M4→M5 inherited semantic context
An exact M4 representation remains useful when inherited into the M5 transition even if the coarse next-stage label becomes GENERAL.
Diagnostic work, exact algebra and local capabilities are not treated as end-to-end mining advantage.
What was tested?
An exact M4 representation remains useful when inherited into the M5 transition even if the coarse next-stage label becomes GENERAL.
Why the test is meaningful
A coarse label at M5 need not erase the exact formula inherited from M4. The experiment treats inherited context as additional state and asks whether the M4 representation remains sufficient for the declared R5 transition.
q₅=(label₅, inherited capability ID₄)F₅(x|q₅)=compiled inherited transitionhandoff error = F₅ − direct R5 output on the registered bitsHow it was tested
Compile inherited transition formulas, map R5/R6 behavior conditioned on M4 output and run a 30,000-sample handoff exactness test.
What happened
The inherited handoff test passed with zero errors; prior exact formulas remained available through the transition.
Exactness and statistical controls
A frozen set of M4 formula identifiers was carried into 30,000 independent handoff tests. Zero errors validated preservation of the declared formulas, while no claim was made about contexts not covered by those identifiers.
What the result means
A coarse GENERAL label does not erase exact inherited information. No main engine or economic verdict exists yet.
Limitations
- The result is restricted to the M4→M5 handoff.
- Inherited metadata has storage and dispatch cost.
- No main-engine or economic result was measured.
Evidence trail
Frozen M4 formula IDs and direct R5 comparison over independent registered samples.
Canonical variants
SUBENGINE-V17ASUBENGINE-V17BSUBENGINE-V17CSUBENGINE-V17DSUBENGINE-V17ESUBENGINE-V17FSUBENGINE-V17GSource: internally audited canonical reports. Local filesystem structure, private headers and operational identifiers are excluded from publication.