Start here: three bounded review questions

[Noetheon]

Three Bounded Review Questions

AI-generated research dossier. Not peer reviewed. No accountable scholarly
author or independent expert review of the complete work has been established.
The maintainer does not claim mathematical expertise. See
AI disclosure and evidence boundaries.
One precise correction or literature reference is useful; a whole-paper review
is not expected. An automated pass is not a referee endorsement.

1. Proof: Intrinsic Layers and the Construction Boundary

Read the binary quotient descent proof
and affine-orbit classification.
Do the quotient-free hypotheses recover the intrinsic layers in all three
views, and do they justify both directions of the stated within-construction
classification? Identify any inference that would improperly become a global
direct-product cancellation claim.

Useful response: the exact paragraph, the questionable inference, and either a
replacement argument or an explicit table. Review the precise hypotheses, not a
claim that all FFF squares belong to this construction.

2. Reproducibility: Check a Table, Then the Coverage Boundary

Run the small example and negative control. Do the direct
matching equations and cycle reports agree with an independently written checker?
Please report Python version, command, input hash and the first disagreement.
Then run python3 -B tools/check_current_snapshot.py --output .audit/review.json:
can an independently written scanner reproduce the explicit order-12 witness
and the distinction between 512 classes in one trade family and a global lower
bound of 514? No global order-20 census is claimed.

For a deeper optional check, inspect the
two-master reduction:
do the disjoint cases cover the claimed scope, and are the exported records
sufficient to identify every dependency needed for an independent rerun?
The public export omits the large master graphs/checkpoints. Its default checks
do not rerun the order-10 searches; that archive gap remains explicit.

3. Literature: Known Results or Earlier Constructions

For the affine prime-successor criterion, row-fibred pattern formula,
or intrinsic-layer classification, is there an earlier theorem or equivalent
construction that should be cited or should change the novelty framing?
See the current source and evidence map.
The classical prime round-robin construction is explicitly credited rather
than presented as a new construction.

Useful response: author, title, year, theorem/page and a stable reference,
together with the precise overlap. Novelty is not established by a failed
keyword search or by AI agreement.

Respond

Use Discussions for
focused review and literature questions; use
Issues for concrete errors.
Distinguish a written argument, executed computation, formal certificate and
human expert review. The former power-of-two conjecture is disproved by FFF12;
unrestricted order 18 and the full order spectrum remain open.