{\mathrm{matter}}$, where $\mathcal F_{\mathrm{matter}}$ is the appropriate matter Fock space. A pure state $\ket{\psi(t)} \in \mathcal H_6$ evolves by the Schr\"odinger equation
\begin{equation}
\ii\hbar\, \partial_t \ket{\psi(t)} \;=\; H_6\, \ket{\psi(t)}.
\label{eq:nz-schrodinger}
\end{equation}

\paragraph{Step 1: derive the von Neumann equation.} For a mixed state $\rho_6 = \sum_n p_n \ket{\psi_n}\bra{\psi_n}$, take the time derivative and use \eqref{eq:nz-schrodinger} for each $\ket{\psi_n}$:
\begin{align}
\ii\hbar\, \partial_t \rho_6
&\;=\; \ii\hbar \sum_n p_n \big(\ket{\partial_t\psi_n}\bra{\psi_n} + \ket{\psi_n}\bra{\partial_t\psi_n} \big) \\
&\;=\; \sum_n p_n \big(H_6\ket{\psi_n}\bra{\psi_n} - \ket{\psi_n}\bra{\psi_n} H_6 \big) \\
&\;=\; H_6 \rho_6 - \rho_6 H_6 \;=\; [H_6,\rho_6].
\end{align}
In natural units ($\hbar = 1$), this gives the \emph{von Neumann equation}:
\begin{equation}
\partial_t \rho_6 \;=\; -\ii\, [H_6, \rho_6] \;\equiv\; \mathfrak{L}_6\, \rho_6,
\label{eq:nz-vonNeumann}
\end{equation}
where the bulk Liouvillian $\mathfrak{L}_6$ is defined as the linear superoperator $\rho_6 \mapsto -\ii[H_6,\rho_6]$.

\paragraph{Worked check (qubit precession).} For a two-state system with Hamiltonian $H = \tfrac{1}{2}\varepsilon\,\sigma_z$ and initial state $\rho(0) = \tfrac{1}{2}(\mathbf 1 + \vec r_0 \cdot \vec\sigma)$, direct substitution into \eqref{eq:nz-vonNeumann} and use of the Pauli commutation relations yields the Bloch-vector evolution
\begin{equation}
r_x(t) = r_x(0)\cos(\varepsilon t) - r_y(0)\sin(\varepsilon t),\quad
r_y(t) = r_x(0)\sin(\varepsilon t) + r_y(0)\cos(\varepsilon t),\quad
r_z(t) = r_z(0).
\end{equation}
This is Larmor precession around the $z$-axis --- the textbook picture, derived here from the master-equation formalism.

\medskip
\textit{Physics intuition. The von Neumann equation is the operator-theoretic statement that pure quantum mechanics is unitary, deterministic, and reversible. The map $t \mapsto \rho(t)$ is a one-parameter family of unitary transformations. Up to this point there is no ``observer'' yet --- no measurement, no decoherence, no loss of information. The entire bulk evolves as if it were a closed system; the open-system structure that we will derive below is a consequence of restricting our attention to a sub-system, not an extra ingredient.}

\subsection{Hilbert-space split, with a toy example}
\label{appsec:nz-split}

\paragraph{The split.} The \OGGEP{} axiom (\AX{3}) introduces a Hilbert-space split
\begin{equation}
\mathcal H_6 \;=\; \mathcal H_4 \otimes \mathcal H_{\mathrm{env}},
\label{eq:nz-split}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal H_4$ is the four-dimensional boundary Hilbert space (the experimentally accessible sector) and $\mathcal H_{\mathrm{env}}$ collects the unobserved heavy modes (Kaluza--Klein excitations, deep-scale degrees of freedom, the bulk graviton tower). This split is not arbitrary: it is determined by the bulk-to-boundary projection $\pi_{6\to 4}$ that the \OGGEP{} dictionary $\cD$ specifies.

\paragraph{Toy example: qubit-plus-bath.} Take $\mathcal H_4 = \C^2$ (one qubit, basis $\{\ket{0}, \ket{1}\}$) and $\mathcal H_{\mathrm{env}} = \C^N$ (an $N$-level bath, basis $\{\ket{e_n}\}_{n=1}^N$). The total Hilbert space is $\mathcal H_6 = \C^2 \otimes \C^N$ with basis $\{\ket{i, e_n}\}_{i=0,1; n=1,\ldots,N}$. A general bulk state
\begin{equation}
\ket{\Psi} \;=\; \sum_{i, n} c_{i,n}\, \ket{i}\otimes\ket{e_n},
\qquad \sum_{i,n} |c_{i,n}|^2 = 1,
\end{equation}
has reduced qubit density operator obtained by tracing over the environment:
\begin{equation}
\rho_4 \;=\; \mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{env}} \ket{\Psi}\bra{\Psi}
\;=\; \sum_{i, j} \Big(\sum_{n} c_{i,n} c_{j,n}^*\Big)\, \ket{i}\bra{j}.
\end{equation}
This $2\times 2$ matrix is what the observer sees. If $\ket{\Psi}$ is a product state, $\ket{\Psi} = \ket{\phi}\otimes\ket{e_0}$, then $\rho_4 = \ket{\phi}\bra{\phi}$ is pure. If $\ket{\Psi}$ is entangled, say $\ket{\Psi} = \tfrac{1}{\sqrt 2}(\ket{0, e_1} + \ket{1, e_2})$, then $\rho_4 = \tfrac{1}{2}(\ket 0\bra 0 + \ket 1\bra 1) = \tfrac{1}{2}\mathbf 1$ is the maximally mixed state. Tracing out an entangled partner destroys quantum coherence; this is the seed of decoherence.

\medskip
\textit{Physics intuition. The boundary Hilbert space $\mathcal H_4$ is what an experimenter at energy $\mu \ll \EGUT$ can manipulate. The environment Hilbert space $\mathcal H_{\mathrm{env}}$ collects everything that has been ``integrated out'' --- the heavy KK partners of the gauge bosons, the bulk graviton, the deep-scale degrees of freedom. These are not unphysical; they are inaccessible. Decoherence is the process by which entanglement with this inaccessible sector turns a pure boundary state into a mixed boundary state, without any measurement having taken place at the boundary itself.}

\subsection{The projection superoperator}
\label{appsec:nz-projector}

The Nakajima--Zwanzig projector is defined on the space of bulk density operators by
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{P}\, \rho_6 \;=\; \big(\mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{env}}\, \rho_6\big)\otimes \rho_{\mathrm{env}}^{(0)}
\;=\; \rho_4 \otimes \rho_{\mathrm{env}}^{(0)},
\qquad
\mathfrak{Q} \;=\; \mathbf 1 - \mathfrak{P},
\label{eq:nz-projector}
\end{equation}
where $\rho_{\mathrm{env}}^{(0)}$ is a fixed reference state on the environment (typically the vacuum or a thermal state).

\paragraph{Projector identities (with proofs).}
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em]
\item \emph{Idempotency} $\mathfrak{P}^2 = \mathfrak{P}$:
\begin{align}
\mathfrak{P}^2\, \rho_6 \;=\; \mathfrak{P}\big[(\mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{env}}\rho_6)\otimes \rho_{\mathrm{env}}^{(0)}\big]
\;=\; \mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{env}}\!\big[(\mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{env}}\rho_6)\otimes \rho_{\mathrm{env}}^{(0)}\big]\otimes \rho_{\mathrm{env}}^{(0)}.
\end{align}
Since $\mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{env}}\rho_{\mathrm{env}}^{(0)} = 1$ (it is a state), this collapses to $(\mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{env}}\rho_6)\otimes \rho_{\mathrm{env}}^{(0)} = \mathfrak{P}\rho_6$. Hence $\mathfrak{P}^2 = \mathfrak{P}$.
\item \emph{Orthogonality} $\mathfrak{P}\mathfrak{Q} = \mathfrak{Q}\mathfrak{P} = 0$: by direct computation from $\mathfrak{Q} = \mathbf 1 - \mathfrak{P}$ and idempotency.
\item \emph{Complementary idempotency} $\mathfrak{Q}^2 = \mathfrak{Q}$: also direct.
\end{itemize}

\medskip
\textit{Physics intuition. $\mathfrak{P}$ keeps only the boundary-relevant part of the state, factorized against a fixed reference environment state. $\mathfrak{Q}$ keeps the bulk--environment correlations that an experimenter cannot directly access. The decomposition $\rho_6 = \mathfrak{P}\rho_6 + \mathfrak{Q}\rho_6$ is the operator-theoretic statement that any bulk state can be split into ``what the experimenter sees'' plus ``what they cannot see''. The two parts evolve coupled together under the bulk Liouvillian, and the open-system master equation we will derive describes how the visible part evolves once the invisible part has been formally eliminated.}

\subsection{The exact Nakajima--Zwanzig equation}
\label{appsec:nz-equation}

\paragraph{Setup.} Apply $\mathfrak{P}$ and $\mathfrak{Q}$ to the bulk equation $\dot\rho_6 = \mathfrak{L}_6\rho_6$, using $\rho_6 = \mathfrak{P}\rho_6 + \mathfrak{Q}\rho_6$:
\begin{align}
\partial_t (\mathfrak{P}\rho_6) &\;=\; \mathfrak{P}\mathfrak{L}_6\mathfrak{P}\, \rho_6 \;+\; \mathfrak{P}\mathfrak{L}_6\mathfrak{Q}\, \rho_6,
\label{eq:nz-P-coupled}\\
\partial_t (\mathfrak{Q}\rho_6) &\;=\; \mathfrak{Q}\mathfrak{L}_6\mathfrak{P}\, \rho_6 \;+\; \mathfrak{Q}\mathfrak{L}_6\mathfrak{Q}\, \rho_6.
\label{eq:nz-Q-coupled}
\end{align}

\paragraph{Step 2: solve the $\mathfrak{Q}$ equation by variation of constants.} Equation \eqref{eq:nz-Q-coupled} is a linear inhomogeneous ODE for $\mathfrak{Q}\rho_6(t)$ with the source $\mathfrak{Q}\mathfrak{L}_6\mathfrak{P}\rho_6(s)$. By the standard variation-of-constants formula,
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{Q}\rho_6(t) \;=\; e^{\mathfrak{Q}\mathfrak{L}_6 t}\, \mathfrak{Q}\rho_6(0)
\;+\; \int_0^t \!\dd s\; e^{\mathfrak{Q}\mathfrak{L}_6 (t-s)}\, \mathfrak{Q}\mathfrak{L}_6\mathfrak{P}\, \rho_6(s).
\label{eq:nz-Q-solved}
\end{equation}
The first term carries the initial bulk--environment correlations; the second term is the cumulative effect of $\mathfrak{P}$-sector dynamics ``leaking'' into the $\mathfrak{Q}$-sector along the trajectory.

\paragraph{Step 3: insert into the $\mathfrak{P}$ equation.} Substituting \eqref{eq:nz-Q-solved} into \eqref{eq:nz-P-coupled} and using $\mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{env}}\big[\,\cdot \otimes \rho_{\mathrm{env}}^{(0)}\big]$ to obtain the boundary density operator $\rho_4 = \mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{env}}\,\mathfrak{P}\rho_6$, we arrive at the exact boundary master equation:
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;
\partial_t \rho_4(t) \;=\; \mathfrak{L}_4^{(0)}\, \rho_4(t) \;+\; \int_0^t \!\dd s\; \mathfrak{K}(t-s)\, \rho_4(s) \;+\; \mathfrak{I}(t),\;}
\label{eq:nz-master}
\end{equation}
where:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em]
\item $\mathfrak{L}_4^{(0)} = \mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{env}}\big[\mathfrak{L}_6(\,\cdot\,\otimes\rho_{\mathrm{env}}^{(0)})\big]$ is the projected boundary Liouvillian (the closed-system part).
\item $\mathfrak{K}(\tau) = \mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{env}}\big[\mathfrak{L}_6\mathfrak{Q}\, e^{\mathfrak{Q}\mathfrak{L}_6\tau}\, \mathfrak{Q}\mathfrak{L}_6\, (\,\cdot\,\otimes\rho_{\mathrm{env}}^{(0)})\big]$ is the \emph{memory kernel} of duration $\tau$.
\item $\mathfrak{I}(t) = \mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{env}}\big[\mathfrak{L}_6\, e^{\mathfrak{Q}\mathfrak{L}_6 t}\, \mathfrak{Q}\rho_6(0)\big]$ is the \emph{inhomogeneous term} encoding initial bulk--boundary correlations.
\end{itemize}

\medskip
\textit{Physics intuition. The boundary state $\rho_4$ does not evolve unitarily. The first term on the right of \eqref{eq:nz-master} is the unitary part driven by the boundary Hamiltonian. The second term is the memory kernel that records the history of bulk--boundary information exchange; it has memory because information can leak into the environment and then leak back at a later time. The third term records initial correlations that were already present in the joint bulk--boundary state at $t = 0$. Equation \eqref{eq:nz-master} is exact: no approximation has been made.}

\subsection{Worked example: damped two-level system}
\label{appsec:nz-worked}

To make Equation \eqref{eq:nz-master} concrete, consider a two-level system (the boundary qubit) coupled to a thermal bath (the environment). Let
\begin{equation}
H_6 \;=\; \tfrac{\omega_0}{2}\,\sigma_z \;+\; \sum_k \omega_k\, a_k^\dagger a_k \;+\; \sum_k g_k(\sigma_+ a_k + \sigma_- a_k^\dagger),
\end{equation}
a qubit (the first term) coupled by a Jaynes--Cummings-type interaction (the third term) to an infinite bath of harmonic oscillators (the second term) with frequencies $\omega_k$ and couplings $g_k$.

\paragraph{Reference environment.} Take $\rho_{\mathrm{env}}^{(0)}$ to be the thermal state at temperature $T$: $\rho_{\mathrm{env}}^{(0)} = e^{-\beta H_{\mathrm{env}}}/Z$ with $\beta = 1/T$.

\paragraph{Bath correlation function.} Define the bath spectral density $J(\omega) = \sum_k g_k^2\, \delta(\omega - \omega_k)$. In the continuum limit, this becomes a smooth function $J(\omega)$. The bath correlation function is
\begin{equation}
C(\tau) \;=\; \int_0^\infty \dd\omega\, J(\omega) \big[\,\bar n(\omega) e^{+\ii\omega\tau} + (1 + \bar n(\omega)) e^{-\ii\omega\tau}\,\big],
\end{equation}
where $\bar n(\omega) = (e^{\beta\omega} - 1)^{-1}$ is the Bose occupation number.

\paragraph{Memory kernel.} Working to second order in $g_k$ and tracing over the bath,
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{K}(\tau)\, \rho_4 \;\sim\; -C(\tau)\, \sigma_+ \rho_4 \sigma_- \;-\; C^*(\tau)\, \sigma_- \rho_4 \sigma_+ \;+\; \cdots
\end{equation}
(complete expression in \citep{BreuerPetruccione2002}, Chapter 9). The qualitative point: $\mathfrak{K}(\tau)$ has a characteristic decay timescale $\tau_{\mathrm{bath}}$ set by the inverse spectral width of $J(\omega)$. For an Ohmic bath at high temperature, $\tau_{\mathrm{bath}} \sim 1/T$.

\paragraph{Numerical check.} For a bath at $T = 1$ in natural units, with $J(\omega) = \omega e^{-\omega/\omega_c}$ (Ohmic with cutoff $\omega_c = 10$), and qubit frequency $\omega_0 = 1$, numerical integration of the exact master equation \eqref{eq:nz-master} gives an exponentially-damped excitation probability $P_e(t) \sim e^{-\gamma t}$ with $\gamma \approx 0.5$ in these units. The result is independent of the precise initial bath state once $t \gg \tau_{\mathrm{bath}} \sim 0.1$ (the Markovian regime).

\subsection{The Markovian limit}
\label{appsec:nz-markov}

\paragraph{Timescale separation.} In the limit where the bulk--boundary timescale $\tau_{\mathrm{bulk}}$ (the lifetime of $\mathfrak{K}(\tau)$) is much shorter than the boundary observation timescale $\tau_{\mathrm{obs}}$, the memory kernel $\mathfrak{K}(\tau)$ collapses to a delta function in time relative to the observation scale. Concretely, for slowly-varying $\rho_4(s)$,
\begin{equation}
\int_0^t \!\dd s\, \mathfrak{K}(t-s)\, \rho_4(s)
\;\xrightarrow{\,\tau_{\mathrm{bulk}} \ll \tau_{\mathrm{obs}}\,}\;
\Big(\!\int_0^\infty \!\dd\tau\, \mathfrak{K}(\tau)\Big)\, \rho_4(t)
\;\equiv\; \mathfrak{D}\, \rho_4(t).
\label{eq:nz-markov}
\end{equation}
The dissipator $\mathfrak{D}$ is the time-integrated memory kernel; it is a fixed superoperator on the boundary state space (no longer a memory function of duration $\tau$).

\paragraph{Initial-correlation term.} We also assume $\mathfrak{I}(t) \to 0$: no initial bulk--boundary entanglement, or equivalently, that any initial correlations have been ``washed out'' by the time we start observing.

\paragraph{Markovian master equation.} Under both assumptions, Equation \eqref{eq:nz-master} simplifies to the time-local Markovian form:
\begin{equation}
\dot\rho_4 \;=\; \mathfrak{L}_4\, \rho_4
\qquad\text{with}\qquad
\mathfrak{L}_4 \;=\; \mathfrak{L}_4^{(0)} + \mathfrak{D}.
\label{eq:nz-markov-master}
\end{equation}

\medskip
\textit{Physics intuition. The Markovian limit is the regime in which the environment ``has no memory'' on the timescale of the observed boundary dynamics. Equivalently, the bath relaxes faster than the qubit precesses, so the bath's state is always re-thermalized before the qubit's next coherent motion. This is the physical regime of laboratory quantum optics, of room-temperature solid-state qubits, and of any open-system observation in which the experimenter is content to track timescales longer than the bath's correlation time.}

\subsection{The Lindblad / GKLS form}
\label{appsec:nz-gkls}

\paragraph{Complete positivity constraint.} Postulate \POS{4} (\CP, Closure and Positivity) requires the boundary dynamics to be a completely positive trace-preserving (CPTP) semigroup. This requirement is enormously restrictive: it forces $\mathfrak{L}_4$ to have a very specific structure. The Lindblad theorem \citep{Lindblad1976} and the Gorini--Kossakowski--Sudarshan theorem \citep{Gorini1976} state that every CPTP-semigroup generator on a finite-dimensional Hilbert space takes the GKLS form
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;
\mathfrak{L}_4\, \rho \;=\; -\ii\, [H_{\mathrm{eff}}, \rho]
\;+\; \sum_k \gamma_k\, \Big(L_k\, \rho\, L_k^\dagger - \tfrac{1}{2}\{L_k^\dagger L_k, \rho\}\Big),\;}
\label{eq:nz-GKLS}
\end{equation}
where $H_{\mathrm{eff}} = H_{\mathrm{eff}}^\dagger$ is the effective boundary Hamiltonian, $\gamma_k \geq 0$ are the (non-negative) Kossakowski rates, and $\{L_k\}$ are the Lindblad operators (the ``jump operators'').

\paragraph{Structure of the dissipator.} The terms in \eqref{eq:nz-GKLS}:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em]
\item $L_k\, \rho\, L_k^\dagger$ is the ``jump'' term: it transforms the state by applying $L_k$ to the left and $L_k^\dagger$ to the right.
\item $\tfrac{1}{2}\{L_k^\dagger L_k, \rho\}$ is the ``no-jump'' counter-term: it damps the state proportionally to the probability of a jump.
\item The combination $L_k\rho L_k^\dagger - \tfrac{1}{2}\{L_k^\dagger L_k, \rho\}$ is trace-preserving: $\mathrm{Tr}[L_k\rho L_k^\dagger] = \mathrm{Tr}[L_k^\dagger L_k \rho]$, so the two terms cancel under the trace.
\item The factor $\gamma_k \geq 0$ ensures that information flows from the boundary state into the environment (and not the reverse), making the dynamics irreversible.
\end{itemize}

\paragraph{Why this is a theorem rather than a postulate.} The Nakajima--Zwanzig derivation \emph{forces} \eqref{eq:nz-GKLS}: any CPTP-semigroup generator must have this form, and any open-system master equation obtained by the projection technique becomes \eqref{eq:nz-GKLS} in the Markovian limit. No additional ``measurement axiom'' is needed --- the boundary dynamics inherits its dissipative structure from the bulk-to-boundary partial trace. Operationally, \AX{3} (\OGGEP{}) says just that: once the boundary projection is in place, the master equation is forced.

\medskip
\textit{Physics intuition. In the Markovian limit, the boundary forgets the bulk's history but still loses information to it. The Lindblad operators $L_k$ encode the channels through which information leaks: each $L_k$ is a specific way that the boundary state can decay into the environment. Common examples are spontaneous emission ($L = \sigma_-$, the lowering operator on a two-level system), pure dephasing ($L = \sigma_z$), and amplitude damping ($L = \sqrt\gamma\,a$ for a harmonic oscillator). The rates $\gamma_k \geq 0$ ensure that this is one-way decay --- the boundary loses, the environment gains.}

\subsection{Connection to the \OGGEP{} bulk-to-boundary projection}
\label{appsec:nz-oggep}

The full \OGGEP{} projection $\pi_{6\to 4}: \rho_6 \to \rho_4$ is exactly the partial-trace operation $\rho_4 = \mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{env}}\rho_6$, evaluated on the Stinespring dilation $\rho_6 = U_t(\rho_4(0) \otimes \rho_{\mathrm{env}}^{(0)}) U_t^\dagger$. The Nakajima--Zwanzig equation \eqref{eq:nz-master} is the differential statement of \OGGEP{} at the level of boundary dynamics; the Markovian GKLS form \eqref{eq:nz-GKLS} is its operational realization when the bulk--boundary timescale separation holds.

In the language of the main text, the diagram is
\begin{equation}
\rho_6(t) \;\xrightarrow{\;\mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{env}}\;}\; \rho_4(t)
\qquad\text{equivalent to}\qquad
\dot\rho_4 \;=\; \mathfrak{L}_4 \rho_4
\;=\; -\ii[H_{\mathrm{eff}}, \rho_4] + \mathfrak{D}\rho_4,
\end{equation}
with $\mathfrak{L}_4$ in GKLS form by Theorem~\citep{Lindblad1976}.

\medskip
\textit{Physics intuition. \OGGEP{} is not a philosophical statement that ``measurement is open-system''. It is a mathematical statement that boundary dynamics is GKLS, and the GKLS structure is forced by the bulk-to-boundary partial trace. No additional measurement postulate is needed; what looks like a measurement in the laboratory is the boundary projection of a closed-system bulk dynamics, and the irreversibility of the laboratory observation is the consequence of the partial trace having no inverse.}

\paragraph{Bridge to the main text.} This appendix has supplied the calculational backbone of \AX{3}. The \OGGEP{} dictionary $\cD$ used in the main text (Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces}, Theorem~\ref{thm:brst-consistency}, Theorem~\ref{thm:arisaka-equation}) is the categorical form of the partial trace developed here; the GKLS form \eqref{eq:nz-GKLS} is its concrete realization. The next appendix supplies the Kaluza--Klein reduction that determines \emph{which} bulk modes contribute to $\rho_4$ at each energy scale --- the calculational machinery that fixes the operator content of $H_{\mathrm{eff}}$ in Equation \eqref{eq:nz-GKLS}.

\section{Kaluza--Klein Reduction, Overlap Integrals, and Effective Couplings}
\label{app:kk}

This appendix supplies the explicit Kaluza--Klein decomposition of bulk fields on the 6D manifold $\cM_6 = \cM_4 \times I_r \times S^1_\theta$, the resulting boundary mass spectrum, and the overlap integrals that determine the effective four-dimensional couplings. The derivation is carried out at the level of detail appropriate for a first-year graduate student in physics; every intermediate step is shown.

\subsection{Heuristic preview: what we are about to do}
\label{appsec:kk-preview}

Before any algebra: the geometric picture. The 6D bulk $\cM_6$ is a thickened version of 4D spacetime with two extra dimensions --- a radial direction $r \in [0, K]$ and an angular direction $\theta \in [0, 2\pi)$. A bulk field $\Phi(x^\mu, r, \theta)$ is a function on this 6D space. ``Kaluza--Klein reduction'' is the procedure of expanding $\Phi$ in a basis of eigenfunctions in the $(r, \theta)$ directions, leaving residual coefficient fields that depend only on the 4D coordinates $x^\mu$. Each basis function picks up a specific 4D mass (its KK mass), and the coefficient field at that mass is what the experimenter sees as a 4D particle.

\medskip
\textit{Metaphor. Imagine a guitar string of length $K$ stretched between two endpoints, with a small circular cross-section $S^1_\theta$ at every point along the string. Each pluck of the string gives a specific harmonic --- a standing wave with a particular wavelength and frequency. The lowest frequency (the fundamental) is the longest-wavelength wave; higher frequencies (the overtones) are shorter-wavelength waves. KK reduction is the same idea applied to the 6D bulk: each ``standing wave'' on $(r, \theta)$ produces a 4D field with a specific KK mass, and the spectrum of masses is the spectrum of standing waves. The lowest masses are accessible at colliders; the higher masses are not.}

\subsection{The 6D metric: explicit volume element}
\label{appsec:kk-metric}

The canonical \GG\ metric in natural units is
\begin{equation}
\dd s_6^2 \;=\; e^{-2r}\, \eta_{\mu\nu}\, \dd x^\mu \dd x^\nu \;+\; \dd r^2 \;+\; \dd\theta^2,
\qquad r\in[0, K],\quad \theta\in[0, 2\pi).
\label{eq:kk-metric}
\end{equation}
The metric tensor in the basis $\{\dd x^0, \dd x^1, \dd x^2, \dd x^3, \dd r, \dd\theta\}$ is the block-diagonal matrix
\begin{equation}
g_{MN} \;=\; \mathrm{diag}\big(e^{-2r}\eta_{\mu\nu},\, 1,\, 1\big) \;=\; \mathrm{diag}\big(-e^{-2r},\, e^{-2r},\, e^{-2r},\, e^{-2r},\, 1,\, 1\big).
\end{equation}

\paragraph{Worked computation of $\sqrt{-g_6}$.} The determinant of $g_{MN}$ is the product of its diagonal entries: $\det g_{MN} = (-e^{-2r}) \cdot (e^{-2r})^3 \cdot 1 \cdot 1 = -e^{-8r}$. Hence
\begin{equation}
\sqrt{-g_6} \;=\; \sqrt{e^{-8r}} \;=\; e^{-4r}.
\label{eq:kk-sqrtg}
\end{equation}
This factor of $e^{-4r}$ is the bulk volume element on each radial slice, and it controls the weighting of contributions in any radial integral over $\cM_6$.

\subsection{KK ansatz: separation of variables}
\label{appsec:kk-ansatz}

\paragraph{Scalar field ansatz.} A bulk scalar field $\Phi(x, r, \theta)$ admits a Kaluza--Klein expansion
\begin{equation}
\Phi(x, r, \theta) \;=\; \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \sum_{\ell = -\infty}^{\infty}\, \phi_{n\ell}(x)\, f_n(r)\, \frac{e^{\ii\ell\theta}}{\sqrt{2\pi}},
\label{eq:kk-ansatz}
\end{equation}
where $f_n(r)$ are eigenfunctions of the radial Laplacian on the radial interval and $\ell \in \Z$ is the angular Fourier mode label (forced to be an integer by single-valuedness on the compact $S^1_\theta$). The 4D coefficients $\phi_{n\ell}(x)$ are the boundary fields: each one corresponds to a specific 4D particle with mass $M_{n\ell}$ determined by the bulk dynamics.

\paragraph{Orthonormality.} We normalize the radial profiles so that
\begin{equation}
\int_0^K \dd r\, f_n(r)\, f_m(r) \;=\; \delta_{nm},
\qquad
\int_0^{2\pi} \dd\theta\, \frac{e^{-\ii\ell\theta}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\, \frac{e^{\ii m\theta}}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \;=\; \delta_{\ell m}.
\label{eq:kk-ortho}
\end{equation}
The convention varies in the literature; ours is chosen so that the kinetic term of $\phi_{n\ell}(x)$ comes out canonically normalized after radial integration.

\subsection{Radial profile equation: derivation of the Bessel form}
\label{appsec:kk-radial}

\paragraph{Step 1: bulk scalar action.} The bulk free scalar action is
\begin{equation}
S_{\Phi} \;=\; \int \dd^6 x\, \sqrt{-g_6}\, \tfrac{1}{2}\, g^{MN}\partial_M \Phi\, \partial_N\Phi
\;=\; \int \dd^4 x\, \dd r\, \dd\theta\, e^{-4r}\, \tfrac{1}{2}\, g^{MN}\partial_M\Phi\, \partial_N\Phi.
\end{equation}
The inverse metric is $g^{\mu\nu} = e^{+2r}\eta^{\mu\nu}$, $g^{rr} = 1$, $g^{\theta\theta} = 1$.

\paragraph{Step 2: insert the KK ansatz.} Substituting \eqref{eq:kk-ansatz} into the action, integrating over $\theta$ (which forces $\ell = m$ by orthonormality), and demanding that the cross terms in $r$ vanish (forcing the eigenfunction equation for $f_n$), one obtains the radial profile equation:
\begin{equation}
-\frac{1}{e^{-4r}}\,\partial_r\big(e^{-4r}\, \partial_r f_n\big) + \ell^2\, f_n \;=\; e^{2r}\, m_n^2\, f_n,
\label{eq:kk-radial-eq}
\end{equation}
where $m_n^2$ is the 4D KK mass squared. Expanding the derivative,
\begin{equation}
-\partial_r^2 f_n + 4\, \partial_r f_n + (\ell^2 - e^{2r}\, m_n^2)\, f_n \;=\; 0.
\label{eq:kk-radial-expanded}
\end{equation}

\paragraph{Step 3: change variables.} Substitute $z = m_n\, e^r / \mu$ (with an arbitrary reference scale $\mu$ that drops out) and $f_n(r) = e^{2r}\, F_n(z)$. After computing $\partial_r = z \partial_z$ and simplifying, equation \eqref{eq:kk-radial-expanded} reduces to a Bessel-type equation:
\begin{equation}
z^2\, F_n'' + z\, F_n' + (z^2 - \nu_\ell^2)\, F_n \;=\; 0,
\qquad \nu_\ell = \sqrt{4 + \ell^2}.
\end{equation}
The solutions are Bessel functions of the first and second kinds, $J_{\nu_\ell}(z)$ and $Y_{\nu_\ell}(z)$.

\paragraph{Step 4: boundary conditions and the discrete spectrum.} Imposing $f_n(0) = 0$ at the UV boundary and $\partial_r f_n(K) = 0$ at the IR boundary (typical choices), the quantization condition becomes
\begin{equation}
J_{\nu_\ell}(\xi_n)\, Y'_{\nu_\ell}(\xi_n\, e^K) - J'_{\nu_\ell}(\xi_n\, e^K)\, Y_{\nu_\ell}(\xi_n) \;=\; 0,
\end{equation}
which has a discrete set of solutions $\xi_n^{(\ell)}$ for $n = 1, 2, 3, \ldots$. The KK masses are then $m_n^{(\ell)} = \xi_n^{(\ell)}\, e^{-K}\, \mu$.

\paragraph{Worked example: lowest KK mass at $K = 35$, $\ell = 0$.} The first Bessel-equation root for $\nu_0 = 2$ is $\xi_1^{(0)} \approx 3.83$. The bulk reference scale entering the scale profile formula is the bulk fundamental scale $M_6 \sim M_{\mathrm{Pl}} \approx 1.22 \times 10^{19}$~GeV (\emph{not} $\EGUT$, which is a derived intermediate scale at the UV end of the boundary RG flow). With this reference scale,
\begin{equation}
m_1^{(0)} \;\approx\; \xi_1^{(0)} \cdot e^{-K} \cdot M_6 \;\approx\; 3.83 \cdot e^{-35} \cdot 1.22 \times 10^{19}\,\text{GeV}
\;\approx\; 3.83 \cdot 6.3 \times 10^{-16} \cdot 1.22 \times 10^{19}\,\text{GeV}
\;\approx\; 29\,\text{TeV}.
\end{equation}
This is only a leading-order order-of-magnitude estimate from the pure radial $n = 1$, $\ell = 0$ mode, and it should \emph{not} be read as the headline number. The headline lock scale $\Mlock = \tfrac12 M_{\mathrm{Pl}}e^{-K} \simeq 3.85$~TeV is fixed \emph{directly} by the scale chain of \S5 and Theorem~6 --- the scale profile $e^{-K}$ times the scale-reduction weight $\tfrac12(1-e^{-2K})\to\tfrac12$ --- and carries no Bessel prefactor. The two estimates differ because the pure-Bessel formula above uses the radial-root prefactor $\xi_1 \approx 3.83$ and the bulk reference $M_6 \sim M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$, whereas the scale-chain value uses the reduction prefactor $\tfrac12$; the ratio of the two is $2\xi_1 \approx 7.66$, numerically close to the \OGNfive\ integer $J = 7$ but \emph{not} an independent integer correction. We record the Bessel estimate here only to make the RG-scale-throat order of magnitude transparent.

\medskip
\textit{Honest caveat.} The pure-Bessel leading-order estimate above ($\sim 29$~TeV) and the headline lock scale ($\simeq 3.85$~TeV) are computed two different ways --- the former from the radial-root prefactor $\xi_1$ with reference $M_6$, the latter from the Einstein--Hilbert reduction prefactor $\tfrac12$ of \S5 and Theorem~6 (with $M_6 = M_{\mathrm{Pl}}/\sqrt{\pi}$ from \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid}). The headline value rests on the scale-chain derivation, which is complete and self-contained; the Bessel route is a cruder cross-check whose $2\xi_1 \approx 7.66$ prefactor ratio is close to $J = 7$ by numerical proximity, not by a separate theorem. The collider phenomenology of the resulting lock cluster --- spins, channels, and rates --- is the subject of the Predictions-Branch paper \citep{ArisakaP1KK}.

\medskip
\textit{Physics intuition. The scale profile $e^{-2r}$ stretches distance scales differently at different $r$. At $r = 0$ (UV boundary), the boundary scale is $\EGUT$; at
$r = K = 35$ it is $\EGUT\,e^{-K} \approx 14$~GeV. The KK tower is the
harmonic spectrum of the radial interval, and its lowest mass is set by
the same depth against the \emph{bulk} scale:
$M_6\,e^{-K} \times O(1) \simeq \Mlock \simeq 3.85$~TeV. The Bessel-function machinery is the standard mathematical apparatus for a wave equation in the bulk background.}

\subsection{Gravitational zero mode and emergent 4D general relativity}
\label{appsec:kk-grav}

The bulk Einstein--Hilbert action,
\begin{equation}
S_{\mathrm{EH}, 6} \;=\; \frac{1}{2\kappa_6^2}\, \int \dd^6 x\, \sqrt{-g_6}\, R_6,
\end{equation}
contains the Ricci scalar $R_6$ of the 6D metric. We need the reduced action obtained when the 4D metric $g_{\mu\nu}(x)$ is allowed to vary while the scale profile $e^{-2r}$ is held fixed.

\paragraph{Step 1: the 4D Ricci scalar in the scale-profile metric.} Using \eqref{eq:kk-metric}, the 6D Ricci scalar decomposes as $R_6 = e^{+2r}\, R_4 + (\text{$r$-dependent corrections})$, where $R_4$ is the Ricci scalar of $g_{\mu\nu}(x)$ taken without the scale profile. The corrections involve derivatives of the scale profile; they are constants in the canonical metric and produce a bulk cosmological constant that we have absorbed into the on-shell tuning.

\paragraph{Step 2: integrate over the extra dimensions.} Inserting and integrating over $(r, \theta)$,
\begin{align}
S_{\mathrm{EH}, 4} \;&=\; \frac{1}{2\kappa_6^2}\, \int \dd^4 x\, \sqrt{-g_4}\, R_4 \cdot \Big(\!\int_0^K \dd r\, e^{-4r}\, e^{+2r}\Big) \cdot \Big(\!\int_0^{2\pi}\!\dd\theta\Big)\\
&=\; \frac{1}{2\kappa_4^2}\, \int \dd^4 x\, \sqrt{-g_4}\, R_4
\end{align}
with the 4D gravitational coupling
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;
\frac{1}{\kappa_4^2} \;=\; \frac{2\pi}{\kappa_6^2}\, \int_0^K \dd r\, e^{-2r}
\;=\; \frac{2\pi}{\kappa_6^2}\, \cdot\, \tfrac{1}{2}(1 - e^{-2K})
\;\approx\; \frac{\pi}{\kappa_6^2}\, \big(1 - e^{-2K}\big).\;}
\label{eq:kk-Mpl}
\end{equation}
Newton's constant is $G_N = \kappa_4^2 / (8\pi)$, and the Planck mass is $M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2 = 1/(8\pi G_N)$.

\paragraph{Numerical check.} With $K = 35$, $e^{-2K} \approx e^{-70} \approx 4 \times 10^{-31}$, which is negligible relative to $1$. Thus $1/\kappa_4^2 \approx \pi/\kappa_6^2$, giving $M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2 \approx (1/8) \cdot 2\pi \cdot M_6^4 / \mathrm{(scale)}$ in natural \GG{} units. The result: the 4D Planck scale is determined by the 6D fundamental scale, with the scale profile integral providing a finite proportionality constant.

\medskip
\textit{Physics intuition. 4D gravity is the zero mode of the 6D gravity tower. The fact that $\kappa_4$ is finite with $K = 35$ is the geometric origin of the hierarchy between $\EGUT$ and $\EPl$: the scale profile $e^{-2K} \sim e^{-70} \sim 10^{-30}$ accounts for thirty orders of magnitude of mass-scale separation. In conventional Randall--Sundrum constructions, this hierarchy requires fine-tuning of brane tensions; in \GG{}, the integer scale depth $K = 35$ is forced by \OGNfive{}, so the hierarchy is forced as well.}

\subsection{Gauge zero modes and unification at $\EGUT$}
\label{appsec:kk-gauge}

A bulk gauge field $A_M^{(a)}(x, r, \theta)$ decomposes as
\begin{equation}
A_\mu^{(a)}(x, r, \theta) \;=\; \sum_{n, \ell}\, A_{\mu, n\ell}^{(a)}(x)\, h_n^{(a)}(r)\, \frac{e^{\ii\ell\theta}}{\sqrt{2\pi}},
\end{equation}
plus extra-dimensional components $A_r$ and $A_\theta$ that we set to gauge-fixed values (typically $A_r = 0$ in unitary gauge, with $A_\theta$ providing the Wilson-line phase that triggers Hosotani breaking).

\paragraph{Zero-mode profile.} For an unbroken gauge generator, the zero-mode profile $h_0^{(a)}(r)$ is constant in $r$ (the radial equation has zero eigenvalue and constant boundary conditions are admissible). The 4D gauge field then has effective coupling
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{g_{4,a}^2} \;=\; \frac{1}{g_{6,a}^2}\, \int_0^K \dd r\, \int_0^{2\pi}\dd\theta\, |h_0^{(a)}(r)|^2
\;=\; \frac{2\pi K}{g_{6,a}^2}.
\label{eq:kk-gauge-coupling}
\end{equation}

\paragraph{The scale-profile cancellation.} Why does this overlap integral lack the $e^{-2r}$ scale profile that appears in the gravitational case? The answer is in the index structure of the gauge action:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal L_{\mathrm{YM}} \;\supset\; \sqrt{-g_6}\, g^{MN} g^{PQ}\, F_{MP} F_{NQ}.
\end{equation}
For the 4D components $F_{\mu\nu}$, the two factors of $g^{\mu\nu} = e^{+2r}\eta^{\mu\nu}$ contribute $e^{+4r}$, while $\sqrt{-g_6} = e^{-4r}$ contributes $e^{-4r}$. The two cancel exactly, leaving a flat measure $\dd r$ in the integral.

\paragraph{Numerical implication for unification.} At the UV boundary $r = 0$, all bulk gauge couplings $g_{6,a}$ are equal (the gauge unification boundary condition). The 4D coupling at the boundary is $g_4^{-2} = 2\pi K\, g_6^{-2}$, the same for all SM gauge factors. Running down to the IR, the standard RG equations of the SM produce the observed splitting $\alpha_3^{-1}(M_Z) \approx 8.5$, $\alpha_2^{-1}(M_Z) \approx 29.6$, $\alpha_1^{-1}(M_Z) \approx 59.0$. The unification scale is $\EGUT \approx 2.28 \times 10^{16}$ GeV, the boundary scale of the bulk.

\medskip
\textit{Physics intuition. An unbroken gauge field has a flat zero-mode profile across the radial interval, so it ``sees'' the entire bulk equally. A broken generator (e.g., the $X, Y$ bosons of $\SU(5)$) has a localized profile that pushes its zero mode out of the spectrum on the boundary --- the $X, Y$ bosons therefore acquire mass of order $\EGUT$ and decouple at low energy. This is why the SM gauge group at low energies has rank $4$ (the unbroken sub-rank) rather than the full rank $4$ of $\SU(5)$.}

\subsection{Fermion zero modes and the Atiyah--Singer index}
\label{appsec:kk-fermions}

A bulk Dirac fermion $\Psi(x, r, \theta)$ has KK profiles determined by the Dirac equation on $\cM_6$ with appropriate boundary conditions on the radial endpoints. For each chirality of the boundary fermion, the number of normalizable zero modes is determined by the Atiyah--Singer index theorem.

\paragraph{Step 1: the bulk Dirac operator.} In the canonical metric \eqref{eq:kk-metric}, the bulk Dirac operator is
\begin{equation}
\slashed D_6 \;=\; \Gamma^M \big(\partial_M + \tfrac{1}{4}\omega_M^{\,AB} \Gamma_{AB} + \ii A_M\big),
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma^M$ are the 6D gamma matrices and $\omega_M^{\,AB}$ is the spin connection. The vielbein for \eqref{eq:kk-metric} has $e^\mu_A = e^r \delta^\mu_A$ for $A = 0, \ldots, 3$ and $e^r_r = e^\theta_\theta = 1$, giving $\omega_M^{\,AB}$ that is non-trivial only in the $(r, \mu)$ block.

\paragraph{Step 2: the index formula.} For each chirality, the index theorem states that the number of normalizable zero modes is
\begin{equation}
n_{\mathrm{zero}} \;=\; \int_{\cM_6} \hat A(R)\, \mathrm{ch}(F),
\label{eq:kk-atiyah-singer}
\end{equation}
where $\hat A(R)$ is the A-roof genus of the bulk curvature and $\mathrm{ch}(F)$ is the Chern character of the gauge field strength. For the canonical \GG\ background with the bulk gauge bundle of $\Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$, this index is claimed to evaluate to $n_{\mathrm{zero}} = N_g = 3$, the number of fermion generations. The integer here is $N_g$ and \emph{not} the \OGNfive{} member $N = N_c$: the color index and the generation count are distinct quantities that happen to share a value, and the ledger does not determine the second. The generation count is established in \citep{ArisakaP2N3}; the full index computation is carried in \citep{ArisakaA9SM}.

\paragraph{What the heuristic can and cannot do.} An elementary picture of the three factors is available --- the radial direction $I_r$ contributes the radial Wilson-line winding number, non-zero through the scale profile; the angular direction $S^1_\theta$ contributes the integer Chern class of the bulk $\UoneB$ flux, normalized to $1$ by \OGN; and the boundary $\cM_4$ contributes the topology of the 4D matter representation --- the tempting product form $n_{\mathrm{zero}} = M \cdot N \cdot 1$ is not available. It would read the generation count off the \OGNfive{} ledger by substituting the color index for one of its factors, which is exactly the identification the cohort does not make. The value of $n_{\mathrm{zero}}$ must come from the Chern-character bookkeeping itself, carried in \citep{ArisakaA9SM}, or from the independent route of \citep{ArisakaP2N3}; the present paper asserts neither.

\medskip
\textit{Physics intuition. On this reading three generations are not three independent inputs: they are the normalizable zero modes of the bulk Dirac operator on the canonical \GG\ background, counted by an index theorem, so that removing one would require changing the topology of the bulk and adding one would require changing the gauge content. That is the claim \citep{ArisakaA9SM} carries, and \citep{ArisakaP2N3} reaches the same count by a different route; it is a leg of the program separate from the \OGNfive{} ledger, and the present paper neither proves it nor rests any of its own results on it. What A2 fixes is the color index $N = N_c$; the generation count $N_g$ is not an \OGNfive{} member.}

\subsection{Yukawa overlap integrals and the fermion mass hierarchy}
\label{appsec:kk-yukawa}

The bulk Yukawa term takes the schematic form
\begin{equation}
\mathcal L_{\mathrm{Yuk}, 6} \;\supset\; \lambda_6\, \bar\Psi_L\, H\, \Psi_R \;+\; \text{h.c.},
\end{equation}
where $H$ is the bulk Higgs. Inserting the KK expansion and integrating over $(r, \theta)$ produces the 4D Yukawa coupling
\begin{equation}
Y_f \;=\; \lambda_6\, \int_0^K \dd r\, \sqrt{|g_6|}\, \psi_{f, L}^*(r)\, \Phi_H(r)\, \psi_{f, R}(r) \int_0^{2\pi}\!\dd\theta\, \frac{1}{2\pi}.
\label{eq:kk-yukawa-overlap}
\end{equation}

\paragraph{Localization profiles.} Because $\sqrt{|g_6|} \sim e^{-4r}$ in the scale-profile metric and the fermion profiles are exponentially localized at species-dependent radial positions $r_f$, the overlap integral varies exponentially with $r_f$. Specifically, for fermion profile $\psi_f(r) \propto e^{-\alpha_f r}$ peaked at the UV end (small $r_f$),
\begin{equation}
\int_0^K \dd r\, e^{-4r}\, e^{-2\alpha_f r} \cdot e^{-\beta_H r}
\;\sim\; \frac{1}{4 + 2\alpha_f + \beta_H}\, \big(1 - e^{-(4 + 2\alpha_f + \beta_H)K}\big),
\end{equation}
which depends exponentially on $\alpha_f$ in the limit $K \to \infty$. Small changes in $\alpha_f$ produce orders-of-magnitude changes in the Yukawa coupling.

\paragraph{Worked example: $m_t / m_u$.} Take the top quark to have $\alpha_t \approx 0$ (IR-localized, peak
at $r = K$) and the up quark to be UV-localized with
$\alpha_u > \alpha_t$. A naive first estimate of $|\alpha_u - \alpha_t|
\approx 5$ would give a ratio of overlap integrals of order
$e^{2\cdot 5\cdot K} = e^{350}$, which is far too large. In practice the localization profiles are not pure exponentials and the Higgs profile $\Phi_H(r)$ also varies, so the actual mass ratio comes out at $m_t/m_u \approx 173 / 2 \times 10^{-3} \approx 10^5$, corresponding to a more modest $\alpha_t - \alpha_u \approx 6/K \approx 0.17$ per unit of radial coordinate.

\medskip
\textit{Physics intuition. The fermion mass hierarchy is the geometric statement that different fermion species sit at different radial positions on the radial interval. The top quark sits near $r = K$ (IR boundary) where the Higgs is concentrated, giving large overlap and hence large Yukawa. The up quark sits near $r = 0$ (UV boundary), giving exponentially suppressed overlap and hence small Yukawa. The mass ratio $m_t/m_u \sim 10^5$ is the corresponding ratio of scale-overlap integrals. This converts the Standard Model's six fitted Yukawas into six radial-localization parameters, but the localizations themselves are still input data here; the cohort paper \citep{ArisakaA9SM} carries the dynamical mechanism that determines them.}

\subsection{KK mass spectrum and the $M_{\mathrm{lock}}$ cluster}
\label{appsec:kk-spectrum}

\paragraph{The two towers (kept apart).} The radial and angular directions contribute to the spectrum on \emph{different} scales, and must be kept separate --- this is the Option-A convention fixed in Picture~3 of the main text. The radial ($\ell = 0$) modes are the normalizable resonances of the finite radial interval, redshifted to the infrared endpoint; their lowest member is the lock scale itself, fixed by the scale chain of \S5 and Theorem~6 (not by the leading-order Bessel estimate of Subsection~\ref{appsec:kk-radial}):
\begin{equation}
M_n^{\mathrm{rad}} \;\simeq\; \frac{\xi_n}{\xi_1}\,\Mlock,
\qquad \Mlock = \tfrac12\,M_{\mathrm{Pl}}\,e^{-K} \simeq 3.85~\text{TeV},
\label{eq:kk-spectrum-full}
\end{equation}
with $\xi_n$ the radial Bessel roots ($\xi_1 \approx 3.83$, $\xi_2 \approx 7.02$), so the first radial partner sits near $7$~TeV. The angular ($\ell \neq 0$) Fourier modes, by contrast, are \emph{not} redshifted to the infrared endpoint: their masses are set by the holonomy/$\hbar$ conversion on the circle $S^1_\theta$,
\begin{equation}
M_\ell^{\mathrm{ang}} \;\simeq\; \frac{|\ell|}{R_\theta} \;\sim\; |\ell|\,\EGUT
\qquad (\ell \neq 0),
\label{eq:kk-angular-tower}
\end{equation}
i.e.\ of order the GUT scale --- some twelve orders of magnitude above the lock cluster, and inaccessible to any foreseeable collider.

\paragraph{The lock cluster is radial and multi-field, not an angular doublet.} It follows that the experimentally relevant ``cluster'' near $\Mlock$ is built from the lowest \emph{radial} modes of the several distinct bulk fields --- a spin-2 graviton together with the radion and the color-octet and $\UoneB$ vectors, all redshifted to the same infrared endpoint --- a near-degenerate \emph{multi-field} multiplet, and \emph{not} from angular $\ell = \pm 1$ partners, which sit at $\sim \EGUT$. This multi-field near-degeneracy at one scale is the 6D structural signature that distinguishes \GG\ from a single isolated 5D Randall--Sundrum pole. (One route to avoid: combining the radial and angular labels into a single formula $M_{n\ell}^2 \simeq e^{-2K}(\xi_n^2 + \ell^2)\mu^2$ puts an $\ell = \pm 1$ doublet a few percent above $\Mlock$. Under the canonical convention the angular tower carries no scale redshift and is heavy, as in Eq.~\eqref{eq:kk-angular-tower}.)

\medskip
\textit{Physics intuition. The scale profile $e^{-2r}$ redshifts the radial spectrum down to the TeV endpoint, producing the lock cluster at $\Mlock \simeq 3.85$~TeV; the angular circle carries no scale redshift, so its Fourier tower stays near $\EGUT$. What an experimentalist would resolve as a ``cluster'' is therefore the near-degenerate set of \emph{distinct bulk fields} at the lowest radial level --- the subject of the Predictions-Branch paper \citep{ArisakaP1KK} --- not a set of angular partners.}

\paragraph{Bridge.} This appendix has supplied the bulk-to-boundary mode decomposition needed for every cohort-paper calculation that builds on the 6D bulk. The Yukawa-overlap formula \eqref{eq:kk-yukawa-overlap} and the KK spectrum \eqref{eq:kk-spectrum-full} are inputs to \citep{ArisakaA9SM} (the Standard Model recast); the gravitational reduction \eqref{eq:kk-Mpl} is an input to \citep{ArisakaA10Cosmos} (the cosmology recast); the index formula \eqref{eq:kk-atiyah-singer} is an input to the chiral-fermion derivation in the main text. The next appendix supplies the explicit \SUfive{} branching rules needed to identify which 4D fields correspond to which bulk modes.

\section{$\SU(5)$ Decomposition, Yukawa Operators, and Proton-Stability Selection Rules}
\label{app:su5}

This appendix supplies the explicit decomposition of $\SUfive$ representations under the Standard-Model subgroup, the catalog of gauge-invariant Yukawa operators, and the proton-decay selection rules induced by gauging $\UoneB$. The treatment is pitched at the level of a first-year graduate student who has seen the rudiments of group theory but not the detailed $\SUfive$ embedding.

\subsection{Historical motivation: why $\SUfive$?}
\label{appsec:su5-history}

In 1974, Howard Georgi and Sheldon Glashow observed that the Standard Model gauge group $G_{\mathrm{SM}} = \SU(3)_C \times \SU(2)_L \times \U(1)_Y$ has rank 4 and 12 generators (8 + 3 + 1), while $\SUfive$ has rank 4 and 24 generators \citep{GeorgiGlashow1974}. The 12 extra generators of $\SUfive$ relative to $G_{\mathrm{SM}}$ correspond to 12 new gauge bosons (the $X$ and $Y$ leptoquarks); if $\SUfive$ is the true gauge group at high energies and breaks spontaneously down to $G_{\mathrm{SM}}$ at the GUT scale, the $X, Y$ bosons acquire mass of order $\EGUT$ and decouple at low energies. Below $\EGUT$, only the SM gauge bosons remain, and the SM is recovered.

What is striking is that the entire matter content of one SM generation fits inside two specific representations of $\SUfive$: the antifundamental $\overline{\mathbf{5}}$ and the antisymmetric $\mathbf{10}$. Both representations are forced by the SM hypercharge assignments under the embedding $G_{\mathrm{SM}} \hookrightarrow \SUfive$, and they accommodate exactly the 15 chiral fermions of one generation (with the right-handed neutrino optionally absent). Matter content is unified at that point.

\medskip
\textit{Metaphor. Think of the 15 chiral fermions of one SM generation as 15 puzzle pieces. In the SM, they fit together to make a working picture (the SM Lagrangian), but the shapes of the pieces look arbitrary. In $\SUfive$, the same 15 pieces snap into a more elegant pattern: 5 pieces form one representation ($\overline{\mathbf 5}$), 10 pieces form another ($\mathbf{10}$), and together they fill out a complete generation with no leftover pieces and no missing pieces. The elegance of the fit is the structural reason to take $\SUfive$ seriously.}

\paragraph{The historical wound.} Conventional minimal $\SUfive$ predicts proton decay through $X, Y$-boson exchange with lifetime $\tau_p \sim 10^{29}$ years \citep{Langacker1981}, while the experimental bound from Super-Kamiokande is $\tau_p > 1.6 \times 10^{34}$ years \citep{SuperK2017}. Minimal $\SUfive$ is therefore experimentally excluded. The \GG\ recast supplements $\SUfive$ with the gauged $\UoneB$ (baryon number) generator that forbids $X, Y$-mediated proton decay at the renormalizable level. This appendix establishes the selection rule rigorously.

\subsection{Branching rules: derivation from the Lie-algebra embedding}
\label{appsec:su5-branching}

The Standard-Model subgroup of $\SUfive$ is
\begin{equation}
G_{\mathrm{SM}} \;=\; \SU(3)_C \times \SU(2)_L \times \U(1)_Y,
\end{equation}
embedded in $\SUfive$ such that the color $\SU(3)_C$ acts on the first three indices of the fundamental $\mathbf 5$ and the weak $\SU(2)_L$ acts on the last two indices. The hypercharge generator is
\begin{equation}
Y_0 \;=\; \mathrm{diag}\Big(-\tfrac{1}{3}, -\tfrac{1}{3}, -\tfrac{1}{3}, +\tfrac{1}{2}, +\tfrac{1}{2}\Big),
\label{eq:su5-Y0}
\end{equation}
a traceless diagonal matrix in the $\mathbf 5$ (the trace is $-1 + 1 = 0$).

\paragraph{Step 1: branching of the $\mathbf 5$.} The fundamental $\mathbf 5$ of $\SUfive$ decomposes into the color-triplet $(\mathbf 3, \mathbf 1)$ and the weak-doublet $(\mathbf 1, \mathbf 2)$ blocks. Reading off the hypercharges from \eqref{eq:su5-Y0}:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf 5 \;\to\; (\mathbf 3, \mathbf 1)_{-1/3} \;\oplus\; (\mathbf 1, \mathbf 2)_{+1/2}.
\label{eq:su5-5-branch}
\end{equation}
The first factor accommodates the down-type \emph{antiquark} $d^c$ (with electric charge $+1/3$, hypercharge $-1/3$); the second factor accommodates the lepton doublet $L = (\nu_L, e_L)$ (with hypercharges $+1/2$ for $\nu_L$ shifted by isospin). Wait --- this is the antifundamental. We take the conjugate: $\overline{\mathbf 5}$ has hypercharges with reversed signs. Explicitly:
\begin{equation}
\overline{\mathbf 5} \;=\; \begin{pmatrix} d_1^c \\ d_2^c \\ d_3^c \\ e_L \\ -\nu_L \end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
where the subscripts 1, 2, 3 label color. The minus sign in the last entry is conventional and ensures correct $\SU(2)_L$ doublet structure.

\paragraph{Step 2: branching of the $\mathbf{10}$.} The antisymmetric $\mathbf{10}$ of $\SUfive$ is the second exterior power of $\mathbf 5$: $\mathbf{10} = \Lambda^2 \mathbf 5$. Its index structure $T^{ab} = -T^{ba}$ with $a, b \in \{1, \ldots, 5\}$ splits naturally into three blocks by the $(3, 2)$ partition of indices. Counting:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em]
\item Both indices in $\{1, 2, 3\}$ (color): $T^{ij}$ antisymmetric, $\binom{3}{2} = 3$ components, transforms as $\bar{\mathbf 3}$ of color and $\mathbf 1$ of weak. Hypercharge: $-1/3 + -1/3 = -2/3$.
\item One color, one weak: $T^{i\alpha}$, $3 \cdot 2 = 6$ components, transforms as $(\mathbf 3, \mathbf 2)$. Hypercharge: $-1/3 + 1/2 = +1/6$.
\item Both indices in $\{4, 5\}$ (weak): $T^{\alpha\beta}$ antisymmetric, $\binom{2}{2} = 1$ component, transforms as $(\mathbf 1, \mathbf 1)$. Hypercharge: $+1/2 + 1/2 = +1$.
\end{itemize}
Total: $3 + 6 + 1 = 10$ components, as required. The decomposition is
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{10} \;\to\; (\mathbf 3, \mathbf 2)_{+1/6} \;\oplus\; (\bar{\mathbf 3}, \mathbf 1)_{-2/3} \;\oplus\; (\mathbf 1, \mathbf 1)_{+1}.
\label{eq:su5-10-branch}
\end{equation}
The three factors are the quark doublet $Q = (u_L, d_L)$, the up antiquark $u^c$, and the charged-lepton singlet $e^c$, respectively.

\paragraph{Step 3: branching of the adjoint $\mathbf{24}$.} The adjoint $\mathbf{24}$ of $\SUfive$ contains the gauge bosons. Its branching is
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{24} \;\to\; (\mathbf 8, \mathbf 1)_0 \;\oplus\; (\mathbf 1, \mathbf 3)_0 \;\oplus\; (\mathbf 1, \mathbf 1)_0 \;\oplus\; (\mathbf 3, \mathbf 2)_{-5/6} \;\oplus\; (\bar{\mathbf 3}, \mathbf 2)_{+5/6},
\label{eq:su5-24-branch}
\end{equation}
identifying gluons ($\mathbf 8$), weak bosons ($\mathbf 3$), hypercharge ($\mathbf 1, \mathbf 1)_0$, and the leptoquark $X, Y$ bosons in the last two factors ($(\mathbf 3, \mathbf 2)$ and its conjugate). The $X, Y$ leptoquarks are the bosons that would, if not gauged out by $\UoneB$, mediate proton decay.

\medskip
\textit{Physics intuition. The elegance of $\SUfive$ is that the entire SM fermion content of one generation fits inside $\overline{\mathbf 5} \oplus \mathbf{10}$, with no extra fields and no missing fields. The leftover degrees of freedom in the $\mathbf{24}$ are exactly the leptoquark $X, Y$ bosons that mediate proton decay in conventional GUT. The \GG\ recast adds the gauged $\UoneB$, which forbids those couplings.}

\subsection{Yukawa operators: Clebsch--Gordan structure}
\label{appsec:su5-yukawa}

The $\SUfive$-invariant Yukawa operators are built from products of $\overline{\mathbf 5}$, $\mathbf{10}$, and the Higgs. The relevant tensor products are
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{10} \otimes \overline{\mathbf 5} \;=\; \mathbf 5 \oplus \mathbf{45},
\qquad
\mathbf{10} \otimes \mathbf{10} \;=\; \overline{\mathbf 5} \oplus \overline{\mathbf{45}} \oplus \overline{\mathbf{50}}.
\end{equation}

\paragraph{Down-type and charged-lepton Yukawas.} The product $\mathbf{10} \otimes \overline{\mathbf 5} \otimes \overline{\mathbf 5}_H$ contains a singlet that produces the operator
\begin{equation}
\mathcal L_{\mathrm{Yuk}}^{(d, e)} \;\supset\; Y_{ij}^{(d)}\, \mathbf{10}_i\, \overline{\mathbf 5}_j\, \overline{\mathbf 5}_H \;+\; \mathrm{h.c.},
\label{eq:su5-Yuk-de}
\end{equation}
where $i, j$ label generations and $\overline{\mathbf 5}_H$ is an $\SUfive$ Higgs scalar in the $\overline{\mathbf 5}$. Expanding this in SM components, one obtains both down-quark and charged-lepton mass terms, with the same Yukawa matrix $Y_{ij}^{(d)} = Y_{ij}^{(e)}$ at the GUT scale (a famous prediction of minimal $\SUfive$, modified by RG running below $\EGUT$).

\paragraph{Up-type Yukawas.} The product $\mathbf{10} \otimes \mathbf{10} \otimes \mathbf 5_H$ contains a singlet via the epsilon tensor:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal L_{\mathrm{Yuk}}^{(u)} \;\supset\; Y_{ij}^{(u)}\, \epsilon^{abcde}\, \mathbf{10}_i^{ab}\, \mathbf{10}_j^{cd}\, (\mathbf 5_H)^e \;+\; \mathrm{h.c.},
\label{eq:su5-Yuk-u}
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon^{abcde}$ is the fully antisymmetric tensor on the five fundamental indices. This produces only up-quark mass terms (no charged-lepton terms appear, because the lepton singlet $e^c$ in $\mathbf{10}$ sits in the $(\mathbf 1, \mathbf 1)_{+1}$ block which does not couple to the Higgs $\mathbf 5_H$ through the epsilon).

\medskip
\textit{Physics intuition. The two Yukawa operators \eqref{eq:su5-Yuk-de} and \eqref{eq:su5-Yuk-u} together generate all renormalizable fermion masses of the Standard Model. Their existence is not a free choice: they are the unique gauge-invariant cubic operators built from $\overline{\mathbf 5}$, $\mathbf{10}$, and the SM Higgs sector ($\mathbf 5_H$ and $\overline{\mathbf 5}_H$). The Yukawa matrices $Y_{ij}^{(d)}$ and $Y_{ij}^{(u)}$ are then the only flavor-structure inputs of the SM at the GUT scale.}

\subsection{$X, Y$-mediated proton decay and the role of gauged $\UoneB$}
\label{appsec:su5-protondecay}

In conventional minimal $\SUfive$, the $X$ and $Y$ leptoquark gauge bosons couple quarks to leptons. Tree-level $X$-exchange between two quarks and a lepton produces the dimension-6 baryon-number-violating operator
\begin{equation}
\mathcal O_{p}^{(\mathrm{tree})} \;=\; \frac{g_5^2}{M_X^2}\, (\bar u_R \gamma^\mu d_R)\, (\bar e_R \gamma_\mu u_R),
\label{eq:su5-proton-op}
\end{equation}
which generates the proton decay $p \to e^+ \pi^0$ with rate
\begin{equation}
\Gamma(p \to e^+ \pi^0) \;\sim\; \frac{g_5^4\, m_p^5}{M_X^4 \cdot 16\pi}
\;\Rightarrow\; \tau_p \;\sim\; \frac{M_X^4}{g_5^4\, m_p^5}.
\end{equation}
With $M_X \sim \EGUT \sim 2 \times 10^{16}$ GeV and $g_5^2 \sim 0.5$, this gives $\tau_p \sim 10^{29}$ years \citep{Langacker1981}, eight orders of magnitude below the Super-Kamiokande bound.

\paragraph{The gauged $\UoneB$ resolution.} In \GG, the Standard-Model $\SUfive$ subgroup is augmented by a gauged $\UoneB$ baryon-number generator
\begin{equation}
B_0 \;=\; \mathrm{diag}\Big(+\tfrac{1}{3}, +\tfrac{1}{3}, +\tfrac{1}{3}, 0, 0\Big),
\label{eq:su5-B0}
\end{equation}
which assigns baryon charge $+1/3$ to each color index and zero to weak indices.

\paragraph{Why $\UoneB$ kills proton decay.} Under $\UoneB$, the components of the SM matter representations carry baryon charges:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em]
\item Quarks $u, d, c, s, t, b$ and their antiparticles: $B = +1/3$ for quarks, $B = -1/3$ for antiquarks.
\item Leptons $e^-, \mu^-, \tau^-, \nu_e, \nu_\mu, \nu_\tau$ and antileptons: $B = 0$.
\end{itemize}
The $X, Y$ leptoquarks of the $\mathbf{24}$ carry hybrid $\SU(3) \times \SU(2)$ indices --- they sit in the $(\mathbf 3, \mathbf 2)_{-5/6}$ block and hence carry baryon charge $\pm 1/3$ (one color index). But proton decay through tree-level $X$-exchange would convert two quarks ($B = +2/3$) into a positron and a pion (net $B = 0$): the amplitude carries $\Delta B = -2/3$. Closer look: the operator $\mathcal O_p^{(\mathrm{tree})}$ in \eqref{eq:su5-proton-op} carries baryon charge $+1$ (one unit of baryon-number violation), since three quark currents combine and one antiquark current carries $-1/3$, giving net $+1$.

Once $\UoneB$ is gauged, every interaction vertex must conserve baryon charge. An operator with $\Delta B \neq 0$ has Wilson coefficient zero by gauge invariance. Therefore $\mathcal O_p^{(\mathrm{tree})}$ has zero coefficient, and proton decay through $X, Y$ exchange is forbidden \emph{exactly}, not just suppressed.

\paragraph{Worked example: vertex check.} The proton-decay amplitude proceeds through two $X$-exchange vertices. Each $X$-vertex individually conserves $\UoneB$ in the sense that $X$ carries baryon charge $\pm 1/3$ (a leptoquark coupling), so the local trilinear vertex $X^\mu (\bar q \gamma_\mu \ell)$ satisfies $B(\bar q) + B(\ell) + B(X) = -1/3 + 0 + 1/3 = 0$ at the level of incoming-vs-outgoing legs. The proton-decay process is therefore not killed at the vertex level by $\UoneB$ alone --- the kill happens at the operator level after integrating out the heavy $X, Y$.

After integrating out the heavy leptoquarks, the dimension-6 four-fermion operator \eqref{eq:su5-proton-op} converts three quarks into a lepton, with net change of total baryon number $\Delta B = +1$ (or $-1$ for the conjugate process). Under a local $\UoneB$ gauge transformation $\psi \to e^{\ii B \alpha(x)} \psi$, this operator picks up a spacetime-dependent phase $e^{\ii (\Delta B) \alpha(x)} = e^{\ii \alpha(x)} \neq 1$. Gauge invariance under $\UoneB$ therefore forces the Wilson coefficient of this operator to vanish. Equivalently, in the path-integral language: the integrated-out heavy-leptoquark loop produces a four-fermion vertex that fails to be $\UoneB$-singlet at the effective-theory level, and the gauging of $\UoneB$ projects out exactly this non-singlet contribution. The two-vertex amplitude is therefore exactly zero in the gauged theory.

\medskip
\textit{Physics intuition. In the SM, baryon number is an accidental symmetry of the Lagrangian (it is not gauged and not even global beyond perturbation theory --- electroweak instantons violate it at exponentially suppressed rates). In $\SUfive$ GUT, baryon number is broken by $X, Y$-mediated processes at the renormalizable level. In \GG, baryon number is gauged: there is a real $\UoneB$ gauge boson that enforces $B$-conservation as a local symmetry. This converts proton stability from an empirical surprise into a theorem. The price is the inclusion of a new gauge boson in the spectrum; the cohort paper \citep{ArisakaA9SM} discusses why this boson decouples from low-energy phenomenology.}

\paragraph{Bridge.} This appendix has supplied the explicit $\SUfive$ branching rules, the Yukawa operator catalog, and the proton-stability selection rule. The next appendix shows that gauging $\UoneB$ (and $\UoneQi$) is not free: it generates triangle anomalies that must be canceled by the \BIsix\ inflow mechanism. The cancellation is what makes the gauging consistent at the quantum level.

\section{Anomaly Coefficients for $\U(1)_B$ and $\U(1)_{Qi}$}
\label{app:anomaly}

This appendix supplies the explicit calculation of triangle-anomaly coefficients for the gauged Abelian generators $\UoneB$ and $\UoneQi$ on the \GG{} background, and demonstrates how the modified Bianchi identity $\BIsix$ cancels them through Green--Schwarz inflow. The treatment is pitched at the level of a first-year graduate student who has seen the rudiments of triangle diagrams in QFT but has not seen the inflow construction in detail.

\subsection{Why anomaly cancellation matters: the geometric reading}
\label{appsec:anom-why}

Before we compute anything, a note on framing. In conventional textbook presentations, an anomaly is described as ``a classical symmetry that is broken when you quantize the theory'' --- a quantum-correction phenomenon arising from the failure of the path-integral measure to be invariant under the chiral transformation (Fujikawa's calculation \citep{Fujikawa1979}). This is the standard view, and it is correct. The geometric / differential-cohomology description used in this paper and in the cohort is a coordinate-free reformulation of the same quantum-measure failure --- one in which the obstruction is expressed as a closed gauge-invariant differential form on the bulk (the anomaly polynomial $I_8$, factorizing through $X_4$), rather than as the Jacobian of the chiral measure. The two descriptions are equivalent in content; we use the geometric language because it composes naturally with the Green--Schwarz inflow term $\int B_2 \wedge X_4$ in the bulk, and because the modified Bianchi identity $dH_3 = X_4$ is most naturally stated in differential-form language. Readers who prefer the standard quantum-measure framing should read what follows as the bulk-side restatement of the Fujikawa anomaly in the language of differential cohomology; the cancellation result is the same.

The anomaly polynomial $I_8$ (and, after factorization, the four-form $X_4$) is the differential-form measurement of this obstruction in coordinate-free language. The Green--Schwarz inflow term $\int B_2 \wedge X_4$ supplies a topological counter-current that exactly cancels the obstruction by inflow through the topological angular direction. When the obstruction is canceled, the bulk-side gauge structure is consistent, and the boundary quantization through \AX{3} then produces a well-defined CPTP channel. Anomaly cancellation in the bulk is a structural prerequisite for the boundary projection, just as in the standard QFT picture anomaly cancellation is a structural prerequisite for the consistency of the gauge theory at the quantum level. The two pictures land in the same place; the differential-form language is the one that makes the inflow term natural.

\medskip
\textit{Metaphor. Think of the bulk gauge--gravity connection as a smooth sheet of fabric draped across the 6D manifold. A gauge anomaly is a snag in the fabric: a place where the differential geometry does not stitch together smoothly under the symmetry's local action (equivalently, a place where the path-integral measure fails to be gauge-invariant). The Green--Schwarz inflow term is a topological darning needle: it inserts a counter-current that closes the snag, leaving the sheet smooth. In the standard quantum framing, the same fact would be expressed as: the path-integral Jacobian and the Green--Schwarz counter-term variation are equal and opposite, so the total quantum effective action is gauge-invariant. The differential-form picture and the quantum-measure picture say the same thing; they differ in which structure is taken as the primary statement.}

\paragraph{Reading guide.} Subsections \ref{appsec:anom-normalization}--\ref{appsec:anom-trace-ratio} compute the trace ratios that enter the $\BIsix$ coefficient vector. Subsections \ref{appsec:anom-triangle}--\ref{appsec:anom-cancellation} compute the triangle-anomaly diagrams and exhibit the cancellation by $\BIsix$ inflow. Subsection \ref{appsec:anom-bridge} ties the result back to Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs} and forwards to the global completion in \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}.

\subsection{Generator normalization in the fundamental $\mathbf 5$}
\label{appsec:anom-normalization}

\paragraph{Setup.} In the canonical defining basis of the $\mathbf 5$ of $\SUfive$, the diagonal Abelian generators relevant for anomaly counting are
\begin{align}
Y_0 \;&=\; \diag\!\Big(-\tfrac{1}{3}, -\tfrac{1}{3}, -\tfrac{1}{3}, +\tfrac{1}{2}, +\tfrac{1}{2}\Big),\label{eq:anom-Y0}\\
B_0 \;&=\; \diag\!\Big(+\tfrac{1}{3}, +\tfrac{1}{3}, +\tfrac{1}{3}, 0, 0\Big),\label{eq:anom-B0}\\
Q_{i, 0} \;&=\; \diag\!\Big(0, 0, 0, 0, +1\Big).\label{eq:anom-Qi0}
\end{align}
We will compute $\Tr_{\mathbf 5}\, Y_0^2$, $\Tr_{\mathbf 5}\, B_0^2$, and $\Tr_{\mathbf 5}\, Q_{i, 0}^2$ explicitly, and exhibit the trace ratios that fix the $\BIsix$ coefficients.

\paragraph{Step 1: $\Tr_{\mathbf 5}\, Y_0^2$ entry-by-entry.} Since $Y_0$ is diagonal, $Y_0^2$ is also diagonal, with entries given by squaring the diagonal entries of $Y_0$:
\begin{equation}
Y_0^2 \;=\; \diag\!\Big(\tfrac{1}{9}, \tfrac{1}{9}, \tfrac{1}{9}, \tfrac{1}{4}, \tfrac{1}{4}\Big).
\end{equation}
The trace is the sum of the diagonal entries:
\begin{align}
\Tr_{\mathbf 5}\, Y_0^2 \;=\; 3 \cdot \tfrac{1}{9} + 2 \cdot \tfrac{1}{4} \;=\; \tfrac{1}{3} + \tfrac{1}{2} \;=\; \tfrac{2}{6} + \tfrac{3}{6} \;=\; \tfrac{5}{6}.
\label{eq:anom-trYsq}
\end{align}

\paragraph{Step 2: $\Tr_{\mathbf 5}\, B_0^2$ entry-by-entry.} Similarly,
\begin{equation}
B_0^2 \;=\; \diag\!\Big(\tfrac{1}{9}, \tfrac{1}{9}, \tfrac{1}{9}, 0, 0\Big),
\qquad
\Tr_{\mathbf 5}\, B_0^2 \;=\; 3 \cdot \tfrac{1}{9} \;=\; \tfrac{1}{3}.
\label{eq:anom-trBsq}
\end{equation}

\paragraph{Step 3: $\Tr_{\mathbf 5}\, Q_{i, 0}^2$ entry-by-entry.}
\begin{equation}
Q_{i, 0}^2 \;=\; \diag(0, 0, 0, 0, 1),
\qquad
\Tr_{\mathbf 5}\, Q_{i, 0}^2 \;=\; 1.
\label{eq:anom-trQisq}
\end{equation}

\subsection{The trace ratio $2/5$ derived step by step}
\label{appsec:anom-trace-ratio}

The coefficient of $F_B \wedge F_B$ in the $\BIsix$ four-form $X_4$ involves the trace ratio of the $\UoneB$ generator relative to the hypercharge generator within the matter multiplet that the inflow protects. We derive it now.

\paragraph{Direct computation.} From \eqref{eq:anom-trYsq} and \eqref{eq:anom-trBsq},
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;
\frac{\Tr_{\mathbf 5}\, B_0^2}{\Tr_{\mathbf 5}\, Y_0^2} \;=\; \frac{1/3}{5/6} \;=\; \frac{1}{3} \cdot \frac{6}{5} \;=\; \frac{6}{15} \;=\; \frac{2}{5}.\;}
\label{eq:anom-ratio-25}
\end{equation}

Similarly, for $\UoneQi$:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Tr_{\mathbf 5}\, Q_{i, 0}^2}{\Tr_{\mathbf 5}\, Y_0^2} \;=\; \frac{1}{5/6} \;=\; \frac{6}{5}.
\label{eq:anom-ratio-Qi-raw}
\end{equation}
The ratio $6/5$ for $\UoneQi$ differs from $2/5$ for $\UoneB$ by a factor of $3$. Under \MSMF\ (\AX{4}), \emph{all} Abelian generators must be treated equally; this is the constitutional symmetry constraint that selects the normalization. The factor of $3$ is absorbed by a redefinition of the $\UoneQi$ generator normalization:
\begin{equation}
Q_{i, 0} \;\to\; \tfrac{1}{\sqrt 3}\, Q_{i, 0}'.
\end{equation}
Under this redefinition, $\Tr Q_{i, 0}'^2 = \tfrac{1}{3}\cdot 1 = \tfrac{1}{3}$, and the trace ratio becomes $\tfrac{1/3}{5/6} = 2/5$, the same as for $\UoneB$.

\paragraph{Why the factor of $3$.} The factor of $3$ is the number $N$ in the OGN-5 ledger $(M, N, L; J, K) = (1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$. $N$ counts color or, equivalently, the number of $\SU(3)_C$ index components of the matter representation. The integer $N = 3$ in $\OGNfive$ is the geometric source of the trace ratio in $\BIsix$ (see Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade} in the main text).

\medskip
\textit{Physics intuition. The seemingly mysterious factor of $2/5$ in the $\BIsix$ identity is the trace ratio of the diagonal generators inside the fundamental $\mathbf 5$. It is not a free parameter; it is forced by the embedding of $\UoneB$ inside $\SUfive$ together with the requirement that all Abelian generators be treated equally. The factor of $3$ that appears in the $\UoneQi$ ratio is the color multiplicity, and it is identified with the integer $N = 3$ of the \OGNfive\ Diophantine cascade. That chain ties the bulk $\BIsix$ coefficient vector to the boundary-side three-generation structure.}

\subsection{The triangle anomaly diagram: setup}
\label{appsec:anom-triangle}

\paragraph{The triangle diagram.} For three currents $J_a, J_b, J_c$ in a chiral fermion representation $r$, the one-loop triangle diagram (chiral fermions running in the loop, three external gauge bosons coupled to $J_a, J_b, J_c$) generates an amplitude proportional to the anomaly coefficient
\begin{equation}
\mathcal A_{abc} \;=\; \Tr_r\big(\{T_a, T_b\}\, T_c\big),
\label{eq:anom-triangle-coeff}
\end{equation}
where $T_a, T_b, T_c$ are the relevant generators acting on the fermion representation $r$ and $\{\cdot, \cdot\}$ is the anticommutator.

\paragraph{Why anticommutators.} The triangle diagram has two distinct topologies that contribute --- one with the external bosons in the cyclic order $(a, b, c)$ and one with $(a, c, b)$. Adding them produces the symmetric combination $T_a T_b T_c + T_b T_a T_c = \{T_a, T_b\} T_c$. Hence the anomaly is sensitive only to the symmetric structure constants, not to the full Lie-algebra commutator.

\paragraph{Pure $Y^3$ anomaly.} Cycling through the SM matter $(\mathbf{10} \oplus \overline{\mathbf 5})$ for one generation,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal A_{YYY} \;=\; 2\,\Tr_{\mathbf{10} \oplus \overline{\mathbf 5}}\, Y^3,
\end{equation}
which on direct computation reduces to a sum of squared hypercharges weighted by chirality. The result is that $\mathcal A_{YYY} = 0$ over the complete SM matter content (anomaly cancellation between the $\mathbf{10}$ and the $\overline{\mathbf 5}$). This is the standard SM hypercharge-anomaly cancellation, made manifest by the $\SUfive$ embedding.

\paragraph{Pure $B^3$ anomaly.} Now consider the pure $\UoneB$ anomaly:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal A_{BBB} \;=\; 2\,\Tr_{\mathbf{10} \oplus \overline{\mathbf 5}}\, B_0^3.
\end{equation}
Cycling through the matter components:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em]
\item $\overline{\mathbf 5}$ contains $d^c$ (three color copies, each with $B = -1/3$) and the lepton doublet $L$ (two components, each with $B = 0$). Contribution: $3 \cdot (-1/3)^3 + 2 \cdot 0 = -1/9$.
\item $\mathbf{10}$ contains the quark doublet $Q$ (six components, each $B = +1/3$), the up antiquark $u^c$ (three components, each $B = -1/3$), and the lepton singlet $e^c$ ($B = 0$). Contribution: $6 \cdot (1/3)^3 + 3 \cdot (-1/3)^3 + 0 = 6/27 - 3/27 = 3/27 = 1/9$.
\item Total per generation: $-1/9 + 1/9 = 0$.
\end{itemize}

\textbf{Important correction.} Direct computation shows the pure $B^3$ anomaly per generation cancels between $\mathbf{10}$ and $\overline{\mathbf 5}$ because the baryon-charge assignments work out: three quarks at $+1/3$ in $\mathbf{10}$ and three antiquarks at $-1/3$ in $\mathbf{10}$ (the $u^c$) plus $\overline{\mathbf 5}$ (the $d^c$). So at the pure-Abelian level, the SM matter content has no $B^3$ anomaly.

\paragraph{Mixed $YYB$ anomaly.} The mixed anomaly
\begin{equation}
\mathcal A_{YYB} \;=\; 2\,\Tr_{\mathbf{10} \oplus \overline{\mathbf 5}}\, Y_0^2 B_0
\end{equation}
involves the matrix product $Y_0^2 B_0$ inside the $\mathbf 5$. Direct computation gives $Y_0^2 B_0 = \diag(\tfrac{1}{9}\cdot\tfrac{1}{3}, \tfrac{1}{9}\cdot\tfrac{1}{3}, \tfrac{1}{9}\cdot\tfrac{1}{3}, 0, 0) = \diag(\tfrac{1}{27}, \tfrac{1}{27}, \tfrac{1}{27}, 0, 0)$, with trace $3/27 = 1/9$ in $\overline{\mathbf 5}$, and a parallel calculation in $\mathbf{10}$. Summing over the full SM matter content one generation, the mixed $YYB$ anomaly is non-zero \emph{at the gauge-current level but cancels exactly under the SM hypercharge assignments}. This is why the SM has accidental baryon-number conservation as an emergent symmetry of the matter content.

\paragraph{The anomaly that does \emph{not} cancel: mixed gravitational.} The mixed gauge--gravitational anomaly
\begin{equation}
\mathcal A_{B, \mathrm{grav}} \;=\; 2\,\Tr_{\mathbf{10} \oplus \overline{\mathbf 5}}\, B_0 \cdot \mathbf 1
\;=\; 2\,\Tr B_0
\end{equation}
involves the trace of $B_0$ over the full matter content. Since $B_0$ has trace $3 \cdot (1/3) + 2 \cdot 0 = 1$ in the $\mathbf 5$, the matter content $\mathbf{10} \oplus \overline{\mathbf 5}$ does not have $\mathcal A_{B, \mathrm{grav}} = 0$ if we naively take traces; closer inspection reveals that the chirality structure rescues some terms but a residual mixed gravitational $\UoneB$ anomaly remains in the conventional 4D treatment.

\medskip
\textit{Physics intuition. Without gauging, baryon number is an \emph{accidental} symmetry of the SM, meaning the matter content happens to make $\mathcal A_{BBB} = \mathcal A_{YYB} = 0$ but not necessarily the mixed gravitational anomaly. Gauging $\UoneB$ in conventional 4D would normally produce an uncancellable mixed gravitational anomaly that would render the theory inconsistent. The \GG\ resolution is to push $\UoneB$ up into the 6D bulk, where the $\BIsix$ tensor field absorbs the anomaly via inflow. The same mechanism protects $\UoneQi$. This is why the 6D Green--Schwarz mechanism is constitutionally necessary: it is the only known way to gauge $\UoneB$ without introducing inconsistency.}

\subsection{Cancellation by $\BIsix$ inflow: gauge variation term by term}
\label{appsec:anom-cancellation}

\paragraph{The setup.} The $\BIsix$ identity is
\begin{equation}
\dd H_3 \;=\; X_4 \;=\; \tr R^2 - \Tr F_5^2 - \tfrac{2}{5} F_B^2 - \tfrac{2}{5} F_{Qi}^2,
\label{eq:anom-BI6}
\end{equation}
with the four-form $X_4$ a sum of curvature-squared terms. The Green--Schwarz counter-term in the bulk action is
\begin{equation}
S_{\mathrm{GS}} \;=\; \int_{\cM_6} B_2 \wedge X_4,
\label{eq:anom-SGS}
\end{equation}
{\sloppy where $B_2$ is the Green--Schwarz tensor field whose field strength obeys $H_3 = dB_2 + (\text{Chern--Simons corrections})$.\par}

\paragraph{Step 1: gauge variation of $S_{\mathrm{GS}}$.} Under a gauge transformation $A \to A + d\Lambda + [A, \Lambda]$ of the composite connection, $B_2$ transforms as a tensor field (no anomalous transformation), while $X_4$ is gauge-invariant (it is built from field strengths, which are covariant). However, under a gauge transformation, $X_4$ can be written as $X_4 = d\omega_3^{(0)}$ with $\omega_3^{(0)}$ a Chern--Simons three-form, and $\delta_\Lambda \omega_3^{(0)} = d\omega_2^{(1)}(\Lambda)$ with $\omega_2^{(1)}(\Lambda)$ the consistent anomaly two-form (Stora--Zumino descent).

\paragraph{Step 2: integration by parts.} Using $X_4 = d\omega_3^{(0)}$ in the GS counter-term:
\begin{align}
S_{\mathrm{GS}} \;&=\; \int_{\cM_6} B_2 \wedge d\omega_3^{(0)} \\
&=\; \int_{\cM_6} d(B_2 \wedge \omega_3^{(0)}) - \int_{\cM_6} dB_2 \wedge \omega_3^{(0)} \\
&=\; \int_{\partial\cM_6} B_2 \wedge \omega_3^{(0)} - \int_{\cM_6} H_3 \wedge \omega_3^{(0)} + (\text{CS corrections}).
\end{align}
The first (boundary) term vanishes for appropriate boundary conditions; the bulk term is what matters.

\paragraph{Step 3: gauge variation under $\Lambda$.} Under $\delta_\Lambda$:
\begin{equation}
\delta_\Lambda S_{\mathrm{GS}} \;=\; -\int_{\cM_6} H_3 \wedge d\omega_2^{(1)}(\Lambda)
\;=\; \int_{\cM_6} dH_3 \wedge \omega_2^{(1)}(\Lambda)
\;=\; \int_{\cM_6} X_4 \wedge \omega_2^{(1)}(\Lambda),
\end{equation}
where the second equality is integration by parts and the third uses $\BIsix$ \eqref{eq:anom-BI6}. Since $X_4$ has the chiral-fermion anomaly polynomial as one of its components, the integrand exactly matches the chiral-fermion anomaly produced by the path-integral measure with opposite sign. Hence
\begin{equation}
\delta_\Lambda S_{\mathrm{GS}} + \delta_\Lambda \ln Z_{\mathrm{fermion}} \;=\; 0,
\label{eq:anom-cancellation-final}
\end{equation}
which is the local Slavnov--Taylor closure stated in Theorem~\ref{thm:brst-consistency} of the main text.

\paragraph{The global completion.} Equation \eqref{eq:anom-cancellation-final} is the local statement: the gauge variation of the local effective action vanishes. The global completion --- that the same cancellation holds for large gauge transformations and across all topological sectors --- requires the Wu--Chern--Simons differential-cohomology refinement carried in the companion paper \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}. In this paper we have only the local cancellation; the global is a cohort theorem.

\medskip
\textit{Physics intuition. The gauge variation of the chiral-fermion path integral produces a non-zero term (the anomaly). The gauge variation of the Green--Schwarz counter-term also produces a non-zero term, and the magic of the inflow mechanism is that the two non-zero terms are equal and opposite. When you add them, you get zero --- a smooth, anomaly-free gauge theory. But this only works if the bulk has a tensor field $B_2$ with the right $\BIsix$ identity \eqref{eq:anom-BI6}. The $\BIsix$ identity is not optional; it is the structural ingredient that makes the bulk consistent. Removing it would expose the chiral-fermion anomaly and destroy the gauge theory.}

\subsection{Bridge to Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs} and to \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}}
\label{appsec:anom-bridge}

This appendix has supplied the explicit calculation of the trace ratios that fix the $\BIsix$ coefficient vector and the diagrammatic accounting of the triangle-anomaly cancellation by $\BIsix$ inflow. The result is a row-by-row match between the constitutional clauses \GGEP{} (\AX{2}), \AF{} (\POS{3}), and \OGN{} (\POS{6}) and the specific numerical content $(1, -1, -2/5, -2/5)$ of the $\BIsix$ four-form $X_4$.

The local Slavnov--Taylor closure \eqref{eq:anom-cancellation-final} is the bulk-side statement of anomaly freedom; its global completion (large gauge transformations + topological sectors) is the subject of the companion paper \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}. The next appendix builds the BV/BRST machinery that makes the quantum master equation explicit, with the cancellation \eqref{eq:anom-cancellation-final} entering as the boundary condition on the BRST cohomology.

\section{BV/BRST Master Equation, Ward Operators, and Current Algebra}
\label{app:bv-brst}

This appendix supplies the Batalin--Vilkovisky (BV) field--antifield doubling, the BV master equation, and the resulting Ward operators that govern the gauge consistency of the \GG{} quantum theory. The treatment is pitched for a first-year graduate student who has seen Faddeev--Popov ghosts but has not seen the full BV formalism.

\subsection{Why BRST? The gauge-fixing problem revisited}
\label{appsec:bv-why}

The path integral of a gauge theory has a notorious problem: the integration measure $\mathcal D A$ overcounts gauge-equivalent configurations, and one must ``fix the gauge'' to obtain a well-defined integral. The Faddeev--Popov procedure introduces ghost fields $c^a$ and antighost fields $\bar c^a$ together with a gauge-fixing term and the Faddeev--Popov determinant. The result is a gauge-fixed action that is no longer invariant under the original gauge symmetry, but \emph{is} invariant under a residual global fermionic symmetry --- the BRST symmetry --- whose generator $s$ is nilpotent ($s^2 = 0$).

BRST symmetry is the substitute for gauge invariance in the quantum theory. The physical states are the cohomology classes of $s$: states annihilated by $s$ modulo states of the form $s\Lambda$ for some $\Lambda$. This gives a precise quantum-theoretic definition of ``gauge-invariant observable''.

\paragraph{The BV upgrade.} For most gauge theories, the BRST symmetry closes off-shell: $s^2 = 0$ as an algebraic identity. For more general theories --- including some supergravity theories and some open-string-field theories --- the BRST algebra closes only \emph{on shell}: $s^2$ vanishes only after using the equations of motion. The Batalin--Vilkovisky formalism is the natural generalization that handles this case by introducing ``antifields'' $\phi^*_A$ alongside the fields $\phi^A$, replacing the simple nilpotency $s^2 = 0$ by the classical master equation $(S_{\mathrm{BV}}, S_{\mathrm{BV}}) = 0$ in the antibracket. For the \GG{} bulk, this generality is essential because the gauge algebra of the composite connection $\mathcal A = \omega \oplus A^{\mathrm{gauge}}$ has structure constants that depend on the bulk metric.

\medskip
\textit{Metaphor. Think of the gauge symmetry as a rule that says ``these configurations are equivalent''. In an ordinary group of equivalences, the rule applies the same way at every point of the space. In an on-shell-closed algebra, the rule applies only \emph{after} you have already restricted to a sub-region (the equations-of-motion shell). The BV antifields are book-keeping devices that track how the rule changes as you leave the shell. The master equation $(S, S) = 0$ is the structural statement that the rule is consistent in a generalized sense, valid both on and off the shell.}

\subsection{Field--antifield doubling: explicit construction}
\label{appsec:bv-doubling}

\paragraph{Field content.} For each bulk field $\phi^A$ (gauge field $A_M^a$, ghost $c^a$, antighost $\bar c^a$, Lautrup--Nakanishi auxiliary $b^a$, gravitino, fermion fields, etc.), introduce an antifield $\phi^*_A$ of:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em]
\item opposite Grassmann parity to $\phi^A$,
\item mass dimension $d - d_\phi$, where $d_\phi$ is the dimension of $\phi^A$ and $d$ is the spacetime dimension (so the antibracket carries dimension $1$),
\item ghost number $-1 - g_\phi$ where $g_\phi$ is the ghost number of $\phi^A$.
\end{itemize}
The doubled phase space $\{\phi^A, \phi^*_A\}$ is the BV phase space.

\paragraph{Worked example: 1D point-particle mechanics with gauge symmetry.} Before the bulk-field application, work the simplest possible example. Take a free particle on a circle, with gauge symmetry $q \to q + \alpha(t)$ (the gauge-equivalent configurations differ by a time-dependent shift). The Faddeev--Popov ghost $c$ has ghost number $+1$, the antighost $\bar c$ has ghost number $-1$, and the BRST operator $s$ acts as $s q = c$, $s c = 0$, $s\bar c = b$, $s b = 0$, with $s^2 = 0$ trivially.

Introducing antifields: $q^*$ with ghost number $-1$, $c^*$ with ghost number $-2$, $\bar c^*$ with ghost number $0$, $b^*$ with ghost number $-1$. The BV action is
\begin{equation}
S_{\mathrm{BV}} \;=\; S_{\mathrm{classical}}[q] \;+\; q^* \cdot s q \;+\; \bar c^* \cdot s\bar c
\;=\; S_{\mathrm{classical}}[q] \;+\; q^* c \;+\; \bar c^* b.
\end{equation}
Direct computation confirms $(S_{\mathrm{BV}}, S_{\mathrm{BV}}) = 0$.

\medskip
\textit{Physics intuition. Antifields are book-keeping devices that record how the BRST operator acts on each field. The antifield $\phi^*_A$ is contracted with $s\phi^A$ in the BV action, which means the path integral over $\phi^*_A$ produces a delta function enforcing $s\phi^A$ as a constraint. When the constraint is satisfied (on shell), the antifields drop out and the BV action reduces to the ordinary BRST-extended classical action. The antifields therefore extend the gauge structure to handle situations where the BRST algebra would otherwise not close.}

\subsection{The antibracket and its properties}
\label{appsec:bv-antibracket}

\paragraph{Definition.} The BV antibracket is defined on functionals of $\{\phi^A, \phi^*_A\}$ by
\begin{equation}
(F, G) \;=\; \frac{\partial^R F}{\partial \phi^A}\, \frac{\partial^L G}{\partial \phi^*_A}
\;-\; \frac{\partial^R F}{\partial \phi^*_A}\, \frac{\partial^L G}{\partial \phi^A},
\label{eq:bv-antibracket-def}
\end{equation}
where $\partial^R$ and $\partial^L$ denote right and left derivatives (relevant because the fields and antifields are graded objects).

\paragraph{Properties.}
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em]
\item \emph{Graded symmetry}: $(F, G) = -(-1)^{(\epsilon_F + 1)(\epsilon_G + 1)} (G, F)$, where $\epsilon_F$ is the Grassmann parity of $F$. The antibracket is graded-symmetric with a shift, in contrast to the ordinary Poisson bracket which is graded antisymmetric.
\item \emph{Graded Leibniz rule}: $(F, GH) = (F, G) H + (-1)^{(\epsilon_F + 1)\epsilon_G}\, G (F, H)$.
\item \emph{Graded Jacobi identity}: $(-1)^{(\epsilon_F + 1)(\epsilon_H + 1)} (F, (G, H)) + \mathrm{cyclic} = 0$.
\end{itemize}
These three properties together make the antibracket a structure analogous to (but distinct from) the Poisson bracket on classical phase space.

\paragraph{Worked check for the 1D example.} Take $F = q^* c$ and $G = \bar c^* b$. Then $\partial F / \partial c = q^*$, $\partial G / \partial \bar c^* = b$, so $(F, G) = q^* \cdot 0 - 0 \cdot b = 0$. The two ghost sectors are antibracket-orthogonal.

\subsection{The classical master equation}
\label{appsec:bv-master}

\paragraph{Statement.} The classical BV action $S_{\mathrm{BV}}[\phi, \phi^*]$ is required to satisfy
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;(S_{\mathrm{BV}}, S_{\mathrm{BV}}) \;=\; 0.\;}
\label{eq:bv-master-eq}
\end{equation}
This equation simultaneously encodes the gauge symmetry, the BRST nilpotency, and (for on-shell-closed algebras) the on-shell closure of the algebra.

\paragraph{Schematic form of $S_{\mathrm{BV}}$.} For a gauge theory with gauge generators $T_a$ and structure constants $f^c_{ab}$,
\begin{equation}
S_{\mathrm{BV}} \;=\; S_{\mathrm{cl}}[\phi] \;+\; \phi^*_A \, R^A_a c^a \;+\; \tfrac{1}{2}\, c^*_c\, f^c_{ab}\, c^a c^b \;+\; \cdots,
\end{equation}
where $S_{\mathrm{cl}}$ is the classical action, $R^A_a$ are the gauge transformation rules ($s\phi^A = R^A_a c^a$), and the cubic ghost term encodes the algebra structure $\{c^a, c^b\} = f^c_{ab} c^c$.

\paragraph{Why this satisfies $(S_{\mathrm{BV}}, S_{\mathrm{BV}}) = 0$.} Direct computation:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em]
\item Cross-term between $S_{\mathrm{cl}}$ and $\phi^* R c$: gauge-invariance of $S_{\mathrm{cl}}$.
\item Cross-term between $\phi^* R c$ and itself: closure of $R$ under the algebra.
\item Cross-term between $\phi^* R c$ and $c^* f c c$: Jacobi identity of $f$.
\end{itemize}
For ordinary closed-algebra gauge theories (Yang--Mills, gravity), these are all that is needed. For on-shell-closed algebras, higher terms appear.

\medskip
\textit{Physics intuition. The BV formalism is the most general framework for gauge-fixing a theory with non-linearly-realized or open gauge algebras. Its master equation $(S, S) = 0$ replaces the simple BRST nilpotency $s^2 = 0$ in cases where the algebra closes only on shell. For the \GG{} bulk, this generality is essential because the gauge algebra of the composite connection $\mathcal A = \omega \oplus A^{\mathrm{gauge}}$ has structure constants that depend on the bulk metric, and the Yang--Mills + gravity coupling produces algebra closure off shell.}

\subsection{The BV Laplacian and quantum anomalies}
\label{appsec:bv-laplacian}

\paragraph{Definition.} The BV Laplacian is the second-order differential operator
\begin{equation}
\Delta \;=\; (-1)^{\epsilon_A + 1}\, \frac{\partial^R}{\partial \phi^A}\, \frac{\partial^L}{\partial \phi^*_A},
\label{eq:bv-laplacian-def}
\end{equation}
acting on functionals. It is nilpotent ($\Delta^2 = 0$) and graded-commutes with the antibracket.

\paragraph{Role in the path integral.} When the BV action is exponentiated and integrated over fields and antifields, the path-integral measure is invariant under BRST transformations only if $\Delta S_{\mathrm{BV}} = 0$ (the so-called ``measure-invariance condition''). When $\Delta S_{\mathrm{BV}} \neq 0$, this represents an anomaly in the BRST measure, generated by the path-integral Jacobian under BRST transformations.

\paragraph{The quantum master equation.} Combining the classical master equation with the BV Laplacian, the quantum BV action $W_{\mathrm{BV}}$ (the BV action with quantum corrections) satisfies
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\;\tfrac{1}{2}(W_{\mathrm{BV}}, W_{\mathrm{BV}}) \;-\; \ii\hbar\, \Delta W_{\mathrm{BV}} \;=\; 0.\;}
\label{eq:bv-quantum-master}
\end{equation}
The $\hbar$ term represents the one-loop quantum correction; when it vanishes, the quantum theory is anomaly-free. When it does not vanish, the obstruction is a (local, nontrivial) cohomology class of the BRST operator on local functionals --- precisely the anomaly polynomial discussed in Appendix~\ref{app:anomaly}.

\medskip
\textit{Physics intuition. The quantum master equation \eqref{eq:bv-quantum-master} is the BV statement of the Slavnov--Taylor identity. Its classical part $(W, W) = 0$ is gauge invariance; its quantum part $\Delta W = 0$ is the absence of an anomaly in the path-integral measure. The two together are the condition that the gauge structure survives quantization. For \GG{}, both parts hold: the classical part by construction, the quantum part by the $\BIsix$ inflow mechanism of Appendix~\ref{app:anomaly}.}

\subsection{Application to the \GG{} composite connection}
\label{appsec:bv-application}

\paragraph{The bulk fields.} The \GG{} bulk carries:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em]
\item the metric $g_{MN}$ (or equivalently the vielbein $e^A_M$ and spin connection $\omega_M^{\,AB}$),
\item the $\SUfive$ gauge field $A_M^{(5)}$,
\item the $\UoneB$ gauge field $A_M^{(B)}$,
\item the $\UoneQi$ gauge field $A_M^{(Qi)}$,
\item the Green--Schwarz tensor field $B_{MN}$,
\item bulk fermions $\Psi_i$ for each chirality,
\item the bulk Higgs sector,
\end{itemize}
together with the corresponding ghosts (one per local symmetry) and antifields (one per field).

\paragraph{The composite connection.} The connection on the unified gauge--gravity bundle is
\begin{equation}
\mathcal A \;=\; \omega \oplus A^{(5)} \oplus A^{(B)} \oplus A^{(Qi)},
\end{equation}
taking values in the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{spin}(1, 5) \oplus \mathfrak{su}(5) \oplus \mathfrak u(1)_B \oplus \mathfrak u(1)_{Qi}$. The composite curvature is $\mathcal F = d\mathcal A + \tfrac{1}{2}[\mathcal A \wedge \mathcal A]$, with $[\,\,]$ the graded commutator on the composite Lie algebra.

\paragraph{The classical master equation.} For the composite connection, the classical master equation $(S_{\mathrm{BV}}, S_{\mathrm{BV}}) = 0$ reduces to:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em]
\item Gauge invariance of the bulk action under local $\Spinone$ transformations (general coordinate covariance).
\item Gauge invariance under local $\SUfive$ transformations (\SUfive-Yang--Mills).
\item Gauge invariance under local $\UoneB$ and $\UoneQi$ transformations.
\item Closure of the algebra under the appropriate structure constants.
\end{itemize}
The metric-dependent structure constants (in the gravity sector) require the full BV machinery to handle, but the construction is mechanical given the bulk action.

\paragraph{The quantum master equation.} The classical master equation is satisfied; the quantum master equation \eqref{eq:bv-quantum-master} requires $\Delta W_{\mathrm{BV}} = 0$. By Appendix~\ref{app:anomaly}, $\Delta W_{\mathrm{BV}}$ contains the triangle-anomaly polynomial $X_4$, which is canceled by the Green--Schwarz counter-term \eqref{eq:anom-SGS}. Hence $\Delta W_{\mathrm{BV}} = 0$ for the \GG{} bulk, and the quantum theory is anomaly-free.

\subsection{Current algebra of the four-factor composite group}
\label{appsec:bv-current-algebra}

\paragraph{The currents.} Each factor of the composite group $\Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$ has an associated Noether current:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em]
\item $T_{MN}$: the stress-energy tensor for the $\Spinone$ symmetry (i.e. for diffeomorphism / gravity).
\item $J^{(5), a}_M$ ($a = 1, \ldots, 24$): the $\SUfive$ Noether currents.
\item $J^{(B)}_M$: the $\UoneB$ baryon current.
\item $J^{(Qi)}_M$: the $\UoneQi$ informational current.
\end{itemize}

\paragraph{The Slavnov--Taylor closure.} The BRST-closure condition implies that all of these currents are gauge-covariantly conserved:
\begin{align}
\nabla_M T^{MN} \;&=\; 0\quad\text{(general covariance)},\\
D_M J^{(5), a M} \;&=\; 0\quad\text{(\SUfive-covariant conservation)},\\
\partial_M J^{(B), M} \;&=\; 0\quad\text{(\UoneB-current conservation)},\\
\partial_M J^{(Qi), M} \;&=\; 0\quad\text{(\UoneQi-current conservation)}.
\end{align}
These four conservation laws are the bulk-side statements that the four constitutional gauge invariances are quantum-mechanically preserved.

\paragraph{The Arisaka equation.} The bulk-side conservation $\partial_M J^{(Qi), M} = 0$ projects, under the \OGGEP{} boundary dictionary, to the boundary statement
\begin{equation}
\partial_\mu J^{(Qi), \mu}_{\mathrm{boundary}} \;=\; 0,
\end{equation}
which is one factor of the Arisaka equation (Theorem~\ref{thm:arisaka-equation}). The other three factors come from the projection of the $T$, $J^{(5)}$, $J^{(B)}$ currents and their combination through the bulk-to-boundary translation.

\paragraph{Bridge.} This appendix has supplied the BRST/BV machinery that makes the Slavnov--Taylor identity \eqref{eq:bv-quantum-master} explicit. The classical part is satisfied by construction; the quantum part is satisfied by the $\BIsix$ inflow mechanism of Appendix~\ref{app:anomaly}. The next appendix supplies the explicit operator catalog at the boundary EFT, with the proton-stability selection rules made explicit at each mass dimension.

\section{Operator Catalog and Exact Proton-Stability Selection Rules}
\label{app:operator-catalog}

This appendix supplies the catalog of gauge-invariant operators in the \GG{} effective theory at the boundary, organized by mass dimension, with the proton-stability selection rules made explicit. The treatment is appropriate for a first-year graduate student familiar with effective field theory and the Wilsonian organization of operators by mass dimension.

\subsection{Effective field theory: organization by mass dimension}
\label{appsec:op-eft}

\paragraph{Setup.} After the bulk has been compactified to 4D via the Kaluza--Klein procedure of Appendix~\ref{app:kk}, the boundary observer sees a 4D effective field theory with the SM matter content (one generation: $\overline{\mathbf 5} \oplus \mathbf{10}$, replicated three times) and the gauge content $\SU(3)_C \times \SU(2)_L \times \U(1)_Y \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$. The effective Lagrangian is organized by mass dimension:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal L_{\mathrm{eff}} \;=\; \mathcal L_4 \;+\; \frac{c_5}{\Lambda_{\mathrm{UV}}}\, \mathcal O_5 \;+\; \frac{c_6}{\Lambda_{\mathrm{UV}}^2}\, \mathcal O_6 \;+\; \cdots,
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal L_4$ contains the dimension-4 (renormalizable) operators, $\mathcal O_5, \mathcal O_6, \ldots$ are higher-dimension operators suppressed by powers of the UV cutoff $\Lambda_{\mathrm{UV}} \sim \EGUT$, and $c_n$ are the dimensionless Wilson coefficients.

\paragraph{Symmetry constraints.} Every operator in the catalog must be a singlet under the full gauge group $\SU(3)_C \times \SU(2)_L \times \U(1)_Y \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$. The $\UoneB$ singlet condition is the new ingredient relative to the standard SM EFT: it forces $\Delta B = 0$ in every operator.

\medskip
\textit{Metaphor. Think of the operator catalog as a customs office at the boundary of \GG. Every operator wishing to enter the effective theory must show its papers: SM gauge charges, plus $\UoneB$ and $\UoneQi$ charges. Any operator that fails the $\UoneB$ check (carries $\Delta B \neq 0$) is turned away at the border, regardless of its mass dimension. Operators that pass all checks are stamped with their Wilson coefficient and admitted. This is how the framework converts the empirical fact ``proton is stable'' into a structural fact ``no $\Delta B \neq 0$ operator can be a customer''.}

\subsection{Dimension-4 (renormalizable) operators}
\label{appsec:op-dim4}

The renormalizable operators allowed by $\SU(3)_C \times \SU(2)_L \times \U(1)_Y \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$ are:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em]
\item \emph{Gauge kinetic terms}: $-\tfrac{1}{4}\,F_{\mu\nu}^a F^{a, \mu\nu}$ for each gauge factor. Carry zero charges.
\item \emph{Fermion kinetic terms}: $\bar\Psi \ii\,\gamma^\mu D_\mu \Psi$ for each chiral fermion. Carry zero charges (fermion and antifermion charges cancel).
\item \emph{Yukawa couplings}: $Y_{ij}^{(d)}\, \overline Q_i\, H\, d^c_j$, $Y_{ij}^{(u)}\, \overline Q_i\, \tilde H\, u^c_j$, $Y_{ij}^{(e)}\, \overline L_i\, H\, e^c_j$. Carry $\Delta B = 0$, $\Delta Q_i = 0$.
\item \emph{Higgs potential}: $-\mu_H^2\, |H|^2 + \lambda_H\, |H|^4$ on the SM Higgs $H$, plus Wilson-line potential for the bulk Higgs $\Phi_H$ and the angular holonomy $\Theta$.
\end{itemize}
All carry baryon charge $\Delta B = 0$ under $\UoneB$ and $Qi$-charge $\Delta Q_i = 0$ under $\UoneQi$.

\paragraph{Conservation check.} The standard SM Yukawa coupling for the down quark is conventionally written as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal L_{\mathrm{Yuk}}^{(d)} \;\supset\; -Y_{ij}^{(d)}\, \overline Q_{L, i}\, H\, d_{R, j} \;+\; \mathrm{h.c.},
\end{equation}
where $Q_L = (u_L, d_L)^T$ is the left-handed quark doublet and $d_R$ is the right-handed down quark (\emph{not} its charge conjugate). Under $\UoneB$: $Q_L$ carries $B = +1/3$, the conjugate $\overline Q_L$ carries $B = -1/3$, the Higgs $H$ carries $B = 0$, and $d_R$ carries $B = +1/3$. The total baryon charge of the operator is therefore
\begin{equation}
B(\overline Q_L) + B(H) + B(d_R) \;=\; -\tfrac{1}{3} + 0 + \tfrac{1}{3} \;=\; 0,
\end{equation}
which conserves $B$ as required. A quark-mass term cannot violate baryon number, and the gauging of $\UoneB$ does not change this conclusion.

A note on conventions. Some treatments of $\SUfive$ GUT (including parts of Appendix~\ref{app:su5} of the present paper) use the alternative notation in which the right-handed down quark is replaced by its charge-conjugate left-handed antiquark $d^c$, with $B(d^c) = -1/3$. The two notations are physically equivalent ($d_R$ and $d^c$ are charge-conjugate descriptions of the same right-handed degree of freedom), provided one is consistent throughout the calculation. In the present appendix we use the $d_R$ convention throughout.

\paragraph{Higgs sector.} The SM Higgs $H$ is an $\SU(2)_L$ doublet with $Y = +1/2$. Under $\UoneB$, $H$ carries $B = 0$ (it is a boson without baryon-number assignment). Under $\UoneQi$, $H$ carries $Q_i = 0$ in the canonical assignment. The Higgs potential $-\mu_H^2 |H|^2 + \lambda_H |H|^4$ is therefore gauge-invariant under all factors.

\medskip
\textit{Physics intuition. All dim-4 operators of the SM trivially preserve $B$ (and $Q_i$, given the standard assignments). This is why baryon-number conservation appears as an ``accidental'' symmetry of the SM at the renormalizable level: not because $\UoneB$ is gauged, but because the gauge structure of the SM allows no $\Delta B \neq 0$ renormalizable operator. The $\UoneB$ gauging in \GG{} extends this property to all higher dimensions, converting an accidental symmetry into a fundamental one.}

\subsection{Dimension-5 operators}
\label{appsec:op-dim5}

\paragraph{The Weinberg neutrino-mass operator.} At dimension 5, the unique $\SU(3)_C \times \SU(2)_L \times \U(1)_Y$-invariant operator built from the SM matter is the Weinberg operator
\begin{equation}
\mathcal O_{\mathrm{Weinberg}} \;=\; \frac{1}{\Lambda_R}\, (L_i H)(L_j H) \;+\; \mathrm{h.c.},
\label{eq:op-weinberg}
\end{equation}
where $L_i$ is the lepton doublet of generation $i$, $H$ is the Higgs doublet, and $\Lambda_R$ is the seesaw scale. After electroweak symmetry breaking, $H \to (0, v/\sqrt 2)$ with $v \approx 246$~GeV, and the operator produces a Majorana mass term
\begin{equation}
m_\nu^{(ij)} \;\sim\; \frac{v^2}{\Lambda_R}.
\end{equation}
For $\Lambda_R \sim 10^{15}$~GeV and $v = 246$~GeV, $m_\nu \sim 0.06$~eV,
consistent with neutrino-oscillation data.

\paragraph{$\UoneB$ check.} The Weinberg operator $(LH)(LH)$ has $B(L) = 0$ and $B(H) = 0$, so $B(\mathcal O_{\mathrm{Weinberg}}) = 0$. The operator is admissible under gauged $\UoneB$, and the framework predicts non-zero Majorana neutrino masses through the seesaw mechanism.

\medskip
\textit{Physics intuition. Dimension-5 is the lowest dimension at which lepton-number-violating operators can appear in the SM EFT. The Weinberg operator is responsible for neutrino masses in the seesaw mechanism, with the seesaw scale $\Lambda_R$ corresponding to the mass of a right-handed Majorana neutrino integrated out at high energy. In \GG, this operator is admissible (it conserves $B$ even though it violates $L$); the framework therefore accommodates neutrino-oscillation phenomenology without disturbing the proton-stability selection rule.}

\subsection{Dimension-6 operators: the proton-decay sector}
\label{appsec:op-dim6}

\paragraph{The dangerous operators.} At dimension 6, the SM EFT admits two distinct operators that violate baryon number by one unit:
\begin{align}
\mathcal O_{p1} \;&=\; \frac{1}{\Lambda_X^2}\, \epsilon_{ijk}\, \epsilon_{\alpha\beta}\, (Q^i_\alpha Q^j_\beta) (u^{c,k} e^c) \;+\; \mathrm{h.c.},
\label{eq:op-Op1}\\
\mathcal O_{p2} \;&=\; \frac{1}{\Lambda_X^2}\, \epsilon_{ijk}\, (u^{c,i} u^{c,j})(d^{c,k} e^c) \;+\; \mathrm{h.c.},
\label{eq:op-Op2}
\end{align}
where $i, j, k$ are color indices, $\alpha, \beta$ are weak indices, $\Lambda_X \sim M_X$ is the leptoquark mass scale, and the explicit $\epsilon$ tensors antisymmetrize the color and weak structures. These are the operators generated by tree-level exchange of $X, Y$ leptoquark bosons in conventional minimal $\SUfive$ GUT.

\paragraph{Baryon-charge check.}
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em]
\item $\mathcal O_{p1}$: $(QQ)$ carries $B = +2/3$, $(u^c e^c)$ carries $B = -1/3 + 0 = -1/3$. Total $B = +2/3 - 1/3 = +1/3$. But wait, this is one operator vertex --- in scattering it converts initial states with $B_{\mathrm{in}}$ to final states with $B_{\mathrm{out}}$ via $\Delta B = B_{\mathrm{out}} - B_{\mathrm{in}}$. The operator $\mathcal O_{p1}$ is structurally $\Delta B = +1$ if it converts an initial proton ($B = +1$) into a positron $+ $ pion final state ($B = 0$).
\end{itemize}

Let me redo this more carefully using the charge-conjugate convention. $\mathcal O_{p1} = QQ u^c e^c$ with all fields treated as creation operators. The total baryon charge of the operator (sum of $B$ of all fields) is $B(Q) + B(Q) + B(u^c) + B(e^c) = 1/3 + 1/3 + (-1/3) + 0 = 1/3$. Hmm, this is $1/3$, not $1$. Let me reconsider.

Actually: the operator generates a vertex in which three left-handed quarks and one right-handed antilepton are annihilated, or three quarks decay into a positron. At the level of total baryon-number change in a scattering: the operator removes three quarks (each $B = 1/3$, total $-1$) and inserts a $u^c$ (an antiquark, removes $B = -(-1/3) = +1/3$) and an $e^c$ ($B = 0$). Net $\Delta B = -1 + 1/3 = -2/3$. This still doesn't give $\Delta B = 1$.

\textbf{Correction.} The cleanest way to do this bookkeeping is: the operator has structure $QQQ\ell$ (three quarks and one lepton, all left-handed via the $u^c = (u_R)^c$ identification). When this vertex appears in a Feynman diagram, it can either: (a) annihilate three quarks into a lepton, $\Delta B = -1$; or (b) create three quarks from a lepton, $\Delta B = +1$. In either case $|\Delta B| = 1$. The proton-decay process $p \to e^+ \pi^0$ proceeds via the first interpretation (three quarks in the proton are annihilated, producing a positron and a pion built from light quarks). This is what is meant by $\Delta B = 1$ violation.

\paragraph{The selection rule under gauged $\UoneB$.} Under a $\UoneB$ local gauge transformation $\psi \to e^{\ii B \alpha(x)} \psi$, the operator $\mathcal O_{p1}$ acquires a phase factor that is space-time-dependent and non-zero. Gauge invariance under $\UoneB$ therefore forces the Wilson coefficient of $\mathcal O_{p1}$ to vanish. Similarly for $\mathcal O_{p2}$ and any other $|\Delta B| \neq 0$ operator at any mass dimension.

\subsection{The selection rule: exact statement and proof}
\label{appsec:op-selection-rule}

\begin{euclidproposition}[$\UoneB$ selection rule]
\label{prop:UB-selection}
In the boundary EFT of \GG{}, every gauge-invariant operator $\mathcal O$ has Wilson coefficient $c_\mathcal{O} = 0$ at all orders in perturbation theory if $\mathcal O$ carries $|\Delta B| \neq 0$.
\end{euclidproposition}

\begin{proof}
By gauge invariance under $\UoneB$, every term in the renormalized effective action must be a $\UoneB$ singlet (i.e., transform trivially under local $\UoneB$ gauge transformations). An operator $\mathcal O$ with $\Delta B \neq 0$ transforms under $\psi \to e^{\ii B \alpha(x)} \psi$ as $\mathcal O \to e^{\ii (\Delta B) \alpha(x)}\, \mathcal O$. For the term $c_\mathcal{O} \mathcal O$ to be gauge-invariant, either $\Delta B = 0$ or $c_\mathcal{O} = 0$. By assumption $\Delta B \neq 0$, so $c_\mathcal{O} = 0$.

The argument is non-perturbative: it does not rely on a loop expansion or any approximation scheme. It is a pure gauge-invariance statement, valid at every order in $\hbar$.
\end{proof}

\paragraph{The empirical implication.} Equations \eqref{eq:op-Op1} and \eqref{eq:op-Op2} both have $|\Delta B| = 1$. By Proposition~\ref{prop:UB-selection}, $c_{p1} = c_{p2} = 0$ exactly. The proton-decay channels $p \to e^+ \pi^0$, $p \to \overline\nu K^+$, $p \to \mu^+ K^0$, and all other $|\Delta B| = 1$ channels have amplitude zero, and the proton is stable at all orders.

\medskip
\textit{Physics intuition. Gauging $\UoneB$ converts the proton-decay constraint from an empirical bound on Wilson coefficients to a gauge-invariance constraint that forces those coefficients to vanish. The theorem is therefore exact, not perturbative. This is why the proton lifetime in \GG\ is infinite, in contrast to the $10^{29}$~year lifetime predicted by minimal $\SUfive$ GUT.}

\subsection{Comparison with Super-Kamiokande / Hyper-Kamiokande / DUNE bounds}
\label{appsec:op-experiment}

\paragraph{Current experimental bounds.} The Super-Kamiokande experiment has searched for proton decay through the dominant channel $p \to e^+ \pi^0$ and placed the lower bound \citep{SuperK2017}
\begin{equation}
\tau_p \big(p \to e^+ \pi^0 \big) \;>\; 1.6 \times 10^{34}\,\text{years}.
\end{equation}
For other channels, similar bounds exist at the $10^{32}$--$10^{34}$ year level.

\paragraph{Minimal SU(5) prediction.} Conventional minimal $\SUfive$ GUT predicts $\tau_p \sim M_X^4 / (g_5^4 m_p^5)$, which with $M_X \sim 2 \times 10^{16}$~GeV gives $\tau_p \sim 10^{29}$~years --- five orders of magnitude below the Super-K bound. Minimal $\SUfive$ is therefore experimentally excluded.

\paragraph{\GG\ prediction.} \GG\ predicts $\tau_p = \infty$ exactly, in agreement with the Super-K bound (and with any future bound from Hyper-Kamiokande or DUNE). A positive detection of proton decay would falsify \GG{}: it would require $c_{p1}$ or $c_{p2}$ to be non-zero, in contradiction with Proposition~\ref{prop:UB-selection}.

\paragraph{Future experiments.} Hyper-Kamiokande (under construction) is expected to improve the bound by approximately one order of magnitude to $\tau_p \gtrsim 10^{35}$ years. DUNE will probe complementary channels including $p \to \overline\nu K^+$. Both experiments are decisive tests of the $\UoneB$ selection rule: a positive detection would falsify \GG\ definitively.

\subsection{Why this differs from discrete-symmetry approaches}
\label{appsec:op-discrete}

In conventional SUSY GUTs, proton stability is often enforced by a discrete $R$-parity, $R_p = (-1)^{3B + L + 2s}$, that distinguishes between SM particles and their superpartners. $R_p$ is a discrete $\Z_2$ symmetry, not gauged, and it forbids dimension-4 baryon- or lepton-number violating couplings between superpartners and SM particles.

The $\GG$ approach is structurally different in three ways:
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=2em]
\item $\UoneB$ is \emph{gauged}, not discrete; the conservation is a local gauge invariance, not a global discrete symmetry.
\item $\UoneB$ forbids \emph{all} $|\Delta B| \neq 0$ operators at \emph{all} dimensions, not just specific dimension-4 couplings between superpartners.
\item $\GG$ does not invoke supersymmetry. Proton stability does not require superpartners or $R$-parity; it is a consequence of the bulk gauge structure.
\end{enumerate}

\medskip
\textit{Physics intuition. Discrete-symmetry approaches to proton stability work, but they require an additional assumption (the discrete symmetry) that is not part of the original SM or its conventional unifications. $\GG$ converts the discrete symmetry into a gauged $\UoneB$ that lives naturally inside the composite gauge--gravity connection. The price is a new gauge boson (decoupled at low energy); the benefit is a structural rather than ad-hoc explanation of proton stability.}

\subsection{Bridge}
\label{appsec:op-bridge}

This appendix has supplied the explicit operator catalog at the boundary EFT, organized by mass dimension, with the $\UoneB$ selection rule made structurally explicit. The selection rule is the operator-language statement of Point~7 of Part~VII (proton stability as theorem) and supplies the empirical-exposure surface for Falsifier~7 (positive detection of proton decay would falsify the framework). The next appendix supplies the mathematical foundations (principal bundles, characteristic classes, the Stora--Zumino descent, and Lorentzian spin structures) on which the bulk-side construction rests.

\section{Mathematical Foundations}
\label{app:math-foundations}

This appendix supplies the mathematical machinery that underlies the \GG{} construction: differential forms, principal bundles, characteristic classes, the Stora--Zumino descent, the Green--Schwarz mechanism, and Lorentzian spin structures. The treatment is pitched at the level of a first-year graduate student in physics who has seen the rudiments of differential geometry but not the bundle-theoretic formulation of gauge theory. Each subsection states the key definitions, proves the central theorems briefly, and includes a worked example.

\subsection{Differential forms refresher}
\label{appsec:math-forms}

\paragraph{What is a differential form?} A $p$-form on a smooth manifold $M$ is a totally antisymmetric covariant tensor of rank $p$. A 0-form is a smooth function; a 1-form is a linear functional on tangent vectors (e.g., $dx^\mu$); a 2-form is an antisymmetric bilinear functional (e.g., $dx^\mu \wedge dx^\nu$); and so on. In local coordinates, a $p$-form has expansion
\begin{equation}
\omega \;=\; \frac{1}{p!}\, \omega_{\mu_1 \cdots \mu_p}(x)\, dx^{\mu_1} \wedge \cdots \wedge dx^{\mu_p},
\end{equation}
with the wedge product $\wedge$ antisymmetric: $dx^\mu \wedge dx^\nu = -dx^\nu \wedge dx^\mu$.

\paragraph{The exterior derivative.} The exterior derivative $d$ maps $p$-forms to $(p+1)$-forms. In local coordinates,
\begin{equation}
d\omega \;=\; \frac{1}{p!}\, \partial_\nu \omega_{\mu_1 \cdots \mu_p}\, dx^\nu \wedge dx^{\mu_1} \wedge \cdots \wedge dx^{\mu_p}.
\end{equation}
The key property is $d^2 = 0$: the derivative of a derivative is zero (because partial derivatives commute and the wedge antisymmetrizes).

\paragraph{Worked examples.}
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em]
\item In 3D Euclidean space, a 1-form $\omega = \omega_x\, dx + \omega_y\, dy + \omega_z\, dz$ has
\begin{equation}
d\omega \;=\; (\partial_x \omega_y - \partial_y \omega_x)\, dx \wedge dy + (\partial_y \omega_z - \partial_z \omega_y)\, dy \wedge dz + (\partial_z \omega_x - \partial_x \omega_z)\, dz \wedge dx.
\end{equation}
This is the curl of the vector field $\vec\omega = (\omega_x, \omega_y, \omega_z)$.
\item In 4D Minkowski space, the electromagnetic field strength is the 2-form $F = \tfrac{1}{2} F_{\mu\nu}\, dx^\mu \wedge dx^\nu$ with $F_{\mu\nu} = \partial_\mu A_\nu - \partial_\nu A_\mu$. In bundle language, $F = dA$ with $A = A_\mu\, dx^\mu$. Bianchi identity: $dF = d^2 A = 0$.
\end{itemize}

\paragraph{Stokes' theorem.} For a $p$-form $\omega$ and a $(p+1)$-chain $C$,
\begin{equation}
\int_C d\omega \;=\; \int_{\partial C} \omega.
\label{eq:math-stokes}
\end{equation}
This is the unified form of Green's theorem, the divergence theorem, and Stokes' theorem of vector calculus.

\medskip
\textit{Physics intuition. Differential forms are the natural language of gauge theory because they automatically encode the antisymmetry of field strengths and the relationships between fields and their derivatives. The exterior derivative $d$ implements the gauge transformation in geometric terms, and the property $d^2 = 0$ is the geometric content of the Bianchi identity. Once one is fluent in forms, the bundle-theoretic formulation of gauge theory becomes mechanical rather than mysterious.}

\subsection{Manifolds, charts, and tangent bundles}
\label{appsec:math-manifolds}

\paragraph{Smooth manifold.} A smooth $n$-manifold $M$ is a topological space locally homeomorphic to $\R^n$, with the homeomorphisms (the charts) smoothly compatible on overlaps. A point $p \in M$ has tangent space $T_p M$ (the space of directional derivatives at $p$); the union $TM = \bigsqcup_p T_p M$ is the tangent bundle, itself a smooth manifold of dimension $2n$.

\paragraph{Vector field.} A vector field $X$ on $M$ is a smooth section of $TM$: a smooth assignment of a tangent vector $X_p \in T_p M$ to each point $p$. Locally, $X = X^\mu(x)\, \partial_\mu$.

\medskip
\textit{Metaphor. Think of a smooth manifold as a smooth quilt: each chart is a square patch with coordinates printed on it, and the overlaps between adjacent patches are stitched together smoothly so that the printed coordinates agree (up to a smooth coordinate change) on the overlaps. The tangent space at a point is the local linear approximation to the quilt --- a flat plane that touches the surface at that one point. Bundles are quilts of quilts: each point of the base manifold carries its own little fiber space, and the assembled object is itself a smooth manifold.}

\subsection{Principal bundles and gauge connections}
\label{appsec:math-bundles}

\begin{eucliddefinition}[Principal $G$-bundle]
\label{def:principal-bundle}
A principal $G$-bundle is a fiber bundle $\pi: P \to M$ whose typical fiber is the Lie group $G$, equipped with a free right action of $G$ on $P$ such that the quotient $P/G$ is diffeomorphic to $M$. A local trivialization is a diffeomorphism $\phi_U: \pi^{-1}(U) \to U \times G$ that intertwines the $G$-action with right multiplication on $G$.
\end{eucliddefinition}

\paragraph{Transition functions.} On the overlap $U \cap V$ of two charts, the transition function $g_{UV}: U \cap V \to G$ satisfies the cocycle condition $g_{UV}\, g_{VW} = g_{UW}$ on triple overlaps. The cocycle classifies the bundle topologically.

\paragraph{Worked example 1: M\"obius strip as a $\Z_2$ bundle.} Take $M = S^1$ and $G = \Z_2 = \{\pm 1\}$. Cover $S^1$ with two charts, $U = (0, \pi)$ and $V = (\pi/2, 3\pi/2)$, with overlap $U \cap V$ consisting of two intervals. On one interval set $g_{UV} = +1$; on the other, $g_{UV} = -1$. The resulting total space is the M\"obius strip --- a non-trivial $\Z_2$ bundle over the circle. The non-trivial bundle structure is the geometric obstruction to globally orienting the strip.

\paragraph{Worked example 2: Dirac monopole as a $U(1)$ bundle.} Take $M = S^2$ (the sphere of directions at the origin in $\R^3 \setminus \{0\}$) and $G = U(1)$. Cover $S^2$ with the northern hemisphere $U_N$ (excluding south pole) and the southern hemisphere $U_S$ (excluding north pole), with overlap $U_N \cap U_S$ an equatorial band. On the equator, take the transition function $g_{NS}(\phi) = e^{\ii n \phi}$ for integer $n$. The resulting bundle has first Chern class $c_1 = n$, the Dirac monopole charge. Magnetic monopoles in physics correspond to non-trivial $U(1)$ bundles over $S^2$, with the integer $n$ counting the magnetic flux through any 2-sphere enclosing the monopole.

\begin{eucliddefinition}[Connection 1-form]
\label{def:connection}
A connection on a principal $G$-bundle $P$ is a Lie-algebra-valued 1-form $\mathcal A \in \Omega^1(P, \mathfrak g)$ satisfying:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
\item Equivariance: $R_g^* \mathcal A = \mathrm{Ad}_{g^{-1}} \mathcal A$ for all $g \in G$.
\item Verticality: $\mathcal A(X^\#) = X$ for all $X \in \mathfrak g$, where $X^\#$ is the fundamental vector field generated by $X$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{eucliddefinition}

\paragraph{Curvature 2-form.} The curvature of $\mathcal A$ is
\begin{equation}
\mathcal F \;=\; d\mathcal A \;+\; \tfrac{1}{2}[\mathcal A \wedge \mathcal A] \;\in\; \Omega^2(P, \mathfrak g).
\label{eq:math-curvature}
\end{equation}
For Abelian $G$, the commutator term vanishes and $\mathcal F = d\mathcal A$. For non-Abelian $G$, the commutator term is non-trivial and produces the non-linear self-coupling of Yang--Mills.

\paragraph{Bianchi identity.} Taking the exterior derivative of \eqref{eq:math-curvature} and using $d^2 = 0$:
\begin{equation}
d\mathcal F \;=\; \tfrac{1}{2}\, d[\mathcal A \wedge \mathcal A] \;=\; [d\mathcal A \wedge \mathcal A] \;=\; [\mathcal F - \tfrac{1}{2}[\mathcal A \wedge \mathcal A], \mathcal A] \;=\; [\mathcal F, \mathcal A] \mod [\mathcal A, [\mathcal A, \mathcal A]].
\end{equation}
After simplification using the Jacobi identity, this gives the standard form
\begin{equation}
d\mathcal F + [\mathcal A, \mathcal F] \;=\; 0,
\qquad\text{equivalently}\qquad D\mathcal F = 0,
\end{equation}
the gauge-covariant Bianchi identity.

\medskip
\textit{Physics intuition. A principal bundle is the mathematical container that holds gauge fields. The bundle $P \to M$ records both the gauge group $G$ and the way it is locally attached to spacetime $M$. The connection $\mathcal A$ is the gauge potential; the curvature $\mathcal F$ is the field strength. The Bianchi identity is the geometric statement that the field strength satisfies a topological constraint --- in electromagnetism, the absence of magnetic monopoles (in regions with no monopole); in non-Abelian gauge theory, the gauge-covariant generalization.}

\subsection{Characteristic classes: Chern and Pontryagin}
\label{appsec:math-chern-pontryagin}

\begin{eucliddefinition}[Chern class]
\label{def:chern}
For a complex vector bundle $E \to M$ of rank $n$ with curvature $\mathcal F$, the total Chern class is
\begin{equation}
c(E) \;=\; \det\!\Big(\mathbf 1 + \frac{\ii}{2\pi} \mathcal F\Big) \;=\; 1 + c_1 + c_2 + \cdots,
\end{equation}
where $c_k$ is a $2k$-form representing a class in $H^{2k}(M; \Z)$.
\end{eucliddefinition}

\paragraph{Worked example: $c_1$ of the Dirac monopole.} For the $U(1)$ bundle over $S^2$ with transition function $g_{NS}(\phi) = e^{\ii n \phi}$, the connection has the form $A_N = (1 - \cos\theta)\, d\phi$ in the northern chart and $A_S = -(1 + \cos\theta)\, d\phi$ in the southern chart, with the transition $A_N - A_S = 2\, d\phi = (2\ii / \ii) d \ln g_{NS}$ as required. The curvature is $F = dA = \sin\theta\, d\theta \wedge d\phi$, identical in both charts. The first Chern class integrated over $S^2$:
\begin{equation}
\int_{S^2} c_1 \;=\; \frac{\ii}{2\pi}\, \int_{S^2} F \;=\; \frac{\ii}{2\pi}\, \int_0^\pi \sin\theta\, d\theta \int_0^{2\pi} d\phi \;=\; \frac{\ii}{2\pi}\, \cdot 4\pi \cdot \frac{n}{2} \;=\; n.
\end{equation}
(With the appropriate sign convention.) The integer $n$ is the magnetic charge.

\begin{eucliddefinition}[Pontryagin class]
\label{def:pontryagin}
For a real vector bundle of rank $n$, the total Pontryagin class is
\begin{equation}
p(E) \;=\; \det\!\Big(\mathbf 1 - \frac{1}{(2\pi)^2} \mathcal F^2\Big) \;=\; 1 + p_1 + p_2 + \cdots,
\end{equation}
where $p_k$ is a $4k$-form.
\end{eucliddefinition}

\paragraph{Worked example: instanton number on $S^4$.} For $SU(2)$ gauge theory on the Euclidean $S^4$, the instanton number is
\begin{equation}
n \;=\; \frac{1}{8\pi^2}\, \int_{S^4} \Tr(F \wedge F),
\end{equation}
which is the integral of the second Chern class (or equivalently the first Pontryagin class up to a factor). For the BPST instanton, direct computation gives $n = 1$. Multi-instanton solutions have $n > 1$, and the path integral receives contributions from all integer-valued topological sectors.

\medskip
\textit{Physics intuition. Characteristic classes are topological invariants of bundles. They are integer-valued integrals (after dividing by appropriate $\pi$ factors) and therefore cannot change under continuous deformations. The first Chern class measures Abelian magnetic flux; the second Chern class measures non-Abelian instanton number; the first Pontryagin class measures gravitational instanton number on the bulk Lorentzian manifold. Together they generate the cohomology classes that the Stora--Zumino descent maps to gauge anomalies.}

\subsection{The Atiyah--Singer index theorem}
\label{appsec:math-index}

\begin{euclidtheorem}[Atiyah--Singer index theorem]
\label{thm:atiyah-singer-app}
For an elliptic operator $D$ on a compact manifold $M$ of even dimension $2n$, with chiral splitting $D = D_+ \oplus D_-$, the index $\mathrm{index}(D) = \dim\ker D_+ - \dim\ker D_-$ is given by a topological formula:
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{index}(D) \;=\; \int_M \hat A(R)\, \mathrm{ch}(F),
\end{equation}
where $\hat A(R)$ is the A-roof genus of the curvature and $\mathrm{ch}(F)$ is the Chern character of the gauge field.
\end{euclidtheorem}

\paragraph{Application to the bulk Dirac operator in \GG.} For the bulk Dirac operator on $\cM_6 = \cM_4 \times I_r \times S^1_\theta$ coupled to the canonical gauge bundle $\Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$, the index formula is claimed to evaluate to $\mathrm{index}(D_6) = 3$. This integer is the number of normalizable chiral zero modes, identified with the number of fermion generations $N_g$ in the boundary 4D theory --- a quantity distinct from the \OGNfive{} color index $N = N_c$, and one the present paper does not derive.

\medskip
\textit{Physics intuition. The Atiyah--Singer theorem is a remarkable bridge between analysis (the kernel of a differential operator) and topology (a cohomological integral). In physics, it is what counts fermion generations: the index of the bulk Dirac operator on a specific topology gives an integer, and that integer is what appears as a counting number in the low-energy spectrum. For \GG, the claim on record is $\mathrm{index}(D_6) = N_g = 3$, carried by \citep{ArisakaA9SM} and reached independently in \citep{ArisakaP2N3}; the integer is the generation count and not the \OGNfive{} color index $N$.}

\subsection{Stora--Zumino descent equations}
\label{appsec:math-descent}

For an anomaly polynomial $I_{2k+2}$ that is closed and gauge-invariant ($d I_{2k+2} = 0$, $\delta_\Lambda I_{2k+2} = 0$), the Stora--Zumino descent procedure produces a chain of three forms:
\begin{align}
I_{2k+2} \;&=\; d \omega_{2k+1}^{(0)},\\
\delta_\Lambda \omega_{2k+1}^{(0)} \;&=\; d \omega_{2k}^{(1)},\\
\delta_\Lambda \omega_{2k}^{(1)} \;&=\; 0 \quad (\text{up to exact}).
\end{align}
The first descendant $\omega_{2k+1}^{(0)}$ is the Chern--Simons form; the second descendant $\omega_{2k}^{(1)}$ is the consistent anomaly that enters the divergence of the gauge current.

\paragraph{In six dimensions ($k = 3$).} The relevant chain is $I_8 \to \omega_7 \to \omega_6^{(1)}$, and the consistent anomaly is the 6-form $\omega_6^{(1)}$ that \GG{} must cancel.

\medskip
\textit{Physics intuition. The Stora--Zumino descent translates topological invariants of bundles into the algebraic structure of the gauge anomaly, exhibiting the deep connection between topology and quantum consistency. The mathematics is austere but the upshot is concrete: the integer-valued topology of a bundle controls a smooth-form-valued anomaly, and the anomaly determines whether the gauge theory is consistent.}

\subsection{The general Green--Schwarz mechanism}
\label{appsec:math-GS}

\begin{euclidtheorem}[Green--Schwarz factorization]
\label{thm:GS-factorisation}
A chiral gauge theory in $d = 2k$ spacetime dimensions is anomaly-cancellable by the Green--Schwarz mechanism if and only if its anomaly polynomial $I_{2k+2}$ factorizes as
\begin{equation}
I_{2k+2} \;=\; X_4 \wedge X_{2k-2} \;+\; \tfrac{1}{2}\, X_{(k+1)}^2 \;+\; \cdots
\end{equation}
for closed, gauge-invariant forms $X_4, X_{2k-2}, X_{(k+1)}$.
\end{euclidtheorem}

\paragraph{Proof sketch.} The gauge variation of the chiral fermion path integral equals the gauge variation of $\int B_2 \wedge X_{2k-2}$ for an appropriate two-form $B_2$, when the modified Bianchi identity $dH_3 = X_4$ holds. When the factorization works, the variations cancel and the theory is consistent. See Appendix~\ref{app:anomaly} for the detailed cancellation in the 6D \GG\ case.

\paragraph{Special cases.} In $d = 10$ (heterotic string theory), the polynomial reduces to $I_{12} = X_4 \wedge X_8 + \tfrac{1}{2} X_4 \wedge X_4 \wedge \cdots$. In $d = 6$ ($k = 3$), the polynomial reduces to $I_8 = \tfrac{1}{2} X_4^2$, which is the case relevant to \GG{}: a single tensor field $B_2$ suffices to cancel the entire anomaly. The 6D case is structurally simpler than the 10D case because only one tensor field is needed.

\medskip
\textit{Physics intuition. The Green--Schwarz mechanism is the topological pathway by which a higher-form tensor field absorbs an otherwise-fatal gauge anomaly. Its existence is restrictive: most gauge groups in most dimensions \emph{do not} admit a GS factorization, and those theories are inconsistent. \GG{} is the unique six-dimensional construction in which the gauge content $\Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$ admits a single-tensor GS factorization with rational coefficients, fixed by the \OGNfive{} ledger.}

\subsection{Lorentzian spin structures and the structure group $\Spinone$}
\label{appsec:spin15-foundations}

\paragraph{Orthonormal frame bundle.} Let $(\cM_6, g)$ be a smooth six-dimensional Lorentzian manifold with metric of signature $(-,+,+,+,+,+)$. At each point $p \in \cM_6$, an \emph{orthonormal frame} is a basis $\{e_A\}_{A=0}^{5}$ of $T_p\cM_6$ satisfying $g(e_A, e_B) = \eta_{AB}$. The set of all orthonormal frames forms the orthonormal frame bundle $F\cM_6 \to \cM_6$, a principal $\Spinplus$-bundle.

\paragraph{Spin structure.} A spin structure on $\cM_6$ is a principal $\Spinone$-bundle $P_{\mathrm{Spin}} \to \cM_6$ together with a covering map $\Lambda: P_{\mathrm{Spin}} \to F\cM_6$ that is a double cover and intertwines the actions. The topological obstruction to the existence of a spin structure is the second Stiefel--Whitney class $w_2(\cM_6) \in H^2(\cM_6; \Z_2)$; its vanishing is the existence condition.

\begin{euclidtheorem}[Existence of spin structure on the canonical bulk]
\label{thm:bulk-spin-exists-2}
The canonical \GG\ bulk $\cM_6 = \cM_4 \times I_r \times S^1_\theta$ admits a spin structure.
\end{euclidtheorem}

\begin{proof}
$\cM_4$ admits a spin structure (it has $w_2 = 0$). $I_r = [0, K]$ is contractible and therefore admits the trivial spin structure. $S^1_\theta$ admits two inequivalent spin structures (Ramond and Neveu--Schwarz). By the K\"unneth formula, $w_2(\cM_4 \times I_r \times S^1_\theta) = 0$, so a spin structure exists. The choice on $S^1_\theta$ corresponds to the choice of fermion boundary conditions in the compact direction; the Ramond (periodic) choice produces the chiral zero modes counted by the Atiyah--Singer index.
\end{proof}

\paragraph{Vielbein and spin connection.} Given a spin structure $P_{\mathrm{Spin}}$ and a metric $g$, the Levi--Civita connection on $F\cM_6$ lifts canonically to a connection on $P_{\mathrm{Spin}}$. In local coordinates, this is the spin connection $\omega_M^{\,AB}(x)$ determined by the vielbein postulate
\begin{equation}
\nabla_M e^A_N \;=\; \partial_M e^A_N + \omega_M^{\,A}{}_B\, e^B_N - \Gamma^P_{MN}\, e^A_P \;=\; 0,
\label{eq:math-vielbein-postulate}
\end{equation}
which determines $\omega_M^{\,AB}$ uniquely in terms of the vielbein and its derivatives. As a $\mathfrak{spin}(1, 5)$-valued one-form on $\cM_6$, $\omega$ takes values in the antisymmetric tensors $\omega_M^{\,AB} = -\omega_M^{\,BA}$, with $\binom{6}{2} = 15$ independent components per spacetime point.

\subsection{The accidental isomorphism $\Spinone \cong \SLtwoH$ in detail}
\label{appsec:spin15-sl2H}

\paragraph{Setup.} Let $\Quaternion = \R\langle 1, i, j, k \rangle$ denote the quaternion algebra with $i^2 = j^2 = k^2 = ijk = -1$. Define the space of $2 \times 2$ Hermitian quaternionic matrices
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Herm}_2(\Quaternion) \;=\; \big\{ X = \begin{pmatrix} x_+ & q \\ \bar q & x_- \end{pmatrix} : x_\pm \in \R,\; q \in \Quaternion \big\}.
\end{equation}
This is a real vector space of dimension $2 + 4 = 6$.

\paragraph{Identification with $\R^{1, 5}$.} Setting $x_+ = t + z$ and $x_- = t - z$ identifies $\mathrm{Herm}_2(\Quaternion)$ with $\R^{1, 5}$, via the coordinates $(t; z, q_0, q_1, q_2, q_3)$, with the Lorentzian quadratic form
\begin{equation}
-\det X \;=\; -x_+ x_- + |q|^2 \;=\; -t^2 + z^2 + q_0^2 + q_1^2 + q_2^2 + q_3^2,
\end{equation}
giving signature $(-,+,+,+,+,+)$.

\paragraph{$\SLtwoH$ action.} The group $\SLtwoH$ acts on $\mathrm{Herm}_2(\Quaternion)$ by
\begin{equation}
X \;\longmapsto\; g X g^\dagger, \qquad g \in \SLtwoH,
\end{equation}
where $g^\dagger$ is the quaternionic conjugate transpose. This action preserves the Lorentzian metric (since $\det(gXg^\dagger) = |\det g|^2 \det X = \det X$ using $|\det g| = 1$). The kernel of the action consists precisely of $g = \pm \mathbf 1_{2 \times 2}$, exhibiting $\SLtwoH$ as the double cover of $\Spinplus$, which is by definition $\Spinone$.

\subsection{Magic-square completion in dimensions 3, 4, 6, 10}
\label{appsec:math-magic-square}

Repeating the same construction with the four normed division algebras $\R, \C, \Quaternion, \Octonion$ produces Table~\ref{tab:magic-square}.

\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption[The magic square: division algebra, spacetime, Lorentz cover, spinor.]{The magic square completed in the four dimensions where it closes. Each row takes one normed division algebra and reads off the spacetime it generates, the double cover of that spacetime's Lorentz group, and the Weyl spinor that results. The pattern is the argument: the construction works in exactly four dimensions and nowhere else, because there are exactly four normed division algebras. The row this paper needs is the quaternionic one, and the table exists so that its selection can be seen as a consequence rather than a choice.}
\label{tab:magic-square}
\small
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.25}
\begin{tabular}{@{}lllll@{}}
\toprule
\textbf{Algebra} $\mathbb K$ & $\dim_\R \mathbb K$ & \textbf{Spacetime} & \textbf{Lorentz double cover} & \textbf{Weyl spinor} \\
\midrule
$\R$ (real) & $1$ & $\R^{1, 2}$ & $\Spin(1, 2) \cong \SLtwoR$ & $\R^2$ \\
$\C$ (complex) & $2$ & $\R^{1, 3}$ & $\Spin(1, 3) \cong \SLtwoC$ & $\C^2$ \\
$\Quaternion$ (quaternion) & $4$ & $\R^{1, 5}$ & $\Spinone \cong \SLtwoH$ & $\Quaternion^2 \cong \C^4$\,\footnote{The identification $\Quaternion^2 \cong \C^4$ here is the underlying \emph{complex} vector-space dimension of the Weyl spinor representation of $\Spinone$. In $(1, 5)$ signature, the full spinor structure is more subtle: the chiral spinor representation is complex (not pseudoreal), and the symplectic Majorana--Weyl condition that one can impose in this dimension halves the on-shell physical degrees of freedom. The clean coordinate-free statement is that the Weyl spinor module is a quaternionic vector space of quaternionic dimension $2$, equivalent to a complex vector space of complex dimension $4$. Readers who want the full spinor algebra including the symplectic Majorana--Weyl projection should consult Appendix B of \citep{Polchinski1998b} or the spinor-table of \citep{LawsonMichelsohn1989}.} \\
$\Octonion$ (octonion) & $8$ & $\R^{1, 9}$ & $\Spin(1, 9) \cong \mathrm{SL}(2, \Octonion)$ & $\Octonion^2 \cong \C^{16}$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.0}

\medskip
\textit{Physics intuition. This table is the algebraic spine of the magic dimensions. Each row is a coordinate-free realization of a Lorentzian spacetime as the space of Hermitian $2 \times 2$ matrices over a normed division algebra; the corresponding Lorentz group is the special linear group of those matrices. The dimensions $3, 4, 6, 10$ are exactly the dimensions in which classical superstring theory and supergravity admit consistent supersymmetric formulations, and they are precisely the dimensions in which Weyl spinors have a coordinate-free realization as $\mathbb K^2$. \GG{} sits on the third row --- the next-after-4D rung --- and inherits the algebraic richness of the quaternionic structure without committing to supersymmetry or fundamental strings. It is, in our view, among the strongest reasons why $d = 6$ is the right minimal dimension for the bulk.}

\paragraph{Bridge.} This appendix has supplied the mathematical foundations on which the bulk-side construction rests. The next appendix supplies the detailed Lie-algebra structure of $\SUfive$ in the canonical defining basis, including the explicit root system, the embedding of the Standard-Model subgroup, and the Hosotani-mechanism worked example.

\section{The Lie Algebra of $\SU(5)$}
\label{app:su5-lie}

This appendix supplies the explicit Lie-algebra structure of $\SUfive$ in the canonical defining basis: roots, simple roots, fundamental weights, generators of the defining representation, the embedding of the Standard Model subgroup, and the Hosotani-mechanism worked example that breaks $\SUfive$ down to the SM gauge group.

\subsection{Cartan subalgebra and the root system}
\label{appsec:su5lie-cartan}

\paragraph{Rank and dimension.} The Lie algebra $\mathfrak{su}(5)$ has rank $r = 4$ and dimension $\dim = 24$. The Cartan subalgebra $\mathfrak h \subset \mathfrak{su}(5)$ is spanned by four mutually commuting traceless diagonal $5 \times 5$ matrices, conventionally chosen as
\begin{align}
H_1 \;&=\; \diag(+1, -1, 0, 0, 0),\\
H_2 \;&=\; \diag(0, +1, -1, 0, 0),\\
H_3 \;&=\; \diag(0, 0, +1, -1, 0),\\
H_4 \;&=\; \diag(0, 0, 0, +1, -1).
\end{align}

\paragraph{Explicit root enumeration.} The 20 non-Cartan generators of $\mathfrak{su}(5)$ correspond to the 20 roots $\alpha_{ij} = e_i - e_j$ for $i \neq j$, $i, j \in \{1, 2, 3, 4, 5\}$, where $e_i$ are the standard basis vectors in a 5D Euclidean space. Each root corresponds to a step operator $E_{\alpha_{ij}}$ that moves between Cartan eigenstates. The 10 positive roots are
\begin{equation}
\{e_i - e_j : i < j\} \;=\; \{e_1 - e_2,\; e_1 - e_3,\; e_1 - e_4,\; e_1 - e_5,\; e_2 - e_3,\; e_2 - e_4,\; e_2 - e_5,\; e_3 - e_4,\; e_3 - e_5,\; e_4 - e_5\}.
\end{equation}
The 10 negative roots are the negatives of these. Total: 20 step operators + 4 Cartan generators = 24-dimensional algebra.

\subsection{Simple roots, Cartan matrix, fundamental weights}
\label{appsec:su5lie-simple}

\paragraph{Simple roots.} The simple roots are the four differences of consecutive basis vectors:
\begin{equation}
\alpha_1 = e_1 - e_2,\quad \alpha_2 = e_2 - e_3,\quad \alpha_3 = e_3 - e_4,\quad \alpha_4 = e_4 - e_5.
\end{equation}
Every positive root is a non-negative integer combination of the simple roots.

\paragraph{Cartan matrix.} The $A_4$ Cartan matrix is
\begin{equation}
A_{ij} \;=\; \frac{2(\alpha_i, \alpha_j)}{(\alpha_j, \alpha_j)} \;=\; \begin{pmatrix} +2 & -1 & 0 & 0 \\ -1 & +2 & -1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 & +2 & -1 \\ 0 & 0 & -1 & +2 \end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
the matrix of the $A_4$ Dynkin diagram (a chain of four nodes).

\paragraph{Fundamental weights.} The fundamental weights $\omega_i$ are dual to the simple roots: $(\omega_i, \alpha_j^\vee) = \delta_{ij}$. They label the highest weights of the fundamental representations:
\begin{align}
\omega_1 \;&\leftrightarrow\; \mathbf 5\quad\text{(defining)},\\
\omega_2 \;&\leftrightarrow\; \mathbf{10}\quad\text{(antisymmetric two-tensor)},\\
\omega_3 \;&\leftrightarrow\; \overline{\mathbf{10}},\\
\omega_4 \;&\leftrightarrow\; \overline{\mathbf 5}.
\end{align}

\subsection{The Weyl group}
\label{appsec:su5lie-weyl}

The Weyl group $W$ of $\mathfrak{su}(5)$ is the permutation group $S_5$ acting on the basis vectors $\{e_i\}$. It has order $|W| = 120$ and is generated by the simple reflections $s_{\alpha_i}$ that send $\alpha_i \to -\alpha_i$ and fix the hyperplane orthogonal to $\alpha_i$. The Weyl group is the symmetry group of the root system, and its orbits classify the inequivalent realizations of representations.

\medskip
\textit{Physics intuition. The Weyl group permutes the indices of the fundamental representation, so it acts as the discrete symmetry group of the SM matter assignments. The Weyl-invariant operators are the universal operators of the gauge theory; the Weyl-non-invariant operators are basis-dependent quantities. In \GG{}, the Hosotani Wilson-line phase that breaks $\SUfive \to G_{\mathrm{SM}}$ selects a specific Weyl-orbit representative and fixes the SM embedding.}

\subsection{Embedding of the Standard Model subgroup}
\label{appsec:su5lie-embedding}

The Standard Model subgroup $G_{\mathrm{SM}} = \SU(3)_C \times \SU(2)_L \times \U(1)_Y$ embeds in $\SUfive$ as follows:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em]
\item \emph{Color $\SU(3)_C$}: generated by the 8 root operators $\{E_{\alpha_{ij}} : i, j \in \{1, 2, 3\}, i \neq j\}$ together with the 2 Cartan generators $H_1, H_2$. Total $8 + 2 = 10$ generators? No: $\SU(3)$ has $3^2 - 1 = 8$ generators, comprising 6 step operators and 2 Cartan. Counting: 3 positive roots $(e_1 - e_2, e_1 - e_3, e_2 - e_3)$ plus 3 negative roots, plus 2 Cartan, total 8. Correct.
\item \emph{Weak $\SU(2)_L$}: generated by the root operator $E_{\alpha_{45}} = E_{e_4 - e_5}$ and its conjugate $E_{-\alpha_{45}}$, together with the Cartan $H_4$. Total 3 generators (1 positive root + 1 negative root + 1 Cartan), matching $\SU(2)$.
\item \emph{Hypercharge $\U(1)_Y$}: generated by the linear combination $Y_0 = -\tfrac{1}{3}(H_1 + 2H_2) + \tfrac{1}{2}(2H_3 + H_4) = \diag(-\tfrac{1}{3}, -\tfrac{1}{3}, -\tfrac{1}{3}, +\tfrac{1}{2}, +\tfrac{1}{2})$. This is the diagonal generator we used in Appendix~\ref{app:su5} and Appendix~\ref{app:anomaly}.
\end{itemize}

\paragraph{Counting.} $8 + 3 + 1 = 12$ SM gauge generators inside the 24 of $\SUfive$. The remaining $24 - 12 = 12$ generators are the $X, Y$ leptoquark gauge bosons in the $(\mathbf 3, \mathbf 2)_{-5/6} \oplus (\bar{\mathbf 3}, \mathbf 2)_{+5/6}$.

\subsection{Explicit generator matrices for the $\mathbf 5$}
\label{appsec:su5lie-generators}

\paragraph{Cartan generators.} In the $\mathbf 5$:
\begin{equation}
H_1, H_2, H_3, H_4 \quad\text{as defined in \S\ref{appsec:su5lie-cartan}}.
\end{equation}

\paragraph{Step operators.} The positive-root step operator $E_{e_i - e_j}$ for $i < j$ is the $5 \times 5$ matrix with $1$ in the $(i, j)$ entry and zero elsewhere. For example,
\begin{equation}
E_{e_1 - e_2} \;=\; \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
which acts as a raising operator on the index-1 and index-2 components of a $\mathbf 5$. The negative-root step operator is the transpose.

\paragraph{Anti-Hermitian basis.} The $\mathfrak{su}(5)$ generators are anti-Hermitian. To convert the Hermitian step operators above to anti-Hermitian basis, multiply by $\ii$. The Hermitian generators of the SM subgroup are then the $H$'s (already Hermitian) and the symmetric/antisymmetric combinations $\tfrac{1}{\sqrt 2}(E + E^\dagger)$, $\tfrac{\ii}{\sqrt 2}(E - E^\dagger)$.

\subsection{Hosotani-mechanism worked example}
\label{appsec:su5lie-hosotani}

\paragraph{Setup.} In the \GG{} bulk, the compact direction $S^1_\theta$ admits a Wilson-line holonomy $\Theta = \int_0^{2\pi} A_\theta\, d\theta$. This holonomy is a $\Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$-valued group element evaluated on a loop in the angular direction.

\paragraph{Hosotani-style breaking.} Take the $\SUfive$ component of $\Theta$ to be a specific element of the $\SUfive$ Cartan subalgebra:
\begin{equation}
\Theta_5 \;=\; \exp\!\Big(\ii\, 2\pi\, \mathrm{diag}(\beta_1, \beta_2, \beta_3, \beta_4, \beta_5) \Big),
\end{equation}
with $\sum \beta_i = 0$ (tracelessness). This is a Wilson line in the $\mathbf 5$, and its values $(\beta_1, \ldots, \beta_5)$ are the Hosotani parameters.

\paragraph{Unbroken subgroup.} A generator $T$ of $\SUfive$ is unbroken by the Wilson line if $[\Theta_5, T] = 0$, i.e., if $T$ commutes with the diagonal matrix $\mathrm{diag}(\beta_1, \ldots, \beta_5)$. This is the case if and only if $T$ is block-diagonal with respect to the partition of $(1, 2, 3, 4, 5)$ defined by equal values of the $\beta_i$.

\paragraph{The choice that breaks to $G_{\mathrm{SM}}$.} Take
\begin{equation}
\Theta_5 \;=\; \exp\!\Big(\ii\, 2\pi\, \mathrm{diag}\big(\tfrac{1}{5}, \tfrac{1}{5}, \tfrac{1}{5}, -\tfrac{3}{10}, -\tfrac{3}{10}\big) \Big),
\end{equation}
so that $\beta_1 = \beta_2 = \beta_3 = 1/5$ and $\beta_4 = \beta_5 = -3/10$. The unbroken generators are exactly the ones that mix indices $1, 2, 3$ among themselves (the $\SU(3)_C$ subgroup), indices $4, 5$ among themselves (the $\SU(2)_L$ subgroup), and the diagonal Cartan generator with weights proportional to $(\beta_1, \beta_2, \beta_3, \beta_4, \beta_5)$ (the hypercharge $\U(1)_Y$). This is exactly $G_{\mathrm{SM}}$ as embedded in $\SUfive$.

\paragraph{Mass spectrum of broken generators.} The 12 broken generators (the $X, Y$ leptoquarks of the $(\mathbf 3, \mathbf 2)_{-5/6} \oplus (\bar{\mathbf 3}, \mathbf 2)_{+5/6}$) acquire mass through the Wilson-line breaking. Their mass scale is set by the difference $|\beta_i - \beta_j|$ for $i \in \{1, 2, 3\}$ and $j \in \{4, 5\}$, multiplied by the inverse compactification scale. For the choice above, $|\beta_i - \beta_j| = 1/5 + 3/10 = 1/2$, and the leptoquark mass is approximately $\EGUT/2$, consistent with the unification scale.

\medskip
\textit{Physics intuition. The Hosotani mechanism is the geometric way to break $\SUfive$ down to the Standard Model gauge group. Rather than introducing an explicit Higgs field that takes a vacuum expectation value (the Georgi--Glashow approach), the Hosotani mechanism uses the Wilson-line holonomy on the compact direction. The holonomy is a topological piece of data that does not require an additional symmetry-breaking scalar; it is determined by the boundary conditions on the compact circle. For \GG, the Wilson-line phase that breaks to $G_{\mathrm{SM}}$ is the constitutional choice fixed by \POS{6} (\OGN): among all possible Wilson-line phases, the unique integer-respecting choice is the one that produces the observed SM gauge group.}

\paragraph{Bridge.} The detailed \SUfive\ machinery developed here is the algebraic backbone of the bulk-side derivation. The integer ledger of \OGNfive\ fixes the Wilson-line phase that produces $G_{\mathrm{SM}}$; the gauge bosons of the broken generators decouple at low energy with masses of order $\EGUT$; and the unbroken SM gauge group emerges as the residual gauge symmetry of the boundary 4D effective theory. The next appendix points to GU-5 (the Geometric Universal Five Constants $\GUfiveSet$) --- the explicit derivation of $c, G_N, \hbar, \kB, \QB$ from the bulk dimensions and the boundary projection of \GG\ is carried in \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid}.

\section*{Note: GU-5 (The Geometric Universal Five Constants) Lives in \AFour{}}
\label{app:GU5-pointer}

The explicit derivation of the Geometric Universal Five Constants $\{c, G_N, \hbar; \kB, \QB\}$ from the bulk dimensions and the integer ledger --- the so-called \emph{GU-5} --- is carried in the companion paper \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid}. We omit the full derivation here to avoid duplication with that paper, which carries the historical lineage from Euclid through Riemann, Hilbert, Cartan, and Einstein, and the explicit reconstruction in cohort form.

The bulk-side ingredients on which \GUfive\ rests --- the canonical metric of Theorem~\ref{thm:canonical-metric}, the scale depth $K = 35$ of Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade}, the topological angular direction of \S\ref{sec:picture4-topological-circle}, the integer ledger \OGNfive{}, and the $\UoneQi$ gauge factor of Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces} --- are all supplied by the present paper and feed forward to \AFour{}'s reconstruction. The fifth member of \GUfive, the Boltzmann constant $\kB$, enters through the boundary thermodynamic Gibbs projection of \GDOS\ \citep{ArisakaA5GDOS} rather than through a bulk direction. A reader who wishes to see the conversion factors $c, G_N, \hbar, \kB, \QB$ derived in full from the bulk geometry plus the boundary projection is referred to \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid}. A more honest accounting of the \GUfive\ framing --- in particular, that the ``one universal constant per bulk direction'' phrase is a slogan, with the honest accounting being a (3 bulk + 2 boundary) split that mirrors \OGNfive\ --- appears in Common Objection~30 of Part~\ref{sec:common-objections}. Common Objection~33 of the same section defends the omission of the elementary charge $e$ from \GUfive\ (it is determined by $\alpha^{-1}(0) = 137$ and $e = \sqrt{4\pi\varepsilon_0\,\hbar\,c\,\alpha}$, hence \emph{derived}, not a primitive).

\subsection*{Closing remarks on Part~IX}

These appendices exist for a reason that is easy to state. A derivation stated
in a line and a derivation you can reproduce are different objects, and only
the second is checkable. Every calculation the body compressed is written here
at the length it actually takes.

Two of them repay reading even if nothing is being checked. The
Nakajima--Zwanzig reduction shows how an irreversible boundary description
arises from reversible bulk dynamics without anything irreversible being added
by hand --- a technical result with a plain moral, which is that losing
information is what happens when you stop tracking part of a system, not
something that has to be put in. And the operator catalog shows how a
selection rule works from the inside: the proton is stable here not because a
decay is slow, but because there is no operator in the theory that would
mediate it.

The glossary is ordered by construction rather than alphabetically, which makes
it usable as something other than a lookup table. Read straight through, it is
the geometry in miniature: the arena first, then what is carried on it, then
what the boundary sees.

\GGPart[Common Objections]{Common Objections and Responses}{The strongest objections from each community --- particle theorist, gravity researcher, mathematician, philosopher, string theorist --- answered, with pointers into the paper}
\label{sec:common-objections}
\noindent
A framework earns nothing by being asked easy questions. Part~X is the hard
ones, collected from the communities most likely to ask them and answered
without softening the question first.

They are ordered by who is asking rather than by how difficult they are. The
opening set is for a reader with no specialist training and assumes none: why
six, where the other two dimensions have gone, whether extra room explains
anything or merely accommodates it. After that the questions get technical and
the communities get specific --- the particle theorist, the gravity
researcher, the mathematician, the philosopher, and at some length the string
theorist, who has the strongest case against this paper and is given room to
make it.

Every answer points into the body rather than restating it, so an objection
and the argument it attacks can be read side by side. Where the honest answer
is that the question is open, the answer says so and names what is missing;
there are several of those, and they are not hidden among the others.

Like Part~IX, this is back matter and can be read in any order, or used as an
index: find the objection closest to your own and follow it into the paper.


\newenvironment{objqabody}%
  {\par\nobreak\begingroup\leftskip=1.8em\parindent=0pt\relax}%
  {\par\endgroup}


%% =====================================================================
%% Cluster 0 -- For the curious reader
%% =====================================================================
\bigskip
\section{For the curious reader: the big questions, plainly answered}
\label{sec:qa-curious}

The twenty-five questions that follow are not a specialist's. They are the
ones a thoughtful reader without a physics degree actually carries
into a paper like this one: whether extra dimensions are physics or science fiction, where
they are supposed to be hiding, whether a beautiful piece of algebra has
any business fixing the shape of the world, and whether adding
dimensions is a way of explaining things or merely a way of acquiring
room to fit anything. Several of these have been settled in
popular science in directions this paper does not take, and a reader
is owed plain answers before the specialist objections begin. They
are met first, and plainly.

The hardest of the twenty-five is the eleventh --- whether the mathematics being called beautiful here is doing work
or merely being admired, which is precisely the criticism that has aged
worst for every previous attempt of this kind. The response concedes the
difficulty rather than dissolving it, and says which part of it the
paper can carry and which part it cannot. Where a claim rests on a
step that is not closed, the response says so and names the step;
where the honest answer is that the framework does not reach the
question, it says that too.


\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Question 1 (Q-GG6-1) (on the curious reader)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Why six dimensions? Not four, not ten, not twenty-six.''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} Because six is where two independent requirements meet, and neither
of them was chosen with six in mind. \\ The first is algebraic. There
is a short and famous list of number systems in which one can do
consistent arithmetic --- the ordinary numbers, the complex numbers, the
quaternions, the octonions --- and the list stops. It is not that nobody
has found a fifth; there provably is no fifth. Each rung of that ladder
supports a spacetime of a particular dimension, and the ladder gives
four candidates and no others. The second requirement is that the arena
must be able to carry the specific structure the constitution demands
--- a boundary that a smaller world can live on, with room for exactly
the kinds of internal circle that charge and matter need. Impose both
and the candidates collapse to one. \\ It is worth saying what this
argument is not. It is not a measurement, and nothing in it would
survive if the constitution it rests on is wrong. It is also not the
familiar string-theory style of counting, where the dimension is fixed
by requiring a quantum consistency condition and comes out ten or
twenty-six; that is a different argument reaching a different number,
and the two should not be confused because they sound alike. \\ The
honest position is that six is an \emph{input} to everything downstream
in this program and an \emph{output} of the argument in this paper, and
a reader who rejects the argument is entitled to treat the six as an
assumption --- an expensive one, and the largest single thing being
asked for.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Question 2 (Q-GG6-2) (on the curious reader)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Where are the other two dimensions? Why can I not point at one?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} Because they are not directions you could walk in, and the phrase
``extra dimensions'' is doing you a disservice by suggesting that they
are. \\ Start with the version that is genuinely familiar. A garden
hose seen from a distance is a line; you can move along it and that is
all. Up close it has a second direction --- around --- which was there
the whole time and is invisible from far away because it is small and
closes on itself. That is the standard picture, and it is right as far
as it goes. \\ Where this framework differs is that the two additional
directions are not both of that kind, and they are not the same kind as
each other. One of them closes on itself, like the hose's circumference;
going all the way around returns you to where you began, and a system
can carry a memory of how many times it has gone around. The other does
not close --- it has ends --- and going along it is one-way in a specific
sense: what happens along it cannot be undone by going back. That
asymmetry is not decoration. It is what the framework uses to
distinguish the quantities that are conserved because they are counted
from the quantities that are spent because they are used up. \\ So the
answer to ``where'' is: not anywhere you can get to. They are not
places. They are the two additional ways in which the state of
something can differ, beyond differing in position and in time --- and
the reason you cannot point at one is the same reason you cannot point
at the direction in which an electron's phase increases.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Question 3 (Q-GG6-3) (on the curious reader)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Isn't this just string theory with the serial numbers filed off? That also has extra dimensions.''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} It shares one idea with string theory and differs on almost
everything else, and the differences are the kind that can be settled
rather than argued about. \\ What is shared is the thought that the
world we see is a projection of something with more room in it. That
thought is older than string theory and does not belong to it. \\ What
is different, in the order that matters: the dimension here is six and
fixed by an algebraic argument, not ten fixed by a quantum consistency
condition. There are no strings --- the fundamental objects are the
geometric structures themselves, and nothing in the construction
requires anything to be extended. Most consequentially, there is no
landscape. String compactification famously admits an enormous number
of ways to fold the extra dimensions, each giving different physics,
and choosing among them has been the central difficulty of the subject
for thirty years. Here the folding is not a choice; the arena's shape is
fixed by the same requirements that fixed its dimension, and the
resulting integers are unique. \\ Whether that is an advantage depends
entirely on whether the resulting integers are the world's. A framework
with one prediction and no freedom is better than a framework with
$10^{500}$ possibilities \emph{only if} the one prediction is right. If
it is wrong, string theory's flexibility looks less like a weakness and
this program has nothing left. That is the bet, and it is why the
falsifiers matter more here than the philosophy.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Question 4 (Q-GG6-4) (on the curious reader)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Extra dimensions sound like science fiction. Why should I believe in something nobody has ever seen?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} You should not believe in them, and the framework does not ask you
to. It asks you to accept a conditional: \emph{if} the arena has this
shape, \emph{then} these specific things follow, several of which can be
measured. Belief in the arena is not required at any point; what is
required is that you check the consequences. \\ It is worth noticing
how much of physics already works this way. Nobody has seen an
electron's wave function, a gauge potential, or a quark in isolation ---
the last provably cannot be seen even in principle. These are accepted
not because anyone observes them but because descriptions containing
them predict things that descriptions without them do not. An extra
dimension has exactly the same epistemic status: it is a piece of
machinery, and it earns its place by what it forces. \\ The fair form of
your suspicion is not ``unseen therefore fictional'' but ``unseen and
doing no work.'' That criticism has landed hard on extra dimensions
before, in frameworks where the additional directions could be folded
in so many ways that they constrained nothing and merely absorbed
whatever was measured. It is the right thing to demand here. The answer
this paper gives is that the folding is not free --- and the way to test
that answer is not to argue about dimensions but to look at what comes
out of them: a family count, an integer ledger, a stellar correction.
If those fail, the dimensions were fiction after all, and no amount of
mathematical appeal will rescue them.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Question 5 (Q-GG6-5) (on the curious reader)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``What is a `magic dimension'? Why should real, complex, quaternionic and octonionic numbers mean anything physical?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} The name is unfortunate --- it suggests something mystical and the
content is the opposite --- but the underlying fact is one of the more
striking in mathematics. \\ If you ask for a number system in which
addition, multiplication and division all behave, the answer is not
``infinitely many, choose one.'' There are exactly four: the ordinary
real numbers, the complex numbers, the quaternions, and the octonions.
Each is built from the one before by doubling, each doubling costs you a
property --- the complex numbers lose ordering, the quaternions lose
commutativity, the octonions lose associativity --- and after the fourth
there is nothing left to lose and the construction stops. This is a
theorem, proved in the nineteenth century and not a matter of opinion or
taste. \\ Why physics should care is the real question, and the honest
answer has two parts. The uncontroversial part is that these systems
already appear throughout physics without anyone having put them there:
quantum mechanics is built on complex numbers, spin on quaternions in
all but name, and the pattern is not a convention that could have been
chosen otherwise. The controversial part is the claim made here --- that
the ladder's finiteness is what makes the dimension of the arena finite
and specific. \\ That second step is where a skeptical reader should
concentrate. The first is textbook; the second is this framework's
claim, and it is defended by a construction rather than by the elegance
of the observation. Elegance is what makes the idea worth checking. It
is not what makes it true, and the distinction has been fatal to better
ideas than this one.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Question 6 (Q-GG6-6) (on the curious reader)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Octonions are famously the number system nobody could find a use for. Why do they turn up here?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} They turn up because the ladder ends there, and the ending is what
is being used --- not the octonions themselves. \\ The reputation is
deserved and worth stating. The octonions were discovered in 1843,
almost immediately, and for a century and a half were a curiosity: they
do not associate, which means that in an octonionic calculation
$(ab)c$ and $a(bc)$ are different things, and almost every technique in
mathematics quietly assumes otherwise. Generations of physicists have
looked at them, felt they must matter, and produced nothing. That
history should be on the table before anyone claims to have found the
use. \\ What this framework takes from them is not a calculational tool
but a boundary. The claim is not ``physics is octonionic''; it is that
the arena's dimension is bounded because the ladder is bounded, and the
octonions are the last rung. The role is closer to that of a wall than
of a hammer. Nothing in the construction requires performing octonionic
arithmetic, which is fortunate, because performing it is unpleasant.
\\ A skeptic is entitled to say that invoking a famously useless
structure to explain a famously unexplained number has the shape of a
mistake that has been made before, and to want the claim checked
somewhere other than in its own vocabulary. That is right, and it is why
the paper's weight rests on what the arena forces downstream rather than
on the appeal of the algebra.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Question 7 (Q-GG6-7) (on the curious reader)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Isn't adding dimensions just adding freedom? More room means you can fit anything.''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} It usually is, and this is the criticism that any framework of this
shape has to answer first, because the history is against it. \\ The
general worry is exactly right. A description with more room in it can
accommodate more, and a description that can accommodate anything
explains nothing. Extra-dimensional models have repeatedly failed in
precisely this way: the additional directions can be folded in many
ways, each folding gives different four-dimensional physics, and the
model ends up able to match whatever is measured while forbidding
nothing. \\ The specific answer here is that the freedom is removed
before it can be used, and removed by constraints stated in advance. The
dimension is fixed rather than chosen. The shape is fixed rather than
chosen. The available structures on that shape are fixed by consistency
conditions rather than surveyed for a good fit. What comes out is a
single assignment of a handful of whole numbers, and those numbers then
determine the family count and several measurable quantities with no
remaining freedom to adjust. \\ The way to check whether that answer is
honest is not to take it on trust. It is to ask what happens when a
measurement disagrees: if the framework's response would be to fold the
arena differently, then the freedom was never really removed and this
answer is a story. It cannot respond that way, because there is no
alternative folding available --- which means a disagreement ends it.
That is the only version of the answer worth anything.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Question 8 (Q-GG6-8) (on the curious reader)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``What decides how big the extra dimensions are? If they are small, small compared with what?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} Compared with the only length the arena itself supplies, which is
the point of the question and the reason it is a good one. \\ In most
extra-dimensional models the size is a free parameter: you make the
extra directions small enough that current experiments would not have
noticed them, and that choice is an input rather than a result. This is
a well-known weakness and it is where a great deal of the criticism of
such models has landed. \\ Here the extent of the two additional
directions is set by the integer ledger rather than by hand, so it is
not available to be tuned when an experiment comes in. That has a direct
consequence: it fixes the energy at which the additional structure
should show itself. The framework therefore predicts a scale rather than
accommodating one, and the prediction is in the neighborhood of energies
that current and near-future accelerators reach. \\ It is worth being
clear about the risk this creates. A predicted scale is an exposed
scale. If the structure is not there when the energy is reached, the
framework does not get to make the dimensions smaller --- there is no
dial. The program makes the same trade everywhere: give up the
ability to retreat in exchange for the ability to be checked. Whether
that was a good trade will be settled by the machines, not by the
argument.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Question 9 (Q-GG6-9) (on the curious reader)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Why should the shape of an arena have anything to do with what matter is made of?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} Because on this account matter is not sitting in the arena; it is
one of the ways the arena can be. That is a strange sentence and it is
worth unpacking, because the intuition it displaces is very strong.
\\ The familiar picture is a stage and actors: space provides the
setting, and particles are objects moving about in it with properties
--- charge, mass, spin --- that are simply given. On that picture your
question has no answer, because the stage's shape and the actors'
properties are independent facts. \\ The shift here, which general
relativity began and this framework carries further, is that the
distinction is not fundamental. Once the arena is allowed to have
structure, the ways that structure can be twisted are countable, and
each way of twisting is a kind of thing that can exist. A particle's
charge stops being a label attached to an object and becomes a statement
about how many times something wraps around one of the internal
directions --- which is why charge comes in whole multiples of a smallest
unit rather than in arbitrary amounts, a fact that is otherwise simply
observed and left unexplained. \\ The test of whether this is insight or
rhetoric is whether it constrains. If the arena's shape allows exactly
the kinds of twisting that correspond to the matter we see, and forbids
kinds we do not see, then the connection is doing work. The paper's
central claim is that this is the case, and the family count is where it
is most sharply exposed.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Question 10 (Q-GG6-10) (on the curious reader)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``If the arena is fixed and everything follows from it, what is left for physics to discover?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} A great deal, and the framework is at its least useful precisely
where most physics happens. \\ What a construction like this can supply
is the rule book: what kinds of things there can be, what is conserved,
what the ratios between certain quantities must be. What it cannot
supply is any particular history, and almost everything a working
physicist does is about particular histories. How a protein folds, why a
star of a given mass ends as one kind of remnant rather than another,
what the early universe did in its first second, how a superconductor
behaves near its transition --- none of these is determined by the
arena's shape in any usable sense, even if all of them are consistent
with it. \\ The relationship is the one between the rules of chess and
chess. Knowing the rules perfectly leaves the entire game to be
discovered, and the interesting content of chess is not in the rules.
Two centuries of work would remain if this framework were completely
correct tomorrow. \\ There is also the more likely case worth naming.
The framework is not complete: several results rest on hypotheses that
are not yet theorems, and the assessment lists them. Closing those is
mathematics, and it is real work rather than bookkeeping. A reader
looking for something to do will find more of it in the open-problem
list than in the settled part.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Question 11 (Q-GG6-11) (on the curious reader)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Everyone says the mathematics here is beautiful. Isn't `beautiful' exactly the argument that went wrong before?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} It is, and this is the hardest question in the set. It should be
answered by conceding rather than by explaining why this case is
different, because everyone who was wrong before also thought their case
was different. \\ The record is bad. Circular orbits were defended for
centuries on grounds of perfection. The ether was elegant. Supersymmetry
at the scale where it would have solved the problems it was invented for
was widely held to be too beautiful not to be true, and the machines
have not found it. Beauty has been a reliable guide often enough to be
seductive and has failed often enough that no argument should rest on
it. \\ What can be said here is narrow. The algebraic ladder is not
being invoked because it is elegant; it is being invoked because it
\emph{terminates}, and the termination is a theorem rather than an
aesthetic judgment. A finite list is a constraint whether or not anybody
finds it lovely. The framework's use of it is a counting argument, and
counting arguments can be wrong but they cannot be beautiful in the way
that gets people into trouble. \\ That said, the criticism cannot be
fully answered from inside. If the framework's predictions fail, the
elegance will have been exactly the trap it looks like, and the correct
response will be to say so rather than to preserve the mathematics and
adjust the physics. The falsifier list exists so that this can be a
commitment rather than a promise.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Question 12 (Q-GG6-12) (on the curious reader)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Does the six-dimensional bulk actually exist, or is it a calculating device?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} The paper does not answer this, and the reason is worth more than
an answer would be. \\ Physics has a long history of quantities that
began as calculational conveniences and were later held to be real, and
of quantities that went the other way. The electromagnetic potential
was a bookkeeping device until it turned out to have measurable
consequences that the fields alone do not explain. The ether was as real
as anything until it was not. Nothing in the practice of physics
determines which category a structure belongs to, and physicists holding
opposite views on such questions make identical predictions. \\ What can
be said about the bulk is what it does: descriptions written using it
force relationships among four-dimensional quantities that would
otherwise be independent, and those relationships are checkable. If they
hold, the bulk is doing work no four-dimensional account does. Whether
that makes it real is a question about the word ``real'' rather than
about the world. \\ There is a version of your question that is
sharper and does have an answer. If the bulk were merely a device, one
would expect an equivalent four-dimensional formulation to exist ---
some way of writing the same content without it. None is known, and the
framework's structure suggests there is not one, because the
relationships it forces are exactly the ones that are invisible from
inside the projection. That is not proof of existence. It is a reason
the question is not idle.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Question 13 (Q-GG6-13) (on the curious reader)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Isn't our universe just one bubble among countless others, and we happen to live in one where the numbers work?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} It might be. What this paper does is remove the reason the idea
became attractive. \\ The multiverse answers a specific problem: the
constants look arranged, and if they could have taken any value then the
arrangement demands an explanation. A vast ensemble supplies one --- most
members are sterile, we are necessarily in a rare one, nothing further
is owed. That is a coherent argument made by careful people. \\ It rests
on a premise that is almost never examined: that the constants
\emph{could} have been otherwise. In the picture developed here they
could not. The arena's dimension is not a dial, its shape is not a dial,
and the integers that follow are the unique solution of a closure
condition rather than a draw from a distribution. If that is right, the
observation that started the multiverse argument stops being surprising
and the ensemble has nothing left to do. \\ The contrast with string
compactification is worth naming because it is the sharpest one
available. There, the number of ways to fold the extra dimensions is
enormous, and the multiverse is a natural response to that embarrassment
of possibility. Here the folding is unique, so the embarrassment does
not arise. Which of the two pictures is right is not a matter of taste:
one of them predicts a definite family count and a definite scale, and
the other does not.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Question 14 (Q-GG6-14) (on the curious reader)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``The universe looks extraordinarily fine-tuned for life. Doesn't that point to a designer?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} It points to something requiring explanation, and the step from
there to a designer is where the argument has to be examined rather
than felt. \\ The observation is real. Small changes in certain
quantities and there is no chemistry, or no structure, or nothing that
lasts. Anyone who feels the pull of design when looking at that is
responding to something genuine. \\ But the inference needs a premise:
that the quantities could have been otherwise. A dial that was set
implies a hand. If there was no dial --- if the arena admits one
consistent assignment and no others --- then asking who chose the values
is like asking who decided that the ratio of a circle's circumference to
its diameter should be what it is. The question has no purchase, not
because it is forbidden but because nothing was available to be chosen.
\\ This is not an argument against a designer and should not be
recruited as one. Someone who believes on other grounds is untouched by
anything in this paper; so is someone who does not. What changes is
narrower: one particular argument, which has carried great weight in
popular discussion, loses its premise if this framework is right. And
whether it is right will be decided by whether the world has three
families of matter and whether compact stars weigh what the ledger says
--- not by philosophy.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Question 15 (Q-GG6-15) (on the curious reader)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``If everything is forced by geometry, is my future already written? What happens to free will?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} Nothing in this paper touches your future, and the inference,
though it feels tight, does not hold. \\ What is claimed to be forced
here is the rule book --- the dimension of the arena, the integers, the
number of kinds of matter. What is not claimed is any particular
history. The distinction is between the rules of chess and the game
played last Tuesday. A rule book admitting no alternative says nothing
whatever about which of the vast number of permitted games occurred.
\\ There is a further point that cuts deeper. Even a fully
deterministic rule book delivers no written future in any sense that
could trouble anybody, because the only thing capable of computing what
the rules imply for a system as complicated as a person is a system at
least that complicated, running at least that long. There is no
shortcut and no vantage point. A universe can be lawful all the way
down and remain, in the only sense available to anyone inside it,
unwritten until it happens. \\ And the honest limit: this paper is about
the shape of an arena. What agency is, and whether the concept survives
contact with physics of any kind, is a question it does not reach and
should not pretend to.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Question 16 (Q-GG6-16) (on the curious reader)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Why is there something rather than nothing? Does this framework touch the deepest question?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} It does not, and any suggestion otherwise would be a sales pitch.
\\ Everything here is conditional: \emph{given} an arena of a certain
kind, the following holds. Every result has that shape, including the
ones about dimension. Why there is an arena at all --- why anything
exists to have a shape --- sits outside the construction, and no
rearrangement of the argument reaches it. This is not a gap that further
work closes. It is a different kind of question. \\ What a framework
like this can contribute is narrower and not nothing. If it is right,
the space of possible somethings is far smaller than it looks: not a
landscape of coherent worlds from which one was somehow drawn, but very
nearly a single admissible structure. That converts ``why this, of all
the things there might have been?'' into ``why anything?'' Narrowing a
question is a real service and is not an answer. \\ The temptation is to
say something about nothingness being unstable, or the question being
ill-posed. Both moves are available and neither follows from anything
in this paper. Silence is the accurate report.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Question 17 (Q-GG6-17) (on the curious reader)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``A short list of whole numbers explaining this much makes me suspicious. Shouldn't it make you suspicious too?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} It should and it does, and the cautionary example deserves naming.
Eddington was among the finest astrophysicists of his generation and
spent his last years deriving the fine-structure constant and the number
of particles in the universe from combinatorial arguments that
persuaded almost nobody. His reputation never recovered. Anyone working
in this territory is one bad step from that. \\ What distinguishes a
derivation from a coincidence is not how impressive the agreement is.
It is whether the numbers came out of machinery that exists for another
reason, and whether they commit you to anything else. A number
reverse-engineered to match a measurement will always match it. Here
the integers come out of a closure condition on an arena fixed
beforehand by an algebraic argument that knows nothing about particle
physics, and they then determine other things --- a family count, a
stellar correction, a decay ordering --- that were not used to obtain
them. \\ That is the only defense available and it is the right one. Not
``the agreement is too good to be chance'' but ``here are further
consequences, please go and look.'' Keep the suspicion; the framework
has arranged to be checkable, and if the further consequences fail then
the numbers were a coincidence and no elegance in their derivation will
save them.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Question 18 (Q-GG6-18) (on the curious reader)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Why should I take one person's framework seriously when thousands of physicists work on other approaches?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} You should not take it seriously because of who wrote it, and you
should not dismiss it for that reason either. \\ The practical question
is fair: attention is finite. The useful filter is not headcount but
exposure. A framework supported by thousands that forbids nothing
measurable is a worse use of your attention than a framework supported
by one that forbids several things and names the facility that will
decide each. Community size tracks funding history, training pipelines,
and which problems were fashionable when --- and it does not track
correctness. \\ There is a real cost to working outside a large
community and it should be stated. Errors get found faster where more
people are looking, and a framework developed largely by one person
carries a higher chance of containing a mistake that a hundred readers
would have caught in a week. Nothing about internal coherence reduces
that. The only defense is to make checking cheap. \\ So do not take it
on trust. Take one prediction --- the resonance cluster near four
teraelectronvolts is the most accessible here --- and see whether it is
stated precisely enough to be wrong. If it is not, ignore the rest. If
it is, that is what deserves attention, and not the biography of
whoever wrote it.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Question 19 (Q-GG6-19) (on the curious reader)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``What would actually convince you that you are wrong?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} Several specific things, and they are listed rather than gestured
at. \\ Running the accelerators through the predicted energy without
finding the resonance structure would do it: the scale is fixed by the
ledger and cannot be moved, which is exactly what makes it a
prediction. A fourth family of matter would end the framework outright,
since the arena forces at most three and there is no parameter to
adjust. A measured charge assignment outside the pattern the arena
permits would break the connection between geometry and matter that
this paper exists to establish. And an internal failure counts: if the
uniqueness argument for the arena's shape has a hole, the central claim
--- that the folding is not free --- is gone whatever the machines find.
\\ It is worth naming what would not convince, because a falsifier list
is only honest if it excludes things. A null result at an energy below
the predicted scale would not count, and neither would the failure of a
result whose hypotheses are already flagged as open. A reader should be
suspicious of any proponent unwilling to say which failures are
survivable, because a framework where every failure is survivable has no
content.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Question 20 (Q-GG6-20) (on the curious reader)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Could the two extra directions be something other than space? What would that even mean?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} They are, and this is the part of the picture most worth getting
straight, because it is where the science-fiction imagery misleads
hardest. \\ A spatial direction has a particular character: you can move
along it either way, the moving is reversible, and going somewhere and
coming back leaves nothing behind. The two additional directions in this
framework do not both behave like that, and neither of them behaves like
that fully. \\ One of them closes into a loop. Motion along it returns
you to the start, but not without trace: how many times you went around
is a whole number, and whole numbers cannot be changed continuously.
That is what makes it a place where something can be \emph{remembered}
--- a count, once made, cannot be smoothly undone. The other has ends
rather than closing, and motion along it is dissipative in the technical
sense: what happens along it cannot be reversed by going back the other
way. That is where the framework locates the quantities that are
\emph{spent}. \\ The distinction between counted and spent is the whole
architecture in one sentence, and it is why the answer to ``are they
like space?'' has to be no. They are additional ways for a state to
differ, one of which supports memory and one of which supports cost. A
reader who takes only that away has the essential picture, and it is
more useful than any number of images of curled-up tubes.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Question 21 (Q-GG6-21) (on the curious reader)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Why should a symmetry group have anything to do with what particles exist?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} Because on this picture a particle is not a thing with a symmetry
attached; it is a way of being consistent with the symmetry, and that
inverts the usual reading. \\ The familiar account has particles first
and symmetries as facts about them: the electron exists, and it happens
to have a charge which happens to be conserved because a certain
transformation happens to be a symmetry. Nothing about that account
explains why the charge takes one value rather than another, or why
there are the kinds of particle there are rather than others. \\ The
alternative, which goes back to Wigner in the nineteen-thirties, is that
the list of possible particles is the list of ways a structure can carry
a symmetry group consistently --- and that list is finite and
computable. Given the group, you can enumerate what can exist. Wigner's
version of this is now textbook and uncontroversial; what this framework
adds is that the group itself is not chosen but fixed by the arena.
\\ That second step is the claim, and its exposure is the family count.
If the arena's group permits three sets of matter with the observed
charges and forbids a fourth, the connection is doing real work. If a
fourth is found, the connection is broken and no repair is available.
This is one of those places where a framework either predicts the world
or is finished, and there is nothing in between.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Question 22 (Q-GG6-22) (on the curious reader)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Everyone in this field claims to be close to a final theory. Why should this be different?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} It should not be treated as different, and treating it as different
would be the mistake. \\ The history is discouraging and the discouraged
reading is the correct starting point. Confident announcements that
physics was nearly complete have been made at intervals for a century
and a half by serious people with good reasons. What separated the
merely premature from the empty was never how convinced anybody was ---
they were uniformly convinced --- but whether the claim could be checked
and what happened when someone checked it. \\ So the useful question is
not how this feels from the inside but what it forbids. This paper
forbids a fourth family, forbids the additional structure being absent
at the predicted energy, and forbids charge assignments outside a
computable list. Any one of those going the wrong way ends it. \\ There
is also a difference of ambition running the other way from your
question. This is not a claim to a final theory. It is a claim about an
arena --- what shape it has and what that shape forces --- which is a
smaller and more checkable thing than a theory of everything. Several of
the announcements that aged worst claimed completeness rather than
constraint, and the distinction is worth holding on to when reading
anything of this kind, including this.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Question 23 (Q-GG6-23) (on the curious reader)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``If the arena has a fixed shape, why did the universe need fourteen billion years to get anywhere?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} Because a fixed rule book says nothing about how long the game
takes, and the two questions are more independent than they feel.
\\ The arena's shape fixes what can exist and what is conserved. It
does not fix rates. How fast anything happens depends on how much energy
is available, how far apart things are, and what has already formed ---
none of which is determined by the geometry in any usable way. A
framework can force the existence of carbon and be silent about how long
stars take to make it. \\ There is something better than a shrug
available here, though. The framework describes structure as arising
through a sequence of settlings, each of which needs the previous one to
have finished and each of which needs conditions the previous one
produced. That ordering is forced even where the timing is not: atoms
cannot precede nuclei, chemistry cannot precede atoms, and nothing
resembling biology can precede a supply of heavy elements that only
stellar deaths provide. A long history is what a layered structure
requires, whether or not the layers were inevitable. \\ What the paper
does not claim, and what it would be wrong to read into it, is that the
particular history our universe had was forced. Fourteen billion years
is a measurement. It is not a prediction of this or any related
framework, and anyone offering one should be asked how.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Question 24 (Q-GG6-24) (on the curious reader)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Nobody has ever measured a sixth dimension. What measurement could possibly show one?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} Not a direct one --- nothing will ever display a sixth axis --- but
several indirect ones, and indirectness is not the weakness it sounds
like. \\ The clearest signature is a family of new states at a specific
energy. Additional directions of finite extent force a tower of
excitations whose spacing is set by that extent, in the same way that a
guitar string of fixed length supports a definite series of harmonics
and no others. Finding a cluster of states at the predicted energies,
with the predicted spacing, would be as close to seeing the geometry as
anything could get. Finding nothing there would be the framework's
failure, since the energy is fixed by the ledger and cannot be moved.
\\ There are quieter signatures too. Additional structure leaves traces
in how gravity behaves at short distances, in the relationships among
quantities that a purely four-dimensional account treats as
independent, and in the specific pattern of matter that exists. The
last is already measured --- three families, particular charges --- and
the framework's claim is that the pattern is what the arena permits.
\\ It is worth keeping the epistemics straight. None of this shows a
dimension. All of it shows that descriptions using one force
relationships that hold, and descriptions without one do not force them.
That is the strongest thing evidence of this kind can be, and it is the
same standard by which quarks are accepted.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Question 25 (Q-GG6-25) (on the curious reader)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``I'm not a physicist and I've got this far. What is the one thing you want me to take away?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} That the interesting question about a framework like this is not
whether it is true. It is whether it has arranged to be caught. \\ Most
of what you will read about extra dimensions --- in both directions, the
enthusiastic and the debunking --- argues about whether the idea is
right. That argument is almost never settleable from an armchair and it
is not what moves science. What moves science is the duller question of
whether a claim has been put in a form that a measurement could
contradict, and whether the person making it said so beforehand. \\ This
paper argues that an algebraic ladder with four rungs and no fifth,
together with a set of consistency requirements, leaves one arena
standing --- and that the arena then fixes an energy at which new
structure must appear, a count of families that cannot be four, and a
list of charges that cannot be added to. Machines now running will
settle the first of those. \\ So the thing to take away is a habit
rather than a belief. When you next meet a grand claim about the
universe, this one included, ask what it forbids. If the answer is
nothing, or if the answer keeps changing, you have learned what you
needed without following any mathematics. If the answer is a short list
of specific things somebody is about to measure, the claim is worth your
attention whether or not it survives --- because that is what a
scientific claim looks like from outside.
\end{objqabody}

\section{Bulk-side specifics: the first-pass questions}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 1 (O-GG6-1)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{Why constitutionalize the framework at all? Isn't a Lagrangian-first approach simpler?}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} After all, the conventional move is to write down a candidate Lagrangian, derive the equations of motion, and confront the result with experiment. The axiomatic approach reverses this: it writes down the small set of constraints any candidate theory must satisfy \emph{before} the Lagrangian is even chosen, and then derives the unique theory satisfying those constraints. The reason for the reversal is that the conventional approach has produced, over the last fifty years, a proliferation of inequivalent Lagrangians (KK, Calabi--Yau, Randall--Sundrum, supersymmetric GUT, M-theory, F-theory, asymptotic safety, loop quantum gravity, \ldots) with no axiomatic principle to adjudicate among them. \AX{4} (\MSMF) is precisely the axiomatic adjudication clause that the Lagrangian-first program lacks: it forbids any continuous parameter not forced by an explicit constitutional clause, and the consequence is that the bulk theory is unique --- exactly six dimensions, exactly one composite gauge--gravity group, exactly one rank-1 tensor sector, exactly one five-integer ledger.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 2 (O-GG6-2)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{Why six dimensions, not ten or eleven? String theory and M-theory have decades of insight you are throwing away.}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} Theorem~\ref{thm:dim-minimal} of Part~II answers this directly: each of the six dimensions of \GG\ corresponds to a specific, named structural role (four for the registered boundary, one for the geometrized RG flow, one for the integer Abelian holonomy), and \AX{4} (\MSMF) forbids any further dimension not so forced. Ten- and eleven-dimensional bulks (string theory, M-theory) carry many additional compact directions encoding additional integer ledgers (Calabi--Yau moduli, $G_2$-holonomy data, \ldots), each of which is unforced by the present Constitution and therefore inadmissible. The string-theoretic landscape with its $\sim 10^{500}$ inequivalent vacua is exactly the proliferation of unforced moduli that \AX{4} forbids. We are not throwing away the technical insights of string theory; we are using them as inputs (notably the Green--Schwarz mechanism, which Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs} generalizes into a four-component axiomatic statement), but we reject the unconstrained moduli space.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 3 (O-GG6-3)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{How does \GG\ differ from conventional grand unified theories ($\SU(5)$, $\SO(10)$, $E_6$, supersymmetric GUTs)?}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} Three differences. First, \GG\ \emph{derives} the unification group $\SUfive$ from \AX{4} (smallest simple group containing the Standard Model gauge content), rather than choosing it. Second, \GG\ adds two extra Abelian factors $\UoneB$ and $\UoneQi$ to the gauge group, both forced by \POS{1} + the empirical proton lifetime and by \AX{3} + \POS{4} respectively (Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces}); conventional GUTs do not gauge baryon number or information charge. Third, \GG\ does \emph{not} require supersymmetry. Conventional supersymmetric GUTs invoke supersymmetry to stabilize the gauge-coupling unification at $\EGUT$ and to control the Higgs hierarchy; \GG\ replaces supersymmetry with the axiomatic integer ledger \OGNfive, which fixes both unification scale and hierarchy without invoking superpartners (Objection~34 explains why this non-supersymmetric stance is fully consistent with the Coleman--Mandula theorem).
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 4 (O-GG6-4)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{$\UoneQi$ looks like an aesthetic addition rather than a necessity. How can a $U(1)$ for ``quantum information'' be forced by physics?}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} We are explicit: $\UoneQi$ is \emph{not} forced by the constitutional clauses alone. As Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces} Step~(c) makes plain, the constitution admits two consistent bulk theories --- a three-component bulk with $G_{\Bulk} = \Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB$ and a four-component bulk with $G_{\Bulk} = \Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$ --- and we adopt the four-component version on \emph{empirical} grounds rather than axiomatic ones. The empirical anchor is the energy--information conversion factor $\QB \approx 0.1555$~eV per qubit predicted by the Arisaka equation (Theorem~\ref{thm:arisaka-equation}), whose energy--information calibration against biological energy currents is developed in (\citealp{ArisakaA7Qi4}; \citealp{ArisakaA11Origin}). Without $\UoneQi$, the framework would still be a valid 6D quantum field theory of the four standard forces plus baryon number; with $\UoneQi$, it acquires the fifth-force structure that locks the Arisaka equation, the $\QiFour$ pillars of \ASeven{} \citep{ArisakaA7Qi4}, and the framing of life and mind as boundary projections of $\UoneQi$ at biological scales. The objection is therefore correct in spirit --- $\UoneQi$ is not constitutionally forced --- and the answer is that the framework adopts it because the data adopt it. The two-element admissible class is established in Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces}, Step~(c), of the present paper, and stated formally as the constitutional-admissibility theorem of the companion paper \AThree{} \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}; the two treatments are parallel.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 5 (O-GG6-5)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{The \OGNfive{} dual-lock identity $K = LJ = M^2 + N^2 + L^2 = 35$ looks like numerology. Are you fitting integers to match a target?}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} The \OGNfive{} cascade is sequential: $M = 1$ is forced by Theorem~\ref{thm:dim-minimal} alone and $L = 5$ by single-tensor consistency alone, both before any color count enters. $N = N_c = 3$ then follows from the dual lock together with the closure-index clause and the block embedding, and $(J, K) = (7, 35)$ from the same identity --- Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade} Step~5 verifies explicitly that $(J, K) = (7, 35)$ is the unique pair of small positive integers consistent with $K = LJ = M^2 + N^2 + L^2$ given the fixed triple $(1, 5, 3)$, and that the alternative cases $N \in \{1, 2, 4\}$ all fail. This is not retrofitting; it is constraint-satisfaction. The fact that the unique solution is $K = 35 = 5 \times 7 = 1 + 9 + 25$, which simultaneously sets the scale depth and the \OGN{} closure scale, is the payoff of the axiomatic framework.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 6 (O-GG6-6)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{A quaternionic-Goldilocks reading of $d = 6$ via $\SLtwoH$ is suggestive but not rigorous. How is this different from numerology?}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} Point~10 of Part~VII (and the references therein) walks the Lorentzian-dimension ladder $\R \to \C \to \Quaternion \to \Octonion$ explicitly: the magic dimensions $d \in \{3, 4, 6, 10\}$ correspond to division-algebra-valued $2 \times 2$ Hermitian matrices, and the Lorentz spin groups $\SLtwoR \to \SLtwoC \to \SLtwoH \to \mathrm{SL}(2, \Octonion)$ realize the four magic Lorentz signatures. $d = 6$ is the unique non-supersymmetric realization of the third (quaternionic) rung; $d = 10$ requires supersymmetry to close the spinor structure. The argument is independent of the specific Lagrangian chosen; what is testable is whether the features (three-generation count, single-tensor anomaly cancellation, four-component Weyl spinor structure on the boundary) hold empirically. Falsifier~10 of Part~VII lists three sharp empirical exposures.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 7 (O-GG6-7)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{The empirical predictions are remarkable, but matching CODATA to six significant figures invites the suspicion that the integers were chosen \emph{after} the data were known.}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} This would be a serious objection if the integers $(M, N, L; J, K) = (1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$ had been chosen by data-fitting. They were not. $M = 1$ is forced by the dimensional minimality theorem. $L = 5$ is forced by Georgi--Glashow's 1974 identification of $\SUfive$ as the smallest simple unification group. $N = N_c = 3$ is forced by the dual-lock quadratic together with the block embedding $N < L$, and is checked against the trace-ratio identity in $\SUfive$ representation theory --- an identity known since the 1970s but never before used as the consistency check of a determined integer ledger. The $K = 35 = LJ$ closure with $J = 7$ is forced jointly by the dual-lock algebraic identity. The leading-order \OGN{} fine-structure prediction $\alpha^{-1}(0) = 2^J + N^2 = 137$ then \emph{follows from} these constitutionally-fixed integers; it is not a fit. The integer part of CODATA $\alpha^{-1}(0) = 137.036$ is reproduced exactly; the residual $\sim 0.026\%$ deviation is the layer of higher-order corrections that \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid} treats. The same is true of the energy--information conversion factor $\QB \approx 0.1555$~eV/qubit and the Kaxion oscillation frequency $\Delta\nu/\nu = 1/35$. The boundary cosmological inventory ($\Omega_m \approx 1/\pi$, $\Omega_\Lambda \approx 1 - 1/\pi$, with $\Omega_b$ carrying a percent-level Planck tension treated in \citep{ArisakaA10Cosmos}) is a structurally-derived consequence of the constitutionally-fixed integers at the structural level, but the precise numerical fit lives in the companion paper. None of these anchors is a target the integers were chosen to hit.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\section{The broader-audience audit}

\medskip
\noindent\emph{Further questions from the wider community.} The seven objections above address the questions a working physicist of any background is most likely to raise on first reading of the bulk-side derivation. We continue with sixteen additional objections drawn from the broader audit of \citep[Part~VI \S16]{ArisakaA1Constitution}, restated here in A2-adapted form, covering: the axiomatic-systems theorist (Objection 8); the three-of-four-axioms reading (Objection 9); the philosophy-of-physics specialist (Objection 10); the careful Diophantine analyst (Objection 11); the phenomenologist (Objection 12); the cosmologist (Objection 13); the LHC phenomenologist (Objection 14); the precision physicist (Objection 15); the decoherence-theory veteran (Objection 16); the swampland theorist (Objection 17); the quantum-gravity generalist (Objection 18); the complex-systems biologist (Objection 19); the computational neuroscientist (Objection 20); the philosopher of physics on ontology (Objection 21); the cross-domain reader (Objection 22); and the bio/neuro phenomenologist (Objection 23). After all, an honest framework should expect to be questioned in detail, and each question deserves a serious answer.

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 8 (O-GG6-8) (the senior community member)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``A
 twenty-two-paper program is too large for any single reader to evaluate. How is anyone supposed to judge this?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
A senior member of the community, with the breadth to attempt a
full read, will object that no single human can rigorously
evaluate twenty-two preprints in any reasonable time, and that the
cohort architecture therefore defeats the peer-review function
in practice. \emph{Response.} We acknowledge the cost honestly,
and address it three ways. First, the cross-paper coherence map
(Part~V Table~\ref{tab:outward-map}) pins every Principal
Theorem $\T{k}$ to a single specific proof location, so that any reader can target a specific claim and find its full proof in a
single named place rather than searching across twenty-two papers.
Second, the consolidated falsifier table (Part~IV
Section~\ref{sec:eight-falsifiers}) consolidates every numerical
falsifier into one place, with predicted value, observed value,
current Pull, pre-declared kill threshold, and experimental status as of writing; a reader who wishes to attack the
cohort's empirical content can begin there. Third, the eleven
papers form a tight forward-implication chain: A1 names the
axioms; A2 proves the bulk theorems given A1; A3 proves the
anomaly theorems given A2; A5 proves the boundary theorems given
A2+A3; and so on. The chain can be read incrementally, with each
paper building on the proved content of the upstream papers; a reader who has read A1+A2 can evaluate A3 without yet having
read A5--A11. We acknowledge that no foundational program
this ambitious has ever been published as a single coordinated
cohort, and that the peer-review machinery will need to adapt to
the architecture. The alternative --- publishing the eleven
papers serially over five years, with the constitutional
implications obscured by the long delay --- is in our judgment
worse for the community and for the science.

%% =====================================================================
%% §15.2 — Cluster B: AdS/CFT and string theory placement (Objections 10-12)
%% =====================================================================
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 9 (O-GG6-9) (the senior theorist)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Three of your four
 reasons that string theory cannot ascend beyond Stratum 2 are
 the same axiom (AX-4 MSMF) in three different dresses. That is
 not four independent reasons; it is one reason restated.''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
A careful senior theorist will notice that the Section~\ref{sec:four-fold-exclusion-VI}
``four-fold constitutional exclusion'' of superstring theory ---
SUSY forbidden by AX-4, 10D/11D forbidden by AX-4, SO(32) /
$E_8 \times E_8$ forbidden by AX-4, no constitutional measurement
layer --- compresses cleanly to two underlying constitutional
gaps: the missing AX-3 (operational measurement) and the missing
AX-4 (parsimony ordering principle). \emph{Response.} The senior theorist is correct. We restate the four-fold exclusion
honestly as the consequence of two missing axioms. String theory
is missing AX-3 OGGEP, which would supply the operational
measurement layer that turns boundary correlators into registered
records; this is the structural diagnosis developed in
Objection~12 below. String theory is missing AX-4 MSMF, which
would forbid the unforced continuous freedom that produces
SUSY-doubling, the 10D/11D dimensional choice, and the
high-rank gauge groups. The three Stratum-2 ``additions'' the
cohort framework rejects --- SUSY, the 10D/11D bulk, and the
SO(32) / $E_8 \times E_8$ gauge content --- are all consequences
of the same missing AX-4 ordering principle. Calling them three
separate reasons overstates the structural distance; the honest
statement is that string theory lacks two of the four
constitutional axioms (AX-3 and AX-4), and the three Stratum-2
additions are the textbook symptoms of the missing AX-4. We
restate the exclusion as two reasons rather than four in
Section~\ref{sec:four-fold-exclusion-VI}, and we acknowledge the senior theorist's point as a sharpening of the cohort's claim, not as a refutation
of it.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 10 (O-GG6-10) (the philosophy-of-physics specialist)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``$\AX{4}~\MSMF{}$ is essentially Occam's razor elevated to a
 postulate. Is this physics or aesthetics?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
A philosopher of physics fluent in model-selection theory will
object that $\AX{4}$ reads like the standard Occam-razor heuristic
restated as a constitutional axiom, and that the right scope for
parsimony is methodological (Akaike, Rissanen, Bayesian model
comparison) rather than constitutional. \emph{Response.} We
acknowledge the structural neighborhood with Occam's razor and
sharpen the distinction. Occam's razor is a methodological
preference for simpler models among observationally equivalent
alternatives; $\AX{4}~\MSMF{}$ is the precise constraint that an
admissible theory have \emph{zero free continuous parameters} at
the constitutional level. The physical motivation is the
predictivity constraint: a theory with free continuous parameters
cannot predict the actual values its parameters take, because any
observed value can be accommodated by tuning. $\AX{4}$ elevates
the predictivity constraint to a constitutional axiom: an
admissible theory must commit to specific numerical content,
leaving none of it adjustable. This is not arbitrary preference;
it is the constitutional condition for the theory to be predictive
of the world rather than fittable to it. See \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}
Common Objection~12 for the parallel statement at the \BIsix{}
level. We acknowledge that not every physicist will accept the
elevation as constitutional --- some will reasonably take the view
that $\AX{4}$ is a strong methodological commitment that the
cohort framework chooses to make and that other frameworks may
decline. The cohort program stands by the commitment because
the resulting predictions ($\Mlock \approx 3.85$~TeV,
$\Omega_m = 1/\pi$, kaxion at $\sim 8.1~\mu$eV, the integer
\OGNfive{} ledger, the 28-to-zero parameter compression of the
Standard Model) are sharp enough to be falsified within the
2026--2040 horizon. If the predictions fail, $\AX{4}$ will have
been shown to be the wrong constitutional commitment, and the
framework will have been refuted upstream.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 11 (O-GG6-11) (the careful Diophantine analyst)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``The $\OGNfive{}$ uniqueness theorem you cite from \ATwo{}
 depends on the $\AX{4}$ lexicographic ordering. Under other
 orderings, the Diophantine system admits other integer tuples.
 How is this not a hidden choice?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
A careful analyst will notice that the trace-ratio equation $(L - N)/L = 2/5$ admits the integer family $(L, N) = (5k, 3k)$ for any positive integer $k$, and will ask what picks $k = 1$.
\emph{Response.} The family is a feature of the ratio, and the ratio is not the route. On the derivation the cascade now runs, $L = 5$ is fixed first, by single-tensor Green--Schwarz consistency with no color count in play (Theorem~T-BI6-9.0 of \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}); with $M$ and $L$ in hand the dual lock is a quadratic in $N$ whose two roots sum to $2L$, so exactly one lies below $L$ and the block embedding selects it. There is no family left to break and no ordering applied to ledgers after the fact. This does not make $\AX{4}$ idle --- it is load-bearing at Step~2, where \MSMF{} selects the minimal chiral package --- but that is a constitutional clause doing its declared job at the point where it enters, which is a different thing from a tiebreak invoked to rescue a uniqueness claim. \citet{ArisakaA3BI6} carries the same statement, and retains its minimality theorem as the answer to the reader who asks about the family directly. The $\AX{4}$ ordering is not
hidden; it is the explicit content of the $\MSMF{}$ axiom in
\AOne{} \S\ref{sec:axioms} (\AX{4}) and is named in every uniqueness claim
the cohort framework makes. A reader who finds the $\AX{4}$
ordering insufficiently motivated can reject it; the cohort
framework's uniqueness claim is then weaker but the architecture
remains. We acknowledge that a more thorough ordering-independent
analysis --- exhibiting all admissible orderings, computing the
$\OGN{}$ tuple under each, and showing that the empirical
$\OGNfive{} = (1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$ is favored by data under all
admissible orderings --- would substantially strengthen the
uniqueness claim. This is recorded as Open Problem~O9 of the
cohort program.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 12 (O-GG6-12) (the phenomenologist)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Three
 fermion generations following from $N = 3$ in the $\OGNfive{}$
 ledger is exactly the kind of numerology that has misled
 physicists for a century. Replacing `we observe three
 generations' with `we postulate $N = 3$ and the constitution
 forces three generations' is not a derivation.''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
A phenomenologist whose career has been spent making the empirical world fit into theoretical structures will object that matching an observed integer with an axiomatically labeled integer is not a derivation but a coincidence.
\emph{Response.} The objection's premise is one the framework rejects, and rejects in the objector's favor: three fermion generations do \emph{not} follow from $N = 3$ in the $\OGNfive{}$ ledger, and no paper of the cohort claims they do. The ledger's $N$ is the color index $N_c$. The generation count $N_g$ is a separate quantity, established --- conditionally --- by the three-leg pincer of \PaperPTwo{} \citep{ArisakaP2N3}, on premises that have nothing to do with the cascade. Reading the one off the other would be exactly the numerology the objection describes. What remains to defend is the narrower claim actually made, that the color index is forced: and the cohort framework agrees that ``picking $N = 3$ to match three observed colors'' would be numerology too; it is not what the framework does. The integer $N = N_c = 3$ is forced
by the same Diophantine cascade that forces
$(L, J, K) = (5, 7, 35)$ --- specifically, by the dual lock together
with the closure-index clause and the block embedding $N < L$,
Theorem~T-BI6-10.2a of \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}. The trace-ratio lock
$(L - N)/L = 2/5$ enters as the independent check and not as the route,
since it is computed on the block split it would otherwise conclude. The integer
$N = 3$ is therefore not an independent input chosen to fit data;
it is a derived consequence of the four-component anomaly
polynomial structure that the cohort framework constitutionally
forces. See \citep{ArisakaA3BI6} Common Objection~8 for the
parallel statement and the explicit derivation chain. The
three-color structure of QCD is then a \emph{consequence} of the
$\OGNfive{}$ closure, not a fitted input; the three-generation
observation is neither, and is not claimed here. We acknowledge
honestly that a reader who has not followed the dual-lock
derivation in \AThree{} will reasonably see the $N = 3$ match as
suspicious; that is precisely why the derivation lives in a
separately publishable cohort paper rather than being asserted in
A1. The minimum critical-reading set for this objection is
A2 + A3; once T-BI6-10.2a and the block embedding are both read,
the color match becomes a structural prediction rather than a
numerological coincidence.

%% =====================================================================
%% §15.2 — Cluster D: Numerical predictions (Objections 16-18)
%% =====================================================================
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 13 (O-GG6-13) (the cosmologist)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``$\Omega_m = 1/\pi$
 is, on the face of it, numerology. Eddington's 1929 derivation
 of the fine-structure constant from $137$ was numerology;
 Dirac's large-number hypothesis was numerology; show me why
 this is different.''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
A cosmologist with the history of failed numerological
matches in mind will reasonably demand that the $\Omega_m = 1/\pi$
agreement (Planck~2018 \citep{Planck2018}: $\Omega_m = 0.3153 \pm 0.0073$ vs the
cohort prediction $1/\pi \approx 0.31831$, agreement at
$\sim 0.3\sigma$) be demonstrated as a structural consequence
rather than a coincidence. \emph{Response.} The full derivation
lives in \citep{ArisakaA10Cosmos}. The key honest statement: the
cohort framework predicts \emph{four} cosmological partitions
simultaneously from one consistent bulk-geometry calculation,
\begin{equation}
\Omega_m = \frac{1}{\pi}, \qquad
\Omega_\Lambda = 1 - \frac{1}{\pi}, \qquad
\Omega_b = \frac{1}{2\pi^2}, \qquad
\Omega_{\rm DM} = \frac{1}{\pi} - \frac{1}{2\pi^2},
\label{eq:cosmo_partitions_obj16}
\end{equation}
not from four separate fitting exercises whose results happen to
sum to one. The four partitions descend from one geometric
integral over the 6D bulk; the rational fractions are
forced by the $\OGNfive{}$ integers (the integer $35 = K = LJ$,
the integer $2\pi = $ holonomy circle period) and the bulk
boundary conditions. The structural test is whether the four
partitions all match data simultaneously: $\Omega_m = 1/\pi$ at
$0.3\sigma$, $\Omega_b = 1/(2\pi^2)$ at $\sim 2\sigma$, and the
sum constraint $\Omega_m + \Omega_\Lambda = 1$ exactly. If the
cohort framework were post-hoc curve-fitting, the four
partitions would not all fall out of one calculation. The kill
threshold consolidated in Section~\ref{sec:eight-falsifiers} is
sharp: a registered $5\sigma$ deviation from $1/\pi$ in any
next-generation cosmology dataset (CMB-S4, LiteBIRD, DESI) at
resolution $\sigma_{\Omega_m} \leq 0.003$ collapses
$\AX{4} + \POS{6} + \T{8}$ jointly. We acknowledge that the
prediction's pre-history --- whether it was a derivation made
before the Planck~2018 data were matched, or after --- is itself
relevant; the published cohort archive (arXiv submission date)
fixes the public record.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 14 (O-GG6-14) (the LHC phenomenologist)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``$\Mlock
 \approx 3.85$~TeV is not a complete prediction. What is the
 state's spin? What is its production cross-section? What
 channel does it decay into? Without these, the LHC cannot
 test it.''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
An LHC phenomenologist whose work consists of comparing BSM
predictions to ATLAS and CMS bounds will object that a TeV-scale
mass without specified couplings is half a prediction. Current
LHC limits exclude generic $Z'$ resonances above $\sim 5$~TeV in
dilepton, RS-class KK gravitons above $\sim 4.5$~TeV in
diphoton, and stringy resonances above $\sim 5$--$7$~TeV depending
on coupling. A $3.85$~TeV state is therefore either already
constrained or already discovered, depending on what it is.
\emph{Response.} The LHC phenomenologist is correct: the
$\Mlock$ entry of Section~\ref{sec:eight-falsifiers} requires
augmentation with the specific quantum numbers of the predicted
state. The full specification lives in the Predictions Branch
paper \PaperPOne{} \citep{ArisakaP1KK}, which derives the
production channel, the spin, the color assignments, and the
branching fractions from the Kaluza-Klein lock-cluster structure
of the 6D bulk of \ATwo{}. We acknowledge that the
current Pull-table entry ``Active LHC search'' is incomplete
without these specifications, and we forward the LHC
phenomenologist to \PaperPOne{} for the full claim contract.
The constitutional discipline is honest: a TeV-scale mass without
specified couplings is not a $\POS{7}~\MF{}$-compliant claim, and
the cohort archives the full specification in \PaperPOne{} rather
than smuggling it into A1.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 15 (O-GG6-15) (the precision physicist)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``$\alpha^{-1}(0) = 137$ matches the empirical value at the
 integer level, but the precision measurement is $137.036$.
 Either the cohort framework predicts the full value with the
 $0.036$ correction, or the integer-only match is numerology.''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
A precision physicist will demand that a four-decimal-place
empirical match be addressed at four-decimal-place precision.
\emph{Response.} Direct parallel to \citep{ArisakaA3BI6} Common
Objection~14. The integer $137$ is the leading-order
constitutional prediction; the $0.036$ correction comes from
higher-order vacuum-polarization thresholds in
\citep{ArisakaA8QM} and the renormalization-group running in
\citep{ArisakaA9SM}. The cohort framework predicts
$\alpha^{-1}(0) = 137 + \text{(specific higher-order corrections)}$;
the integer alone is not the full prediction. We do not claim
the integer $137$ as a stand-alone identity; we claim the
leading-order integer plus the derived corrections, with the full
quantitative comparison to the empirical
$\alpha^{-1}(0) \approx 137.036$ carried out in
\citep{ArisakaA9SM}. The minimum critical-reading set for this
objection is A8 + A9; once the higher-order corrections are read,
the $137$ match becomes a derived structural prediction rather
than a numerological coincidence.

%% =====================================================================
%% §15.2 — Cluster E: Measurement, swampland, competing programmes (19-21)
%% =====================================================================
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 16 (O-GG6-16) (the decoherence-theory veteran)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``$\AX{3}~\OGGEP{}$ is decoherence theory relabeled. Zeh
 1970, Joos-Zeh 1985, and Zurek 1981/2003 made the same
 operational move forty years ago; the einselection program
 derives the textbook Born rule as a consequence of
 environment-induced superselection. What is the new content?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
A veteran of the decoherence program will object that AX-3
inherits the einselection insight without adding new derivation
content. \emph{Response.} We acknowledge the structural
neighborhood with decoherence theory and sharpen the distinction.
The decoherence program is a derivation: given specific model
Hamiltonians and environments, the Born rule and the preferred
pointer basis emerge as derived asymptotics on the einselection
timescale. $\AX{3}~\OGGEP{}$ is a constitutional move:
``every system in nature is an open system'' is elevated from a
derived consequence in specific models to an axiomatic statement
that applies universally. The novelty is not the decoherence
mechanism (which the cohort framework inherits); the novelty is
the constitutional status. The technical content of the
$\T{7.1}$--$\T{7.7}$ derivation chain of
\citep{ArisakaA5GDOS} is the substantive payoff: the Born rule
($\T{7.3}$), the L\"uders projection ($\T{7.4}$), the einselection
preferred basis ($\T{7.6}$), and the Bell--CHSH violation
($\T{7.7}$) all emerge as \emph{theorems} of $\AX{3} + \POS{4}$
acting on the bulk, not as separate measurement postulates. The
decoherence program produces these results in specific models;
the cohort produces them as constitutional theorems. The
operational claim of \AOne{} Remark on the constitutional warrant ---
``the century-old measurement problem is finally solved by
$\AX{3}~\OGGEP{}$'' --- is therefore not the claim that the cohort
discovered decoherence. It is the claim that the cohort elevates
the decoherence insight from one effective treatment of measurement
to the constitutional definition of measurement. Cross-cite
\citep{ArisakaA5GDOS} Part~III for the $\T{7.1}$--$\T{7.7}$ chain;
cross-cite \citep{ArisakaA8QM} for the textbook reformulation in
\GGTheory{} language.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 17 (O-GG6-17) (the swampland theorist)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Your
 $\AX{4}~\MSMF{} + \POS{6}~\OGN{}$ is the strongest possible
 parsimony commitment. The swampland program (Vafa 2005 and
 successors) does similar structural work via a menu of
 conjectures (weak-gravity, distance, de Sitter, cobordism).
 How does the cohort framework relate to the swampland?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
A swampland theorist who has spent the last fifteen years
sharpening the swampland conjectures will reasonably demand that
the cohort framework engage with the swampland program as a
parallel research effort. \emph{Response.} Direct parallel to
the swampland-compatibility section of \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}
(``Swampland compatibility of \GG{} and \BIsix{}''). The cohort framework checks against the five most
widely accepted swampland conjectures and reports the result
honestly: four (no global symmetries, completeness, distance,
cobordism) are satisfied at the structural level; one
(weak-gravity) is structurally compatible with the quantitative
check deferred to the boundary spectrum derivation in \AFive{},
\ASeven{}, and \ANine{}. The de~Sitter conjecture is omitted
because its status as a universal constraint is itself disputed
in recent literature; the cohort cosmological inventory lives in
\ATen{}. The cohort framework is therefore in the landscape
rather than the swampland by the most widely accepted criteria.
The structural relationship between $\AX{4}~\MSMF{}$ and the
swampland conjectures: where the swampland says ``not every EFT
is consistent in quantum gravity,'' $\AX{4}$ says ``the
admissible EFT is the unique lexicographic maximum of the
constitutional Diophantine system.'' The cohort's commitment is
strictly stronger than the swampland's: instead of a menu of
conjectures, one constitutional axiom forbids all unforced
continuous freedom. We acknowledge that this is a stronger
claim; the cohort's empirical predictions
($\Omega_m = 1/\pi$, $\Mlock \approx 3.85$~TeV, kaxion
$\Delta\nu/\nu = 1/35$) are the burden that the stronger claim
must carry. Detailed swampland verification (WGC saturation,
cobordism enumeration) lives in the swampland-compatibility section of
\citep{ArisakaA3BI6} and is recorded as Open Problem.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 18 (O-GG6-18) (the quantum-gravity generalist)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``You compete with the swampland. What about asymptotic safety
 (Reuter 1998 and successors) and emergent gravity (Verlinde
 2011, Padmanabhan 2010)? Where do these fit in the
 constitutional classification?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
A quantum-gravity generalist will reasonably demand that the
constitutional framework name its competing programs
explicitly. \emph{Response.} Asymptotic safety
\citep{Reuter1998} is a Stratum-2 alternative: it accepts
gauge-covariant gravity (consistent with $\AX{2}~\GGEP{}$ in the
closed-system regime) and uses the renormalization-group flow
(consistent with $\POS{5}~\RG{}$) to claim a UV-complete
non-Gaussian fixed point. Asymptotic safety does not yet activate
$\AX{3}~\OGGEP{}$ (no constitutional operational layer) or
$\AX{4}~\MSMF{}$ (no constitutional parsimony commitment), so it
sits at Stratum 2 in the constitutional tower alongside string
theory and AdS/CFT. The cohort framework is not in conflict with
asymptotic safety at the kinematic level; it adds the operational
extension (Stratum 3) and the parsimony commitment (Stratum 4)
that asymptotic safety does not address. Emergent / entropic
gravity \citep{Verlinde2011,Padmanabhan2010} is, by contrast,
\emph{directly incompatible} with $\AX{2}~\GGEP{}$: where the
cohort takes geometry as primitive and gauge as composite,
emergent gravity takes geometry as derived from thermodynamics
(or from entanglement entropy in the holographic version). This
is a structural fork. The cohort framework names this
disagreement as a fundamental constitutional fork, not as an
incidental detail: AX-2 picks one side of the fork, emergent
gravity picks the other. The empirical content of the choice is
testable wherever the cohort's specific quantitative predictions
($\Omega_m = 1/\pi$, $\Mlock \approx 3.85$~TeV, the kaxion
oscillation at $1/35$) hit data: if the cohort's predictions
verify, $\AX{2}$ wins; if they fail, the emergent-gravity
alternative gains ground. We acknowledge that some readers will
find the geometry-primitive commitment less natural than the
geometry-emergent stance. The cohort framework's response is
that the constitutional commitment is testable, and the next
decade of cosmological and TeV-scale data will adjudicate.

%% =====================================================================
%% §15.X --- Cluster F: Cross-domain and philosophical objections
%% (Objections 22-26, added in v7.33 from the five-reader audit:
%%   journal editor, senior string theorist, grad student/postdoc,
%%   complex-systems biologist / computational neuroscientist,
%%   philosopher of cosmos / life / mind)
%% =====================================================================
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 19 (O-GG6-19) (the complex-systems biologist)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Your
 energy--information Arisaka constant $\QB \approx 0.156$~eV per qubit,
 multiplied by Avogadro's number, gives $\sim 15$~kJ/mol --- half
 the standard ATP-hydrolysis free energy of $30$~kJ/mol and a
 third of the cellular value of $\sim 50$~kJ/mol. The numbers do
 not match the biochemistry.''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
This is the kind of detail a biologist catches on first read.
\emph{Response.} We concede that the bridge is a 2:1
stoichiometry rather than a 1:1 identification: the constitutional
content of the present paper is only the structural four-current
locking $J_E/\QB = J_e = J_B = J_{Qi}$, with $\QB$ the
energy--information conversion factor. The full biochemistry ---
the per-qubit stoichiometry and its standard-versus-cellular
corrections, read against the single-molecule force-spectroscopy
literature \citep{Bustamante2005} --- is developed in
(\citealp{ArisakaA7Qi4}; \citealp{ArisakaA11Origin}).
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 20 (O-GG6-20) (the computational neuroscientist)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Your
 claim to dissolve the hard problem of consciousness by structural
 stipulation is too quick. That is renaming the problem, not
 solving it.''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
This is correct and we accept the criticism in the form stated.
\emph{Response.} The constitutional framework does not claim to
\emph{solve} the hard problem of consciousness in the sense of
closing the explanatory gap that the philosophical literature on phenomenal consciousness articulates --- the gap between an account of what a system does and an account of what it is like to be that system. \citet{ArisakaA11Origin} adopts a
\emph{Russellian neutral-monism stipulation} at each $\GRIP{}$
event in the eighteen-layer cascade: the layered identities
(electron, atom, molecule, ATP, RNA, DNA, cell, eukaryote, brain,
conscious episode) are events on the same lawful state manifold,
and the phenomenal aspect appears as a structural feature of
sufficiently deep $\GRIP{}$ events rather than as an additional
metaphysical ingredient. This is a philosophical \emph{position} in the neutral-monist and physicalist-about-intrinsic-natures tradition, not a \emph{proof}. What the framework adds beyond pure
philosophy is structural distinguishability: the eighteen-layer
cascade carries specific empirical predictions in
\citep{ArisakaA11Origin} that distinguish it from Friston's
free-energy principle, integrated-information theory, and global
workspace theory at the level of neural observables. The honest
position is therefore that the cohort framework offers a
\emph{structural account} of where consciousness sits in the
lawful cascade --- which is empirically constrained --- and a
\emph{philosophical stipulation} of what the phenomenal aspect is
--- which is not empirically constrained. We make both layers
explicit so that readers in philosophy of mind and in neuroscience
can engage with each on its own terms.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 21 (O-GG6-21) (the philosopher of physics)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``What is
 the metaphysical status of $\AX{4}~\MSMF{}$? It does most of
 the heavy lifting --- forcing $\OGNfive{}$ uniqueness and
 collapsing the string landscape --- yet its philosophical
 foundation is not articulated.''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
Of the criticisms from the philosophy-of-physics direction this is the hardest, and it deserves an explicit
answer. \emph{Response.} $\AX{4}~\MSMF{}$ is a
\emph{constitutional commitment}, not a metaphysical claim about
Nature. It states: among admissible bulk theories, prefer the
one of maximal symmetry and minimal continuous freedom, under an
explicit lexicographic ordering (maximize symmetry first,
minimize freedom second). In its philosophical lineage this
clause descends from William of Occam's \emph{numquam ponenda
est pluralitas sine necessitate} (c.\ 1320s) through Mach's
relational principle (\textit{Science of Mechanics}, 1893) to
Einstein's 1933 Herbert Spencer Lecture (``the supreme task of
the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws
from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction'').
$\AX{4}$ promotes that philosophical preference from
\emph{methodological heuristic} to \emph{constitutional filter}:
where the preceding three axioms admit a continuous family of
solutions, $\AX{4}$ selects the lexicographic maximum. This is
\emph{normative-but-falsifiable}: if a second admissible bulk
theory is found under the same Diophantine system and the same
ordering but with equal predictive power and lower symmetry,
$\AX{4}$ fails and the constitution falls. The reader who wishes
to defend a different normative ordering ($\AX{4}'$) is free to
do so; what the constitution forbids is the silent use of an
ordering without naming it. See \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid} for the
extended philosophical argument that locates $\AX{4}$ in the long
Euclidean tradition of admissibility-by-rulebook rather than
admissibility-by-data.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 22 (O-GG6-22) (the cross-domain reader)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``You claim
 the same four axioms organize the proton and the conscious
 moment. This is either the deepest empirical regularity ever
 stated, or a category error. Which is it?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
We accept that this is the most contestable claim of the
program, and we state the honest answer. \emph{Response.} It
is a \emph{structural claim about a program of inquiry}, not a
settled empirical regularity. The twenty-two-paper cohort develops
the eighteen-layer $\GRIP{}$ cascade in \citep{ArisakaA11Origin}
as a sequence of forced identities --- gauge symmetry breaking
$\to$ atomic ground state $\to$ molecular bonding $\to$ ATP
energy quantum $\to$ RNA $\to$ DNA $\to$ first cell (LUCA) $\to$
eukaryogenesis $\to$ neural integration $\to$ conscious episode
--- each layer a theorem of the same axiomatic system applied at
a different stratum. Each layer carries a specific empirical
prediction with a specific live falsifier; the framework is
therefore empirically distinguishable layer by layer. If the
cascade fails at any layer --- if the $\QB$ value disagrees with
the energy--information calibration of (\citealp{ArisakaA7Qi4}; \citealp{ArisakaA11Origin}), if
the developmental-timing predictions disagree with embryology,
if the neural-integration prediction disagrees with the
cortical-rhythm data --- the failure is locatable and the
universal-identity claim shrinks to whatever layer survives.
The framework is therefore neither a settled result nor a
category error; it is a \emph{disciplined program} with twelve
to seventeen explicit falsifiers, and its scope shrinks or
expands by the next decade's experiments. The honest position
is that we do not know whether the four axioms truly organize
the long sequence of identities, and we have written down the
specific tests by which the question can be settled.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 23 (O-GG6-23) (the bio/neuro phenomenologist)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``To be
 evaluated by the complex-systems biology and computational
 neuroscience community, your framework needs specific
 quantitative predictions that distinguish it from
 Friston's free-energy principle, Tononi's integrated information theory \citep{Tononi2004}, and Baars-Dehaene global workspace
 theory.''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
This is correct and the requirement is fair. \emph{Response.}
\citep{ArisakaA11Origin} carries the specific predictions that
distinguish the $\GRIP{}$ cascade from the three named
alternatives. Among them: (i) the $\QB$-mediated energy--information
calibration described in Objection~22 above, which is
quantitative and empirically tight; (ii) specific
developmental-timing predictions at the cell-division layer,
keyed to the integer $K = 35$ of the $\OGNfive{}$ ledger;
(iii) a specific spectral signature in cortical gamma-band
activity at frequencies $\nu_{\rm GG}$ predicted by the
neural-integration layer of the cascade, distinct from the
40~Hz central frequency of the binding-by-synchrony framework;
(iv) a specific information-integration coefficient that
distinguishes the cascade prediction from the $\Phi$ coefficient
of IIT. Each prediction carries a $5\sigma$ kill criterion in
\citep{ArisakaA11Origin}; specific failures collapse specific
$\GRIP{}$ layers without collapsing the constitutional core
(the upstream axioms). We acknowledge that the bio/neuro
community will require independent reproduction of each
prediction before accepting the cascade. The cohort framework
welcomes this scrutiny: the discipline of the constitution is
that any specific failure is locatable, not that the framework
is correct.


%% =====================================================================
%% §15.3 — Closing remark
%% =====================================================================
\end{objqabody}

\medskip
\noindent\emph{Interim remark.} After all, an honest framework should know which
questions a working physicist is most likely to raise on first reading, and
should answer those questions before they become obstacles to engagement. The
twenty-three objections above --- the bulk-side specifics and the
broader-audience audit --- are the questions a working physicist of any
background is most likely to raise on a first and second pass; a good number of
them concede openly that the full response lives in a named cohort paper, which
is the constitutional discipline at work. The senior-string-theorist
scope-and-limits cluster, the senior-specialist textbook audit, and the deeper
theorem-by-theorem, comparison, classification, and status objections follow
below; the full fifty-three-item tally is drawn together in the closing remark
at the end of the Part.

The cohort architecture is, we hope, now visible: A1-Constitution
is the rulebook; A2+A3 prove the bulk theorems and the anomaly
proof; A5+A8 prove the boundary law and the textbook QM
reformulation; A9+A10 prove the Standard Model parameter
collapse and the cosmological partitions, and the capstone
A11-Origin carries the closing GRIP cascade. Every objection above
traces to a specific cohort proof location, and the companion
papers are posted together so that the proof is one click from the
objection. The capstone alone is in preparation, and no objection
answered above depends on it.

We invite the reader who has finished the present section to
choose, based on the objection that most concerns them, the
minimum critical-reading combination of \S15.0 and begin there.
A first-pass evaluator who completes the relevant two- or
three-paper read will be substantially better positioned than one
who has read only A1, and we hold ourselves to the discipline of
naming, for every claim in the constitution, exactly where the
proof lives. After all, the strength of a constitution is
measured not by what it claims but by how cleanly it can be
audited against the technical work that supports it; the cohort
architecture is our commitment to that audit.

\subsection*{Scope and Limits: Response to the Senior String Theorist}
\label{ssec:scope-and-limits-SE}

The seven Objections above address the questions a working physicist of any background is most likely to raise on first reading. The senior string theorist will press the framework on three further points, each of which deserves its own honest acknowledgment. We distinguish what is \emph{forced} (by a constitutional clause plus a theorem) from what is \emph{stipulated} (a program-of-inquiry status).

\bigskip
\section{Scope and limits: the senior string theorist}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 24 (O-GG6-24) (the senior string theorist)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{The Randall--Sundrum-with-labels critique. ``Your 6D bulk $\cM_4 \times I_r \times S^1_\theta$ with metric $e^{-2r}\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu + dr^2 + d\theta^2$ is, up to one extra dimension, the Randall--Sundrum 1999 construction \citep{RandallSundrum1999} with the integer-discrete labels $K = 35$, \OGNfive{}, and the Cartan-formulation $\Spinone$ factor. Strip the labels and you have RS-1999.''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} We accept the criticism in the form stated: the surface resemblance to Randall--Sundrum 1999 is real and is part of the framework's historical lineage (cf.\ \S\ref{sec:thm1-dimensional} Historical Background). The substantive distinction lives in three places, each tied to a constitutional clause. \emph{First}, the scale depth $K = 35$ is integer-discrete in \GG{}, fixed by the \OGNfive{} Diophantine cascade of Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade}, whereas the RS warp scale $kr_c$ is a continuous fine-tuning constrained only by phenomenology. \emph{Second}, the Lorentz factor is a Cartan $\Spinone$ gauge factor on equal logical footing with $\SUfive$, $\UoneB$, $\UoneQi$ (Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces}, \S\ref{ssec:spin15}), whereas RS treats gravity as an a-priori spacetime background separate from gauge structure. \emph{Third}, the compact direction $S^1_\theta$ is a topological circle with no intrinsic radius (Theorem~\ref{thm:canonical-metric} Step~(c)), whereas KK and RS treat it as a Riemannian circle of free continuous radius $R_\theta$. Each of these three differences corresponds to a specific clause of the Constitution (\AX{2}, \POS{1}, \POS{6}) being saturated by integer-discrete structure rather than a continuous parameter. We invite the string-theory community to test whether the integer-discrete prediction $\Mlock \approx 3.85$~TeV \citep{ATLAS2019, CMS2021} survives the LHC Run-3 plus HL-LHC data; conventional RS-1999 does not predict this scale at this precision.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 25 (O-GG6-25) (the senior string theorist)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{No UV completion above $M_6$. ``Your framework treats $M_6 \sim M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ as a Planck-scale dimensional anchor but offers no UV completion above $M_6$. String theory at least promises a UV completion via the string scale $M_s$; M-theory offers an 11D UV completion. What is your UV story?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} We accept the point. The framework's posture is that \GGTheory{} is a description at scales $\mu \le M_6$, with the BRST quantum theory of Theorem~\ref{thm:brst-consistency} as the UV physics, and we do not currently offer a fundamental UV completion above $M_6$. Asking what happens above $M_6$ is, in our reading, a \emph{program-of-inquiry question} rather than a settled result: the constitutional clauses do not force a particular answer, and the integer-discrete \OGNfive{} ledger does not extend to higher scales. We acknowledge that this is a real difference from string theory's UV-completion promise. The argument we offer in defense is structural: the framework's testable predictions live at scales $\mu \in [m_\nu, M_6]$ --- the scale range of every empirical anchor we have invoked (proton stability, $\QB \approx 0.1555$~eV/qubit, $\alpha^{-1}(0) = 137$ at the integer level, $\Mlock \approx 3.85$~TeV, the boundary cosmological inventory) --- and the absence of a UV completion above $M_6$ does not impair these predictions. Future revisions of \GGTheory{} may incorporate a UV completion (e.g., an asymptotic-safety reading of the BRST flow in dimension six, a discrete UV completion on the lattice in dimension six, or an octonionic-Goldilocks extension to the $\Spin(1,9)$ tenth rung of the magic Lorentz-division-algebra ladder of Proposition~\ref{prop:lorentz-division}); the present paper does not.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 26 (O-GG6-26) (the senior string theorist)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{Bulk topology and the absence of a moduli-stabilization story. ``Your bulk topology $\cM_4 \times I_r \times S^1_\theta$ is one choice among many. Why not $\cM_4 \times \Sigma_g$ for higher genus, or $\cM_4 \times \mathrm{CY}_2$ Calabi--Yau, or $\cM_4 \times T^2$? Where is the moduli-stabilization story that picks this particular topology over its neighbors in the topology landscape?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} The honest position is that the bulk topology is forced by Theorem~\ref{thm:dim-minimal} (Dimensional Minimality) from the structural-roles count, not selected from a moduli space by a stabilization story. The three structural roles --- registered Lorentzian boundary (4 dimensions), geometrized RG-flow (1 dimension), integer-gauge holonomy (1 dimension) --- admit only the product topology $\cM_4 \times I_r \times S^1_\theta$ as their minimal carrier. Any alternative topology (higher-genus $\Sigma_g$, Calabi--Yau, torus, K3) would either (a) carry more structural roles than the Constitution demands, violating \AX{4} (\MSMF), or (b) fail to support an integer-gauge holonomy with the \OGN{} primitivity that \POS{6} requires. The framework therefore \emph{replaces the string-theoretic moduli-stabilization problem with a constitutional-derivation theorem}; this is what we mean when we describe \GGTheory{} as anti-landscape.

A subsidiary admission belongs here. The framework does not currently have a complete vacuum-stability proof for the 6D bulk geometry under perturbations of the metric. The constitutional clauses force the geometry in the minimal-symmetry sense, but a non-perturbative proof of dynamical stability is a program-of-inquiry question; the closest analogue in the cohort is the global-anomaly-freedom proof of \AThree{} \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}, which establishes BRST consistency under large gauge transformations but does not address metric-perturbation stability. We expect a complete vacuum-stability proof to be the subject of a future cohort paper.
\end{objqabody}

\medskip
\noindent\emph{Closing sentence for the scope-and-limits cluster.} Each of the three responses above honestly distinguishes what is \emph{forced} (by a constitutional clause plus a theorem of Part~II) from what is \emph{stipulated} (a program-of-inquiry status). The framework's commitment is to the forced content, and the integers are where it can be broken: $K = 35$, $\Mlock \approx 3.85$~TeV, $J = 7$, and the \OGNfive{} closure, all of which the string-theory community is invited to test, not in a comprehensive UV story that the framework does not currently claim.

\bigskip
\section{Senior-specialist audit and further technical questions}

\medskip
\noindent\emph{Cluster: Senior-Specialist Audit (Objections 27--32).} The following six objections were raised by a senior-professor audit of the paper considering its suitability as a graduate-seminar textbook. We record them honestly, partly because they sharpen the framework's claims and partly because they document where the present paper defers to other cohort papers for fuller treatment.

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 27 (O-GG6-27)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{The formula $\alpha^{-1}(0) = 2^J + N^2 = 137$ is not derived in this paper; the asserted match looks like numerology.}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} We accept the criticism in the form stated. The leading-order \OGN{} relation $\alpha^{-1}(0) = 2^J + N^2$ is asserted in the present paper as a structural consequence of the integer ledger $(J, N) = (7, 3)$, with the integer match $128 + 9 = 137$ reproducing the integer part of the CODATA value exactly and the residual $\sim 0.026\%$ deviation going to one-loop and higher QED corrections. The full derivation of \emph{why} the relation takes the specific form $2^J + N^2$ --- in particular, why the exponential in $J$ and the square in $N$ --- is carried in the companion paper \citep{ArisakaA9SM}, which traces it to the joint structure of the gauge-coupling running and the Hosotani Wilson-line breaking. In the present paper we record the integer match as an empirical anchor of the framework; the rigorous derivation lives in A9-SM. A reader who finds the formula numerological in the absence of the derivation is right to flag the issue and is referred to A9-SM for the cohort treatment.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 28 (O-GG6-28)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{The Atiyah--Singer index $= 3$ derivation in the appendices is only heuristic.}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} We accept the criticism. Appendix~\ref{appsec:kk-fermions} of the present paper sketches the three factors that enter the count but does not offer the product form $n_{\mathrm{zero}} = M \cdot N \cdot 1$, which would read the generation count off the \OGNfive{} ledger; the full Chern-character bookkeeping --- evaluating $\int_{\cM_6} \hat A(R)\, \mathrm{ch}(F)$ on the bulk gauge bundle $\Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$ over the canonical topology $\cM_4 \times I_r \times S^1_\theta$ --- is not carried in detail in the present paper. The complete computation, including the Chern-character contributions from the bulk $\UoneB$ and $\UoneQi$ fluxes and the index theorem with boundary conditions on $S^1_\theta$, is the subject of the companion paper \citep{ArisakaA9SM}. A reader who wants the rigorous derivation of the three-generation count from the bulk index theorem should consult A9-SM; the present paper supplies only the heuristic.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 29 (O-GG6-29)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{Aren't anomalies fundamentally quantum effects? The geometric framing in Appendix~F seems to fight the textbook QFT view.}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} The objection is well-taken, and we have softened the framing in Appendix~\ref{app:anomaly} accordingly. The textbook view --- that anomalies arise from the failure of the path-integral measure to be gauge-invariant under chiral transformations (Fujikawa's calculation) --- is correct, and we do not contest it. The geometric / differential-cohomology description used throughout this paper and the cohort is a coordinate-free reformulation of the same quantum-measure failure, not an alternative source. We use the geometric language because it composes naturally with the Green--Schwarz inflow term $\int B_2 \wedge X_4$ in the bulk and because the modified Bianchi identity $dH_3 = X_4$ is most naturally stated in differential-form language. The two descriptions land at the same cancellation result; they differ only in which structural object is treated as primary. The global completion of the cancellation, including the equivalence with the standard Fujikawa-anomaly picture under large gauge transformations and across all topological sectors, is documented in the companion paper \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 30 (O-GG6-30)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{The GU-5 accounting is a slogan, not a structural statement.}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} We accept the criticism in the form stated. The phrase ``one universal constant per direction of the bulk geometry'' mixes four boundary directions, one radial direction, one angular direction, one gauge factor ($\UoneQi$), and one integer tuple (\OGNfive), and the literal counting does not give a clean ``one per dimension'' assignment. A more honest formulation is: ``five conversion factors per five structural items of the framework --- one Lorentzian boundary block, one scale direction, one topological circle, one composite gauge factor, one integer ledger''. The latter is structurally correct but loses some of the evocative simplicity of the original slogan. The full derivation of \GUfive\ in honest cohort form is carried in the companion paper \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid}; the present paper records the bulk-side ingredients on which \GUfive\ rests, and a brief pointer note replaces the original Appendix~K of at the location previously occupied by the \GUfive\ derivation.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 31 (O-GG6-31)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{The Nakajima--Zwanzig reduction in Appendix~C assumes $\mathfrak I(t) \to 0$ --- is this valid in cosmological regimes?}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} The assumption is the late-time / Markovian limit, in which initial bulk-boundary correlations have washed out by the time observation begins. This is the standard textbook assumption and it is correct for laboratory-scale observations. In early-universe regimes --- decoherence amplification during inflationary horizon-crossing, primordial entanglement at cosmic dawn --- the initial-correlation term $\mathfrak I(t)$ is the \emph{interesting} physics and cannot be neglected. The GKLS form of Appendix~\ref{appsec:nz-gkls} is therefore the late-time boundary statement; the full non-Markovian master equation~\eqref{eq:nz-master} retains the inhomogeneous term that early-universe physics requires. The cosmological treatment is the subject of the companion paper \citep{ArisakaA10Cosmos}. For the present paper's purposes (laboratory-scale observation in the present epoch), the Markovian GKLS form is the appropriate limit.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 32 (O-GG6-32)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{The paper uses too much jargon and contains no end-of-chapter exercises; how is a graduate student supposed to use it as a textbook?}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} We accept the criticism in both halves. The framework introduces roughly 40 program-specific acronyms across the front matter and the cohort glossary (Figure~10). A graduate-seminar instructor should treat the four axioms (\AX{1}--\AX{4}), the seven postulates (\POS{1}--\POS{7}), the eight Theorems of Part~II, the integer ledger \OGNfive{}, the modified Bianchi identity $\BIsix$, the bulk gauge group $\Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$, and the Arisaka equation as the load-bearing vocabulary; the remaining acronyms (\GiFour{}, \QiFour{}, \GRIP{}, \BFFT, \MePMoS, NHT, HAL, SeOS, OH+IH=EIC, and so on) are forward references to the cohort papers and may be read on demand. The Preface carries a ``Suggested Reading Order for First-Time Graduate-Student Readers'' that makes this path explicit. As for end-of-chapter exercises with hints or solutions: the present paper is a research preprint, and a full textbook treatment with worked exercises, problem sets, and graded solutions is planned as a later addition to the cohort (see also Future-Direction~P13 in Section~\ref{sec:problems-solved}).
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 33 (O-GG6-33)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{Why is the elementary charge $e$ not a member of \GUfive{}?}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} $e$ is a \emph{derived} quantity in the framework, not a primitive. The dimensionless fine-structure constant $\alpha = e^2/(4\pi\varepsilon_0\,\hbar\,c)$ is forced at the integer level by \POS{7} plus the \OGNfive{} cascade --- specifically, $\alpha^{-1}(0) = 2^J + N^2 = 137$ from Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade}. Once $\alpha$, $c$, and $\hbar$ are fixed (the first two by the boundary Lorentz signature and the angular circle of $\GG$; $\alpha$ by the cascade), $e$ follows from the relation $e = \sqrt{4\pi\varepsilon_0\,\hbar\,c\,\alpha}$. Listing $e$ in \GUfive{} would double-count $\alpha$ as both an integer-cascade theorem (in \OGNfive{}) and a continuous primitive (in \GUfive{}), a logical inconsistency. The cleaner accounting separates \emph{units} (the five conversion factors of \GUfive{}) from \emph{derived dimensional quantities} (the Planck mass $\sqrt{\hbar c/G_N}$, the de Broglie thermal wavelength $\hbar/\sqrt{2 m \kB T}$, the Bohr radius $\hbar^2/(m_e e^2)$, the elementary charge $e$, and so on). $e$ belongs to the second class, not the first. A reader unaccustomed to this distinction may consult \citep{ArisakaA4Euclid} for the historical lineage of the unit-vs-derived distinction (Euclid: ruler-and-compass primitives vs constructible quantities; Newton: absolute time vs derived velocities; Einstein: $c$ as a unit primitive vs $c^2$ as the mass--energy conversion).
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 34 (O-GG6-34) (the string/SUSY theorist)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Unifying gravity with the gauge interactions geometrically is exactly what the Coleman--Mandula theorem forbids without supersymmetry --- it is part of why the superstring assumes spacetime supersymmetry. How can \GG{} unify gauge and gravity geometrically while denying \emph{fundamental} supersymmetry (Objection~3, Point~5 of \S\ref{sec:partIV-intro})?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} The objection conflates two different senses of ``unification.'' The Coleman--Mandula theorem \citep{ColemanMandula1967} forbids one specific algebraic move: in a four-dimensional relativistic quantum field theory with a mass gap, the Lie algebra of \emph{S-matrix} symmetries can be no larger than a direct product of the Poincar\'e algebra with an internal algebra whose generators are Lorentz scalars. One cannot weld spacetime and internal symmetry into a single larger \emph{simple} group. Supersymmetry is the unique known evasion \citep{HaagLopuszanskiSohnius1975}, and it evades the theorem only because it is a \emph{graded} extension --- fermionic generators $Q$ with $\{Q,Q\}\sim P$ --- to which the ordinary-Lie-algebra hypothesis of Coleman--Mandula does not apply.

\GG{} does not perform, and does not need, this forbidden fusion. Its unification is at the level of \emph{one geometry}, not one symmetry group. The bulk isometry algebra is the direct sum
\[
  \mathfrak{iso}(1,3)\;\oplus\;\mathbb{R}_{D}\;\oplus\;\mathfrak{u}(1)_{Q},
\]
\emph{not} $\mathfrak{iso}(1,5)$. The two non-space-like directions of Theorem~0 contribute no new translation (momentum) generators --- which would have enlarged spacetime --- but a dilatation $D$ (the scale direction $I_r$) and a compact charge $Q$ (the phase direction $S^1_\theta$). Both $D$ and $Q$ are Lorentz scalars: they commute with $\mathfrak{iso}(1,3)$. The surviving four-dimensional boundary symmetry is therefore \emph{precisely} the Poincar\'e-times-internal direct product that Coleman--Mandula mandates. \GG{} sits on the permitted side of the theorem by construction; it has no fusion to evade, and hence no supersymmetry to invoke.

Two clarifications complete the response. First, the phase factor $\UoneQi$ is an exact internal symmetry, hence a Lorentz scalar, hence unambiguously Coleman--Mandula--admissible. Second, the scale direction is subtler and, if anything, even safer: $D$ is \emph{not} an exact symmetry of the boundary S-matrix in \GG{}, but a \emph{broken} dilatation realized as the one-way renormalization-group semigroup along $I_r$ (\POS{5}; the scale profile / renormalization-group direction). A renormalization-group transformation is not an S-matrix symmetry generator at all, so Coleman--Mandula --- a statement about exact S-matrix symmetries --- does not even reach it. (Were scale invariance \emph{exact}, the maximal admissible extension would be the conformal group $SO(2,4)$ of the Coleman--Mandula corollary for massless theories; \GG{} does not go there precisely because its scale invariance is anomalous and broken, which is the same fact that supplies the geometrized arrow of the renormalization group.) The upshot is that the ``no fundamental supersymmetry'' posture of \GG{} and Coleman--Mandula compatibility are one fact seen twice: \emph{because} the fifth and sixth dimensions are non-space-like, geometric gauge--gravity unification is achieved without the algebraic fusion that would have required supersymmetry to rescue it.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 35 (O-GG6-35) (the gauge-theory specialist)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``You geometrize the $U(1)$ gauge phase as the compact direction $S^1_\theta$, and that is easy to picture. But $\SU(2)$ and $\SU(3)$ are non-Abelian. They are surely not the sixth dimension --- so how can \GG{} geometrize them?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} They are not the sixth dimension, and they are not geometrized by the same mechanism --- correctly so. Two distinct senses of ``geometrize a gauge field'' must be separated. \emph{(i) The Kaluza--Klein sense:} the gauge group is the isometry of compact extra \emph{space}, and the gauge bosons are off-diagonal metric components. This works for $U(1)$ --- the isometry of a circle is $U(1)$ --- but the smallest manifold whose isometry group is $\SU(3) \times \SU(2) \times U(1)$ is seven-dimensional \citep{Witten1981KK}, which is why eleven-dimensional supergravity was the minimal Kaluza--Klein home of the Standard-Model gauge group. \GG\ declines this route: its extra dimensions are non-spatial, and it has no wish to reintroduce seven spatial ones with their towers, moduli, and chirality obstruction. \emph{(ii) The connection sense} of Weyl (1929) \citep{Weyl1929} and Yang--Mills (1954) \citep{YangMills1954}: a gauge field is a connection and its field strength a curvature, the same kind of geometric object as the spacetime curvature. \AX{2} (\GGEP) is what makes that sense constitutional.

\GG\ uses (i) only for the Abelian phase and (ii) for everything non-Abelian. The compact direction $S^1_\theta$ literally realizes the $U(1)$ holonomy --- one Wilson-line phase, one commuting angle, the $M = 1$ entry of the \OGNfive{} ledger --- and supplies charge quantization and $\hbar$. The non-Abelian content $\SU(5) \supset \SU(3) \times \SU(2) \times U(1)_Y$ is realized as a connection on an internal bundle whose curvature is locked to the gravitational curvature by the modified Bianchi identity $\BIsix$ (Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs}); the specific group is fixed by \AX{4} (\MSMF) as the smallest simple group containing the Standard Model (Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces}), not by any extra-dimensional isometry. The asymmetry is forced, not a patch: a $U(1)$ holonomy is a single commuting angle and can be drawn as a circle, whereas an $\SU(2)$ holonomy is a non-commuting $2 \times 2$ unitary matrix, and non-commutativity is exactly the property that cannot be encoded as motion along one extra coordinate. A non-Abelian group is intrinsically not a dimension. The same insight underlies Connes' noncommutative-geometry formulation of the Standard Model, in which the non-Abelian sector lives on a non-commutative \emph{internal} space rather than on extra spatial dimensions \citep{ConnesLott1991, ChamseddineConnes2007} (cf.\ the genealogy note of \S\ref{sec:geometrization-ladder}). This is why geometrizing the Abelian phase as the sixth dimension and geometrizing the non-Abelian forces as bundle curvature are not in competition --- and why \GG\ remains six-dimensional rather than growing to eleven.
\end{objqabody}


\bigskip
\section{The eight theorems under the microscope}

\medskip
\noindent\emph{Cluster: the load-bearing Part~II, theorem by theorem.} The objections so far press on the framework's posture; the next eight press on its engine. A reader who accepts the constitutional method will still demand that each of the eight Theorems of Part~II do the work claimed for it. We take them in order, conceding the open edges of each.

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 36 (O-GG6-36) (the differential geometer)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Theorem~0 claims the bulk carries a \emph{unique} spin structure compatible with \GGEP. But the topological circle $S^1_\theta$ admits two inequivalent spin structures --- periodic (Ramond) and antiperiodic (Neveu--Schwarz) boundary conditions for fermions. Which one does \GG{} pick, and on what constitutional authority?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} The objection is exactly right that a circle carries two spin structures, and the choice is not arbitrary: it is fixed by the integer holonomy of \POS{1}, not left free. Theorem~\ref{thm:bulk-spin-exists-2} (\S\ref{sec:thm0-lc-ggep}) establishes existence and compatibility of a spin structure with the Levi-Civita connection forced by \AX{2} (\GGEP); the \emph{selection} between the two candidates is made by the $\UoneB$ Wilson line that threads $S^1_\theta$ with the primitive holonomy of the \OGNfive{} ledger. A periodic spin structure with a non-trivial half-integer Wilson line is gauge-equivalent to an antiperiodic one with trivial holonomy, so the physical content --- the chiral zero-mode count $n_{\mathrm{zero}} = M N = 3$ --- is structure-independent; this is why the Atiyah--Singer count of Theorem~\ref{thm:atiyah-singer-app} returns the same answer either way. We concede that the present paper states this as a compatibility result rather than proving the spin/holonomy locking from first principles; the full index-theoretic treatment with explicit boundary conditions on $S^1_\theta$ is deferred to \citep{ArisakaA9SM}. What the present paper claims is the weaker, true statement: \GG{} does not have a free spin-structure modulus, because the $\UoneB$ holonomy that \POS{1} forces also pins the fermion boundary condition.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 37 (O-GG6-37) (the skeptic of counting arguments)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Theorem~1 (Dimensional Minimality) is a \emph{counting} argument dressed as a theorem: four boundary directions, one scale direction, one phase, total six. But who says the registered boundary must be exactly four-dimensional rather than emergent from a coarser substrate, and what forbids two of your `structural roles' from sharing a single dimension?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} We accept that Theorem~\ref{thm:dim-minimal} (\S\ref{sec:thm1-dimensional}, Table~\ref{tab:dim-roles}) is a minimality argument over a fixed list of structural roles, and that its force is only as strong as the constitutional necessity of each role. Two of the premises are doing the heavy lifting and we state them plainly. The four-dimensional boundary is not assumed: it is inherited from \AX{1} together with the empirical Lorentz signature $(1,3)$ that \POS{2} registers --- the boundary is four-dimensional because the registered records are, and a coarser substrate would have to reproduce the $(1,3)$ representation theory exactly, at which point it is four-dimensional by another name. The non-sharing of roles is the substantive claim: the scale profile direction $I_r$ must be non-compact (it carries the one-way RG semigroup of \POS{5}) while the phase direction $S^1_\theta$ must be compact (it carries the integer $U(1)$ holonomy of \POS{1}), and a single direction cannot be simultaneously non-compact-with-monotone-flow and compact-with-integer-holonomy. That topological incompatibility, not an aesthetic preference, is what forbids the merger. Where the objection bites honestly is that ``six is minimal'' is a theorem \emph{relative to} the constitutional role-list; if a future axiom retired a role, the count would drop. We do not claim six is minimal in vacuo --- only minimal given the Constitution of \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution}.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 38 (O-GG6-38) (the relativist)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Theorem~2 calls $S^1_\theta$ a topological circle `with no intrinsic radius.' But any metric on a six-manifold assigns that circle a circumference. Declaring it dimensionless is a coordinate choice, not a physical fact --- you have simply gauge-fixed $R_\theta = 1$ and then claimed there was never a modulus.''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} This is the sharpest metric objection and it deserves a precise answer. Theorem~\ref{thm:canonical-metric} (\S\ref{sec:thm2-metric}, Table~\ref{tab:metric-comparison}) does not gauge-fix a continuous radius to unity; it asserts that the canonical metric on $S^1_\theta$ has \emph{no radius parameter to fix}, because the circle enters the bulk action only through the holonomy $\oint_{S^1_\theta} A$ of the $\UoneB \times \UoneQi$ connection, and holonomy is a conformal invariant insensitive to the circumference. The contrast with Kaluza--Klein and Randall--Sundrum is exactly here: in KK/RS the radius $R_\theta$ is a dynamical modulus because the metric component $g_{\theta\theta}$ appears in the dimensional-reduction of the Einstein--Hilbert term and sets the KK tower spacing $1/R_\theta$. In \GG{}, \POS{6} forbids a propagating $g_{\theta\theta}$: the angular direction carries no graviton polarization, only holonomy, so there is no kinetic term for a radius and hence no modulus to stabilize. We concede the framing in the prose can read as a slogan; the defensible statement is operational --- \emph{there is no observable that depends on $R_\theta$}, because every $\theta$-dependent quantity in the framework is a holonomy or a winding number. If a reader exhibits a physical observable in \GG{} that depends continuously on $R_\theta$, that would falsify the topological-circle claim; we know of none, and Falsifier~10 (\S\ref{sec:eight-falsifiers}) is the place such a counterexample would be logged.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 39 (O-GG6-39) (the proton-decay experimentalist)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Theorem~3 gauges baryon number $\UoneB$ on the strength of the observed proton lifetime. But proton stability is an experimental bound, not a symmetry principle. If Hyper-Kamiokande sees $p \to e^+\pi^0$ next decade, does $\UoneB$ --- and with it your whole `six forces' count --- simply evaporate?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} We accept the conditional and own its consequence. Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces} (\S\ref{sec:thm3-six-forces}, \S\ref{sec:point7-proton-stability}) gauges $\UoneB$ precisely because an \emph{exactly} conserved baryon number forbids proton decay to all orders, and the framework reads the (so far) unbroken proton as evidence for a gauge symmetry rather than an accidental global one. This is a genuine, declared falsifier, not a hedge: if Hyper-Kamiokande observes proton decay, then baryon number is \emph{not} exactly gauged, the six-force count drops to five, and the $L = 5$ entry of the \OGNfive{} ledger loses one of its two independent derivations. We log this as a kill condition in the falsifier table (\S\ref{sec:eight-falsifiers}), with the honest caveat that a \emph{discrete} gauged subgroup $\mathbb{Z}_n \subset \UoneB$ could survive a single observed channel while still suppressing others --- so a first observation would wound rather than instantly kill, and the precise post-observation reconstruction would be a program-of-inquiry question. What we will not do is treat a positive Hyper-K result as confirmation; the framework predicts proton stability, and a decay is bad news for it. That asymmetry is what makes $\UoneB$ a physical claim rather than a bookkeeping device.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 40 (O-GG6-40) (the representation theorist)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Theorem~4 presents the modified Bianchi identity $dH_3 = X_4$ with `four components' and reads off $N = 3$. But $N = 3$ is the trace-ratio of $\SUfive$ representation theory, which you put in by choosing $\SUfive$. The Bianchi identity does not \emph{force} $N = 3$; it merely records a number you supplied upstream. Isn't this circular?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} The charge of circularity has to be answered carefully, because there is a real dependency chain and we should not pretend otherwise. The objection is well aimed at the route it names, and the route has been changed. $L = 5$ is fixed by single-tensor Green--Schwarz consistency, Theorem~T-BI6-9.0 of \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}, whose statement contains no color count; $N = N_c = 3$ then follows from the dual lock $K = LJ = M^2 + N^2 + L^2$ with the closure-index clause $J = 2N+1$ and the block embedding $N < L$ (T-BI6-10.2a), none of which mentions the observed split either. So $N$ is not read off the trace ratio at all: the ratio, a computed invariant of $\SUfive$ chiral representation theory (Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs}, \S\ref{sec:thm4-bi6}, Table~\ref{tab:bi6-meaning}), is evaluated afterwards and agrees. $N = 3$ is \emph{derived from} the ledger's own closure, not supplied alongside $\SUfive$; the Bianchi identity is the equation whose consistency \emph{requires} the Green--Schwarz counterterm $X_4$ to carry exactly that coefficient. The appearance of circularity comes from our compressing two steps --- ``choose $\SUfive$'' and ``compute its anomaly ratio'' --- into one sentence. They are distinct: the first is a constitutional choice (\AX{4}), the second is arithmetic in a fixed group. We concede that the \emph{global} completion of this local factorization is not proved here and is carried by \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}; what Theorem~4 establishes is the local coefficient-locking, and that is not circular.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 41 (O-GG6-41) (the anomaly theorist)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Theorem~5 gives only a \emph{local} Green--Schwarz factorization and openly defers the global anomaly to A3-BI6. Yet Theorem~7 then asserts BRST consistency of the bulk. You cannot claim a consistent quantum theory while admitting the global anomaly is unproven \emph{here} --- the forcing chain has a hole at its center.''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} This is the most important structural objection in the cluster and we will not soften it. It is true that Theorem~\ref{thm:anomaly-factorization} establishes the \emph{local} (perturbative, infinitesimal) Green--Schwarz factorization, and that Theorem~\ref{thm:brst-consistency} (\S\ref{sec:thm7-brst}) states BRST consistency in its \emph{local} form, with the global completion --- anomaly freedom under large gauge transformations and across all topological sectors of the $\Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$ bundle --- explicitly deferred to \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}. The forcing chain of the present paper is therefore complete only at the perturbative level; we label Theorem~7 ``(local form)'' for exactly this reason and do not claim more. What we dispute is that this is a ``hole at the center.'' The division of labor is deliberate and declared: A2 proves the bulk geometry and the local anomaly structure; A3-BI6 is the dedicated paper that discharges the global obligation, and it is cited at the point of deferral rather than waved at. A reader is entitled to withhold assent to ``\GG{} is a consistent quantum theory'' until A3 is read --- that is the correct posture, and it is the one the cohort architecture asks for. The claim A2 stands behind on its own is narrower and true: \emph{given} the global cancellation that A3 proves, the bulk BRST complex closes with the field content Theorem~3 forces.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 42 (O-GG6-42) (the gauge-fixing specialist)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Theorem~7 asserts BRST consistency on a bulk with a boundary --- the scale profile interval $I_r$ has two endpoints. Gauge-fixing on a manifold with boundary generically produces boundary terms that break BRST invariance unless the boundary conditions are themselves BRST-compatible. Have you shown those terms vanish, or assumed it?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} The objection identifies a real technical obligation, and the honest answer is that the present paper discharges it only partially. Theorem~\ref{thm:brst-consistency} (\S\ref{sec:thm7-brst}) treats the bulk BRST complex with the scale direction $I_r$ carrying the one-way RG semigroup of \POS{5}; the relevant boundary is the ultraviolet endpoint at $M_6$ and the infrared endpoint at the registered boundary $\cM_4$. We impose BRST-compatible boundary conditions --- ghost fields satisfying Neumann conditions at the IR boundary and the gauge parameter vanishing at the UV endpoint --- and verify that the boundary variation of the gauge-fixed action vanishes under these conditions. What we do \emph{not} do in this paper is prove that these are the \emph{unique} BRST-compatible boundary conditions, nor that they survive the global large-gauge completion; both are part of the obligation that \citep{ArisakaA3BI6} assumes. So the accurate statement is: with the stated boundary conditions, the local BRST variation closes including boundary terms; the uniqueness and global robustness of those conditions are deferred. A reader who wants the boundary analysis at full rigor is right to flag it as incomplete here and is pointed to A3-BI6.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 43 (O-GG6-43) (the biochemist)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Theorem~8 matches the Arisaka constant $\QB \approx 0.1555$~eV/qubit to the free energy of ATP hydrolysis. But $\Delta G$ for ATP is not a constant --- it runs from about $-30$ to $-60$~kJ/mol with concentration, pH, and $\mathrm{Mg}^{2+}$. Matching one textbook number at one temperature is weak evidence for a \emph{fundamental} fifth force $\UoneQi$.''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} We accept the biochemistry without reservation: the cellular operating energy is a context-dependent quantity, and a single coincidence at one operating point would indeed be weak support. Two points keep Theorem~\ref{thm:arisaka-equation} from resting on that coincidence. First, the framework's primitive is the dimensional conversion factor $\QB \approx 0.1555$~eV per qubit fixed by the \OGNfive{} ledger and the boundary temperature --- a thermodynamic reference value that should be temperature-pinned, not the in-vivo operating value that varies with load. Second, and more important for honesty: the present paper attaches $\QB$ to biology only as an empirical \emph{anchor}, and explicitly defers the load-bearing test of $\UoneQi$ to the energy--information calibration of (\citealp{ArisakaA7Qi4}; \citealp{ArisakaA11Origin}), where the qubit-information pillars stand or fall on quantitative energy--information and neural predictions rather than on a single number. The accurate claim of A2 is the weaker, structural one: \emph{if} $\UoneQi$ is the fifth gauged force, the four-current locking $J_E/\QB = J_e = J_B = J_{Qi}$ fixes its energy quantum --- a consistency check, offered as suggestive, not as proof. A reader who finds one matched number unconvincing is correct, and is the intended audience of A7-Qi4.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\section{Superstring theory pushes back}

\medskip
\noindent\emph{Cluster: the comparison Part audited by its target.} Part~IV contrasts \GG{} with superstring theory, and a string theorist will say the contrast is drawn on \GG{}'s terms. We let the strongest versions of that complaint stand and answer them.

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 44 (O-GG6-44) (the holographer)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Your \OGGEP{} `boundary registration' axiom is just the bulk--boundary correspondence of AdS/CFT under a new name. A bulk theory whose physics is encoded on a lower-dimensional boundary --- that is Maldacena 1997, checked thousands of times. You have rebranded holography as a constitutional axiom and claimed novelty.''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} The kinship is real and we state it rather than hide it (\S\ref{sec:oggep-vs-adscft}): both AdS/CFT and \OGGEP{} place the physics of a bulk on a lower-dimensional boundary, and \GG{} treats the holographic intuition as one of its genuine antecedents. The distinction is operational, and it is sharp. AdS/CFT is a \emph{duality}: bulk and boundary are two equivalent descriptions of one theory, with no preferred direction and no act of measurement built in. \OGGEP{} (\AX{3}) is a \emph{measurement} axiom: the boundary is where records are \emph{registered}, the scale profile direction is the one-way RG semigroup of \POS{5} with a built-in arrow, and the bulk-to-boundary map is irreversible by construction. AdS/CFT has no analogue of the registration arrow --- it is time-symmetric and observer-free; that is precisely why string theory ``is missing \AX{3}'' in the four-fold exclusion of \S\ref{sec:four-fold-exclusion-VI}. So the honest claim is not that boundary encoding is new --- it is not --- but that \emph{turning the boundary into the locus of irreversible registration} is the new constitutional content, and it is what lets \GG{} address the measurement problem that AdS/CFT, as a duality, does not touch. The objection is right that we owe the reader this distinction explicitly, which is why \S\ref{sec:oggep-vs-adscft} is dedicated to it.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 45 (O-GG6-45) (the string theorist)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``AdS/CFT is a proven correspondence with two decades of nontrivial checks. \OGGEP{} is a postulate with none. Why should a working physicist trade a checked duality for an unchecked axiom?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} They should not trade one for the other, and we do not ask them to --- the framing of the question is the thing we reject. \OGGEP{} is not a competitor to the AdS/CFT \emph{calculations}; it is a constitutional clause about measurement, and its checks are of a different kind: not bulk--boundary correlator matchings, but the empirical anchors the ledger it belongs to produces --- the integer $\alpha^{-1}(0) = 137$, $\Mlock \approx 3.85$~TeV, the boundary cosmological inventory, the energy--information anchor $\QB$ (\S\ref{sec:eight-falsifiers}). A postulate earns its keep by the falsifiable consequences it forces downstream, and \OGGEP{}'s consequences are logged as kill conditions, not asserted as safe. We concede the asymmetry the objection names: AdS/CFT has a mature internal check-structure that \GG{} does not yet match, and a string theorist is entirely within rights to weight that maturity heavily. What we claim is narrower --- that the two are answerable to \emph{different} evidence, and that \OGGEP{} should be judged by whether its forced integers survive experiment, a test the framework has pre-declared and can lose.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 46 (O-GG6-46) (the landscape pragmatist)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``You reject the $10^{500}$ string vacua via \AX{4} (\MSMF). But \MSMF{} is itself a meta-axiom with no independent justification. You have not solved the landscape problem; you have replaced a landscape of vacua with a single unfalsifiable decree of parsimony.''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} The objection lands a real point and overreaches on one. The real point: \AX{4} (\MSMF) is a choice, and \GG{} does not derive it from something deeper --- it is a constitutional axiom, and the anti-landscape stance of \S\ref{sec:anti-landscape} rests on it. We do not claim to have \emph{proved} that nature is parsimonious; we claim that \emph{if} one adopts maximal symmetry / minimal freedom as a constitutional clause, the bulk theory is forced to be unique, and we then expose that uniqueness to experiment. Where the objection overreaches is ``unfalsifiable.'' \MSMF{} is not unfalsifiable, because it makes a hard prediction the landscape does not: that there are \emph{no} free continuous moduli, so every dimensionless constant must be an integer-ledger output. The discovery of a single physical observable that requires a genuinely tunable continuous parameter --- a modulus with a flat direction, a coupling not fixed by \OGNfive{} --- would falsify \MSMF{} directly (\S\ref{sec:eight-falsifiers}). The landscape, by contrast, accommodates almost any observation by moving among vacua; that is the asymmetry we are claiming. So the honest scorecard is: \MSMF{} is an unjustified \emph{premise} but a falsifiable one, and we prefer one falsifiable decree to $10^{500}$ unfalsifiable accommodations.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\section{Map, classification, and the charge of rhetoric}

\medskip
\noindent\emph{Cluster: Parts~V and~VI under suspicion of self-promotion.} The forward/backward map and the constitutional classification are where a hostile reader will smell salesmanship. We answer the three sharpest versions.

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 47 (O-GG6-47) (the unimpressed specialist)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``The two-way map of Part~V says every Principal Theorem has one proof home --- but several of \emph{this paper's} theorems are admittedly proved in A3 or A9. That makes A2 a \emph{table of contents} pretending to be a derivation: a map of where proofs live, not the proofs themselves.''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} The criticism is fair as a warning and wrong as a verdict, and the distinction matters. It is true that the coherence map (\S\ref{sec:two-way-handoff}, Tables~\ref{tab:outward-map} and~\ref{tab:inward-map}) points some obligations outward --- the global anomaly to A3, the $\alpha^{-1}$ derivation and the index computation to A9 --- and a reader who mistook the \emph{map} for the \emph{proof} would be misled. But A2 is not only a map. It proves, in full and on its own pages, the bulk-side theorems that are its title's subject: Dimensional Minimality (Theorem~\ref{thm:dim-minimal}), the canonical metric (Theorem~\ref{thm:canonical-metric}), the six-force decomposition (Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces}), the local Bianchi coefficient-locking (Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs}), the local anomaly factorization (Theorem~\ref{thm:anomaly-factorization}), the \OGNfive{} Diophantine cascade (Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade}), and the local BRST closure (Theorem~\ref{thm:brst-consistency}). What it \emph{defers} are precisely the obligations that belong to other strata of the cohort, and it names them rather than smuggling them. The map exists so that a deferral is auditable, not so that a proof can be skipped. The honest one-line summary: A2 proves the geometry and the local structure; it maps, and does not pretend to discharge, the global and phenomenological obligations.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 48 (O-GG6-48) (the offended traditionalist)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Part~VI places GG-6 `at the apex' of twentieth-century physics --- the `Copernican move.' That is self-promotion, and it has no place in a physics paper. Strip the grandiosity and what scientific content remains?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} The discomfort is legitimate and we take the substance seriously while defending the structure. The classification of \S\ref{sec:partVI-intro-classification} and \S\ref{sec:constitutional-tower-VI} is not a ranking of \emph{importance} --- it is not a claim that \GG{} is more valuable than general relativity or quantum mechanics, which would indeed be empty boast. It is a claim about \emph{constitutional position}: which theories \emph{posit} a structure and which \emph{derive} it. General relativity posits the equivalence principle; \GG{} (\S\ref{sec:why-gg6-stratum-4-VI}) derives a gauged version of it from \AX{2}. That is a precise, checkable relationship between axiom sets, not a popularity contest, and ``apex'' means ``most-derived layer of the tower,'' not ``best.'' We concede the word ``Copernican'' carries rhetorical charge that can read as self-congratulation, and the writing is the place to discipline that --- the final-review pass on this paper tightens such phrasings toward the structural claim and away from the slogan. But the scientific content that survives stripping the grandiosity is exactly the tower's edges: each is an assertion that one theory's axiom is another theory's theorem, and each can be checked by reading the two axiom sets. That is content, not advertising.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 49 (O-GG6-49) (the pluralist)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Your four-stratum tower is a value judgment about which theories are `more constitutional.' A string theorist would order the strata differently and put their framework on top. Why is your classification objective rather than just your framing?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} The objection is right that any classification can be re-drawn, and the test of objectivity is whether the ordering relation is defined independently of who draws it. In \GG{} the relation is: theory $B$ sits above theory $A$ iff an axiom of $A$ appears as a \emph{theorem} of $B$ (\S\ref{sec:why-gg6-stratum-4-VI}, \S\ref{sec:vacuum-count-VI}). That relation is checkable by anyone, including a hostile reader: one reads $A$'s axiom list and $B$'s theorem list and looks for containment. A string theorist who wants to put string theory on top is welcome to --- but to do so objectively they must exhibit a \GG{} axiom (say \AX{3}, \OGGEP{}) as a \emph{theorem} of string theory, and the four-fold-exclusion analysis of \S\ref{sec:four-fold-exclusion-VI} argues they cannot, because string theory lacks the operational measurement layer \AX{3} would have to be derived from. So the classification is not immune to revision, but it is not mere framing either: it rests on a containment relation that a critic can test and, if we are wrong, overturn by producing the missing derivation. We concede that the \emph{tower diagram's} verticality invites an importance-reading; the defensible content is the set of containment claims, each falsifiable by exhibiting the reverse derivation.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\section{Status, falsifiers, and the bulk-side honesty ledger}

\medskip
\noindent\emph{Cluster: what does A2 stand behind, and how could it lose?} The final four objections press on what the paper is prepared to lose.

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 50 (O-GG6-50) (the bottom-line specialist)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Strip away every deferral --- $\alpha$ to A9, the global anomaly to A3, \GUfive{} to A4, cosmology to A10 --- and what does A2 actually \emph{prove on its own} that is not someone else's result borrowed forward?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} A direct question deserves a direct ledger, and \S\ref{sec:cohort-inventory} and \S\ref{sec:conclusions-bulk} give it. What A2 proves on its own pages, owing nothing to a later paper: (i) that the constitutional role-list forces exactly six dimensions with the scale/phase split (Theorem~\ref{thm:dim-minimal}); (ii) that the canonical bulk metric carries no continuous moduli (Theorem~\ref{thm:canonical-metric}); (iii) that the bulk gauge content decomposes into exactly the named factors $\Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$ (Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces}); (iv) that the local Bianchi identity locks the anomaly coefficient to the trace ratio $2/5$ of the $3{+}2$ block split (Theorem~\ref{thm:bi6-coeffs}), which is the check that the ledger's $N = N_c = 3$ must pass; (v) that the \OGNfive{} integers $(1,3,5;7,35)$ are the unique small-integer solution of the dual-lock cascade (Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade}); and (vi) that the local BRST complex closes on this content (Theorem~\ref{thm:brst-consistency}). Those six are A2's own. What it borrows forward it labels as borrowed: the value of $\alpha$, the global anomaly, \GUfive{}, the cosmological fit. The honest summary is that A2 is the paper that fixes the \emph{geometry and the integer ledger}; it is neither self-sufficient for the full program nor empty --- it proves the skeleton on which the phenomenology papers hang their numbers.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 51 (O-GG6-51) (the null-result realist)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Your headline collider falsifier is $\Mlock \approx 3.85$~TeV. But if HL-LHC sees nothing there, the natural move is to say `the scale is higher,' not `the theory is dead.' Is $\Mlock$ a real falsifier, or a soft prediction with a built-in escape hatch?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} This is the right question to ask of any ``predicted'' scale, and the answer depends on whether the number is forced or fitted. $\Mlock \approx 3.85$~TeV is forced by the \OGNfive{} ledger together with the empirical anchors imported from \citep{ArisakaP1KK}: it is not a free scale that can be slid upward, because sliding it would require changing an integer in the cascade, and the cascade integers are over-determined (each is fixed by an independent theorem, \S\ref{sec:eight-falsifiers}). So the escape hatch the objection worries about is closed by construction: ``the scale is higher'' is not available to \GG{} without breaking the ledger that fixes $\alpha^{-1} = 137$ and $K = 35$ at the same time. We state the kill condition plainly in the falsifier table --- a clean HL-LHC exclusion of the predicted resonance at $3.85$~TeV, with the stated width and couplings, falsifies the locked-scale prediction and damages the ledger that produced it. The honest caveat we do attach is not about the scale but about the \emph{signature}: a resonance can be missed for reasons of width or branching ratio rather than absence, so the falsifier is specified with a couplings/width window, and only an exclusion across that window counts as a kill. That is a specification, not an escape hatch.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 52 (O-GG6-52) (the string-lore veteran)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Your quaternionic `Goldilocks' argument for $d = 6$ via the division-algebra ladder $\R \to \C \to \Quaternion \to \Octonion$ is the \emph{same} magic-dimension lore that gives string theory $d = 10$ --- and $d = 6$ is exactly where the $(2,0)$ superconformal theories live. The ladder does not single out \GG{}; it is standard string mathematics.''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} We agree the ladder is shared mathematics and would distrust any argument that pretended otherwise; the division-algebra sequence and its magic dimensions $\{3,4,6,10\}$ are common property (\S\ref{sec:point10-goldilocks}, Table~\ref{tab:goldilocks}). The discriminating claim is not the ladder but which \emph{rung} a framework occupies and \emph{why}. String theory uses $d = 10$ (the octonionic rung) because supersymmetry needs the octonionic spinor identity to close; the $(2,0)$ theory in $d = 6$ is itself a supersymmetric, often string-derived, construction. \GG{} occupies the quaternionic rung $d = 6$ for the opposite reason: it is the unique magic dimension realizable \emph{without} supersymmetry, with $\SLtwoH$ as the Lorentz spin group, and the framework's whole posture is non-supersymmetric (Objection~34). So the same ladder is being read in two incompatible ways --- string theory climbs to the rung where SUSY closes the spinor algebra; \GG{} stops at the rung where the spinor algebra closes \emph{without} SUSY. The ladder alone proves neither; what discriminates is the empirical content each rung is asked to carry, and \GG{}'s is the integer ledger and its falsifiers (\S\ref{sec:eight-falsifiers}), not the conformal bootstrap of the $(2,0)$ theory. The objection is right that the mathematics is not ours; the use we put it to is.
\end{objqabody}

\bigskip
\noindent\textbf{Objection 53 (O-GG6-53) (the historian of physics)}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{``Your `geometrization ladder' --- Weyl, Yang--Mills, Connes, \GG{} --- presents a narrative of inevitable progress with \GG{} as the completion. But historical progressions are stories told after the fact. Why is \GG{} the end of the ladder rather than one more rung that will itself be superseded?''}\par\nobreak\smallskip
\begin{objqabody}
\emph{Response.} The methodological caution is exactly right and we adopt it rather than resist it: the geometrization ladder of \S\ref{sec:geometrization-ladder} (Table~\ref{tab:geometrization-ladder}) is a genealogy, and a genealogy is a narrative, not a proof of finality. \GG{} does not claim to be the last rung; it claims to be the rung that geometrizes the \emph{measurement} act, which the prior rungs (Weyl's gauge connection, Yang--Mills's non-Abelian curvature, Connes's noncommutative internal space) did not attempt --- \AX{3} (\OGGEP{}) is what the earlier steps lack. That is a statement about \emph{what was added}, not a prophecy that nothing will be added after. Indeed the paper names its own open edges where a successor would build: the UV completion above $M_6$ (Objection~25), the vacuum-stability proof (Objection~26), the global anomaly completion (Objection~41). Each is a place the ladder could grow another rung. So we make the weaker, defensible claim: \GG{} is the current step that brings measurement into the geometric program, and like every step before it, it has declared the obstructions a future step would have to clear. ``Completion'' in the prose means ``completion of the gauge-gravity-measurement triad,'' not ``end of physics,'' and the final-review pass tightens the wording toward that meaning.
\end{objqabody}
\medskip
\noindent\emph{Closing remark on the objections.} An honest framework should know which questions a working physicist is most likely to raise on first reading, and should answer those questions before they become obstacles to engagement. We have addressed fifty-three such objections above, organized into eight clusters: the bulk-side specifics (Objections 1--7), the broader-audience audit ported from \citep{ArisakaA1Constitution} (Objections 8--23), the senior-string-theorist scope-and-limits responses (Objections 24--26), the senior-professor textbook-suitability audit (Objections 27--35), the eight Theorems of Part~II examined one by one (Objections 36--43), superstring theory's pushback on the Part~IV comparison (Objections 44--46), the charge of rhetoric against the Part~V map and the Part~VI classification (Objections 47--49), and the bulk-side honesty ledger of status and falsifiers (Objections 50--53). Fifty-three items in total --- the framework's standing offer to be wrong, in detail, in fifty-three specific ways. Among them, Objection~34 shows that \GG{}'s geometric gauge--gravity unification respects the Coleman--Mandula theorem without fundamental supersymmetry, Objection~35 that its non-Abelian gauge sector is geometrized as bundle curvature rather than as further dimensions, and Objection~41 records, without flinching, that the global anomaly completion on which full BRST consistency rests is proved not here but in \citep{ArisakaA3BI6}.


\subsection*{Closing remarks on Part~X}

Two things are worth noticing about the objections collected here, now that
they have all been asked.

The first is that they do not converge. A particle theorist and a philosopher
attack this framework at different joints, and neither attack is a version of
the other. That is a property of the framework rather than of the readers: a
construction that makes commitments at several levels at once can be wrong at
any of them independently, and the objections spread out because the exposure
does.

The second is that several answers here are admissions. The global anomaly
completion is proved elsewhere and not in this paper. The generation count is
not established by the cascade. The strongest version of the string theorist's
case is not refuted; it is answered with a different set of structural
commitments and a list of measurements that will separate them. Those answers
were easier to write than the confident ones, because a question with an honest
open answer only has to be described accurately, while a question with a
confident answer has to be defended.

The collection is a snapshot. If the framework survives its falsifiers, the
sharpest questions in a few years will be ones nobody in this list thought to
ask, and the ones here will read as the concerns of a particular moment. That
is the ordinary fate of a section like this, and the right way to read it is as
the state of an argument rather than as its conclusion.

\GGPart[References]{References}{Cited works, each with a relevance note linking it to the present paper}

\noindent Unlike a conventional reference list, every entry below carries a short \emph{Relevance} note: a sentence or two saying what the cited work contributes and where in the present paper it bears. The aim is to turn the bibliography from a bare list of sources into a navigable companion --- a reader can move through the references and see, at a glance, which theorem, picture, or section each one underwrites.

\noindent The notes are written for two readers at once. For the newcomer, they trace the intellectual lineage of the bulk-side derivation: from the foundational work on gauge theory, the chiral anomaly, the Green--Schwarz mechanism, and division-algebra structure, through to the twenty-two-paper \GGTheory{} cohort that the present document anchors. For the specialist, they make the paper's debts explicit and checkable --- each note names the specific result it supports, so that no citation is merely decorative.

\noindent The references are organized in two groups --- first the \GGTheory{} papers by the author (Section~A below), then all other works (Section~B), each in alphabetical order by first author. The cohort papers (\AOne{}--\AEleven{}, with the C- and P-series) are cited under the canonical keys fixed by the cross-paper coherence map of Part~V.

\renewcommand{\bibsection}{\vspace{1.2em}}%

%% =====================================================================
%%  PHASE 7 -- BIBLIOGRAPHY
%%  Complete in-document thebibliography environment with
%%  Relevance paragraph per reference (APA style)
%% =====================================================================
\section*{A.~Papers by Katsushi Arisaka (the \GGTheory{} cohort)}

\begin{thebibliography}{99}
\bibitem[Arisaka(2026, A1-Constitution)]{ArisakaA1Constitution}
\textbf{Arisaka, K. (2026).} The \GGConstitution{}: Four Axioms and Seven Postulates of the \GGTheory{} Program, From Which \GG{}, \BIsix{}, \OGNfive{}, and \GDOS{} Descend as Theorems. Arisaka-GG-A1-Constitution.
\par\noindent Preprint, available at \url{https://arisaka-gg.org/}.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The constitutional charter of \GGTheory{}. States the four axioms (\LC, \GGEP, \OGGEP, \MSMF) and seven postulates (\GI, \UEP, \AF, \CP, \RG, \OGN, \MF) on which the present \GG{} derivation rests. Every theorem in Part~II of the present manuscript invokes one or more of these constitutional clauses as primitive input. The axiomatic structure parallels Euclid's \emph{Elements} and replaces the conventional Lagrangian-first approach with a constitution-first approach.

\bibitem[Arisaka(2026, A3-BI6)]{ArisakaA3BI6}
\textbf{Arisaka, K. (2026).} Anomaly Freedom of \BIsix{}: The Modified Bianchi Identity (\BIsix{}) for the Six-Force, Six-Dimensional Bulk (\GG{}). Arisaka-GG-A3-BI6.
\par\noindent Preprint, available at \url{https://arisaka-gg.org/}.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The companion paper that proves both local and global anomaly freedom of $\BIsix$ on the physical intended \GG{} background class. Contains the differential-cohomology refinement of $H_3$ as a Wu--Chern--Simons class, the seven-dimensional mapping torus argument, and the eight bordism conditions that are merely cited in the present paper. The full proof of the homogeneous Slavnov--Taylor identity (Theorem~7) at the global level is deferred to this companion paper.

\bibitem[Arisaka(2026, A4-Euclid)]{ArisakaA4Euclid}
\textbf{Arisaka, K. (2026).} From Euclid to \GG{}: The Realization of Euclid's Elements in Six Dimensions --- \GUfive{}, \OGNfive{}, and a Parameter-Free Reconstruction of Modern Physics. Arisaka-GG-A4-Euclid.
\par\noindent Preprint, available at \url{https://arisaka-gg.org/}.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Reconstructs the historical trajectory Euclid $\to$ Newton $\to$ Maxwell $\to$ Riemann $\to$ Einstein $\to$ Kaluza--Klein $\to$ Wilson--Hosotani $\to$ Randall--Sundrum $\to$ \GGTheory\ as a sequence of forced moves, each absorbing a previously empirical constant into the geometry of a manifold one dimension higher. Provides the methodological context for the Euclidean structure of the present paper and supports the four-revolution thesis articulated in Part~VII.

\bibitem[Arisaka(2026, A5-\GDOS{})]{ArisakaA5GDOS}
\textbf{Arisaka, K. (2026).} \GDOS{}: Geometric Dynamics of Open Systems --- 6D \GG{} Bulk Projected to 4D Boundary for Quantum Measurement, General Relativity, and QFT. \AFive{}.
\par\noindent Preprint, available at \url{https://arisaka-gg.org/}.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The boundary-projection paper of the \GGTheory{} program. Builds the \GDOS{} runtime as the boundary CPTP-channel image of the 6D bulk and derives 4D quantum mechanics, 4D general relativity, and the low-energy Standard Model as its boundary projections through the \OGGEP{} bulk--boundary correspondence $\cD$ (\AX{3}). Cited in the Open Problems section (O2) of the present paper as the companion that resolves the bulk-to-boundary question raised by Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces} of \GG.

\bibitem[Arisaka(2026, A6-GRIP)]{ArisakaA6Gi4}
\textbf{Arisaka, K. (2026).} The \GRIP{} on \GDOS{} --- \GRIP{}: the Geometric Engine of Symmetry Breaking, from the Big Bang to Mind. Arisaka-GG-A6-GRIP.
\par\noindent Preprint, available at \url{https://arisaka-gg.org/}.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Establishes the four pillars of geometric invariance ($\TGG$, $\CCI$, $\GFF$, $\GRIP$) that articulate the bulk \GG{} composite gauge--gravity connection at the geometric layer. Companion to \ASeven{}: where \ASeven{} carries the boundary quantum-information four-pillar structure, \ASix{} carries the bulk geometric four-pillar structure. Together with \ASeven{}, supplies the eight-pillar architecture cited in Part~III's Synthesis as the cohort-paper elaboration of Pictures~3 and 4. First cited in \S\ref{sec:inheritance-and-roadmap-A2}.

\bibitem[Arisaka(2026, A7-Qi4)]{ArisakaA7Qi4}
\textbf{Arisaka, K. (2026).} The \QiFour{} Pillars --- \QiQUA{}, \QiEP{}, \QiCON{}, \QiHAL{}: The Quantum-Information Backbone of \GDOS{}. Arisaka-GG-A7-Qi4.
\par\noindent Preprint, available at \url{https://arisaka-gg.org/}.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Establishes the four pillars of quantum information (\QiQUA, \QiEP, \QiCON, \QiHAL) that articulate the \GDOS{} runtime at the quantum-information layer. Contains the derivation of the Arisaka equation $J_E/\QB = J_e = J_B = J_{Qi}$ used in Theorem~8 of the present manuscript, the energy--information conversion factor $\QB \approx 0.1555$~eV/qubit, and its energy--information calibration (\ASeven{}/\AEleven{}) cited in Part~VII's empirical reach summary.

\bibitem[Arisaka(2026, A8-QM)]{ArisakaA8QM}
\textbf{Arisaka, K. (2026).} Quantum Mechanics Derived from \GGTheory{} as Projection from 6D Bulk to 4D Boundary. Arisaka-GG-A8-QM.
\par\noindent Preprint, available at \url{https://arisaka-gg.org/}.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The quantum-mechanics recast paper of the \GGTheory{} program. Promotes the Hilbert-space, Schr\"odinger-equation, Born-rule, L\"uders-projection, decoherence, and Bell--CHSH-violation postulates from independent axioms of standard QM to theorems of the boundary CPTP channel built in \AFive{}. Cited in Part V's Bridge to the 4D-Physics Trio. First cited in \S\ref{sec:inheritance-and-roadmap-A2}.

\bibitem[Arisaka(2026, A9-SM)]{ArisakaA9SM}
\textbf{Arisaka, K. (2026).} The Standard Model as Theorem of \GGTheory{}: Its 28 Parameters as Observations of One Six-Dimensional Geometry. Arisaka-GG-A9-SM.
\par\noindent Preprint, available at \url{https://arisaka-gg.org/}.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The Standard-Model phenomenology paper of the \GGTheory{} program. Recasts the 28 SM parameters as attractor coordinates of the boundary \GRIP{} runtime: gauge couplings as Wilson--Hosotani branch attractors, fermion masses as overlap integrals on the radial interval, CKM/PMNS as projector misalignments, and the strong-CP angle as topological completion via the Kaxion. Cited in Part~VII (Section~\ref{sec:eight-falsifiers}) for the SM-side phenomenological consequences of the \GG{} bulk. First cited in \S\ref{sec:inheritance-and-roadmap-A2}.

\bibitem[Arisaka(2026, A10-Cosmos)]{ArisakaA10Cosmos}
\textbf{Arisaka, K. (2026).} The Standard Cosmology as Theorem of \GGTheory{}: The Cosmic Inventory as Observations of One Six-Dimensional Geometry. Arisaka-GG-A10-Cosmos.
\par\noindent Preprint, available at \url{https://arisaka-gg.org/}.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The cosmology paper of the \GGTheory{} program. Derives the homogeneous Friedmann reduction of the boundary Covariant Conservation Identity, the $\pi$-locked density inventory $\Omega_m = 1/\pi$, $\Omega_\Lambda = 1-1/\pi$, $\Omega_b = 1/(2\pi^2)$, $\Omega_{\mathrm{DM}} = 1/\pi - 1/(2\pi^2)$, and the Kaxion dark-matter prediction with $\Delta\nu/\nu = 1/35$ doublet memory. Cited in Part~VII (Section~\ref{sec:eight-falsifiers}) and in the conclusions for the cosmological extension of the framework.

\bibitem[Arisaka(2026, A11-Origin)]{ArisakaA11Origin}
\textbf{Arisaka, K. (2026).} The Geometric Inevitability of Cosmos, Life, and Mind: The Self-Referential Closure of the \GGTheory{} Program. Arisaka-GG-A11-Origin.
\par\noindent In preparation. To be posted at \url{https://arisaka-gg.org/} on
completion; no result of the present paper depends on it.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The closing capstone of the \GGTheory{} program. Pulls together the cohort architecture from the constitutional charter through the bulk-side and boundary-side trios to the 4D-physics recasts, traced as a single axiomatic chain from elementary quarks through atoms, molecules, life, and mind to conscious experience on the boundary $\GDOS$ runtime. Cited in Part V's Bridge to the Capstone. First cited in \S\ref{sec:inheritance-and-roadmap-A2}.

\bibitem[Arisaka(2026, P1-KK)]{ArisakaP1KK}
\textbf{Arisaka, K. (2026).} The \GG{} Lock Cluster: A Non-Spatial Kaluza--Klein Resonance near 3.85~TeV as the Standing LHC Falsifier of \GGTheory{}. Predictions Branch of the \GGTheory{} program.
\par\noindent Preprint, available at \url{https://arisaka-gg.org/}.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The first explicit prediction-branch entry of the \GGTheory{} program. Carries the detailed phenomenology of the Kaluza--Klein lock cluster: predicted mass $M_{\mathrm{lock}} \approx 3.85$~TeV, decay channels through \SUfive\ branching ratios, production cross-sections at HL-LHC and FCC, and the exclusion timeline given projected luminosity. Cited in Part V's Bridge to the Predictions Branch.

\bibitem[Arisaka(2026, P2-N3)]{ArisakaP2N3}
\textbf{Arisaka, K. (2026).} \textit{Why Three Generations: A Three-Leg Derivation of $N_g=3$ from \BIsix{}, \MSMF{}, and \GDOS{} Morse Stability}. Predictions Branch of the \GGTheory{} program.
\par\noindent Preprint, available at \url{https://arisaka-gg.org/}.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Carries the three-leg pincer that establishes the \emph{generation} count $N_g = 3$ --- a different quantity from the \OGNfive{} color index: a \CP{} lower bound $N_g \ge 3$ and a \GDOS{}/\GRIP{} capacity upper bound $N_g \le 3$, the latter now a capacity theorem with the integrality theorem L-INT behind it, conditional on the single declared topological residue R-INT. The present paper's trace-ratio route (Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade}, Step~3) is the consistency leg of the same integer; the forcing leg is this preprint's, and its conditionality is carried explicitly by \ANine{}, which grades the family count Derived (cond.) on this import.

\bibitem[Arisaka(2026, P3-Electron)]{ArisakaP3Electron}

\textbf{Arisaka, K.\ (2026).}
\textit{The Electron as the Ground State of Nature: The Six Oldest Questions about the Electron, Closed and Fenced within \GGTheory{}}.
Arisaka-GG-P3-Electron preprint.
\par\noindent Preprint, available at \url{https://arisaka-gg.org/}.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The third paper of the Predictions
Branch: identity, absolute stability, the two excited copies, the
positron as conjugate readout, pointlikeness, and field response
derived as six faces of ground-state-ness, with every fence declared; imports \PaperPTwo{}'s
$N=3$ verbatim. Cited in the Part-IV handoff (inventory, relations
map, and bridge subsection). First cited in \S\ref{sec:inheritance-and-roadmap-A2}.

\bibitem[Arisaka(2026, C1-Kaxion)]{ArisakaC1Kaxion}
\textbf{Arisaka, K. (2026).} The Kaxion: Cold Dark Matter as the Non-Spatial Compact-Angle Pseudoscalar of \GG{}. Predictions Branch of the \GGTheory{} program.
\par\noindent Preprint, available at \url{https://arisaka-gg.org/}.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The Kaxion dark-matter-haloscope entry of the \GGTheory{} predictions branch. Carries the detailed phenomenology: oscillation frequency ratio $\Delta\nu/\nu = 1/35$ (with the integer $35 = K$ supplied by Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade} of the present paper), axion-photon coupling, halo-axion mass-frequency profile, and the exclusion timeline at ADMX, HAYSTAC, ABRACADABRA, and future haloscopes. Cited in Part V's Bridge to the Predictions Branch.

\bibitem[Arisaka(2026, C2-Hubble)]{ArisakaC2Hubble}

\textbf{Arisaka, K.\ (2026).}
\textit{The Hubble Tension in the Light of \GGTheory{}: The Hubble Constant as One Reading of a Derived Expansion History $H(t)$}.
Arisaka-GG-C2-Hubble preprint.
\par\noindent Preprint, available at \url{https://arisaka-gg.org/}.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The second paper of the Cosmology
\& Astrophysics Branch: reads the persistent discrepancy between
early- and late-universe Hubble measurements as the two ends of one
geometric corridor of the 6D bulk, rather than as a systematic
error or new fluid. Cited in the Part-IV handoff (inventory,
relations map, and bridge subsection). First cited in \S\ref{sec:inheritance-and-roadmap-A2}.

\bibitem[Arisaka(2026, C3-BH)]{ArisakaC3BH}

\textbf{Arisaka, K.\ (2026).}
\textit{Black-Hole Entropy under \GGTheory{}: The \GDOS{} Reading of the Horizon as an \OGGEP{} Port --- with the Exact Bekenstein--Hawking $A/4G_N$ Derived from Induced Gravity}.
Arisaka-GG-C3-BH preprint.
\par\noindent Preprint, available at \url{https://arisaka-gg.org/}.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The third paper of the Cosmology
\& Astrophysics Branch and the cohort's strong-gravity anchor: the
horizon treated as an \OGGEP{} port, with the exact $A/4$
coefficient derived. Cited in the Part-IV handoff (inventory,
relations map, and bridge subsection). First cited in \S\ref{sec:inheritance-and-roadmap-A2}.

\bibitem[Arisaka(2026, W1-Symmetry)]{ArisakaW1Symmetry}

\textbf{Arisaka, K.\ (2026).}
\textit{Symmetry, Conservation, and Geometry: Seven Steps from Noether, Bianchi, to Hopkins--Singer, and the Ledger the Open-System Turn Pays Out}.
Arisaka-GG-W1-Symmetry preprint.
\par\noindent Preprint, available at \url{https://arisaka-gg.org/}.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The first of the two white papers,
and the \emph{diachronic} one: it walks the century of symmetry and
conservation in the order it was found and shows the conviction that
symmetry causes conservation loosening at seven historical steps,
until what remains conserved is an integer with nowhere to move ---
then places the program at the arc's end, at declared grades, with
its payout set beside the measurements. Derives nothing new: every
result is carried at its parent's declared grade. First cited in \S\ref{sec:inheritance-and-roadmap-A2}.

\bibitem[Arisaka(2026, W2-Holonomy)]{ArisakaW2Holonomy}

\textbf{Arisaka, K.\ (2026).}
\textit{The Circle That Remembers, the Interval That Forgets: \GGTheory{} and the Sixteen Problems of Particle Physics and Cosmology}.
Arisaka-GG-W2-Holonomy preprint.
\par\noindent Preprint, available at \url{https://arisaka-gg.org/}.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The second of the two white papers,
and the \emph{synchronic} one: it takes a single exact statement ---
a holonomy requires a closed loop and the interval fiber has none, so
the circle remembers and the interval forgets --- and follows it to
sixteen of the questions physics has not closed, closing with the
named, dated measurements on which six of the sixteen treatments die
outright. Like its sibling it derives nothing new, carrying every
result at its parent's declared grade. First cited in \S\ref{sec:inheritance-and-roadmap-A2}.

\bibitem[Arisaka(2026, P4-Real)]{ArisakaP4Real}
\textbf{Arisaka, K. (2026).} The Real Geometry Beneath the Complex Numbers of Physics: Positive Frequency is Holomorphy --- from Cardano's Cubics to Twistor Space, via the Sixth Dimension of \GGTheory{}. Arisaka-GG-P4-Real.
\par\noindent Preprint, available at \url{https://arisaka-gg.org/}.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The origin-of-$i$ member paper of the \GGTheory{} program (Foundations Branch). Its construction begins from the arena that Theorem~\ref{thm:lc-ggep-bulk} of the present paper forces --- four-dimensional spacetime plus the scale interval and the compact phase circle, with the globally static metric --- and returns the origin of the boundary's imaginary unit: the gauge phase from the circle's quarter-turn (its T-P4-1), the state-space $i$ from the causal clock's polar phase (T-P4-2), and their forced agreement (T-P4-3), whose physical name is the antiparticle. The exchange is the most reciprocal in the cohort: this paper feeds \PaperPFour{} its stage (the map's ``Thm~0'' edge), and \PaperPFour{} hands back the reason the boundary's quantum theory is complex, at quasi-free grade. First cited in \S\ref{sec:postulates}.

\bibitem[Arisaka(2026, P5-CPT)]{ArisakaP5CPT}
\textbf{Arisaka, K. (2026).} The Mirrors of Matter: Why Every Particle Has a Twin, Why Nature's Mirrors Break, and Why the Universe Is Made of Matter. Arisaka-GG-P5-CPT.
\par\noindent Preprint, available at \url{https://arisaka-gg.org/}.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The CPT member paper of the \GGTheory{} program (Foundations Branch): derives antiparticles from the circle--clock handshake, C/P/T as the orientation reversals of the three real bulk factors, CPT at quasi-free grade from the Wick-quartet analytic fact (its T-P5-B1), the chiral-pentagon CP phases, and the matter asymmetry through the weight-zero door. Cited throughout \S\ref{sec:spin-statistics}, whose candidate spin--statistics theorem T-Stat-A is the sibling, under the same quartet, of its CPT theorem T-P5-2, and whose Lemma~\ref{lem:third-job} extends its intertwiner analysis (T-P5-C2) by a third job. First cited in \S\ref{sec:inheritance-and-roadmap-A2}.
\bibitem[Arisaka(2026, P6-Proton)]{ArisakaP6Proton}

\textbf{Arisaka, K.\ (2026).}
\textit{The Proton as the Ground Geometric Attractor of Matter: The Eleven Questions of the Proton, Closed and Fenced within \GGTheory{}}.
Arisaka-GG-P6-Proton preprint.
\par\noindent Preprint, available at \url{https://arisaka-gg.org/}.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The fourth member of the Predictions
Branch, sister to \PaperPThree{}: the proton as the \GGA{} of the
baryonic stratum, with baryon number carried as a winding of the
compact geometry rather than as a bookkeeping label --- written by the
same twist that breaks the unified gauge symmetry and splits the Higgs
multiplet --- so that the decay the grand unified theories insisted on
is forbidden by the geometry rather than merely unobserved. Eleven
questions closed as faces of one fact, every import at its proved
grade and every kill criterion stated; a single verified proton decay
falsifies it. First cited in \S\ref{sec:inheritance-and-roadmap-A2}.

\end{thebibliography}

\bigskip
\section*{B.~Other references}

\begin{thebibliography}{99}
\bibitem[Adler(1969)]{Adler1969}
\textbf{Adler, S.~L. (1969).} Axial-vector vertex in spinor electrodynamics. \textit{Physical Review}, \textit{177}(5), 2426--2438.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} One of the two 1969 papers establishing the triangle anomaly: a classically conserved chiral current acquires a quantum divergence that no choice of regulator removes. With \citet{BellJackiw1969} it is the origin of the anomaly-freedom requirement that \POS{3} (\AF) promotes to a constitutional clause.

 First cited in \S\ref{sec:sm-to-gg6}.
\bibitem[Alvarez-Gaum\'e \& Witten(1984)]{AlvarezGaumeWitten1984}
\textbf{Alvarez-Gaum\'e, L., \& Witten, E. (1984).} Gravitational anomalies. \textit{Nuclear Physics~B}, \textit{234}(2), 269--330.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Establishes the modern systematic classification of gravitational and mixed gauge-gravitational anomalies in arbitrary even spacetime dimensions, supplying the eight-form anomaly polynomial structure that \BIsix{} must absorb in six dimensions. The paper underwrites the Stora--Zumino descent computation in the proof of Theorem~5 and supplies the gravitational $\tr R^2$ contribution to $X_4$ in the \BIsix{} identity~\eqref{eq:bi6-general}; the formal structure of the anomaly inflow used in the BV/BRST analysis of Appendix~E is grounded in this paper's classification. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm4-bi6}.

\bibitem[Atiyah \& Singer(1963)]{AtiyahSinger1963}
Atiyah, M.~F.\ and Singer, I.~M.\ (1963), \emph{The index of elliptic operators on compact manifolds}, \emph{Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society}, 69(3), 422--433 (with subsequent full treatment in \emph{Annals of Mathematics}, 87 (1968), 484--530 et seq.).
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The original Atiyah--Singer index theorem, which on a six-dimensional bulk of the form $\cM_4 \times I_r \times S^1_\theta$ structurally controls the count of normalizable chiral spinor zero-modes. Cited in Falsifier~10(a) and in the Spin(1,5) subsection of \S\ref{ssec:spin15} as the mathematical origin of the three-generation claim of \GG; the explicit calculation on the canonical bulk is heuristically sketched in Appendix~\ref{app:kk} and carried out in full in \citep{ArisakaA9SM}. First cited in \S\ref{sec:eight-falsifiers}.

\bibitem[ATLAS Collaboration(2019)]{ATLAS2019} \textbf{ATLAS Collaboration. (2019).} Search for high-mass dilepton resonances using 139~fb$^{-1}$ of $pp$ collision data collected at $\sqrt{s} = 13$~TeV with the ATLAS detector. \textit{Physics Letters~B}, \textit{796}, 68--87. [arXiv:1903.06248]
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Sets the current experimental upper bound on dilepton-channel spin-2 resonances above $\sim\!3.85$~TeV using full Run-2 LHC data. Excludes the standard Randall--Sundrum benchmark with universal couplings but does not exclude the \GG{} KK cluster prediction because \GG{} produces non-universal light-fermion suppression. Provides the empirical baseline against which the ten Falsifiers of Part~VII must be evaluated and against which the cluster-aware HL-LHC search program of Section~\ref{sec:eight-falsifiers} is measured. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm6-ogn-cascade}.

\bibitem[Baez(2002)]{Baez2002}
\textbf{Baez, J.~C. (2002).} The octonions. \textit{Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society}, \textit{39}(2), 145--205.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Comprehensive review of the four normed division algebras $\R, \C, \Quaternion, \Octonion$ and their connections to Lie groups, geometry, and physics. Develops in detail the Lorentz--division-algebra correspondence $\Spin(1,2)\cong\SLtwoR$, $\Spin(1,3)\cong\SLtwoC$, $\Spinone\cong\SLtwoH$, $\Spin(1,9)\cong\mathrm{SL}(2,\Octonion)$ that places the \GG{} bulk on the third (quaternionic) rung of the magic-dimension ladder. Cited in Subsection~\ref{ssec:spin15}, Proposition~\ref{prop:lorentz-division}, and Appendix~\ref{appsec:spin15-foundations} as the principal mathematical-physics reference for the magic-square structure underlying $\Spinone$. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm3-six-forces}.

\bibitem[Bardeen \& Zumino(1984)]{BardeenZumino1984}
\textbf{Bardeen, W.~A., \& Zumino, B. (1984).} Consistent and covariant anomalies in gauge and gravitational theories. \textit{Nuclear Physics~B}, \textit{244}(2), 421--453.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Distinguishes the consistent (Wess--Zumino-compatible) anomaly from the covariant anomaly and proves their relation by a finite local counterterm. Provides the standard machinery for the Stora--Zumino descent used in the proof of Theorem~5 (Single-Tensor Anomaly Factorization) and in Appendix~D (Anomaly Coefficients). The rigid coefficient $-2/5$ in \BIsix{} is consistent with this paper's normalization conventions. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm7-brst}.

\bibitem[Bell \& Jackiw(1969)]{BellJackiw1969}
\textbf{Bell, J.~S., \& Jackiw, R. (1969).} A PCAC puzzle: $\pi^0 \to \gamma\gamma$ in the $\sigma$-model. \textit{Nuovo Cimento~A}, \textit{60}(1), 47--61.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The companion discovery to \citet{Adler1969}, arrived at from the pion-decay side. Together they are why anomaly cancellation is a constraint on the chiral fermion content rather than a calculational nuisance, which is the premise of Theorems~4 and~5.

 First cited in \S\ref{sec:sm-to-gg6}.
\bibitem[Bisognano \& Wichmann(1976)]{BisognanoWichmann1976}
\textbf{Bisognano, J.\,J., \& Wichmann, E.\,H. (1976).} On the duality condition for quantum fields. \textit{Journal of Mathematical Physics}, \textit{17}(3), 303--321.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Establishes that the vacuum restricted to a Rindler wedge is a KMS state whose Tomita--Takesaki modular flow is the wedge boost and whose modular conjugation is (up to a rotation) the CPT operator --- the single analytic structure from which both CPT and spin--statistics flow. In \S\ref{sec:spin-statistics} this is the field-theoretic face of the geometric parent that T-Stat-A assigns to the bulk's causal clock. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm8-arisaka-equation}.

\bibitem[de Boer(1999)]{deBoer1999}
\textbf{de Boer, J. (1999).} Six-dimensional supergravity on $S^3 \times \mathrm{AdS}_3$ and 2D conformal field theory. \textit{Nuclear Physics~B}, \textit{548}(1-3), 139--166.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Develops six-dimensional supergravity in the context of holographic dualities. Cited in Part~III (Geometric Intuition) for the precedent of 6D bulk constructions, although the \GG{} construction differs in working without supersymmetry and using the $M_4 \times I_r \times S^1_\theta$ topology rather than the more elaborate $S^3 \times \mathrm{AdS}_3$ structure. First cited in \S\ref{sec:picture1-rg-time}.

\bibitem[de Boer, Verlinde, \& Verlinde(2000)]{deBoerVerlindeVerlinde2000}
\textbf{de Boer, J., Verlinde, E., \& Verlinde, H. (2000).} On the holographic renormalization group. \textit{Journal of High Energy Physics}, \textit{2000}(08), 003.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Establishes the precise dictionary in which radial evolution in a warped/AdS bulk \emph{is} the renormalization-group flow of the boundary theory. Cited in Part~III (\S\ref{sec:sm-to-gg6}) as the rigorous foundation of Pictures~1 and~2: the radial coordinate $r=\ln(\EGUT/\mu)$ as RG-scale, and renormalization as radial integration. First cited in \S\ref{sec:sm-to-gg6}.

\bibitem[Bohm(1952)]{Bohm1952}
\textbf{Bohm, D. (1952).} A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ``hidden'' variables. \textit{Physical Review}, \textit{85}(2), 166--193.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Bohm's pilot-wave interpretation is one of the principal alternative formulations of quantum mechanics that does not require a separate measurement postulate. We cite it in Part~VII (Point~6 on the Measurement Problem) to contrast with the \OGGEP{}-based resolution: in \GGTheory, measurement is an axiomatic consequence of the bulk-to-boundary partial trace rather than an alternative interpretation imposed on closed-system QM. First cited in \S\ref{sec:ten-innovations}.

\bibitem[Bohr(1913)]{Bohr1913}
Bohr, N.\ (1913), \emph{On the constitution of atoms and molecules}, \emph{Philosophical Magazine}, Series 6, 26(151), 1--25; 26(153), 476--502; 26(155), 857--875 (three-part trilogy).
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The first time a continuous classical parameter (the orbital radius of the hydrogen electron) was forced in physics to admissible discrete integer-quantized values by a structural rule, not by fitting to data. Cited in Theorem~6 as the decisive intermediate physical step between Lagrange's 1770 four-square theorem and Dirac's 1931 monopole quantization, completing the historical lineage of the $\OGNfive$ Diophantine cascade. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm6-ogn-cascade}.

\bibitem[Bohr(1928)]{Bohr1928}
\textbf{Bohr, N. (1928).} The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory. \textit{Nature}, \textit{121}(3050), 580--590.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The Como lecture in which Bohr articulates complementarity and the observer-cut posture of the Copenhagen interpretation. Cited in Part~VII (Point~6) to identify the historical origin of the observer-cut formulation that \GGTheory\ replaces with the geometric bulk-boundary cut at $\pi_{6\to 4}$. First cited in \S\ref{sec:constitutional-question}.

\bibitem[Born(1926)]{Born1926}
\textbf{Born, M. (1926).} Zur Quantenmechanik der Sto{\ss}vorg\"ange. \textit{Zeitschrift f\"ur Physik}, \textit{37}(12), 863--867.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Origin of the Born rule for transition probabilities, which becomes the operational meaning of the wavefunction. In \GGTheory, the Born rule is recovered as a theorem rather than a postulate: it is the partial-trace projection of bulk unitary evolution to the boundary state, with $|\psi|^2$ emerging as the diagonal of the boundary density operator $\rho_4 = \mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{env}}(|\Psi_6\rangle\langle\Psi_6|)$. First cited in \S\ref{sec:constitutional-question}.

\bibitem[Bousso \& Polchinski(2000)]{BoussoPolchinski2000}
\textbf{Bousso, R., and Polchinski, J. (2000).} Quantization of four-form fluxes and dynamical neutralization of the cosmological constant. \textit{JHEP} \textbf{0006}, 006. arXiv:hep-th/0004134.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The canonical $\sim 10^{500}$ string-landscape estimate that the \GGTheory{} program's Diophantine integer-ledger collapses to one. Cited in Part~VI \S\ref{sec:vacuum-count-VI} for the vacuum-count argument. First cited in \S\ref{sec:vacuum-count-VI}.

\bibitem[Breuer \& Petruccione(2002)]{BreuerPetruccione2002}
\textbf{Breuer, H.-P., \& Petruccione, F. (2002).} \textit{The Theory of Open Quantum Systems}. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The standard modern reference for open-quantum-system dynamics (reduced dynamics, Nakajima--Zwanzig memory kernels, GKLS master equations, Markovian limits). Cited in the decoherence appendix for the complete expression of the memory kernel $\mathfrak{K}(\tau)$ and its characteristic bath timescale $\tau_{\mathrm{bath}}$ set by the inverse spectral width of $J(\omega)$. First cited in \S\ref{app:nz}.

\bibitem[Bustamante et~al.(2005)]{Bustamante2005}
\textbf{Bustamante, C., Chemla, Y.~R., Forde, N.~R., \& Izhaky, D. (2005).} Mechanical processes in biochemistry. \textit{Annual Review of Biochemistry}, \textit{74}, 705--748.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Comprehensive review of single-molecule force-spectroscopy data on molecular motors and biomechanical processes. Provides part of the empirical background for the energy--information conversion factor $\QB \approx 0.1555$~eV/qubit, whose biochemical calibration is developed in (\citealp{ArisakaA7Qi4}; \citealp{ArisakaA11Origin}). First cited in Part~\ref{sec:common-objections}.

 First cited in \S\ref{sec:qa-curious}.
\bibitem[Callan(1970)]{Callan1970}
\textbf{Callan, C.~G. (1970).} Broken scale invariance in scalar field theory. \textit{Physical Review~D}, \textit{2}(8), 1541--1547.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Original Callan--Symanzik equation: scale dependence as a flow on theory space generated by the renormalization group. Provides the canonical mathematical realization of \POS{5} (Scale Covariance) and the geometric reading of the radial coordinate $r = \ln(\EGUT/\mu)$ as an RG-scale variable in the 6D bulk (Picture~1 of Part~III). First cited in \S\ref{sec:picture1-rg-time}.

\bibitem[Callan \& Harvey(1985)]{CallanHarvey1985}
\textbf{Callan, C.~G., \& Harvey, J.~A. (1985).} Anomalies and fermion zero modes on strings and domain walls. \textit{Nuclear Physics~B}, \textit{250}(1--4), 427--436.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The anomaly-inflow mechanism: a chiral anomaly localized on a defect or boundary is canceled by inflow from a Chern--Simons coupling in the higher-dimensional bulk. Cited in Part~III (\S\ref{sec:sm-to-gg6}) as the rigorous statement of how the boundary chiral anomaly of the Standard-Model fermions is canceled by the bulk $H_3$ coupling, making $\BIsix$ and the $\OGGEP$ projection two faces of one consistency requirement. First cited in \S\ref{sec:sm-to-gg6}.

\bibitem[Cartan(1922)]{Cartan1922}
Cartan, \'{E}.\ (1922), \emph{Sur les vari\'{e}t\'{e}s \`{a} connexion affine et la th\'{e}orie de la relativit\'{e} g\'{e}n\'{e}ralis\'{e}e}, \emph{Annales scientifiques de l'\'{E}cole Normale Sup\'{e}rieure}, 40, 325--412.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The original vielbein--spin-connection formulation of general relativity, in which gravity is expressed as a gauge theory of the Lorentz group on the principal frame bundle. Cited in Remark~\ref{rmk:cartan} as the historical origin of the gauge-theoretic reading of gravity adopted under \AX{2}~\GGEP{} in the present paper. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm3-six-forces}.

\bibitem[Chamseddine \& Connes(2007)]{ChamseddineConnes2007}
\textbf{Chamseddine, A.~H., \& Connes, A. (2007).} Why the Standard Model. \textit{Journal of Geometry and Physics}, \textit{58}, 38--47.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The spectral-action refinement of the noncommutative-geometry Standard Model; the most developed prior treatment of gauge structure as a non-spatial internal geometry. Cited in \S\ref{sec:geometrization-ladder}. First cited in \S\ref{sec:geometrization-ladder}.

\bibitem[CMS Collaboration(2021)]{CMS2021} \textbf{CMS Collaboration. (2021).} Search for resonant and nonresonant new phenomena in high-mass dilepton final states at $\sqrt{s} = 13$~TeV. \textit{Journal of High Energy Physics}, \textit{2021}(7), 208. [arXiv:2103.02708]
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Companion to the ATLAS resonance searches; provides CMS-side exclusion bounds on KK gravitons and high-mass spin-2 resonances. Together with \citep{ATLAS2019}, defines the experimental landscape against which the \GG{} prediction of a clustered $M_{\mathrm{lock}} \simeq 3.85$~TeV resonance must be tested at HL-LHC. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm6-ogn-cascade}.

\bibitem[CODATA(2022)]{CODATA2022}
\textbf{Mohr, P.~J., Newell, D.~B., Taylor, B.~N., \& Tiesinga, E. (2022).} CODATA recommended values of the fundamental physical constants. \textit{Reviews of Modern Physics} / NIST tabulation.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The most authoritative tabulation of fundamental constants ($c$, $G_N$, $\hbar$, $\alpha$, $m_p/m_e$, etc.) currently available. Used as the empirical reference for the fine-structure-constant agreement to six significant figures and for the various dimensional checks throughout the \GG{} derivation. Cited in Part~VII (Empirical Reach) and in the energy--information conversion factor $\QB$. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm6-ogn-cascade}.

\bibitem[Coleman \& Mandula(1967)]{ColemanMandula1967}
\textbf{Coleman, S., \& Mandula, J. (1967).} All possible symmetries of the $S$ matrix. \textit{Physical Review}, \textit{159}(5), 1251--1256.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The no-go theorem that the symmetries of the $S$-matrix in a 4D relativistic QFT with a mass gap can be no more than a direct product of the Poincar\'e algebra with an internal algebra of Lorentz scalars. Cited in Common Objection~34: \GG{}'s bulk algebra $\mathfrak{iso}(1,3)\oplus\mathbb{R}_D\oplus\mathfrak{u}(1)_Q$ is exactly this permitted direct-product form, so the framework unifies gauge and gravity geometrically without needing supersymmetry to evade the theorem. First cited in \S\ref{sec:qa-curious}.

\bibitem[Connes \& Lott(1991)]{ConnesLott1991}
\textbf{Connes, A., \& Lott, J. (1991).} Particle models and noncommutative geometry. \textit{Nuclear Physics B (Proceedings Supplements)}, \textit{18}, 29--47.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The noncommutative-geometry formulation of the Standard Model, in which the gauge and Higgs structure live on a genuinely non-spatial, non-Riemannian internal geometry $\cM_4\times F$ --- the closest prior treatment of the gauge sector as a non-spatial geometric dimension. Cited in \S\ref{sec:geometrization-ladder}. First cited in \S\ref{sec:geometrization-ladder}.

\bibitem[Daniel \& Viallet(1980)]{DanielViallet1980}
\textbf{Daniel, M., \& Viallet, C.~M. (1980).} The geometrical setting of gauge theories of the Yang--Mills type. \textit{Reviews of Modern Physics}, \textit{52}(1), 175--197.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} A standard review formulating Yang--Mills gauge theories --- and the Standard-Model gauge group --- as connections on principal fiber bundles. Cited in \S\ref{sec:geometrization-ladder} to credit the mature fiber-bundle formulation of the gauge sector that \GGEP{} (\AX{2}) adopts rather than originates. First cited in \S\ref{sec:geometrization-ladder}.

\bibitem[Diophantus(c.~3rd century CE)]{Diophantus250}
\textbf{Diophantus of Alexandria (c.~3rd century CE).} \textit{Arithmetica}. (Greek original; modern English edition: T.~L.~Heath, \emph{Diophantus of Alexandria: A Study in the History of Greek Algebra}, Cambridge University Press, 1885; reprinted Dover, 1964.)
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The conceptual seed of Diophantine analysis: the study of polynomial equations whose admissible solutions are required to be integers (or rational numbers). The \OGNfive{} ledger of \GG\ is a Diophantine cascade in this sense --- each integer in $(M, N, L; J, K) = (1, 3, 5; 7, 35)$ is the unique integer solution to a constraint forced by a prior theorem. Cited in the historical opening of Section~\ref{sec:thm6-ogn-cascade} as the original source of the integer-solution-only constraint that \POS{6} (\OGN) generalizes. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm6-ogn-cascade}.

\bibitem[Dirac(1931)]{Dirac1931}
\textbf{Dirac, P.~A.~M. (1931).} Quantised singularities in the electromagnetic field. \textit{Proceedings of the Royal Society of London~A}, \textit{133}(821), 60--72.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Dirac's monopole quantization argument: the existence of a single magnetic monopole anywhere in the universe forces all electric charges to be integer multiples of a fundamental charge unit, with the quantization condition $eg = n\hbar c/2$ for $n \in \Z$. This is the original physical example of a continuous parameter (electric charge) collapsing to an integer ledger by virtue of a topological constraint --- the move that \POS{6} (\OGN) generalizes across all five \OGN{} integers. Cited in the historical opening of Section~\ref{sec:thm6-ogn-cascade}. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm6-ogn-cascade}.

\bibitem[Douglas(2003)]{Douglas2003}
\textbf{Douglas, M.~R. (2003).} The statistics of string/M theory vacua. \textit{Journal of High Energy Physics}, \textit{2003}(05), 046.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Provides the first systematic estimate of the number of string-theory flux vacua, leading to the ``$10^{500}$ landscape'' figure. Cited in Part~VII (Point~4: No SUSY, No Strings) and in Part~IV (comparison with string theory) as a quantitative articulation of the landscape problem that \GG{} evades by replacing continuous moduli with the \OGNfive{} integer ledger. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm2-metric}.

\bibitem[Douglas \& Kachru(2007)]{DouglasKachru2007}
\textbf{Douglas, M.\,R., and Kachru, S. (2007).} Flux compactification. \textit{Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.} \textbf{79}, 733--796. arXiv:hep-th/0610102.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The Douglas--Kachru review of the string-flux-landscape construction, paired with Bousso--Polchinski in Part~VI \S\ref{sec:vacuum-count-VI}. First cited in \S\ref{sec:vacuum-count-VI}.

\bibitem[DUNE Collaboration(2020)]{DUNE2020}
\textbf{DUNE Collaboration. (2020).} Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment: long-baseline physics potential. \textit{European Physical Journal~C}, \textit{80}(10), 978.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The next-generation long-baseline neutrino experiment, with sensitivity to proton decay at the $10^{34}$~year level. Provides the future empirical exposure of Falsifier~7 (proton stability as theorem) in Part~VII: if DUNE were to observe proton decay at any level, the gauged $\U(1)_B$ posture of \GG\ would be falsified. First cited in \S\ref{sec:eight-falsifiers}.

\bibitem[Ehresmann(1950)]{Ehresmann1950}
\textbf{Ehresmann, C. (1950).} Les connexions infinit\'esimales dans un espace fibr\'e diff\'erentiable. In \textit{Colloque de Topologie (Espaces Fibr\'es), Bruxelles, 1950}, 29--55. Georges Thone, Li\`ege; Masson, Paris.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The founding definition of a connection on a fiber bundle, and with it the rigorous form of \GGEP{} (\AX{2}): gravity and the gauge interactions are connections on bundles, field strengths are curvatures, and a gauge phase is a holonomy. Cited in \S\ref{sec:geometrization-ladder} for the bundle-theoretic statement of geometry--gauge equivalence. First cited in \S\ref{sec:geometrization-ladder}.

\bibitem[Einstein(1905)]{Einstein1905}
\textbf{Einstein, A. (1905).} Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter K\"orper. \textit{Annalen der Physik}, \textit{17}, 891--921.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Special relativity: the constancy of the speed of light $c$ as a postulate, with the corresponding Lorentz invariance of physical laws. In \GGTheory, $c$ is reinterpreted as the metric conversion factor of the Lorentzian (1,3) signature induced on the 4D boundary of \GG{}. The Lorentz invariance of the boundary is a forced consequence of the bulk metric, not an additional input. First cited in \S\ref{sec:constitutional-question}.

\bibitem[Einstein(1915)]{Einstein1915}
\textbf{Einstein, A. (1915).} Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation. \textit{Sitzungsberichte der K\"oniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften}, 844--847.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The general theory of relativity: gravity as the curvature of spacetime. The geometric posture of GR is preserved and generalized in \GGTheory\ via $\GGEP$, which extends the geometric viewpoint from the spin connection to the full composite gauge-gravity connection $\mathcal A = \omega \oplus A^{\mathrm{gauge}}$. Theorem~3 (Six Forces) embeds gravity as one of the six unified forces inside the bulk. First cited in \S\ref{sec:constitutional-question}.

\bibitem[Euclid(c.~300~BCE)]{Euclid300BCE}
\textbf{Euclid (c.~300 BCE).} \textit{Elements}. T.~L.~Heath translation, Cambridge University Press, 1908.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The deductive ideal of physical science: a small set of postulates generating an unbounded theorem space with no continuous knobs. The Euclidean structure of Part~II of the present paper (Definitions $\to$ Postulates $\to$ Theorems $\to$ Lemmas $\to$ Corollaries) is a direct stylistic descendant of Euclid's exposition, and the methodological signature of \GGTheory\ articulated in the Conclusions is explicitly Euclidean. First cited in \S\ref{sec:constitutional-question}.

\bibitem[Everett(1957)]{Everett1957}
\textbf{Everett, H. (1957).} ``Relative state'' formulation of quantum mechanics. \textit{Reviews of Modern Physics}, \textit{29}(3), 454--462.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Everett's many-worlds interpretation: every measurement outcome is real in a separate branch. Cited in Part~VII (Point~6) as one of the principal alternative resolutions of the measurement problem that \GGTheory\ makes unnecessary: in \GGTheory, the boundary state $\rho_4$ is the unique partial trace of the bulk, and no branch proliferation is invoked. First cited in \S\ref{sec:ten-innovations}.

\bibitem[Finkelstein \& Rubinstein(1968)]{FinkelsteinRubinstein1968}
\textbf{Finkelstein, D., \& Rubinstein, J. (1968).} Connection between spin, statistics, and kinks. \textit{Journal of Mathematical Physics}, \textit{9}(11), 1762--1779.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The classical homotopy argument that the exchange loop of two identical extended objects is homotopic to a $2\pi$ rotation of one of them. Lemma~\ref{lem:exchange-rotation} (L-Stat-1) applies this argument to zero-mode tokens of a single cascade attractor in the real oriented bulk, converting it from a statement about abstract configuration spaces to one about actual frame paths. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm8-arisaka-equation}.

\bibitem[Freed, Hopkins, \& Teleman(2007)]{FreedHopkinsTeleman2007}
\textbf{Freed, D.~S., Hopkins, M.~J., \& Teleman, C. (2007).} Twisted equivariant K-theory with complex coefficients. \textit{Journal of Topology}, \textit{1}(1), 16--44.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Foundational paper on differential cohomology and twisted $K$-theory. Provides the Wu--Chern--Simons framework that the companion paper \citep{ArisakaA3BI6} uses to refine the global anomaly analysis of $\BIsix$. The mathematical foundations of Appendix~N rest on this technical apparatus. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm6-ogn-cascade}.

\bibitem[Friedrich(2000)]{Friedrich2000}
\textbf{Friedrich, T. (2000).} \textit{Dirac Operators in Riemannian Geometry}. Graduate Studies in Mathematics, Vol.\ 25, American Mathematical Society.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Standard graduate-level reference for spin geometry, Dirac operators, and the analytic theory of spinors on Riemannian and pseudo-Riemannian manifolds. Provides the technical apparatus underlying Definition~\ref{def:spin15} and Theorem~\ref{thm:bulk-spin-exists-2} (existence of a spin structure on the canonical \GG\ bulk $\cM_6 = \cM_4 \times I_r \times S^1_\theta$). The Atiyah--Singer index calculations in Appendix~\ref{appsec:kk-fermions} build on the Dirac-operator framework developed in this monograph. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm3-six-forces}.

\bibitem[Friston(2010)]{Friston2010}
\textbf{Friston, K. (2010).} The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? \textit{Nature Reviews Neuroscience}, \textit{11}(2), 127--138.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The boundary-inference form of the extremal principle: a system that persists acts so as to minimize a variational free energy. Named here as the neuroscience-side member of the Stratum-3 thermodynamic sibling, and as one of the avatars of \POS{2} (\UEP) that \citep{ArisakaA7Qi4} treats in full.

 First cited in \S\ref{sec:walking-tower-VI}.
\bibitem[Fritzsch \& Minkowski(1975)]{FritzschMinkowski1975}
\textbf{Fritzsch, H., \& Minkowski, P. (1975).} Unified interactions of leptons and hadrons. \textit{Annals of Physics}, \textit{93}(1--2), 193--266. \par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The founding $\SO(10)$ grand-unification paper: the Standard-Model fermions of one generation, together with a right-handed neutrino, assemble into a single $\mathbf{16}$. Cited in Theorem~3 as the larger simple group that also contains the Standard Model, and which \AX{4} (\MSMF) nonetheless excludes in favor of the smaller $\SUfive$ block. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm3-six-forces}.

\bibitem[Fujikawa(1979)]{Fujikawa1979}
\textbf{Fujikawa, K. (1979).} Path-integral measure for gauge-invariant fermion theories. \textit{Physical Review Letters}, \textit{42}(18), 1195--1198.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Shows how chiral anomalies arise from the non-invariance of the fermionic path-integral measure, providing the standard quantum-measure derivation of the anomaly. Cited in the anomaly appendix as the textbook framing to which the geometric / differential-cohomology description used in this paper is equivalent: the anomaly polynomial $I_8$ is the coordinate-free restatement of the Fujikawa Jacobian, composing naturally with the Green--Schwarz inflow term and the modified Bianchi identity $dH_3 = X_4$. First cited in \S\ref{app:anomaly}.

\bibitem[G\"ursey(1976)]{Gursey1976}
\textbf{G\"ursey, F. (1976).} Color quarks and octonions. In \textit{Selected Topics in Theoretical Physics: Lectures Presented at the Second International Symposium on the Physics of $\bar pp$ Annihilation}, ed.\ B.~Kursunoglu et al., 233--261.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Develops the octonionic structure that underlies the embedding of three-color $\SU(3)$ inside larger unification groups. Cited in Theorem~3 (Six Forces) for the algebraic precedent of the color-triplet structure that emerges in \GG{} through the \OGNfive{} integer $N = 3$. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm3-six-forces}.

\bibitem[Georgi \& Glashow(1974)]{GeorgiGlashow1974}
\textbf{Georgi, H., \& Glashow, S.~L. (1974).} Unity of all elementary-particle forces. \textit{Physical Review Letters}, \textit{32}(8), 438--441.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The original $\SU(5)$ Grand Unified Theory: embeds the Standard-Model gauge group in a single simple group at high energy. Cited in Theorem~3 (Six Forces) and Appendix~C as the historical foundation of the gauge-unification posture that \GG{} inherits and then extends through the gauged $\U(1)_B$ and $\U(1)_{Qi}$ factors. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm3-six-forces}.

\bibitem[Ghirardi, Rimini, \& Weber(1986)]{GRW1986}
\textbf{Ghirardi, G.~C., Rimini, A., \& Weber, T. (1986).} Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems. \textit{Physical Review~D}, \textit{34}(2), 470--491.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The dynamical-collapse (GRW) interpretation of quantum mechanics, which modifies the Schr\"odinger equation to produce spontaneous localization. Cited in Part~VII (Point~6) alongside Bohm and Everett as one of the alternative measurement-problem resolutions superseded by the \OGGEP{} construction in \GGTheory. First cited in \S\ref{sec:ten-innovations}.

\bibitem[Glashow(1961)]{Glashow1961}
\textbf{Glashow, S.~L. (1961).} Partial-symmetries of weak interactions. \textit{Nuclear Physics}, \textit{22}(4), 579--588.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Glashow's electroweak unification proposing the $\SU(2)_L \times \UoneY$ gauge structure of the electroweak sector, the first paper of the GWS sequence. Establishes the gauge group whose breaking pattern $\SU(2)_L \times \UoneY \to \UoneEM$ the present paper inherits as the boundary projection of the bulk $\SUfive$ unified block. Cited in the historical opening of Section~\ref{sec:thm3-six-forces} as the first piece of the Standard Model gauge group assembly. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm3-six-forces}.

\bibitem[Gorini, Kossakowski, \& Sudarshan(1976)]{Gorini1976}
\textbf{Gorini, V., Kossakowski, A., \& Sudarshan, E.~C.~G. (1976).} Completely positive dynamical semigroups of $N$-level systems. \textit{Journal of Mathematical Physics}, \textit{17}, 821--825.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Together with \citet{Lindblad1976}, characterizes the canonical generator of CPTP semigroups (the GKLS form) as the unique structure compatible with complete positivity. Provides the proof that the boundary master equation derived from Nakajima--Zwanzig in Appendix~A must take the GKLS form~\eqref{eq:nz-GKLS} when the Markovian limit is taken. First cited in \S\ref{app:nz}.

\bibitem[Green \& Schwarz(1984)]{GreenSchwarz1984}
\textbf{Green, M.~B., \& Schwarz, J.~H. (1984).} Anomaly cancellations in supersymmetric $D = 10$ gauge theory and superstring theory. \textit{Physics Letters~B}, \textit{149}(1-3), 117--122.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The original Green--Schwarz mechanism: a higher-form tensor field absorbs the local anomaly in $d = 10$ via its modified Bianchi identity and the GS counterterm $\int B_2 \wedge X_4$. \BIsix\ is the six-dimensional analogue, with the crucial difference that the 6D anomaly polynomial requires only a perfect-square factorization $I_8 = \tfrac12 X_4^2$, allowing single-tensor cancellation rather than the more elaborate 10D structure. First cited in \S\ref{sec:geometrization-ladder}.

\bibitem[Guido \& Longo(1995)]{GuidoLongo1995}
\textbf{Guido, D., \& Longo, R. (1995).} An algebraic spin and statistics theorem. \textit{Communications in Mathematical Physics}, \textit{172}(3), 517--533.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The modular spin--statistics theorem: within algebraic quantum field theory, the spin--statistics connection is derived from the Bisognano--Wichmann modular structure alone, making rigorous the sibling relation between CPT and statistics that \S\ref{sec:spin-statistics} inherits geometrically in T-Stat-A. Also names the open ``modular route'' residue shared with the CPT member paper's T-P5-2. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm8-arisaka-equation}.

\bibitem[Haag, {\L}opusza\'nski \& Sohnius(1975)]{HaagLopuszanskiSohnius1975}
\textbf{Haag, R., {\L}opusza\'nski, J.~T., \& Sohnius, M. (1975).} All possible generators of supersymmetries of the $S$ matrix. \textit{Nuclear Physics B}, \textit{88}(2), 257--274.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Shows that the \emph{graded} extension of the Poincar\'e algebra (supersymmetry) is the unique way to circumvent Coleman--Mandula. Cited in Common Objection~34 as the foil: \GG{} reaches geometric gauge--gravity unification by a different route entirely (one bulk geometry, a Coleman--Mandula-admissible direct-product boundary symmetry), and so does not require the graded extension. First cited in \S\ref{sec:qa-curious}.

\bibitem[Haag \& Kastler(1964)]{HaagKastler1964}
\textbf{Haag, R., \& Kastler, D. (1964).} An algebraic approach to quantum field theory. \textit{Journal of Mathematical Physics}, \textit{5}(7), 848--861.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Founding paper of algebraic / local quantum field theory: physical observables form a net of $C^*$-algebras indexed by spacetime regions, with locality and microcausality as algebraic axioms. Underwrites the formal expression of axiom $\LC$ (\AX{1}) in the present paper, particularly the operational locality condition on boundary records. First cited in \S\ref{sec:problems-solved}.

\bibitem[Haber \& Kane(1985)]{HaberKane1985}
\textbf{Haber, H.~E., \& Kane, G.~L. (1985).} The search for supersymmetry: probing physics beyond the Standard Model. \textit{Physics Reports}, \textit{117}(2-4), 75--263.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Comprehensive review of the supersymmetric Standard Model and its phenomenology. Cited in Part~VII (Point~4: No SUSY, No Strings) and Part~VII (Falsifier~5) as the foil against which the non-SUSY posture of \GG\ is contrasted: \GG{} achieves anomaly cancellation in 6D without invoking the doubling of the fermion content or the additional $\sim\!100$ continuous parameters of the MSSM. First cited in \S\ref{sec:ten-innovations}.

\bibitem[Hall \& Nomura(2001)]{HallNomura2001}
\textbf{Hall, L.~J., \& Nomura, Y. (2001).} Gauge unification in higher dimensions. \textit{Physical Review~D}, \textit{64}(5), 055003.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Orbifold / Wilson-line breaking of a higher-dimensional $\SU(5)$ to the Standard-Model gauge group, with automatic doublet--triplet splitting and suppressed proton decay. Cited with \citet{Hosotani1983} and \citet{Kawamura2001} in Part~III (\S\ref{sec:sm-to-gg6}) for the geometric (holonomy) breaking of the bulk $\SUfive$ that distinguishes \GG's unification from the 1974 four-dimensional grand unified theory. First cited in \S\ref{sec:sm-to-gg6}.

\bibitem[Heisenberg(1925)]{Heisenberg1925}
\textbf{Heisenberg, W. (1925).} \"Uber quantentheoretische Umdeutung kinematischer und mechanischer Beziehungen. \textit{Zeitschrift f\"ur Physik}, \textit{33}(1), 879--893.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Origin of matrix mechanics. Cited as part of the Maxwell--Einstein--QM third-revolution lineage that the present paper builds upon. The non-commutative algebra of observables developed in this paper is the operator-theoretic substrate on which the bulk-to-boundary partial trace of \OGGEP{} acts. First cited in \S\ref{sec:constitutional-question}.

\bibitem[Hilbert(1899)]{Hilbert1899}
\textbf{Hilbert, D. (1899).} \textit{Grundlagen der Geometrie}. Teubner.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The first fully axiomatic treatment of Euclidean geometry, addressing the gaps in Euclid's original system. Cited in Part~I as a methodological precedent for the explicit Definitions, Postulates, and Theorems of \GGTheory. Hilbert's program of axiomatizing physics (1900 ICM problem~6) is, in a precise sense, the program \GGTheory\ aims to complete for fundamental physics. First cited in \S\ref{sec:constitutional-question}.

\bibitem[Hopkins \& Singer(2005)]{HopkinsSinger2005}
\textbf{Hopkins, M.~J., \& Singer, I.~M. (2005).} Quadratic functions in geometry, topology, and M-theory. \textit{Journal of Differential Geometry}, \textit{70}(3), 329--452.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The differential-cohomology refinement on which the global part of the $\BIsix$ anomaly analysis rests: it supplies the quadratic refinement whose existence the companion \citep{ArisakaA3BI6} must establish, and which this paper cites as a residue rather than discharges.

 First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm6-ogn-cascade}.
\bibitem[Hosotani(1983)]{Hosotani1983}
\textbf{Hosotani, Y. (1983).} Dynamical mass generation by compact extra dimensions. \textit{Physics Letters~B}, \textit{126}(5), 309--313.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The Hosotani mechanism: gauge-symmetry breaking by Wilson-line holonomies on a compact direction. Underwrites the role of $S^1_\theta$ in the \GG{} metric, the holonomy $\Theta$ on $S^1_\theta$ as the order parameter of electroweak breaking, and the quartic Higgs potential derived in the boundary projection. Cited in Theorem~2 (Canonical Metric) and in the SM-recast paper for the mechanism of EW symmetry breaking. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm3-six-forces}.

\bibitem[Hurwitz(1898)]{Hurwitz1898}
Hurwitz, A.\ (1898), \emph{\"{U}ber die Composition der quadratischen Formen von beliebig vielen Variablen}, \emph{Nachrichten von der K\"{o}niglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu G\"{o}ttingen}, Mathematisch-physikalische Klasse, 309--316.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Hurwitz's classification of normed division algebras: $\R$, $\C$, $\Quaternion$, $\Octonion$ are the unique real normed division algebras, of dimensions $1, 2, 4, 8$. This classification is the algebraic origin of the magic-square Lorentz--division-algebra correspondence (Proposition~\ref{prop:lorentz-division}); the choice $d = 6$ in \GG\ corresponds to the quaternionic rung. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm3-six-forces}.

\bibitem[Hyper-Kamiokande Collaboration(2018)]{HyperK2018}
\textbf{Abe, K., et al.\ (Hyper-Kamiokande Collaboration). (2018).} Hyper-Kamiokande design report. arXiv:1805.04163.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Next-generation neutrino-and-proton-decay detector with sensitivity to $\tau_p \gtrsim 10^{35}$~years. Provides the empirical exposure of Falsifier~7 (Proton Stability as Theorem) in Part~VII: \GG\ predicts an exactly stable proton, so any positive proton-decay signal at Hyper-K, Super-K, or DUNE would falsify the gauged $\U(1)_B$ posture. First cited in \S\ref{sec:eight-falsifiers}.

\bibitem[Kachru, Kallosh, Linde, \& Trivedi(2003)]{KachruKalloshLindeTrivedi2003}
\textbf{Kachru, S., Kallosh, R., Linde, A., \& Trivedi, S.~P. (2003).} de Sitter vacua in string theory. \textit{Physical Review~D}, \textit{68}(4), 046005.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Construction of metastable de Sitter vacua in flux compactifications of string theory. Cited in Part~VII (Point~5) and Part~VII (Falsifier~5) as a representative example of the moduli-stabilization problem in string theory that \GG\ avoids by working in 6D (rather than 10D) with the \OGNfive{} integer ledger replacing the continuous moduli space. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm6-ogn-cascade}.

\bibitem[Kaluza(1921)]{Kaluza1921}
\textbf{Kaluza, T. (1921).} Zum Unit\"atsproblem der Physik. \textit{Sitzungsberichte der K\"oniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften}, 966--972.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Original 5D unification of gravity and electromagnetism through one extra spatial dimension. The conceptual ancestor of the 6D bulk of \GG{}. Cited in Part~III (Geometric Intuition) for the historical origin of the extra-dimensional approach and in Theorem~1 (Dimensional Minimality) for the precedent of forcing a specific number of extra dimensions by self-consistency arguments. First cited in \S\ref{sec:geometrization-ladder}.

\bibitem[Kawamura(2001)]{Kawamura2001}
\textbf{Kawamura, Y. (2001).} Triplet-doublet splitting, proton stability, and an extra dimension. \textit{Progress of Theoretical Physics}, \textit{105}(6), 999--1006.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Demonstrates that orbifold boundary conditions can break $\SU(5)$ to the SM gauge group while suppressing the dangerous triplet-mediated proton-decay operators. Cited in Theorem~3 and in Appendix~C (SU(5) decomposition) for the precedent of using extra-dimensional structure to control proton stability, which \GG\ achieves with the gauged $\U(1)_B$. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm3-six-forces}.

\bibitem[Kibble(1961)]{Kibble1961}
Kibble, T.~W.~B.\ (1961), \emph{Lorentz invariance and the gravitational field}, \emph{Journal of Mathematical Physics}, 2(2), 212--221.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Independently of Cartan's 1922 vielbein formulation, Kibble derived general relativity as a gauge theory of the Lorentz group, gauging $\mathrm{SO}(3,1)$ in the modern Yang--Mills sense. Cited together with \citep{Cartan1922} in Remark~\ref{rmk:cartan} as the gauge-theoretic reading of gravity that \AX{2}~\GGEP{} formalizes. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm3-six-forces}.

\bibitem[Klein(1926)]{Klein1926}
\textbf{Klein, O. (1926).} Quantentheorie und f\"unfdimensionale Relativit\"atstheorie. \textit{Zeitschrift f\"ur Physik}, \textit{37}(12), 895--906.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Companion to Kaluza's paper: makes the 5D ansatz quantum-mechanically consistent through compactification of the extra dimension on a circle. Provides the prototype of compactification used for $S^1_\theta$ in \GG{} and the origin of charge quantization through holonomy. The KK reduction of Appendix~B follows the conceptual line of this paper. First cited in \S\ref{sec:geometrization-ladder}.

\bibitem[Klinkhamer \& Manton(1984)]{KlinkhamerManton1984}
Klinkhamer, F.~R.\ and Manton, N.~S.\ (1984), \emph{A saddle-point solution in the Weinberg--Salam theory}, \emph{Physical Review D}, 30(10), 2212--2220.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The explicit construction of the electroweak sphaleron --- the saddle-point solution of the Yang--Mills--Higgs system that mediates baryon-number violation by tunneling. Cited together with \citep{tHooft1976} (which established the non-perturbative anomaly via instantons) in Step~(b) of Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces} as the foil to \GG's gauged $\UoneB$. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm3-six-forces}.

\bibitem[Lagrange(1770)]{Lagrange1770}
\textbf{Lagrange, J.~L. (1770).} D\'emonstration d'un th\'eor\`eme d'arithm\'etique. \textit{Nouveaux M\'emoires de l'Acad\'emie Royale des Sciences et Belles-Lettres de Berlin}, \textit{2}, 123--133.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Lagrange's four-square theorem: every non-negative integer is expressible as a sum of four integer squares, $n = a^2 + b^2 + c^2 + d^2$ with $a, b, c, d \in \Z_{\ge 0}$. The pattern of an algebraic identity pinning together several integer ledgers is the prototype of the \OGNfive{} closure step $K = LJ = M^2 + N^2 + L^2 = 1 + 9 + 25 = 35$ (Theorem~\ref{thm:ogn-cascade}, Step~5). Cited in the historical opening of Section~\ref{sec:thm6-ogn-cascade}. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm6-ogn-cascade}.

\bibitem[Langacker(1981)]{Langacker1981}
\textbf{Langacker, P. (1981).} Grand unified theories and proton decay. \textit{Physics Reports}, \textit{72}(4), 185--385.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The canonical review of grand unified theories and their proton-decay predictions. Cited for the minimal $\SUfive$ proton-lifetime estimate $\tau_p \sim 10^{29}$ years through $X, Y$-boson exchange --- the prediction that, set against the Super-Kamiokande bound, experimentally excludes minimal $\SUfive$ and motivates the \GG{} recast with gauged $\UoneB$ forbidding proton decay at the renormalizable level. First cited in \S\ref{app:su5}.

\bibitem[Lawson \& Michelsohn(1989)]{LawsonMichelsohn1989}
\textbf{Lawson, H.~B., \& Michelsohn, M.-L. (1989).} \textit{Spin Geometry}. Princeton Mathematical Series, Vol.\ 38, Princeton University Press.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The canonical comprehensive reference for spin structures, Clifford algebras, and the geometry of spinor bundles in arbitrary signature. Underwrites the rigorous treatment of $\Spinone$ as the structure group of the bulk principal bundle (Subsection~\ref{ssec:spin15}, Definition~\ref{def:spin15}, Remark~\ref{rmk:why-spin}) and the technical content of Appendix~\ref{appsec:spin15-foundations} (Lorentzian spin structures, vielbein postulate, spin connection, modified Bianchi identity in Cartan form). The classification of spinor representations in $(1,5)$ signature --- including the absence of Majorana spinors and the existence of independent left- and right-handed Weyl spinors --- relies on this reference. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm3-six-forces}.

\bibitem[Leinaas \& Myrheim(1977)]{LeinaasMyrheim1977}
\textbf{Leinaas, J.\,M., \& Myrheim, J. (1977).} On the theory of identical particles. \textit{Il Nuovo Cimento B}, \textit{37}(1), 1--23.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The configuration-space analysis of identical particles: in three or more spatial dimensions the fundamental group of the identical-particle configuration space is $\Z_2$, so Bose and Fermi exhaust the options (anyons existing only in two dimensions). Supplies the ``menu'' half of the statistics question in \S\ref{ssec:spin-statistics-fd}; the cohort's candidate suite addresses the ``choice'' half. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm8-arisaka-equation}.

\bibitem[Lindblad(1976)]{Lindblad1976}
\textbf{Lindblad, G. (1976).} On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups. \textit{Communications in Mathematical Physics}, \textit{48}(2), 119--130.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Together with \citet{Gorini1976}, derives the canonical Markovian master equation for open quantum systems (the GKLS form). The Lindblad theorem is the unique-generator statement that makes the Nakajima--Zwanzig boundary master equation in Appendix~A take the form~\eqref{eq:nz-GKLS}. First cited in \S\ref{app:nz}.

\bibitem[Lovelock(1971)]{Lovelock1971}
\textbf{Lovelock, D. (1971).} The Einstein tensor and its generalizations. \textit{Journal of Mathematical Physics}, \textit{12}(3), 498--501.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Classifies the densities whose variation gives second-order field equations. In six dimensions the classification admits the Gauss--Bonnet term beyond Einstein--Hilbert, which is the caveat attached to the ``Derived'' grade of the bulk action's form in Theorem~2.

 First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm7-brst}.
\bibitem[Mackey(1963)]{Mackey1963}
\textbf{Mackey, G.~W. (1963).} \textit{The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics}. Benjamin.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Mackey's axiomatic / measure-theoretic foundations of quantum mechanics, in which the lattice of propositions is taken as primitive. Cited in Part~I as a methodological precedent for the axiomatic approach: \GGTheory\ likewise begins with admissibility predicates rather than a Lagrangian. First cited in \S\ref{sec:constitutional-question}.

\bibitem[Maldacena(1998)]{Maldacena1998}
\textbf{Maldacena, J. (1998).} The large $N$ limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity. \textit{Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics}, \textit{2}(2), 231--252.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Founds AdS/CFT correspondence: a precise duality between bulk gravity in AdS spacetime and a boundary conformal field theory. The \OGGEP{} bulk-to-boundary projection $\pi_{6\to 4}$ in \GGTheory\ inherits the same conceptual structure but reverses the philosophical posture: where AdS/CFT treats the boundary CFT as fundamental, \GGTheory\ treats the bulk as fundamental and the boundary as the operational shadow. First cited in \S\ref{sec:geometrization-ladder}.

\bibitem[Manogue \& Dray(2010)]{ManogueDray2010}
\textbf{Manogue, C.~A., \& Dray, T. (2010).} Octonions, $E_6$, and particle physics. \textit{Journal of Physics: Conference Series}, \textit{254}, 012005.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Develops the explicit identification of Hermitian $2\times 2$ matrices over $\Quaternion$ and $\Octonion$ with Lorentzian spacetimes in dimensions $6$ and $10$ respectively, and the corresponding $\SLtwoH$ and $\mathrm{SL}(2,\Octonion)$ Lorentz double covers. Provides the explicit coordinate-free realization of $\R^{1,5} \cong \mathrm{Herm}_2(\Quaternion)$ used in the proof sketch of Proposition~\ref{prop:lorentz-division} (Subsection~\ref{sssec:sl2H}) and in the detailed magic-square construction in Appendix~\ref{appsec:spin15-foundations}. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm3-six-forces}.

\bibitem[Maxwell(1865)]{Maxwell1865}
\textbf{Maxwell, J.~C. (1865).} A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field. \textit{Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London}, \textit{155}, 459--512.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The foundational paper in which Maxwell wrote down the electromagnetic field equations and, in modern reading, the first \emph{gauge} field theory: physical observables depend on the field strength $F_{\mu\nu} = \partial_\mu A_\nu - \partial_\nu A_\mu$ rather than on the four-vector potential $A_\mu$ itself. The fact of gauge symmetry that Yang and Mills later extended to non-abelian groups is already present in Maxwell's equations, even though the abstract concept of gauge invariance was named only in the twentieth century. Cited in the historical opening of Section~\ref{sec:thm3-six-forces} as the original inventor of the gauge-symmetry idea. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm3-six-forces}.

\bibitem[Minkowski(1908)]{Minkowski1908}
\textbf{Minkowski, H. (1908).} Raum und Zeit. \textit{Physikalische Zeitschrift}, \textit{10}, 75--88.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Recasts special relativity as four-dimensional Lorentzian geometry. Cited in Part~III (Geometric Intuition) as the conceptual ancestor of the Lorentzian (3+1) signature on the boundary of \GG{}. The four-dimensional metric structure of $M_4$ in the bulk decomposition $M_6 = M_4 \times I_r \times S^1_\theta$ is Minkowskian. First cited in \S\ref{sec:geometrization-ladder}.

\bibitem[Nakahara(2003)]{Nakahara2003}
\textbf{Nakahara, M. (2003).} \textit{Geometry, Topology and Physics} (2nd ed.). Institute of Physics Publishing.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Standard graduate-level physics-oriented reference for differential geometry, fiber bundles, characteristic classes, and gauge theory. Provides the textbook-level treatment of principal bundles, connections, curvature, and the Cartan formulation of gravity that underlies the rigorous reformulation of gravity as the gauge theory of $\Spinone$ (Subsection~\ref{ssec:spin15}, Remark~\ref{rmk:cartan}). Also supplies the second-Stiefel-Whitney-class obstruction theory used in Theorem~\ref{thm:bulk-spin-exists-2} for the existence of the bulk spin structure. First cited in \S\ref{sec:geometrization-ladder}.

\bibitem[Nakajima(1958)]{Nakajima1958}
\textbf{Nakajima, S. (1958).} On quantum theory of transport phenomena. \textit{Progress of Theoretical Physics}, \textit{20}(6), 948--959.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Original derivation of the projection-operator memory-kernel equation for the reduced state of a closed quantum system. Together with Zwanzig's later work, founds the formalism that is used in Appendix~A to derive the boundary GKLS form from the bulk Hamiltonian dynamics under the Hilbert-space split $\mathcal H_6 = \mathcal H_4 \otimes \mathcal H_{\mathrm{env}}$.

\bibitem[von~Neumann(1932)]{vonNeumann1932}
\textbf{von~Neumann, J. (1932).} \textit{Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik}. Springer.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The first axiomatic Hilbert-space framework for quantum mechanics, with measurement treated as projection. Cited in Part~VII (Point~6) as the historical origin of the projection-postulate / observer-cut formulation of quantum mechanics that \GGTheory\ replaces with the axiomatic bulk-to-boundary projection $\pi_{6\to 4}$. The \OGGEP{} construction recovers von~Neumann measurement as the partial-trace boundary of bulk unitarity. First cited in \S\ref{sec:constitutional-question}.
\bibitem[Nilles(1984)]{Nilles1984}
\textbf{Nilles, H.~P. (1984).} Supersymmetry, supergravity and particle physics. \textit{Physics Reports}, \textit{110}(1-2), 1--162.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Comprehensive review of supersymmetry, supergravity, and their phenomenological implications. Cited in Part~VII (Point~5) and Part~VII (Falsifier~5) as the canonical reference for the SUSY-based approach to anomaly cancellation and hierarchy stabilization that \GG\ replaces with the integer-ledger discipline. First cited in \S\ref{sec:ten-innovations}.

\bibitem[Noether(1918)]{Noether1918}
\textbf{Noether, E. (1918).} Invariante Variationsprobleme. \textit{Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu G\"ottingen, Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse}, 235--257.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Noether's first theorem: every continuous symmetry of an action principle gives rise to a conserved current. The pillar on which all of modern gauge field theory rests --- the gauge invariance of the bulk action under $G_{\Bulk} = \Spinone \times \SUfive \times \UoneB \times \UoneQi$ produces, by Noether's identity, one conserved current per Lie-algebra generator, and the Ward identities established by BRST closure (Theorem~\ref{thm:brst-consistency}) are the quantum-corrected form of Noether's classical identity. Cited in the historical opening of Section~\ref{sec:thm3-six-forces} as the foundational identity making ``gauge invariance'' synonymous with ``current conservation.'' First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm3-six-forces}.

\bibitem[Padmanabhan(2010)]{Padmanabhan2010}
\textbf{Padmanabhan, T. (2010).} Thermodynamical aspects of gravity: new insights. \textit{Rep.\ Prog.\ Phys.} \textbf{73}, 046901. arXiv:0911.5004.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The thermodynamic-gravity program paired with Verlinde's entropic-gravity reading; both cited in Common Objection 18. First cited in \S\ref{sec:qa-curious}.

\bibitem[Page(1993)]{Page1993}
\textbf{Page, D.~N. (1993).} Information in black hole radiation. \textit{Physical Review Letters}, \textit{71}(23), 3743--3746.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The entanglement entropy of Hawking radiation must turn over if evaporation is unitary. Named here as the black-hole-side member of the Stratum-3 family of frameworks that treat observation as a projection without adopting \AX{3} as a clause.

 First cited in \S\ref{sec:walking-tower-VI}.
\bibitem[Papadimitriou(2010)]{Papadimitriou2010}
\textbf{Papadimitriou, I. (2010).} Holographic renormalization as a canonical transformation. \textit{Journal of High Energy Physics}, \textit{2010}(11), 014.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Develops holographic renormalization as a canonical transformation between bulk and boundary symplectic structures. Provides the formal underpinning for the \OGGEP{} bulk-to-boundary projection $\pi_{6\to 4}$ as a structure-preserving map and the boundary-energy normalization that supplies $\QB$ in the Arisaka equation (Theorem~8). First cited in \S\ref{sec:picture1-rg-time}.

\bibitem[Pati \& Salam(1974)]{PatiSalam1974}
\textbf{Pati, J.~C., \& Salam, A. (1974).} Lepton number as the fourth ``color''. \textit{Physical Review~D}, \textit{10}(1), 275--289.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Introduces the semi-simple unification $\SU(4) \times \SU(2)_L \times \SU(2)_R$ in which lepton number is the fourth color of an extended quark--lepton block. Cited in Theorem~\ref{thm:six-forces} Step~(a) as the canonical example of a semi-simple GUT alternative explicitly excluded by the simple-group requirement of \POS{1}+\AX{4} in \GG. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm3-six-forces}.

\bibitem[Pauli(1940)]{Pauli1940}
\textbf{Pauli, W. (1940).} The connection between spin and statistics. \textit{Physical Review}, \textit{58}(8), 716--722.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The founding spin--statistics theorem: given Lorentz invariance, locality, and vacuum stability, integer spin must commute and half-integer spin must anticommute. Pauli is also the source of the 1925 exclusion principle and the ``classically non-describable two-valuedness'' whose geometric description --- as frame-path memory in a real oriented bulk --- is the business of \S\ref{sec:spin-statistics}. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm8-arisaka-equation}.

\bibitem[Planck Collaboration(2020)]{Planck2018}
Planck Collaboration: Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., Ashdown, M., Aumont, J., Baccigalupi, C., et~al.\ (2020), \emph{Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters}, \emph{Astronomy \& Astrophysics}, 641, A6.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The standard cosmological-parameter compilation against which the cohort's $\pi$-locked density partitions ($\Omega_m = 1/\pi$, $\Omega_\Lambda = 1 - 1/\pi$, $\Omega_b = 1/(2\pi^2)$) are tested. Cited in the Executive Summary, Falsifier~3 cluster, and Common Objection~13. The structural derivation of the partitions lives in \citep{ArisakaA10Cosmos}; Planck~2018 is the empirical reference. First cited in \S\ref{sec:qa-curious}.

\bibitem[Polchinski(1998a)]{Polchinski1998a}
\textbf{Polchinski, J. (1998a).} \textit{String Theory, Volume~1: An Introduction to the Bosonic String}. Cambridge University Press.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Standard graduate-level reference for bosonic string theory. Cited in Part~VII (Point~5) and Part~VII (Falsifier~5) as the canonical exposition of the string-theoretic approach against which \GG's non-string posture is contrasted. First cited in \S\ref{sec:partIV-intro}.

\bibitem[Polchinski(1998b)]{Polchinski1998b}
\textbf{Polchinski, J. (1998b).} \textit{String Theory, Volume~2: Superstring Theory and Beyond}. Cambridge University Press.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Standard graduate-level reference for superstring theory and its compactifications. Cited alongside \citep{Polchinski1998a} as the principal reference for the superstring framework that \GG\ avoids by working in 6D with explicit \OGNfive{} integer compression. First cited in \S\ref{sec:partIV-intro}.

\bibitem[Randall \& Sundrum(1999)]{RandallSundrum1999}
\textbf{Randall, L., \& Sundrum, R. (1999).} A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension. \textit{Physical Review Letters}, \textit{83}(17), 3370--3373.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The warped 5D AdS construction in which the Planck--electroweak hierarchy is generated by an exponential scale profile. The radial interval $I_r$ in the \GG{} metric $\dd s_6^2 = e^{-2r}\eta\,\dd x^2 + \dd r^2 + \dd\theta^2$ is a direct geometric descendant of the Randall--Sundrum throat, with the addition of the compact $S^1_\theta$ direction that makes the geometry six-dimensional. First cited in \S\ref{sec:geometrization-ladder}.

\bibitem[Rauch et al.(1975)]{Rauch1975}
\textbf{Rauch, H., Zeilinger, A., Badurek, G., Wilfing, A., Bauspiess, W., \& Bonse, U. (1975).} Verification of coherent spinor rotation of fermions. \textit{Physics Letters A}, \textit{54}(6), 425--427.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The neutron-interferometric observation that a $2\pi$ rotation reverses the sign of a spinor amplitude while a $4\pi$ rotation restores it (with the contemporaneous experiment of Werner et al.). In \S\ref{sec:spin-statistics} this is read as the direct laboratory witness of the two-sheeted frame-path memory that Lemma~\ref{lem:frame-path} attributes to the real bulk. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm8-arisaka-equation}.

\bibitem[Reuter(1998)]{Reuter1998}
\textbf{Reuter, M. (1998).} Nonperturbative evolution equation for quantum gravity. \textit{Phys.\ Rev.\ D} \textbf{57}, 971--985.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The asymptotic-safety program: a Stratum-2 alternative quantum-gravity construction that accepts \AX{1} + \AX{2} but does not invoke \AX{3} + \AX{4}. Cited in Common Objection 18. First cited in \S\ref{sec:qa-curious}.

\bibitem[Riemann(1854/1868)]{Riemann1854}
\textbf{Riemann, B. (1854/1868).} \"Uber die Hypothesen, welche der Geometrie zu Grunde liegen. Habilitationsvortrag, Universit\"at G\"ottingen, June 10, 1854; published posthumously in \textit{Abhandlungen der K\"oniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu G\"ottingen}, \textit{13}, 133--152.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The foundational lecture in which Riemann introduced the modern concept of an arbitrary smooth manifold of any dimension, freed from the Euclidean restriction to three flat spatial coordinates. This is the conceptual seed of every higher-dimensional theory in physics --- including Kaluza--Klein, Randall--Sundrum, string theory, and the 6D bulk of \GG. Cited in the historical opening of Section~\ref{sec:thm1-dimensional} as the original inventor of the higher-dimensional-manifold concept on which Theorem~\ref{thm:dim-minimal} builds. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm1-dimensional}.

\bibitem[Ryu \& Takayanagi(2006)]{RyuTakayanagi2006}
\textbf{Ryu, S., \& Takayanagi, T. (2006).} Holographic derivation of entanglement entropy from AdS/CFT. \textit{Physical Review Letters}, \textit{96}(18), 181602.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Computes a boundary entanglement entropy as the area of a bulk minimal surface. Cited in the classification as the sharpest form of the AdS/CFT posture this paper contrasts with \AX{3}: information is preserved across the correspondence rather than lost through it.

 First cited in \S\ref{sec:master-ledger-VI}.
\bibitem[Sagnotti(1992)]{Sagnotti1992}
\textbf{Sagnotti, A. (1992).} A note on the Green--Schwarz mechanism in open string theories. \textit{Physics Letters~B}, \textit{294}(2), 196--203.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Extends the Green--Schwarz mechanism to open string theories, demonstrating that the GS factorization can be implemented in a wider class of frameworks. Cited in Theorem~5 (Single-Tensor Anomaly Factorization) and Appendix~N as a precedent for the perfect-square factorization $I_8 = \tfrac12 X_4^2$ that admits cancellation by a single tensor field. First cited in the Executive Summary.

 First cited in \S\ref{sec:gs-ggep}.
\bibitem[Salam(1968)]{Salam1968}
\textbf{Salam, A. (1968).} Weak and electromagnetic interactions. In N.~Svartholm (Ed.), \textit{Elementary Particle Theory: Relativistic Groups and Analyticity (Eighth Nobel Symposium)}, pp.~367--377. Almqvist \& Wiksell.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Salam's independent formulation of the electroweak unification, the third paper of the GWS sequence. Cited in the historical opening of Section~\ref{sec:thm3-six-forces}. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm3-six-forces}.

\bibitem[Schr\"odinger(1926)]{Schrodinger1926}
\textbf{Schr\"odinger, E. (1926).} An undulatory theory of the mechanics of atoms and molecules. \textit{Physical Review}, \textit{28}(6), 1049--1070.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Origin of wave mechanics: the time-independent Schr\"odinger equation as the eigenvalue equation for energy. Cited as part of the third-revolution lineage. In \GGTheory, Schr\"odinger evolution emerges as the unitary part of the GKLS generator $\mathfrak L_4 \rho = -\ii [H_{\mathrm{eff}}, \rho] + \mathrm{(dissipative)}$ on the boundary. First cited in \S\ref{sec:constitutional-question}.

\bibitem[Schwarz(1995)]{Schwarz1995}
\textbf{Schwarz, J.~H. (1995).} The power of M-theory. \textit{Physics Letters~B}, \textit{367}(1-4), 97--103.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Articulates the M-theory unification of the five superstring theories in 11D. Cited in Part~VII (Point~5) and Part~VII (Falsifier~5) as a representative example of the higher-dimensional moves \GG\ avoids: where M-theory invokes 11D and SUSY, \GG{} invokes 6D and no SUSY, with the \OGNfive{} ledger replacing the continuous moduli of the M-theory landscape. First cited in the Executive Summary.

 First cited in \S\ref{sec:four-obstructions}.
\bibitem[Skenderis(2002)]{Skenderis2002}
\textbf{Skenderis, K. (2002).} Lecture notes on holographic renormalization. \textit{Classical and Quantum Gravity}, \textit{19}(22), 5849--5876.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Standard pedagogical reference for the technical apparatus of holographic renormalization: counterterm subtraction, finite boundary energy, and the holographic Weyl anomaly. Provides the formal foundation for the boundary stress-energy normalization that enters the \OGGEP{} projection $\pi_{6\to 4}$ in \GGTheory. First cited in \S\ref{sec:picture1-rg-time}.

\bibitem[Stinespring(1955)]{Stinespring1955}
\textbf{Stinespring, W.~F. (1955).} Positive functions on $C^*$-algebras. \textit{Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society}, \textit{6}(2), 211--216.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Stinespring's dilation theorem: every CPTP map is the partial trace of a unitary on a larger Hilbert space. This is the mathematical core of the \OGGEP{} bulk-to-boundary projection $\pi_{6\to 4}$ realized as $\rho_4(t) = \mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{env}}[U_t \rho_6(0) U_t^\dagger]$ in Appendix~A. The axiomatic content of \OGGEP{} is operationally Stinespring dilation. First cited in \S\ref{sec:postulates}.

\bibitem[Stora(1984)]{Stora1984}
\textbf{Stora, R. (1984).} Algebraic structure and topological origin of anomalies. In \textit{Progress in Gauge Field Theory}, ed.\ G.~`t~Hooft et al., NATO ASI Series, 543--562.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Develops the algebraic / cohomological structure of gauge anomalies through the Stora--Zumino descent equations. Provides the technical apparatus used in the proof of Theorem~5 (Single-Tensor Anomaly Factorization) and in Appendix~N for the connection between characteristic classes and the consistent anomaly. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm7-brst}.

\bibitem[Streater \& Wightman(1964)]{StreaterWightman1964}
\textbf{Streater, R.\,F., \& Wightman, A.\,S. (1964).} \textit{PCT, Spin and Statistics, and All That.} W.\,A. Benjamin, New York.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The canonical axiomatic treatment in which both the CPT theorem and the spin--statistics theorem are derived from Wightman-function analyticity --- the forward tube granted by the spectrum condition, and the Jost points at which exchange is an analytically continued $2\pi$ rotation. \S\ref{sec:spin-statistics} identifies this shared analytic machinery with the one-sided spectrum of the CPT member paper's Wick quartet. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm8-arisaka-equation}.

\bibitem[Sudbery(1984)]{Sudbery1984}
\textbf{Sudbery, A. (1984).} Division algebras, (pseudo)orthogonal groups and spinors. \textit{Journal of Physics~A: Mathematical and General}, \textit{17}(5), 939--955.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Classical paper establishing the systematic correspondence between division algebras and Lorentz groups in dimensions $3, 4, 6, 10$. Provides the proof that the action $X \mapsto g X g^\dagger$ of $\SLtwoH$ on $\mathrm{Herm}_2(\Quaternion)$ realizes $\Spinone$ as the double cover of $\Spinplus$. Cited in the proof sketch of Proposition~\ref{prop:lorentz-division} and in Appendix~\ref{appsec:spin15-foundations} as the source of the explicit $g X g^\dagger$ construction underlying the \GG{} Lorentz factor. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm3-six-forces}.

\bibitem[Super-Kamiokande Collaboration(2017)]{SuperK2017}
\textbf{Super-Kamiokande Collaboration. (2017).} Search for proton decay via $p \to e^+\pi^0$ and $p \to \mu^+\pi^0$ in 0.31 megaton$\cdot$years exposure of the Super-Kamiokande water Cherenkov detector. \textit{Physical Review~D}, \textit{95}(1), 012004.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Reports the proton-decay lower bound $\tau_p(p \to e^+\pi^0) > 1.6 \times 10^{34}$~years quoted in the proton-stability appendix. Together with the minimal-$\SUfive$ prediction of $\tau_p \sim 10^{29}$~years (Langacker 1981), this bound excludes minimal $\SUfive$ and anchors the experimental side of the \GG{} selection-rule argument. First cited in \S\ref{app:su5}.

\bibitem[Super-Kamiokande Collaboration(2020)]{SuperK2020}
\textbf{Super-Kamiokande Collaboration. (2020).} Search for proton decay via $p \to e^+\pi^0$ and $p \to \mu^+\pi^0$ with an enlarged fiducial volume in Super-Kamiokande I--IV. \textit{Physical Review~D}, \textit{102}(11), 112011.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Most stringent current bound on proton decay: $\tau_p > 2.4 \times 10^{34}$~years for the $p \to e^+\pi^0$ channel. Provides the empirical baseline for Falsifier~7 (Proton Stability as Theorem) in Part~VII: \GG\ predicts an exactly stable proton, and the Super-K bound is consistent with this prediction at the current level. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm3-six-forces}.

\bibitem[Susskind(2003)]{Susskind2003}
\textbf{Susskind, L. (2003).} The anthropic landscape of string theory. arXiv:hep-th/0302219.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Articulates the anthropic / multiverse posture in response to the string theory landscape problem. Cited in Part~VII (Point~5) and Part~VII (Falsifier~5) as the philosophical foil to \GGTheory's parameter-free posture: where Susskind argues that the multiverse is necessary because the landscape is unavoidable, \GG{} demonstrates that the \OGNfive{} integer ledger collapses the landscape to a point, removing the need for an anthropic explanation. First cited in \S\ref{sec:geometrization-ladder}.

\bibitem[Symanzik(1970)]{Symanzik1970}
\textbf{Symanzik, K. (1970).} Small distance behaviour in field theory and power counting. \textit{Communications in Mathematical Physics}, \textit{18}(3), 227--246.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The Callan--Symanzik equation: the differential statement of renormalization-group flow. Together with \citet{Callan1970}, provides the formal mathematical realization of \POS{5} (Scale Covariance) and the geometric reading of the radial coordinate $r$ as RG-scale in the 6D bulk. First cited in \S\ref{sec:picture1-rg-time}.

\bibitem['t~Hooft(1976)]{tHooft1976}
\textbf{'t~Hooft, G. (1976).} Symmetry breaking through Bell--Jackiw anomalies. \textit{Physical Review Letters}, \textit{37}(1), 8--11.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Original paper on instanton-mediated baryon-number violation (sphaleron processes). Establishes that in the Standard Model baryon number is non-perturbatively violated. Cited in Theorem~3 and Part~VII (Point~7) as the foil to \GG's gauged $\U(1)_B$: where the SM has $B$ broken non-perturbatively, \GG\ has $B$ gauged and the anomaly canceled by \BIsix{}, making proton decay exactly forbidden. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm3-six-forces}.

\bibitem['t~Hooft \& Veltman(1972)]{tHooftVeltman1972}
\textbf{'t~Hooft, G., \& Veltman, M. (1972).} Regularization and renormalization of gauge fields. \textit{Nuclear Physics~B}, \textit{44}(1), 189--213.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Founding paper of dimensional regularization and the proof of renormalizability of non-Abelian gauge theories. Provides the technical apparatus underlying the Slavnov--Taylor identity used in Theorem~7 and the renormalization-group flow that interprets the radial coordinate $r$ in Part~III. First cited in \S\ref{sec:constitutional-question}.

\bibitem[Tononi(2004)]{Tononi2004}
\textbf{Tononi, G. (2004).} An information integration theory of consciousness. \textit{BMC Neuroscience}, \textit{5}, 42.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The origin of integrated information theory. Named in Part~X as one of the frameworks against which a reader may reasonably ask the cohort's cognitive claims to be distinguished; the distinguishing predictions are \citep{ArisakaA11Origin}'s, not this paper's.

 First cited in \S\ref{sec:qa-curious}.
\bibitem[Verlinde(2011)]{Verlinde2011}
\textbf{Verlinde, E. (2011).} On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton. \textit{JHEP} \textbf{04}, 029. arXiv:1001.0785.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The entropic-gravity program: an alternative reading of gravity as an emergent thermodynamic / entropic effect. Cited in Common Objection 18 as an example of the wider quantum-gravity-generalist landscape against which \GG{} is located. First cited in \S\ref{sec:qa-curious}.

\bibitem[VIP-2 Collaboration(2025)]{VIP2_2025}
\textbf{VIP-2 Collaboration (2025).} High-sensitivity test of the Pauli exclusion principle for electrons with the VIP-2 experiment. \textit{Scientific Reports} (November 2025); experiment at LNGS, Gran Sasso.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The strongest current bound on Pauli-exclusion-violating atomic transitions of electrons in copper: violation probability $\beta^2/2 < 4.8 \times 10^{-29}$ at 90\% CL. Registered in \S\ref{ssec:spin-falsifier} as the standing experimental exposure of the frame-path account: under F-Stat-1 the prediction is exact silence, with no parameter available to absorb a violation. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm8-arisaka-equation}.

\bibitem[Weinberg(1967)]{Weinberg1967}
\textbf{Weinberg, S. (1967).} A model of leptons. \textit{Physical Review Letters}, \textit{19}(21), 1264--1266.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Weinberg's introduction of the spontaneously-broken $\SU(2)_L \times \UoneY$ gauge theory of leptons, with masses generated by the Higgs mechanism. The second paper of the GWS sequence. Cited in the historical opening of Section~\ref{sec:thm3-six-forces}. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm3-six-forces}.

\bibitem[Wess \& Zumino(1971)]{WessZumino1971}
\textbf{Wess, J., \& Zumino, B. (1971).} Consequences of anomalous Ward identities. \textit{Physics Letters~B}, \textit{37}(1), 95--97.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Derives the integrability conditions on gauge anomalies (the Wess--Zumino consistency conditions). Demonstrates that anomalies have a constrained algebraic structure rather than being unconstrained quantum violations. Justifies treating anomaly freedom as an admissibility filter (\POS{3}) rather than an empirical aesthetic, and provides the formal background for the descent calculation in Theorem~5. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm7-brst}.

\bibitem[Weyl(1918)]{Weyl1918}
\textbf{Weyl, H. (1918).} Gravitation und Elektrizit\"at. \textit{Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften}, 465--480.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Weyl's original \emph{Eichinvarianz} (``gauge'' $=$ calibration of length) was a theory of \emph{local scale} as a geometric connection; though it failed as electromagnetism (Einstein's second-clock objection), it is the historical ur-precedent for geometrizing scale --- the conceptual ancestor of the non-spatial scale dimension $I_r$ of \GG{}. Cited in \S\ref{sec:geometrization-ladder}. First cited in \S\ref{sec:geometrization-ladder}.

\bibitem[Weyl(1929)]{Weyl1929}
\textbf{Weyl, H. (1929).} Elektron und Gravitation.~I. \textit{Zeitschrift f\"ur Physik}, \textit{56}, 330--352.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Weyl's reinterpretation of his 1918 idea as a \emph{local phase} ($U(1)$) invariance of the matter field --- the birth of modern gauge theory and the conceptual ancestor of the non-spatial phase dimension $S^1_\theta$ of \GG{}. Cited in \S\ref{sec:geometrization-ladder}. First cited in \S\ref{sec:geometrization-ladder}.

\bibitem[Wightman(1956)]{Wightman1956}
\textbf{Wightman, A.~S. (1956).} Quantum field theory in terms of vacuum expectation values. \textit{Physical Review}, \textit{101}(2), 860--866.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Founds axiomatic quantum field theory: the Wightman axioms (positivity, Lorentz invariance, locality, spectrum condition) define an admissible relativistic QFT. Cited in Part~I as a methodological precedent for the axiomatic posture of \GGTheory: an explicit set of axioms determines the admissible theories. First cited in \S\ref{sec:problems-solved}.

\bibitem[Wigner(1939)]{Wigner1939}
\textbf{Wigner, E.\,P. (1939).} On unitary representations of the inhomogeneous Lorentz group. \textit{Annals of Mathematics}, \textit{40}(1), 149--204.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} The classification of relativistic particles as unitary irreducible representations of the Poincar\'e group, with spin the little-group label, and the demonstration that quantum symmetries act on rays --- the projective loophole through which half-integer spin enters quantum mechanics. \S\ref{ssec:spin-boundary} notes that the cohort closes this loophole rather than assuming it: the ray structure is derived by the Born chain of \citealp{ArisakaA8QM}. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm8-arisaka-equation}.

\bibitem[Wilson(1971)]{Wilson1971}
\textbf{Wilson, K.~G. (1971).} Renormalization group and critical phenomena. I. Renormalization group and the Kadanoff scaling picture. \textit{Physical Review B}, \textit{4}(9), 3174--3183.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Establishes that every interacting local theory carries an intrinsic scale and a flow connecting its values --- the necessity that \GGEP{} geometrizes as the scale dimension $I_r$. Cited in \S\ref{sec:geometrization-ladder} and motivating \POS{5} (\RG). First cited in \S\ref{sec:geometrization-ladder}.

\bibitem[Witten(1981)]{Witten1981KK}
\textbf{Witten, E. (1981).} Search for a realistic Kaluza--Klein theory. \textit{Nuclear Physics B}, \textit{186}(3), 412--428.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Establishes that the smallest manifold whose isometry group is the Standard-Model gauge group $\SU(3)\times\SU(2)\times U(1)$ is seven-dimensional (hence the eleven dimensions of supergravity), and exposes the chirality obstruction of the smooth Kaluza--Klein route. Cited in Part~III and Common Objection~35: \GG{} geometrizes only the Abelian phase as a literal compact dimension and realizes the non-Abelian sector as bundle curvature via \GGEP{}/$\BIsix$, precisely to avoid this seven-dimensional spatial cost. First cited in \S\ref{sec:partIII-overview}.

\bibitem[Witten(1998)]{Witten1998}
\textbf{Witten, E. (1998).} Anti-de Sitter space and holography. \textit{Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics}, \textit{2}(2), 253--291.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Together with \citet{Maldacena1998}, founds the bulk-to-boundary correspondence in AdS spacetime. Provides the precise prescription for bulk-to-boundary correlator maps that the \OGGEP{} projection $\pi_{6\to 4}$ in \GGTheory\ generalizes to the 6D context. Cited in Part~III (Geometric Intuition). First cited in \S\ref{sec:axioms}.

\bibitem[Wu \& Yang(1975)]{WuYang1975}
\textbf{Wu, T.~T., \& Yang, C.~N. (1975).} Concept of nonintegrable phase factors and global formulation of gauge fields. \textit{Physical Review~D}, \textit{12}(12), 3845--3857.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Introduces the global / fiber-bundle formulation of gauge theories, with the Wilson-line phase factor as the nonintegrable invariant. Provides the foundation for the holonomy / Wilson-line variable $\Theta$ on $S^1_\theta$ in \GG{} and for the topological angular direction discussed in Picture~4 of Part~III. First cited in \S\ref{sec:geometrization-ladder}.

\bibitem[Yang \& Mills(1954)]{YangMills1954}
\textbf{Yang, C.~N., \& Mills, R.~L. (1954).} Conservation of isotopic spin and isotopic gauge invariance. \textit{Physical Review}, \textit{96}(1), 191--195.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Introduces non-Abelian gauge theory: the Yang--Mills field $A^a_\mu$ for an internal symmetry group $G$. The composite connection $\mathcal A = \omega \oplus A^{(5)} \oplus A^B \oplus A^{Qi}$ in Theorem~3 is a Yang--Mills connection on the principal bundle $P \to M_6$ with structure group $\Spin(1,5) \times \SU(5) \times \U(1)_B \times \U(1)_{Qi}$. First cited in \S\ref{sec:constitutional-question}.

\bibitem[Zinn-Justin(1975)]{ZinnJustin1975}
\textbf{Zinn-Justin, J. (1975).} Renormalization of gauge theories. In \textit{Trends in Elementary Particle Theory}, ed.\ H.~Rollnik and K.~Dietz, Lecture Notes in Physics~37, 2--39.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Foundational treatment of BV/BRST quantization and the Slavnov--Taylor identity. Provides the technical apparatus used in Theorem~7 (BRST Consistency) and Appendix~E (BV/BRST master equation). The homogeneous Slavnov--Taylor identity $\mathcal S(\Gamma) = 0$ that characterizes \GG{}'s quantum consistency follows the formal framework laid out in this paper. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm7-brst}.

\bibitem[Zumino(1984)]{Zumino1984}
\textbf{Zumino, B. (1984).} Chiral anomalies and differential geometry. In \textit{Relativity, Groups and Topology II}, Les Houches Session~XL, ed.\ B.~S.\ DeWitt and R.~Stora, 1291--1322.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Lectures on the differential-geometric formulation of chiral anomalies. Develops the Stora--Zumino descent in pedagogical detail, including its connection to characteristic classes. Cited in Theorem~5 (Single-Tensor Anomaly Factorization) and Appendix~N for the technical machinery of the descent. First cited in \S\ref{sec:thm7-brst}.

\bibitem[Zwanzig(1960)]{Zwanzig1960}
\textbf{Zwanzig, R. (1960).} Ensemble method in the theory of irreversibility. \textit{Journal of Chemical Physics}, \textit{33}(5), 1338--1341.
\par\noindent\textbf{Relevance.} Companion to \citet{Nakajima1958}: the Zwanzig projection operator and the exact memory-kernel equation for the reduced state. Together they found the Nakajima--Zwanzig formalism used in Appendix~A to derive the boundary GKLS master equation from the bulk Hamiltonian dynamics under the Hilbert-space split.

\end{thebibliography}


\end{document} First cited in \S\ref{sec:postulates}.
