Each cycle keeps its own questions, evidence, limits and decisions. Cycle 03 remains in preparation and has not been opened.
One independently replayed RP006 audit compared eight whole-field masks across two query families on six already-known RP004 constructions.
Its conclusion is limited to that disclosed finite domain and mask class. It does not establish unseen-domain sufficiency, bit-level minimality, or resolve Q-3 or Q-4.
Close bundle · Synthesis reviewFour finite research packages tested prediction, preservation, branching-lineage representation and constrained reachability.
Positive, negative and indeterminate findings remain alongside an incomplete attempt and a missed checkpoint. The close was an internal review, not independent peer review.
Close bundle · Synthesis reviewThe program built its first auditable workflow across four different evidence families. Results were mixed and conditional; the cycle established a disciplined record and exposed process weaknesses, especially the late pre-execution checkpoint.
The work focused on a single lineage-sufficiency question, a fixed corpus, explicit masks and replayable certificates. Governance reviews and closure became more complete, while the scientific inference remained deliberately finite.
The program improved its traceability and scope control. The first two cycles provide useful bounded results and a stronger research process; they do not yet establish a general theory, broad empirical support, or novelty. Both cycle closes are internal self-reviews.
The current transition selects preparation of a finite lineage challenge using a separately authored corpus with more than three entities and repeated or distinct state payloads. This is preparation only: Cycle 03, a package, a Test, a source freeze and a research run remain unopened and unauthorized.
Test whether the Cycle 02 classifications hold on a new, independently checked corpus. This best answers the immediate open question, while remaining a finite result.
Prioritize original definitions, versions and evidence before another computational cycle. This could strengthen historical grounding but depends on locating primary sources.
For example, relational dependence or robust survival criteria. This requires a fresh question, prior-art review and finite protocol rather than extending RP006 by default.
Recommendation: finish the independent corpus, verifier and prior-art review for Option A, then decide whether to open Cycle 03. Keep the source investigation visible as a separate dependency, and authorize no execution until a new entry review is accepted.