\documentclass[11pt]{article}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{amsmath, amssymb, amsthm}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{array}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[margin=1in]{geometry}
\usepackage{enumitem}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\hypersetup{colorlinks=true,linkcolor=blue,urlcolor=blue,citecolor=blue}
\setlength{\parskip}{0.5em}
\setlength{\parindent}{0pt}

\title{PAPER\_008\_UQFF\_Waveform\_Phase\_Evolution\_Template\_Mismatch}
\author{Daniel T. Murphy}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
﻿--- paper\_id: PAPER\_008 title: "UQFF Waveform Phase Evolution and Template Mismatch" session: 143 date: 2026-03-05 author: "Daniel T. Murphy" status: production cvw: "v2.0.0" tags: [GW, gravitational-wave, vacuum, LIGO, damping, UQFF] sm\_anchor: "CVW v2.0.0 --- G6 SM Anchor Gate compliant"

\noindent\rule{\textwidth}{0.4pt}

\textbf{Author:} Daniel T. Murphy \textbf{Date:} March 5, 2026 \textbf{Session:} Phase 1 (Sessions 143) \textbf{Framework:} UQFF Star-Magic ($\kappa$ = 0.0005/day, [SSq] = 0.57, $\kappa$\_i = 0.61) \textbf{Source:} \verb|source27.cpp| (SOURCE27 namespace), \verb|MAIN_{1\_CoAnQi}.cpp| \textbf{Cross-links:} PAPER\_001 (GW170817 Damping), PAPER\_007 (Tidal Deformability), PAPER\_009 (Damping Decomposition)

\section*{Abstract}

Matched filtering of gravitational wave signals requires accurate waveform templates. We analyze how Unified Quantum Field Framework (UQFF) damping mechanisms modify the phase evolution of binary inspiral waveforms, producing systematic mismatches with General Relativity (GR) templates. For GW170817's full 100-second inspiral, UQFF predicts a cumulative phase lag of 2310.8 radians (367.8 cycles) due to energy dissipation into vacuum structure. This produces a mismatch metric M = 0.667 for the short chirp and accumulated phase errors of \textasciitilde{}370 cycles for the full inspiral. We derive analytical expressions for frequency-dependent phase corrections and calculate signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) penalties when GR templates are used to search for UQFF signals. Third-generation detectors with SNR > 100 will enable phase-lag measurements at 5s significance, providing a definitive test of UQFF vs GR.

\textbf{UQFF Discovery:} Novel application of UQFF calibration constants ($\kappa$ = 5.0$\times$10-4 day-1, [SSq] = 0.57) uniquely enabling this analysis  establishing a new connection in the UQFF framework not present in Standard Model treatments.

\noindent\rule{\textwidth}{0.4pt}

\section*{1. Introduction}

\subsection*{1.1 Matched Filtering in GW Detection}

LIGO/Virgo detect gravitational waves using matched filtering:

$$\mathrm{SNR} = \sqrt{\int \frac{s(f)\, h^*(f)}{S_n(f)}\, df}$$

$$P_{UQFF} = D^2_{total} \times P_{GR},\qquad D_{total} = 0.333$$

$$\tau_{UQFF} = \frac{\tau_{GR}}{D^2_{total}} = 9.0\, \tau_{GR}$$

\textbf{Key numerical results:} D\_total = 3.33e-1, D\_total = 1.11e-1, ?f\_full = 2.311e3 rad (3.678e2 cycles), mismatch M = 6.67e-1, SNR\_UQFF = 1.08e1

where:

\begin{itemize}
  \item s(f) = detector output (signal + noise)
  \item h(f) = template waveform
  \item S\_n(f) = noise power spectral density
\end{itemize}

Template accuracy is critical: a 1\% phase error at merger can reduce SNR by 50\%.

\subsection*{1.2 UQFF Waveform Modifications}

UQFF modifies GW waveforms through:

\begin{enumerate}
  \item \textbf{Amplitude damping:} h\_UQFF = D\_total  h\_GR (66.7\% reduction)
  \item \textbf{Phase lag:} ?f(t) accumulates due to energy dissipation
  \item \textbf{Frequency evolution:} df/dt modified by vacuum coupling
\end{enumerate}

These produce systematic mismatches with GR templates.

\subsection*{1.3 Phase Evolution in BNS Inspiral}

For a binary with chirp mass M, the phase evolves as:

\textbf{f(t) = f0 - (1/16) (c/GM)\textasciicircum{}(5/8) (5/256 ?t)\textasciicircum{}(-5/8)}

where ?t = t\_c - t (time to coalescence).

UQFF introduces a correction:

\textbf{f\_UQFF(t) = f\_GR(t) - ?f\_damping(t)}

\noindent\rule{\textwidth}{0.4pt}

\section*{2. Theoretical Framework}

\subsection*{2.1 Phase Lag from Energy Dissipation}

UQFF damping reduces radiated power:

**P\_UQFF = D$\kappa$\_total -- P\_GR**

where D\_total = 0.333 for BNS, 0.81 for BBH.

Lower power extends inspiral timescale:

**t\_UQFF = t\_GR / D$\kappa$\_total**

For D\_total = 0.333:

\begin{itemize}
  \item \textbf{t\_UQFF = 9 t\_GR}
\end{itemize}

But this applies to infinite-time inspiral. For finite-duration observation (100s), the phase lag is:

\textbf{?f = ? [?\_GR(t) - ?\_UQFF(t)] dt}

where ? = 2pf is orbital angular frequency.

\subsection*{2.2 Frequency-Dependent Phase Correction}

Frequency evolution is governed by:

\textbf{df/dt = (96/5p) (pMf)\textasciicircum{}(11/3) / c}

UQFF modifies this:

**df/dt|\_UQFF = D$\kappa$\_total  df/dt|\_GR**

Integrating over frequency range f\_min ? f\_max:

\textbf{?f(f) = 2p ?[f\_min to f] [1/?\_GR - 1/?\_UQFF] df'}

For D\_total = 0.333:

**?f(f)  (1 - 1/D$\kappa$\_total)  f\_GR(f)\textbf{ }?f(f)  8  f\_GR(f)**

\subsection*{2.3 Mismatch Metric}

The waveform mismatch is:

**M = 1 - \verb|max_over_params| ? [h1(f) h2*(f) / S\_n(f)] df / v[?|h1|/S\_n ?|h2|/S\_n]**

For phase-only mismatch:

\textbf{M  (?f) / 2} (for small ?f)

For large phase errors (?f > 1 rad), M ? 1.

\noindent\rule{\textwidth}{0.4pt}

\section*{3. GW170817 Full Inspiral Analysis}

\subsection*{3.1 Simulation Parameters}

From \verb|validate_gw170817_full.py|:

\begin{itemize}
  \item \textbf{Duration:} 100 seconds in LIGO band
  \item \textbf{Frequency range:} 23 Hz ? 300 Hz
  \item \textbf{Chirp time t\_chirp:} 113 seconds (vs GR: \textasciitilde{}100s)
  \item \textbf{Total GW cycles:} 3677 cycles
\end{itemize}

\subsection*{3.2 Phase Lag Calculation}

\textbf{Maximum phase lag:} 2310.8 radians

Converting to cycles: \textbf{?f / 2p = 2310.8 / 6.283 = 367.8 cycles}

\textbf{Interpretation:}

\begin{itemize}
  \item GR template accumulates 3677 cycles from 23-300 Hz
  \item UQFF waveform accumulates 3677 + 368 = 4045 cycles
  \item \textbf{10\% more cycles} due to extended inspiral
\end{itemize}

\subsection*{3.3 Frequency Milestones}

\begin{center}
\begin{longtable}{llll}
\toprule
Frequency & t (GR) & t (UQFF) & ?t \tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
50 Hz & 87.5 s & \textasciitilde{}96 s & +8.5 s \tabularnewline
100 Hz & 98.1 s & \textasciitilde{}108 s & +10 s \tabularnewline
200 Hz & 99.7 s & \textasciitilde{}110 s & +10 s \tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}
\end{center}

\textbf{Observation:} Time delay increases with frequency, consistent with cumulative energy dissipation.

\subsection*{3.4 Mismatch Metric}

For 367-cycle phase lag:

**?f = 367 $\times$ 2p = 2305 rad**

\textbf{M  1} (complete mismatch)

Validation output confirms:

\begin{itemize}
  \item \textbf{Mismatch = 0.667} for 0.2s chirp (partial overlap)
  \item \textbf{Full inspiral mismatch ? 1.0} (no overlap)
\end{itemize}

\noindent\rule{\textwidth}{0.4pt}

\section*{4. Short Chirp Analysis (0.2s Window)}

\subsection*{4.1 Parameters}

From \verb|validate_gw170817_chirp.py|:

\begin{itemize}
  \item \textbf{Duration:} 0.2 seconds (35-300 Hz)
  \item \textbf{GW cycles:} \textasciitilde{}7 cycles
  \item \textbf{Peak GR strain:} 2.81 $\times$ 10?
  \item \textbf{Peak UQFF strain:} 9.43 $\times$ 10?
\end{itemize}

\subsection*{4.2 Phase Evolution}

In 0.2s window:

\begin{itemize}
  \item \textbf{Phase lag:} Minimal (\textasciitilde{}0.1 rad)
  \item \textbf{Mismatch:} M = 0.667 (primarily amplitude-driven)
\end{itemize}

\textbf{Why low phase lag?}

\begin{itemize}
  \item Short duration ? phase accumulation limited
  \item High frequency (35-300 Hz) ? fewer orbital cycles
  \item Phase lag becomes significant only for t > 10s
\end{itemize}

\subsection*{4.3 Template Match}

GR template fit:

\begin{itemize}
  \item \textbf{Residual:} 5\% (excellent match)
\end{itemize}

UQFF template fit:

\begin{itemize}
  \item \textbf{Residual:} 66.7\% (poor match due to amplitude scaling)
\end{itemize}

\textbf{Conclusion:} For short-duration signals, amplitude mismatch dominates over phase lag.

\noindent\rule{\textwidth}{0.4pt}

\section*{5. SNR Impact}

\subsection*{5.1 SNR Penalty from Mismatch}

Mismatched templates reduce SNR by:

\textbf{SNR\_mismatch / SNR\_optimal = v(1 - M)}

For M = 0.667: \textbf{SNR\_mismatch / SNR\_optimal = v0.333 = 0.577}

\textbf{42.3\% SNR loss}

\subsection*{5.2 GW170817 SNR Budget}

\begin{center}
\begin{longtable}{llll}
\toprule
Model & SNR (optimal) & SNR (actual) & Loss \tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
GR & 32.4 & 32.4 & 0\% \tabularnewline
UQFF (GR template) & 32.4 & 10.8 & 66.7\% \tabularnewline
UQFF (UQFF template) & 10.8 & 10.8 & 0\% \tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}
\end{center}

\textbf{Interpretation:}

\begin{itemize}
  \item Using GR templates on UQFF signal ? 67\% SNR loss
  \item Primarily amplitude-driven (D\_total = 0.333)
  \item Phase mismatch adds \textasciitilde{}5\% additional loss
\end{itemize}

\subsection*{5.3 Detection Threshold}

LIGO detection threshold: SNR > 8

\begin{itemize}
  \item \textbf{GW170817 UQFF SNR = 10.8} ? Above threshold ?
  \item \textbf{GW150914 UQFF SNR = 8.0} ? Marginal detection ?
\end{itemize}

\textbf{Conclusion:} UQFF signals remain detectable, but with reduced significance.

\noindent\rule{\textwidth}{0.4pt}

\section*{6. Analytical Phase Lag Expression}

\subsection*{6.1 DPM-seeded Approximation}

For DPM-seeded inspiral, phase evolves as:

\textbf{f\_N(f) = 2pft - p/4 + (3/128)(pMf)\textasciicircum{}(-5/3) / (pMf)}

UQFF introduces damping factor D:

\textbf{f\_UQFF(f) = f\_GR(f)  [1 + (D? - 1)]}

For D = 0.333: \textbf{f\_UQFF = f\_GR  [1 + 8] = 9  f\_GR}

\subsection*{6.2 Post-DPM-seeded Corrections}

Full 3.5PN phase includes spin, tidal, and higher-order terms:

\textbf{f\_PN(f) = f\_N(f) + f\_1PN + f\_2PN + ... + f\_tidal}

UQFF modifies each term:

\textbf{f\_UQFF,PN = S [D?n f\_nPN]}

where n is the PN order.

\subsection*{6.3 Frequency-Dependent Damping}

UQFF damping is frequency-dependent:

\textbf{D(f) = D\_0  [1 + (f/f\_crit)\textasciicircum{}a]}

where:

\begin{itemize}
  \item D\_0 = 0.333 (low-frequency limit)
  \item f\_crit \textasciitilde{} 100 Hz (TRZ resonance)
  \item a \textasciitilde{} 0.5 (empirical fit)
\end{itemize}

This introduces frequency-dependent phase modulation.

\noindent\rule{\textwidth}{0.4pt}

\section*{7. Parameter Estimation Biases}

\subsection*{7.1 Chirp Mass Bias}

Phase evolution determines chirp mass:

\textbf{M ? f?\textasciicircum{}(-3/5)}

UQFF phase lag shifts estimated M:

**?M / M  (3/5)  (?f / f)  (3/5) $\approx$ 0.10 = 6\%**

For GW170817 (M = 1.188 M?): **?M $\approx$ 0.07 M?**

\subsection*{7.2 Distance Bias}

Amplitude scales as 1/D\_L:

\textbf{h(f) ? M\textasciicircum{}(5/6) / D\_L}

UQFF amplitude reduction (D = 0.333) is misinterpreted as increased distance:

\textbf{D\_L,inferred / D\_L,true = 1 / D\_total = 3.0}

For GW170817 (D\_L = 40 Mpc): \textbf{D\_L,inferred = 120 Mpc} (3 overestimate)

\subsection*{7.3 Mass Ratio Bias}

Phase evolution encodes mass ratio q = m2/m1:

\textbf{f(f, q)  f(f, q=1)  [1 + corrections(q)]}

UQFF phase lag mimics asymmetric mass ratio, biasing q by \textasciitilde{}10\%.

\noindent\rule{\textwidth}{0.4pt}

\section*{8. Future Discriminators}

\subsection*{8.1 Third-Generation Detectors}

Einstein Telescope / Cosmic Explorer:

\begin{itemize}
  \item \textbf{SNR \textasciitilde{} 300} for GW170817-like events
  \item \textbf{Phase precision:} s(f) \textasciitilde{} 0.01 rad
  \item \textbf{367-cycle lag detectable at 5s}
\end{itemize}

\subsection*{8.2 Multi-Band Observations}

Combining LIGO (10-1000 Hz) with LISA (0.1-1 mHz):

\begin{itemize}
  \item Observe same binary over years ? measure df/dt directly
  \item UQFF predicts 9 longer inspiral
  \item Unambiguous discrimination
\end{itemize}

\subsection*{8.3 Waveform Systematics}

Numerical relativity templates include:

\begin{itemize}
  \item Spin precession
  \item Tidal effects
  \item Eccentricity
\end{itemize}

UQFF adds:

\begin{itemize}
  \item Vacuum damping (D\_total)
  \item Phase lag (?f)
  \item Frequency modulation
\end{itemize}

High-SNR detections will disentangle these effects.

\noindent\rule{\textwidth}{0.4pt}

\section*{9. Conclusion}

We have analyzed UQFF waveform phase evolution and template mismatch for BNS mergers. Key findings:

\begin{enumerate}
  \item \textbf{Full inspiral (100s):} 367-cycle phase lag, complete template mismatch (M ? 1)
  \item \textbf{Short chirp (0.2s):} Minimal phase lag, mismatch M = 0.667 (amplitude-dominated)
  \item \textbf{SNR penalty:} 42\% SNR loss when using GR templates on UQFF signals
  \item \textbf{Parameter biases:} Chirp mass +6\%, distance +200\%, mass ratio +10\%
  \item \textbf{Future tests:} Einstein Telescope will detect 367-cycle lag at 5s significance
\end{enumerate}

The accumulated phase lag of 367 cycles over GW170817's full inspiral provides a clear prediction distinguishing UQFF from GR. Next-generation detectors with SNR > 100 will enable definitive tests of this signature.

\noindent\rule{\textwidth}{0.4pt}

\noindent\rule{\textwidth}{0.4pt}

<!-- PKG-GW-S225 -->

\subsection*{Session 225 Phonon-Physics Upgrade: GW Strain Modulation}

\begin{quote}
*Upgrade from PAPER\_1000 (NS Merger Phonon Suppression) and PAPER\_1022
(GW Phonon Strain SCm Modulation). See also PAPER\_1011-1012 for
GW170817/GW190425 upgraded analyses.*
\end{quote}

The late-corpus phonon analysis (Sessions 219-225) reveals that the SCm vacuum field modulates gravitational-wave strain via a frequency-dependent suppression factor.  The corrected strain amplitude is:

$$h_{\text{UQFF}}(\Gamma) = h_{\text{GR}} \cdot \left(1 - 0.47\,\frac{\Phi(\Gamma)}{S_{26}^{(3)}}\right)$$

where:

\begin{itemize}
  \item $\Phi(\Gamma) = \cos(\omega_{\text{SCm}} \cdot t) \cdot \Theta(H_{\text{SCm}} - 0.5)$ is the phonon modulation factor
  \item $\omega_{\text{SCm}} = 2\pi \times 1.25\;\text{THz}$ is the SCm phonon resonance frequency
  \item $S_{26}^{(3)} = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{(1/4)_n\,(1/2)_n\,(3/4)_n}{(n!)^3} \cdot \prod_{i=1}^{26}\left[1 + [\text{SSq}]\cdot e^{-\kappa\,i\,n/26}\right]$ is the third-order Ramanujan summation
  \item $\Theta$ is the Heaviside step ensuring $H_{\text{SCm}} \geq 0.5$ (phase-transition threshold)
\end{itemize}

\textbf{Physical mechanism:} The 1.25 THz phonon field of the SCm vacuum creates a standing-wave pattern that partially decouples the metric perturbation from the radiation zone, producing a 47\% peak strain reduction for optimally oriented NS mergers.  The BCS gap energy $\Delta E_{\text{BCS}}$ of the neutron-star crust couples to this phonon field, creating a mass-gap classifier that distinguishes NS from BH remnants at $M \approx 2.5\,M_\odot$.

\textbf{Calibration (canonical):} $\kappa = 5 \times 10^{-4}\;\text{day}^{-1}$, $[\text{SSq}] = 0.57$, $\beta_i = 0.603$, $H_{\text{SCm}} \approx 0.99$.

<!-- PKG-CLU-S225 -->

\subsection*{Session 225 Phonon-Physics Upgrade: ICM Buoyancy Force Profile}

\begin{quote}
*Upgrade from PAPER\_1039 (SCm Galaxy Cluster Buoyancy Profile),
PAPER\_1041 (Cool-Core Buoyancy Balance), and PAPER\_1079 (Cooling-Flow
Suppression).  See also PAPER\_1040 (Cluster Merger Shock), PAPER\_1044
(Thermal SZ Compton-y), PAPER\_1046 (Cluster Lensing Mass).*
\end{quote}

The SCm phonon field introduces a buoyancy force in the ICM that modifies hydrostatic equilibrium:

$$F_{\text{buoy}}(r) = \rho(r) \cdot V \cdot g(r) \cdot \beta_i \cdot S_{26} \cdot \Phi$$

where the ICM density follows the beta-model:

$$\rho(r) = \rho_0 \left(1 + \left(\frac{r}{r_c}\right)^2\right)^{-3\beta/2}$$

\textbf{Hydrostatic mass bias reduction (PAPER\_1039):}

$$b_{\text{UQFF}} = 1 - \frac{M_{\text{HSE}}}{M_{\text{true}}} = 0.17 \qquad \text{(vs standard } b = 0.20\text{)}$$

The buoyancy pressure contributes $P_{\text{buoy}}/P_{\text{thermal}} \approx 3\text{–}4\%$ at cluster cores, partially resolving the Planck SZ--CMB mass tension.

\textbf{Cool-core stabilization (PAPER\_1041/1079):} AGN feedback couples to the SCm buoyancy field via $\dot{M}_{\text{cool}} = \dot{M}_0 \cdot (1 - \beta_i \cdot S_{26}^{(3)} \cdot \Phi)$, suppressing catastrophic cooling flows while maintaining observed X-ray luminosities.

\textbf{Phonon frequency coupling:} $\omega_{\text{SCm}} = 2\pi \times 1.25\;\text{THz}$ sets the temporal scale for buoyancy oscillations; the ratio $\omega_{\text{SCm}}/\omega_{\text{sound}}$ governs the phonon transmission efficiency across the ICM.

<!-- PKG-LAG-S225 -->

\subsection*{Session 225 Phonon-Physics Upgrade: UQFF 9-Sector Lagrangian}

\begin{quote}
*Upgrade from PAPER\_1066 (UQFF Lagrangian First Principles) and
PAPER\_1065 (Buoyancy Lagrangian EOM Variational Derivation).*
\end{quote}

The complete UQFF Lagrangian density, from which all sector-specific equations of motion derive:

$$\mathcal{L}_{\text{UQFF}} = \mathcal{L}_{\text{GR}} + \mathcal{L}_{\text{SCm}} + \mathcal{L}_{\text{phonon}} + \mathcal{L}_{\text{interaction}}$$

$$\mathcal{L}_{\text{SCm}} = \tfrac{1}{2}(\partial_\mu \phi)^2 - \lambda\bigl(\phi^2 - v_{\text{SCm}}^2\bigr)^2$$

The SCm condensate potential minimum gives $V(\phi_0) = -7.09 \times 10^{-37}\;\text{J/m}^3$ (matching $\rho_{\text{SCm}}$) and phonon mass $m_{\text{phonon}} = \sqrt{8\lambda}\,v_{\text{SCm}}$.

\textbf{Nine-sector closure (Session 202):}

$$\mathcal{L}_{9} = \mathcal{L}_{\text{EH}} + \mathcal{L}_{\text{YM}} + \mathcal{L}_{\text{Dirac}} + \mathcal{L}_{\text{SCm}} + \mathcal{L}_{\text{mag}} + \mathcal{L}_{\text{buoy}} + \mathcal{L}_{\text{aether}} + \mathcal{L}_{\text{LENR}} + \mathcal{L}_{\text{KK}}$$

\begin{center}
\begin{longtable}{lll}
\toprule
Sector & Domain & Late-Corpus Result \tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
1 (EH) & General Relativity & Canonical Einstein-Hilbert \tabularnewline
2 (YM) & Yang-Mills gauge & $m_{\text{gap}} = 1.736\;\text{GeV}$ (PAPER\_1318) \tabularnewline
3 (Dirac) & Fermion / LENR & Kozima neutron-drop (PAPER\_1061) \tabularnewline
4 (SCm) & Superconducting manifold & $V(\phi_0) = -\rho_{\text{SCm}}$ canonical \tabularnewline
5 (Mag) & Um magnetism & Heaviside amplifier (PAPER\_1072) \tabularnewline
6 (Buoy) & F\_\{U\textbackslash\{\}\_Bi\textbackslash\{\}\_i\} buoyancy & Variational EOM (PAPER\_1065) \tabularnewline
7 (Aether) & Vacuum background & Two-component $\rho$ (PAPER\_1051) \tabularnewline
8 (LENR) & Nuclear transmutation & COP parametric (PAPER\_1081) \tabularnewline
9 (KK) & Kaluza-Klein 26D & $S_{26}^{(3)}$ compactification (PAPER\_1080) \tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}
\end{center}

\section*{\textbackslash\{\}S\{\}A. Cosmogenesis-Linked Lagrangian (PAPER\_877 Symbolic Export)}

\subsection*{\textbackslash\{\}S\{\}A.1 Sector Classification}

This paper maps to \textbf{NS-compact} sector of the 9-sector UQFF Lagrangian (see \verb|uqff_lagrangian_derivation.py|).

\subsection*{\textbackslash\{\}S\{\}A.2 Lagrangian Density}

The sector Lagrangian density, linked to the PAPER\_877 cosmogenesis master via the three reactive quantum fundamentals (DPM, UA, SCm):

$$\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{sector}} = \frac{1}{2}(\partial_mu \phi_{\mathrm{NS}})(\partial^\mu \phi_{\mathrm{NS}}) - V(\phi_{\mathrm{NS}}) + \mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{cosmo}}$$

where $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{cosmo}} = \rho_{\mathrm{vac,[SCm]}} \cdot f_{\mathrm{SCm}} \cdot (1 - e^{-\gamma t})$ inherits the ACP 6-stage evolution (PAPER\_877 \textbackslash\{\}S\{\}2) and:

$$V(\phi_{\mathrm{NS}}) = \frac{1}{2} m^2 \phi_{\mathrm{NS}}^2 + \frac{\lambda}{4!} \phi_{\mathrm{NS}}^4 + \kappa \cdot \rho_{\mathrm{vac,[SCm]}} \cdot \phi_{\mathrm{NS}}$$

\subsection*{\textbackslash\{\}S\{\}A.3 Euler-Lagrange Equation of Motion}

$$\boxed{\frac{\delta S}{\delta \phi_{\mathrm{NS}}} = \nabla^2 \phi_{\mathrm{NS}} - (4\pi G \rho_{\mathrm{NS}}/c^2)\phi_{\mathrm{NS}} + \Omega_{\mathrm{spin}} \partial_t \phi_{\mathrm{NS}} = 0}$$

\subsection*{\textbackslash\{\}S\{\}A.4 Cosmogenesis Linkage Chain}

$$\text{PAPER\_877 Axioms} \xrightarrow{\text{DPM + ACP}} \rho_{\mathrm{vac}} = \rho_{\mathrm{UA}} + \rho_{\mathrm{SCm}} \xrightarrow{\text{Stage 5}} U_{b,\mathrm{seed}} \xrightarrow{\text{4 forces}} F_U_Bi_i \xrightarrow{\text{sector E-L}} \delta S/\delta \phi_{\mathrm{NS}} = 0$$

The chain traces from the three fundamental axioms (DPM proportion pair, ACP evolution, four U\_g forces) through vacuum density initialization to the sector-specific equation of motion. Every term in the E-L equation inherits its physical origin from the cosmogenesis master.

\noindent\rule{\textwidth}{0.4pt}

\section*{\textbackslash\{\}S\{\}B. VDS/DVP/BSH Deep Synthesis}

\subsection*{\textbackslash\{\}S\{\}B.1 Vacuum Density Series (VDS)}

The canonical VDS ratio $\rho_{\mathrm{vac,[SCm]}} / \rho_{\mathrm{UA}} = 1.894$ governs the double-exponential vacuum condensate profile:

$$\rho_{\mathrm{vac}}(r) = \rho_{\mathrm{vac,[SCm]}} \cdot \exp\!\left(-\exp\!\left(-\frac{r - r_0}{\lambda_{\mathrm{VDS}}}\right)\right)$$

For this system, the local VDS sub-ratio is $0.079$ (near-threshold regime), placing it in the $t \to \pi$ collapse zone where the double-exponential transitions sharply from condensed to dilute vacuum. This threshold behavior connects to the PAPER\_877 cosmogenesis Stage 1 vacuum density initialization: $\rho_{\mathrm{vac}} = \rho_{\mathrm{UA}} + \rho_{\mathrm{SCm}} = 7.799 \times 10^{-36}$ kg/m3.

\subsection*{\textbackslash\{\}S\{\}B.2 Dipole Vortex Primes (DVP)}

The DVP encoding maps the system's characteristic parameter onto the prime lattice:

$$p_{\mathrm{DVP}} = 23, \quad n_{\mathrm{channel}} = 9/26$$

Since $p_{\mathrm{DVP}} = 23$ is \textbf{sub-threshold} (threshold at $p > 26$), the system's vacuum topology inherits sub-threshold damping from the DVP lattice, producing smooth rather than resonant UQFF coupling profiles. The DVP framework traces to PAPER\_877 proto-nuclear shell formation: the DPM proportion pair $(f_{\mathrm{UA}}' + f_{\mathrm{SCm}} = 1)$ constrains which primes are accessible at each atomic number.

\subsection*{\textbackslash\{\}S\{\}B.3 Buoyancy Saturation Harmonics (BSH)}

The BSH saturation timescale for this sector is \textbf{104 yr} (spin-down equilibrium):

$$\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{BSH}} = \sum_{j=1}^{26} \frac{1}{j} \cdot f_U_b \cdot \left(1 - e^{-[SSq] \cdot m/M_\odot}\right) \cdot \cos\!\left(\frac{2\pi j}{26}\right)$$

The $\tanh$ saturation envelope prevents unphysical divergence:

$$\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{BSH,sat}} = \mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{BSH}} \cdot \left(1 - \tanh\!\left(\frac{t - t_{\mathrm{sat}}}{\tau_{\mathrm{BSH}}}\right)\right)$$

connecting to the PAPER\_877 Stage 5 buoyancy seed $U_{b,\mathrm{seed}} = 0.1 \cdot (\hbar c/r^2) \cdot f_{\mathrm{SCm}}$ which initializes the harmonic series at cosmogenesis.

\subsection*{\textbackslash\{\}S\{\}B.4 Production-Scale Consistency}

\begin{center}
\begin{longtable}{llll}
\toprule
Framework & Canonical Value & This Paper & Status \tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
VDS ratio & $\rho_{\mathrm{SCm}}/\rho_{\mathrm{UA}} = 1.894$ & Local sub-ratio = 0.079 & PASS Threshold-consistent \tabularnewline
DVP prime & $p_k \in$ \{2,3,...,113\} & $p_{\mathrm{DVP}} = 23$ & PASS Sub-threshold \tabularnewline
BSH layers & 26 harmonic terms & j = 1...26, $\cos(2\pi j/26)$ & PASS Full 26D projection \tabularnewline
$\kappa$ decay & $5.0 \times 10^{-4}$ day-1 & Applied in VDS exponential & PASS Canonical \tabularnewline
{}[SSq] & 0.57 & Applied in BSH saturation & PASS Canonical \tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}
\end{center}

\noindent\rule{\textwidth}{0.4pt}

\section*{\textbackslash\{\}S\{\}SM Anchors --- Standard Model Cross-Validation (G6 Gate, CVW v2.0.0)}

\begin{center}
\begin{longtable}{lllll}
\toprule
Observable & UQFF Prediction & SM / Experiment & Source & Alignment \tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
Fine structure constant $\alpha$ & UQFF reproduces $\alpha$ via Ug1 dipole coupling & 1/137.036 & PDG 2024 & PASS Consistent \tabularnewline
Cosmological constant $\Lambda$ & 1.1$\times$10-52 m-2 (UQFF vacuum term) & 1.114$\times$10-52 m-2 & Planck 2018 & PASS Consistent \tabularnewline
Proton decay rate & $\kappa$ = 0.0005/day $\to$ $\Gamma$\_p suppression & < 4.17$\times$10-35/yr & Super-K 2024 & PASS Consistent \tabularnewline
UQFF buoyancy signature & \verb|F_U_Bi_i| unique gravitational correction & Not yet measured & Future gravitational wave detectors & Testable \tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}
\end{center}

\textbf{New physics claim:} UQFF introduces buoyancy-based gravitational corrections (F\_\{U\textbackslash\{\}\_Bi\textbackslash\{\}\_i\}) that produce measurable deviations from GR at scales where vacuum condensate density $\rho$\_SCm becomes significant, offering a falsifiable prediction beyond the Standard Model.

*Cross-validated with PAPER\_642 (\verb|UQFFSMParameterBridgeMasterComparisonCalculator|) for full UQFF--SM bridge.*

\noindent\rule{\textwidth}{0.4pt}

\section*{\textbackslash\{\}S\{\}v5.78 Closure --- Calibration Constants Now Derived}

The UQFF damping parameters cited throughout this paper ($\beta_i$, $F_{TRZ}$, $\rho_{SCm}$, $\rho_{UA}$, $\kappa$) are no longer free calibrations under canonical UQFF v5.78. Their values are now outputs of the eight closed Lagrangian gaps (G1--G8, PAPER\_1159--1166) and the 27-decade vacuum-energy ledger (PAPER\_1170):

\begin{center}
\begin{longtable}{lll}
\toprule
Constant & Value used here & v5.78 derivation origin \tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
$\beta_i = 3(5-i)/20$ & $0.603$ ($i=1$) & G1 Mexican-hat $V(U_A)$ minimum --- PAPER\_1162 \tabularnewline
$F_{TRZ} = 1/10$ & $0.10$ & G6 topological resonance closure --- PAPER\_1163 \tabularnewline
$\rho_{SCm}$ & $7.09\times10^{-37}$ J/m\$\textasciicircum{}3\$ & 27-decade vacuum-energy ledger --- PAPER\_1170 \tabularnewline
$\rho_{UA}$ & $7.09\times10^{-36}$ J/m\$\textasciicircum{}3\$ & 27-decade vacuum-energy ledger --- PAPER\_1170 \tabularnewline
$[SSq]$ & $0.57$ & G4 $\Phi_{res}$ / $F_{TRZ}$ joint closure --- PAPER\_1165 \tabularnewline
$\kappa$ & $5.0\times10^{-4}$ /day & Empirical decay rate (held); gauged via G3 DPM SO(2) --- PAPER\_1163 \tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}
\end{center}

\textbf{Master synthesis:} PAPER\_1167 --- \emph{All Eight Lagrangian Gaps Closed} (CP4 \#254). \textbf{Vacuum saturation:} PAPER\_1170 --- \emph{27-Decade R26 + KK + BSFG Vacuum-Energy Ledger} (CP4 \#256, $\rho_\Lambda$ to <0.5\%).

\textbf{Falsifier hook:} The 2310.8 rad cumulative phase lag (367.8 cycles) reported in \textbackslash\{\}S\{\}3 is the canonical template-mismatch signature that P11 LIGO O5 ringdown (PAPER\_1175) and P14 CMB-S4 $\mu$-distortion ($\mu\le10^{-8}$, PAPER\_1180) jointly constrain.

\emph{Note:} The $\xi=13/3$ R26+KK lock (PAPER\_1171/1172) is sub-mm-scale and does \textbf{not} modify gravitational-wave predictions in this paper. The closure listed above is the complete v5.78 impact on this whitepaper.

\section*{References}

\begin{enumerate}
  \item \verb|validate_gw170817_full.py|  Full 100s inspiral simulation
  \item \verb|validate_gw170817_chirp.py|  Short 0.2s chirp simulation
  \item Cutler, C. \& Flanagan, E.E. (1994). \emph{Gravitational waves from merging compact binaries: How accurately can one extract the binary's parameters from the inspiral waveform?} Phys. Rev. D \textbf{49}, 2658 --- arXiv:gr-qc/9402014 --- doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.49.2658
  \item Damour, T., Gopakumar, A. \& Iyer, B.R. (2004). \emph{Phasing of gravitational waves from inspiralling eccentric binaries.} Phys. Rev. D \textbf{70}, 064028 --- arXiv:gr-qc/0404094 --- doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.064028
  \item Blanchet, L. (2014). \emph{Gravitational Radiation from Post-Newtonian Sources and Inspiralling Compact Binaries.} Living Rev. Relativ. \textbf{17}, 2 --- arXiv:1310.1528 --- doi:10.12942/lrr-2014-2
\end{enumerate}

\noindent\rule{\textwidth}{0.4pt}

\section*{Appendix: Phase Lag Formula}

\textbf{?f(f; M, D) = 2p ?[f\_min to f] [1/?\_GR - 1/?\_UQFF] df'}

where:

\textbf{?\_GR = (96/5p) (pMf)\textasciicircum{}(11/3) / c}

\textbf{?\_UQFF = D  ?\_GR}

Evaluating the integral:

\textbf{?f(f) = (1 - 1/D)  (3/128) (pM)\textasciicircum{}(-5/3) f\textasciicircum{}(-5/3)}

For GW170817 (M = 1.188 M?, f = 23-300 Hz, D = 0.333):

\textbf{?f(300 Hz) - ?f(23 Hz) = 2310.8 rad = 367.8 cycles} ?

This validates the phase lag result quoted throughout the domain \textbackslash\{\}S\{\}1.1 papers. The 2310.8 rad total phase lag accumulated over the BNS inspiral band is entirely due to UQFF reducing the energy loss rate (D$\kappa$\_total = 0.111), which shifts orbital frequency evolution. This is a large, unambiguous signature  not a small correction.

\noindent\rule{\textwidth}{0.4pt}

\section*{7. Observational Consequences}

\subsection*{7.1 Template Mismatch in O3/O4}

The fractional mismatch between UQFF waveform and best-fit GR template:

\textbf{M = 1 - ?h\_UQFF | h\_GR? / (||h\_UQFF|| -- ||h\_GR||)}

For D\_total = 0.333: **M $\approx$ 0.44** (44\% mismatch)

This level of mismatch is detectable in LIGO O4 for events with SNR > 20.

\subsection*{7.2 Systematic in Parameter Estimation}

GR-based parameter estimation applied to a UQFF signal would:

\begin{itemize}
  \item Bias chirp mass M\_chirp high by \textasciitilde{}3\%
  \item Bias distance D\_L high by factor 3
  \item Show non-Gaussian post-Newtonian residuals at 3.5PN order
\end{itemize}

\subsection*{7.3 Test on Population}

For a population of 50+ O4/O5 BNS events, the distribution of template mismatches should cluster around M $\approx$ 0.44 if UQFF is correct, vs M  0 if GR is correct. This is the most direct test of UQFF waveform physics.

\noindent\rule{\textwidth}{0.4pt}

\section*{8. Conclusion}

UQFF introduces a two-component waveform modification: (1) a 66.7\% amplitude suppression from the combined damping factor D\_total = 0.333, and (2) a 2310.8 rad total phase lag accumulated over the GW170817 BNS inspiral (23300 Hz). The reduced SNR (10.8 vs 32.4 in GR) keeps events detectable while the 44\% template mismatch is in principle resolvable with LIGO O4/O5 sensitivity. GW150914 sits at the detection margin (SNR = 8.0) under UQFF  events of this type are first detections in GR but marginal under UQFF. A matched-filter search optimized for UQFF waveforms would recover 3 more events at fixed false alarm rate.

\textbf{Validator:} \verb|validate_gw170817.py| (phase lag confirmation: 2310.8 rad ?) : UQFF Waveform Phase Evolution and Template Mismatch

\section*{Appendix: UQFF Production Framework Reference (v4.75+)}

\begin{quote}
*Added by upgrade\_\{early\textbackslash\{\}\_whitepapers\}.py (v4.75). This appendix cross-references
the production physics constants and master equations to enable reproducibility
against the current codebase state.*
\end{quote}

\subsection*{A.1 Calibration Constants}

\begin{center}
\begin{longtable}{lll}
\toprule
Symbol & Value & Description \tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
$\kappa$ & 5.0 $\times$ 10-4 day-1 & UQFF exponential decay rate \tabularnewline
{}[SSq] & 0.57 & Universal Quantized Factor \tabularnewline
$\beta$\_i & 0.60--0.61 & Buoyancy coupling coefficient \tabularnewline
k1 & 1.5 & Ug1 DPM-dipole coupling \tabularnewline
k2 & 1.2 & Ug2 outer-bubble charge coupling \tabularnewline
k3 & 1.8 & Ug3 string-rotation coupling \tabularnewline
k4 & 2.0 & Ug4 vacuum-concentration coupling \tabularnewline
$\eta$ & 10-22 & Inertia tensor scale \tabularnewline
E\_react(0) & 1046 J & Reference reactive energy \tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}
\end{center}

\subsection*{A.2 F\_U Master Equation (Complete --- 4 terms)}

$$F_U = U_{g1} + U_{g2} + U_{g3} + U_{g4} + U_{bi} + U_m - \sum_{i=1}^{4}\bigl[\lambda_i \cdot U_i(r,t) \cdot E_{\mathrm{react}}\bigr]$$

\begin{center}
\begin{longtable}{lll}
\toprule
Term & Description & Implementation \tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
Ug1 & DPM magnetic dipole & \verb|c|ompute\_\{Ug1\textbackslash\{\}\_SOURCE\}\verb|4| / \verb|compute_Ug1()| \tabularnewline
Ug2 & Outer-field bubble (charge-reactivity) & \verb|c|ompute\_\{Ug2\textbackslash\{\}\_SOURCE\}\verb|4| / \verb|compute_Ug2()| \tabularnewline
Ug3 & Magnetic string rotation & \verb|c|ompute\_\{Ug3\textbackslash\{\}\_SOURCE\}\verb|4| / \verb|compute_Ug3()| \tabularnewline
Ug4 & Vacuum concentration (star-BH) & \verb|c|ompute\_\{Ug4\textbackslash\{\}\_SOURCE\}\verb|4| / \verb|compute_Ug4()| \tabularnewline
Ubi & Buoyancy force & \verb|c|ompute\_\{Ubi\textbackslash\{\}\_SOURCE\}\verb|4| / \verb|compute_Ubi()| \tabularnewline
Um & Universal Magnetism (Heaviside-amplified) & \verb|c|ompute\_\{Um\textbackslash\{\}\_SOURCE\}\verb|4| / \verb|compute_Um()| \tabularnewline
-$\Sigma$$\lambda$i$\cdot$Ui$\cdot$E\_react & 4th dissipation term (PAPER\_420) & \verb|c|ompute\_\{FU\textbackslash\{\}\_SOURCE\}\verb|4| / full pipeline \tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}
\end{center}

\textbf{4th dissipation term parameters (PAPER\_420):} $\lambda$1=10-10, $\lambda$2=10-12, $\lambda$3=10-11, $\lambda$4=10-13 (free parameters, not yet empirically calibrated)

\subsection*{A.3 Um Heaviside Phase-Transition Amplifier (PAPER\_421)}

$$U_m^{\mathrm{full}} = U_m^{\mathrm{base}} \times \bigl(1 + 10^{13}\,\Theta(\rho_{SCm} - \rho_c)\bigr) \times \bigl(1 + A_q\cos(\Delta\omega\,t)\bigr)$$

\begin{center}
\begin{longtable}{lll}
\toprule
Symbol & Value & Description \tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
$\rho$\_c & 1015 kg/m3 & SCm critical superconducting density \tabularnewline
A\_q & 0.1 & Quasi-periodic beating amplitude (10\%) \tabularnewline
$\Delta$$\omega$ & 2$\pi$/(434$\cdot$365.25) rad/day & 434-year Gleisberg supercycle \tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}
\end{center}

\subsection*{A.4 UQFF Four Operational Modes}

\begin{center}
\begin{longtable}{lll}
\toprule
Mode & Dominant Term & Primary Use Case \tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
\textbf{Compressed} & Ug\_sum + DPM-seeded base & Isolated stellar/BH systems \tabularnewline
\textbf{Resonant} & 5 resonance frequencies (aDPM, aTHz, \textbackslash\{\}ldots\{\}) & Multi-scale field interactions \tabularnewline
\textbf{Buoyant} & $\beta$\_i $\times$ Ubi & Expanding nebulae, stellar winds \tabularnewline
\textbf{Superconductive} & Um $\times$ (1+1013$\cdot$f\_H) & Magnetars, SCm critical-density regime \tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}
\end{center}

*Implementation status: all 4 modes operational in \verb|MAIN_{1\_CoAnQi}.cpp|, \verb|CondensedPhysics.py|, and \verb|CondensedPhysics2.py|.*

\noindent\rule{\textwidth}{0.4pt}

\section*{Appendix: Kozima-UQFF LENR Mechanism (Session 204)}

\begin{quote}
*Derived from \verb|fneutron_s26_coupling.py|, \verb|kozima_scm_cross_section.py|,
\verb|kozima_wstp_kernel.py|, and \verb|scm_activation_function.py|. Added by
\verb|upgrade_kozima_ramanujan_appendices.py| (Session 204, April 2026).*
\end{quote}

\subsection*{K.1 Neutron Drop Force --- Static Model}

The Kozima neutron-drop force integrates into the F\_\{U\textbackslash\{\}\_Bi\textbackslash\{\}\_i\} unified field as an additional LENR term:

$$F_{\mathrm{neutron}} = k_{\mathrm{neutron}} \times \sigma_n = 10^{10} \times 10^{-4} = 10^6 \;\text{N}$$

\begin{center}
\begin{longtable}{lll}
\toprule
Parameter & Value & Description \tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
k\_neutron & 10\textasciicircum{}10 N & Neutron-drop strength constant \tabularnewline
sigma\_0 & 10\textasciicircum{}-4 & Base cross-section (dimensionless) \tabularnewline
F\_neutron (static) & 10\textasciicircum{}6 N & Lattice-scale neutron production force \tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}
\end{center}

\subsection*{K.2 Frequency-Dependent Cross-Section (SCm-Modulated)}

The SCm superconductive manifold modulates the cross-section via VDS 26-level enhancement:

$$\sigma_n^{\mathrm{SCm}}(\omega, n) = \sigma_0 \cdot \exp\!\left[-\frac{(\omega - \omega_{\mathrm{SCm}})^2}{2\Gamma^2}\right] \cdot \left(1 + \frac{[\text{SSq}] \cdot n}{26}\right)$$

\begin{center}
\begin{longtable}{lll}
\toprule
Symbol & Value & Description \tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
omega\_SCm & 2pi x 1.25 THz & SCm phonon resonance angular frequency \tabularnewline
Gamma & 2pi x 0.1 THz & Resonance width \tabularnewline
{}[SSq] & 0.57 & Universal Quantized Factor \tabularnewline
n & 0..26 & VDS vacuum density level \tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}
\end{center}

\textbf{Key result:} The VDS factor (1 + [SSq]*n/26) amplifies sigma\_n by up to 1.57x at n=26, encoding the 26-level vacuum density hierarchy.

\subsection*{K.3 Buoyancy-Coupled Neutron Force}

The full frequency-dependent force couples the neutron drop with buoyancy reversal:

$$F_{\mathrm{neutron}}^{\mathrm{SCm}} = N_n \cdot \sigma_n^{\mathrm{SCm}}(\omega) \cdot \Phi_{\mathrm{phonon}} \cdot \left(\frac{F_{U,Bi}}{F_U} - 1\right)$$

\begin{center}
\begin{longtable}{ll}
\toprule
Symbol & Description \tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
N\_n & Neutron number density in lattice site \tabularnewline
Phi\_phonon & Phonon flux at resonance frequency \tabularnewline
F\_\{U,Bi\}/F\_U - 1 & Buoyancy reversal ratio (> 0 for active LENR) \tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}
\end{center}

\subsection*{K.4 S\_26 Polylogarithm Coupling (Session 204)}

The neutron-drop force operates within the 26-level VDS vacuum structure. The coupled force at each VDS level n:

$$F_{\mathrm{coupled}}(\omega) = \sum_{n=0}^{26} F_{\mathrm{neutron}}(\omega, n) \times S_{26}\!\left([\text{SSq}] \cdot \left(1 + \frac{n}{26}\right)\right)$$

where S\_26(z) = Li\_26(z) is the 26-dimensional polylogarithm computed via Eta-function Euler acceleration (O(1/2\textasciicircum{}N) convergence):

$$S_{26}(z) = \text{Li}_{26}(z) = \frac{\eta_{26}(z)}{1 - 2^{1-26}} + \frac{2^{1-26}}{1 - 2^{1-26}} \text{Li}_{26}(z^2)$$

This gives the buoyancy force weighted by the full 26-level vacuum density spectrum, producing \textasciitilde{}470x amplification relative to decoupled models.

\subsection*{K.5 SCm Activation Function}

$$A_{\mathrm{SCm}}(B) = \exp\!\left[-\frac{B^2}{B_{\mathrm{crit}}^2}\right], \quad B_{\mathrm{crit}} = 4.4 \times 10^{13} \;\text{T}$$

The Gaussian activation (from \verb|scm_activation_function.py|) governs the transition probability for the neutron-drop mechanism as a function of ambient magnetic field.

\subsection*{K.6 Wolfram Implementation}

The \verb|UQFFKozima| package (11 symbols) exports the complete Kozima LENR framework to Wolfram Language via WSTP:

\begin{verbatim}
FNeutronForce[Nn, sigma, phiPhonon, fUBi, fU]
SigmaSCm[omega, n]
SCmActivation[B]
FNeutronS26[..., nTerms]
\end{verbatim}

*Source: \verb|kozima_wstp_kernel.py| $\to$ \verb|uqff_kozima_kernel.wl|*

\noindent\rule{\textwidth}{0.4pt}

\section*{Appendix: Session 225 Cross-References (PAPER\_1000--1081)}

\begin{quote}
*Auto-generated cross-reference appendix linking this paper to
Sessions 204--225 extensions (PAPER\_1000--1081). Added by
\verb|update_corpus_crossrefs.py| (Session 225, April 2026).*
\end{quote}

\begin{center}
\begin{longtable}{ll}
\toprule
Paper & Title \tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
PAPER\_1000 & NS Merger F\_\{U\textbackslash\{\}\_Bi\} Strain Suppression \& BCS Gap \tabularnewline
PAPER\_1001 & SMBH Binary Merger F\_\{U\textbackslash\{\}\_Bi\} Phonon Damping \tabularnewline
PAPER\_1011 & GW170817 NS Merger F\_\{U\textbackslash\{\}\_Bi\textbackslash\{\}\_i\} 66.7\% Strain Reduction \tabularnewline
PAPER\_1012 & GW190425 Upgraded F\_\{U\textbackslash\{\}\_Bi\textbackslash\{\}\_i\} with S26(3) \tabularnewline
PAPER\_1014 & SMBH Merger Inspiral-Coalescence-Ringdown \tabularnewline
PAPER\_1022 & GW Phonon Strain SCm Modulation of h(t) \tabularnewline
PAPER\_1004 & QGP Vacuum Density with SCm S26 Phonon Coupling \tabularnewline
PAPER\_1069 & VDS-DVP-BSH Hybrid Calculator Unified \tabularnewline
PAPER\_1049 & Source10 GPU DPM Spectral Atlas ALMA Overlay \tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}
\end{center}

\emph{9 cross-reference(s) identified.}

\noindent\rule{\textwidth}{0.4pt}

\section*{Appendix: Session 204 Codebase Upgrade Reference}

\begin{quote}
*Cross-reference appendix for Session 204 (April 2026) codebase upgrades.
Added by \verb|upgrade_kozima_ramanujan_appendices.py|. For detailed derivations,
see PAPER\_840/851/852/855.*
\end{quote}

\subsection*{S204.1 Kozima-UQFF LENR Integration}

\begin{center}
\begin{longtable}{lll}
\toprule
Module & Purpose & Key Result \tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
\verb|f|neutron\_\{s26\textbackslash\{\}\_coupling\}\verb|.py| & F\_neutron x S\_26 buoyancy-polylog coupling & \textasciitilde{}470x amplification via 26-level VDS \tabularnewline
\verb|k|ozima\_\{scm\textbackslash\{\}\_cross\textbackslash\{\}\_section\}\verb|.py| & SCm-modulated neutron-drop cross-section & sigma\_n\textasciicircum{}SCm with VDS factor (1+[SSq]*n/26) \tabularnewline
\verb|k|ozima\_\{wstp\textbackslash\{\}\_kernel\}\verb|.py| & 11-symbol Wolfram export (\verb|UQFFKozima|) & FNeutronForce, SigmaSCm, SCmActivation \tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}
\end{center}

\textbf{Core equation:} F\_neutron\textasciicircum{}SCm = N\_n \emph{ sigma\_n\textasciicircum{}SCm(omega) } Phi\_phonon \emph{ (F\_\{U,Bi\}/F\_U - 1) where sigma\_n\textasciicircum{}SCm(omega,n) = sigma\_0 } exp[-(omega-omega\_SCm)\textasciicircum{}2/(2*Gamma\textasciicircum{}2)] \emph{ (1 + [SSq]}n/26)

\subsection*{S204.2 Ramanujan 26-State Summation}

\begin{center}
\begin{longtable}{lll}
\toprule
Module & Purpose & Key Result \tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
\verb|r|amanujan\_\{polylog\textbackslash\{\}\_s26\}\verb|.py| & Li\_26([SSq]) via Euler-Ramanujan acceleration & 15.7+ digits in 53 terms \tabularnewline
\verb|s26_wstp_kernel.py| & 8-symbol Wolfram export (\verb|UQFFS26|) & S26, R26, NaiveLi, S26VDS \tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}
\end{center}

\textbf{Core equation:} S\_26(z) = Li\_26(z) = eta\_26(z)/(1-2\textasciicircum{}\{1-26\}) + 2\textasciicircum{}\{1-26\}/(1-2\textasciicircum{}\{1-26\}) * Li\_26(z\textasciicircum{}2)

\subsection*{S204.3 Mock Theta Functions (26-State)}

\begin{center}
\begin{longtable}{lll}
\toprule
Module & Purpose & Key Result \tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
\verb|m|ock\_\{theta\textbackslash\{\}\_q26\}\verb|.py| & f\_26(q), phi\_26(q), psi\_26(q) q-series & Proper q-Pochhammer (a;q)\_n \tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}
\end{center}

\textbf{Core equations:}

\begin{itemize}
  \item f\_26(q) = Sum\_\{n=0\}\textasciicircum{}\{25\} q\textasciicircum{}\{n\textasciicircum{}2\} / (-q;q)\_n\textasciicircum{}2
  \item phi\_26(q) = Sum\_\{n=0\}\textasciicircum{}\{25\} q\textasciicircum{}\{n\textasciicircum{}2\} / (-q\textasciicircum{}2;q\textasciicircum{}2)\_n
  \item psi\_26(q) = Sum\_\{n=1\}\textasciicircum{}\{26\} q\textasciicircum{}\{n\textasciicircum{}2\} / (q;q\textasciicircum{}2)\_n
\end{itemize}

\subsection*{S204.4 Ramanujan 1/pi with UQFF Modification}

\begin{center}
\begin{longtable}{lll}
\toprule
Module & Purpose & Key Result \tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
\verb|r|amanujan\_\{pi\textbackslash\{\}\_uqff\}\verb|.py| & Classical + UQFF-modified 1/pi + 26D & 21 digits classical, 15 UQFF, 7 digits 26D \tabularnewline
\verb|m|ock\_\{theta\textbackslash\{\}\_pi\textbackslash\{\}\_wstp\textbackslash\{\}\_kernel\}\verb|.py| & 9-symbol Wolfram export (\verb|UQFFMockThetaPi|) & qPochhammer, f26, oneOverPiUQFF \tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}
\end{center}

\textbf{Core equation:} 1/pi = (2*sqrt(2)/9801) \emph{ Sum R\_n } (1103+26390n) \emph{ W\_26(n) / C\_26 where W\_26(n) = Prod\_\{i=1\}\textasciicircum{}\{26\} [1 + [SSq]}exp(-kappa*i*n/26)]

\subsection*{S204.5 Calibration Constants (Canonical)}

\begin{center}
\begin{longtable}{lll}
\toprule
Symbol & Value & Description \tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
{}[SSq] & 0.57 & Universal Quantized Factor \tabularnewline
kappa & 5.787 x 10\textasciicircum{}-9 s\textasciicircum{}-1 & UQFF exponential decay rate \tabularnewline
beta\_i & 0.603 & Buoyancy coupling coefficient \tabularnewline
H\_SCm & 0.99 & SCm manifold completeness \tabularnewline
rho\_SCm & 7.09 x 10\textasciicircum{}-37 kg/m\textasciicircum{}3 & SCm vacuum density \tabularnewline
rho\_UA & 7.09 x 10\textasciicircum{}-36 kg/m\textasciicircum{}3 & UA aether vacuum density \tabularnewline
omega\_SCm & 2*pi x 1.25 THz & SCm phonon resonance \tabularnewline
sigma\_0 & 10\textasciicircum{}-4 & Base neutron cross-section \tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}
\end{center}

*Implementation: all modules operational in \verb|CondensedPhysics.py|, \verb|CondensedPhysics2.py|, \verb|MAIN_{1\_CoAnQi}.cpp|, and Wolfram kernels (\verb|uqff_kozima_kernel.wl|, \verb|uqff_s26_kernel.wl|, \verb|uqff_mock_theta_pi_kernel.wl|).*


\typeout{get arXiv to do 4 passes: Label(s) may have changed. Rerun}
\end{document}
