# Cycle 01 — What Remains Open

Date: 2026-10-12. Evidence cutoff: 939d8dffa2064413f8f6f211f7c358219c07d0f9. D-0010 accepts this open-work register. Listing a question does not resolve it, reopen a completed package or authorize a new experiment. Candidate inquiries below are inputs to transition review, not frozen Cycle 2 commitments.

## Scientific questions and evidence needed

| Question / current status | Boundary left by Cycle 01 | What could change the assessment |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Q-0 preservation / ACTIVE | RP003's finite grid and chosen equality/tolerance predicates do not classify arbitrary continuation criteria. RP004's equal-state, aligned three-entity constructions do not settle real-world identity. | A declared alternative criterion, admissible transformation family and independent witnesses or sufficient-bound proof; for lineage, a changed query/construction family with audited ground truth. Do not infer criterion independence from current counts. |
| Q-1 revision / OPEN | No executed package studies changes to rules, criteria or representations as objects of transformation. | A scoped PC04 operational contract distinguishing revision of the object from revision of the judgment rule, with observable acceptance/failure conditions. New protocol and review required before execution. |
| Q-2 reachability / ACTIVE | RP005A uses full-information supplied restrictions, exact finite DAG planning, fixed terminal targets and separate H/B budgets. Learning, design/enforcement costs, uncertain dynamics, repeated action and indefinite safety remain untested. | A predeclared comparison that changes one relevant assumption while fixing targets, costs and budget origins. Any robust-safety or viability-kernel claim needs its own definition and supporting evidence. |
| Q-3 representation / ACTIVE | RP002A estimates fixed training algorithms under particular generators and margins, not optimal capacity. RP004 supplies one sufficient finite encoding, not minimal or open-world sufficiency. | A query-specific smaller encoding with a sufficiency proof/audit, or an indistinguishability witness showing it cannot answer a declared inquiry. Predictive robustness needs a separate generator/resource/margin design and appropriate uncertainty analysis. |
| Q-4 realized history / ACTIVE | Predictive history and genealogy distinctions are separate examples. Q-4's reduction to Q-3 and a universal history requirement are not established. | An explicit mapping of history distinctions to a defined inquiry family with preserved consequences, and a scope boundary or counterexample. Cross-package vocabulary alone is insufficient. |
| Q-5 relational dependence / OPEN | No executed package compares relational information with local properties for a declared functional/explanatory target. | A scoped PC05 inquiry and controls that separate relational access from capacity or leakage, including a meaningful no-added-value case. |

No question set completeness or independence is assumed. These inquiries are not all newly discovered gaps: several were deliberately excluded by the frozen finite commitments. Broader work receives a new scoped commitment; it is not silently added as a prerequisite for already accepted package closure.

## Representation candidate for transition assessment

A bounded representation-sufficiency comparison is a concrete candidate because RP004 already supplies exact queries, complete ground truth and distinguishability witnesses. A transition review could compare a smaller query summary with the retained R3 information and test whether the same finite answers are reconstructible. First state the query family, permitted collapses and candidate representation; establish expected distinctions independently; review prior art and execution/resource gates. A different inquiry family would require a separate scope choice.

This candidate would assess sufficiency/minimality within a declared finite family. It would not establish universal history necessity or prove Q-4 reduces to Q-3. Alternative candidates include budget-conditioned predictive robustness and restrictions under reduced designer information. No choice, receiving package, resource allocation, transfer acceptance or execution authorization is made here; the Transition Record must make that decision from evidence and dependencies.

## Evidence and method limits

RP002A keeps independence/conditional normal-theory coverage assumptions, approximately matched capacity and fixed optimization budgets. E1 B2 versus B1 remains indeterminate under its registered benefit margin; a narrower margin or different inferential question needs a new design. E0/E2 equivalence is tolerance-relative, not equality of representations. The first incomplete attempt remains excluded from the fresh confirmation's aggregate.

RP003/RP004/RP005A counts describe deterministic designed coverage. They cannot supply prevalence, confidence or independent-discovery counts. RP004 UNKNOWN includes conservative abstention; only same-projection/different-truth witnesses establish the corresponding query conflict. RP005A's original-graph secondary coverage can use forbidden paths and must stay labelled counterfactual.

Targeted prior-art reviews remain non-exhaustive, and external scientific review has not occurred. A future novelty or foundational scientific claim needs the applicable collision/external review, rather than treating successful checks as clearance. The graph currently has no Claim/Assumption instances; its existing typed references do not amount to a complete explicit assumption graph or bibliography. Any expansion needs separately grounded records and relations, without manufacturing support from navigation.

## Legacy source dependency

The repository inventory at this cutoff contains `legacy/damx/README.md` and the preserved archaeology template, with no supplied historical DAM X source units. This finding is limited to the current repository; it is not a claim that documents do not exist elsewhere.

To run the pilot, record source documents and versions, source IDs/locations and provenance, plus a bounded pilot question. Preserve original wording, modality and quantifiers; separate atomic claims, assumptions and formula/diagram roles; then perform L0–L3 reconstruction, prior-art collision assessment and S0–S5 survival judgments as warranted. A template cannot substitute for source content.

The `damx` obligation remains unresolved. No unexecuted pilot is called completed or scientifically falsified. A later recorded decision may perform a source-backed pilot or justify another governance disposition with evidence; mere elapsed time does not decide it. No automatic transfer to an invented Cycle or automatic blocked resolution is created here. ARM/SERA/DAF remain queued without source assessment.

## Remaining Cycle obligations and gates

| Obligation | Current dependency and required next evidence |
| --- | --- |
| DAM X pilot | Supplied source/provenance and bounded pilot, or a later explicit evidenced disposition. |
| Transition Record / Cycle 2 decision | Use synthesis/foundation/change/open records and the legacy disposition to select, defer or decline candidate work; declare its scope, acceptance conditions, resources and pre-execution gates. Do not start a receiving Cycle implicitly. |
| Close bundle and knowledge snapshot | Resolve the other obligations first; assemble results, protocols, negative/indeterminate evidence, deviations, reviews, open questions and transition. Record an actual close Decision, canonical snapshot reference and immutable close anchor, followed by publication provenance. |

D-0010 completes only the two records: Cycle 01 remains ACTIVE at 10/13 (76.9%). Final close publication and its frozen snapshot remain pending. Preserve the missed pre-RP004/RP005A Checkpoint A timing deviation and RP002A clock/incomplete-attempt records in transition and closure. Future research must satisfy the applicable gate before execution; late self-review does not backdate authorization.

## Revision rule and references

This register is a dated assessment under internal self-review. New findings or defects require a subsequent record/Decision and review of the affected interpretations; preserve this cutoff and original evidence. No baseline amendment, new mathematical foundation, broad Claim or experiment follows.

- [What Changed](https://autorite.net/sources/cycle01-what-changed/), [Synthesis Review 1](https://autorite.net/sources/cycle01-synthesis-review/) and [Foundation Review 1](https://autorite.net/sources/cycle01-foundation-review/)
- [Foundational questions](https://github.com/omasim/Autorite/blob/main/baseline/v0.1/01_FOUNDATIONAL_QUESTIONS.md) and [problem contracts](https://github.com/omasim/Autorite/blob/main/baseline/v0.1/02_PROBLEM_CONTRACTS.md)
- [DAM X dependency](https://github.com/omasim/Autorite/blob/main/legacy/damx/README.md), [archaeology template](https://github.com/omasim/Autorite/blob/main/baseline/v0.1/DAMX_ARCHAEOLOGY_TEMPLATE.md), [Cycle governance](https://github.com/omasim/Autorite/blob/main/baseline/v0.1/CYCLE_GOVERNANCE.md)
- [Graph review](https://autorite.net/sources/cycle01-graph-review/), [timing deviation](https://autorite.net/sources/cycle01-checkpoint-timing/) and [D-0010](https://autorite.net/sources/cycle01-change-open-decision/)