IN_REVIEW — NOT CITABLE. Under coalition review; not house-adjudicated. This page was generated (build S371a) from a drafting-lane record. Clearance here is a MACHINE CERTIFICATE under the ruled policy (v1.0 RATIFIED, R68), not a review: it is MACHINE_CHECKS_PASSED — contract · quote-on-page · declared numerals: N/A — this record declares no suite labels to check · id resolution · acyclic graph · basis current — and that is a statement about the intake gates, not scientific clearance. It is NOT HOUSE_ADJUDICATED: no person has signed off on this record, and 0 of 357 records have been. No tier has been assigned by the house; every label shown is the label as printed in the suite of record (Rev33.1_S369 (PDF sha256 b64ddcd9e16a6dcd…)). Adversarial review by a lane that did not draft it is also still owed. Nothing on this page may be cited as a result of the programme until its state reads PUBLISHED — a state written only by the R67 transition producer when a REVIEWED SUPPORTS use, read by two non-drafting lanes, stands on the record's predicate.

LIB2-280 · Superseded sum-rule and torsion-corrected reactor route to the leptonic phase

class RETIREDmath status (as printed) —attachment (as printed) —scorecard tier word (as printed) none printedhouse tier not yet assignedreview state IN_REVIEWentry version 8

Statement

The archived phase prompt proposed a sum-rule readout using a torsion-corrected reactor angle; the current print types δCP = −2π/√5 = −160.997° Derived-conditional (Rev29 re-tiering; the pre-Rev29 stamp was Theorem ⋆100).

Scope

domain	The proposed phase construction in P66, not the independent status of the sum rule or every possible torsion correction.

What this does not show. The replacement does not refute an unspecified sum-rule identity or turn the current reactor and phase readouts into unconditional predictions.

Sources in the suite of record

Key — use ≠ record. A review state printed on a source use below names that use — one citation of the suite, read by the lane named in its warrant — not this record. The record's own review state is the one in the table above and is unchanged by any use-level state; a use may be LANE_PROPOSED or REVIEWED while the record it sits on remains IN_REVIEW (R45, R49).

Quotes are verbatim from the sha-pinned text extraction of the Rev33.1 PDF (A1584 §2.2, S309): mathematical typography — radicals, exponents, ≅ — can appear displaced in the extracted line. The PDF page is authoritative; the quote is what the machine gate matched.

Paper 5, §3, Retained leptonic-phase readout — PDF p.88 (bytes of record)
review state: LANE_PROPOSED · role CONTEXT · warrant: gemini read SUITE_TEXT_EXTRACT → CONTEXT · grok read THE_RECORD → CONTEXT

δCP = −2π/ 5 = −160.997◦

Paper 5, §3, Ordering, propagation-interface and Dirac premises — PDF p.88 (bytes of record)
review state: LANE_PROPOSED · role CONTEXT · warrant: gemini read SUITE_TEXT_EXTRACT → CONTEXT · grok read THE_RECORD → CONTEXT

Normal ordering is assumed; the row is additionally conditional on the Structural Rd ladder and on the undeclared ladder- to-propagation-eigenstate interface (§2); Majorana phases are absent because the operative benchmark assumes Dirac neutrinos

Evidence (availability is not outcome)

kind	reference	line / key	availability	note
registry	Library v1 P66; Paper 5 §3, Retained leptonic-phase readout, p.84	—	shipped	The archive supplies titles and workflow metadata, not original production bodies. The current-suite replacement is quoted; no historical derivation, numerical result or retirement chronology is independently verified.

What was said, and what retired it

historical statement	P66: δ_CP via P50 Sum Rule + Torsion-Corrected θ₁₃ (gap 0.051%)
where it stood	LIBRARY_V1_GROK_ARCHIVE_S304.md, P66
retiring decision	not located in suite; current-target replacement by the conditional phase readout in Paper 5 §3 p.84
what the suite prints now	δCP = −2π/ 5 = −160.997◦ PDF p.84 (bytes of record)
successor records	LIB2-062 The leptonic Dirac-phase readout remains conditional
why retired	RELATION_NOT_RECORDED — the retiring decision names only what replaced the claim ("not located in suite; current-target replacement in …"); the reason the old claim went was never recorded, and the house does not infer one from a pointer (R42 census S322, ruled R69).
archive row located	LOCATED — 1 of 1 parts found in `LIBRARY_V1_GROK_ARCHIVE_S304.md` (sha256 28f35aac4e91e1ca…) (locator 8db2c73d69dff9f1, S339)
the archive rows, verbatim	LIBRARY_V1_GROK_ARCHIVE_S304.md, line 316 \| P66 \| proof \| 2.F \| Paper 2 Proofs \| Paper 2 — Flavor Sector from Peirce Perturbations \| awaiting_production \| prompt_ready \| yes \| P66: δ_CP via P50 Sum Rule + Torsion-Corrected θ₁₃ (gap 0.051%) \|
does the archive attest it?	REVIEWED · ATTESTS gemini · ATTESTS · ARCHIVE_TEXT_SUPPLIED (D1341, A1694) — HIGH — The text specifies calculating δ_CP via a "Sum Rule + Torsion-Corrected θ₁₃". grok · ATTESTS · THE_RECORD (D1340, A1693) — HIGH — P66 is `δ_CP via P50 Sum Rule + Torsion-Corrected θ₁₃`.

A successor is linked, never "derived from" the retired statement (charter §10.10).

Why this record is not PUBLISHED (R67, condition T-B)

states a predicate	yes
uses on the record · unblocked	2 · 2
uses any lane has read	2 of 2
REVIEWED SUPPORTS use on the predicate, read by two non-drafting lanes	no (0)
a SUPPORTS use on the predicate is DISPUTED	no
machine certificate current	yes

Not PUBLISHED because T-R: no suite use REVIEWED. The transition is written only by the R67 producer and recomputed by a gate on every build; no person promotes a record by hand.

Machine certificate (R68)

state MACHINE_CHECKS_PASSED

policy sgtoe-clearance-policy-1.0-RATIFIED · sha16 ef7d6e7690514311

bound to master aad7a3ec6ce3b510 (the master the checks ran on; issued 2026-09-26T05:06Z)

checks

check	result	reason
`schema_valid`	PASS	exercised
`basis_current`	PASS	exercised
`quote_located`	PASS	exercised
`labels_literal`	N/A	class RETIRED not governed by the source_labels rule
`edges_resolved`	PASS	exercised
`bindings_valid`	PASS	exercised

A certificate says the record is well-formed, current, quote-on-page, label-literal, edge-resolved and binding-consistent on the bytes it was issued on. It is not a review, and it goes STALE the moment the master moves under it (R68). It is one conjunct of the PUBLISHED condition (R67), never the whole of it.

History

March library (v1) antecedents	P66
candidate ids (frozen list S304)	C2-007 C2-061

Drafting-lane note

The P50 identifier in P66's title is a reference, not proof that P50 is itself a retired antecedent. Only P66 is assigned to history. The old gap is title metadata, not an independently checked result; no torsion formula or current benchmark comparison is calculated.

Receipt

round D1253 · parsed 2026-09-06T00:06Z · machine gates passed: CONTRACT, G1-quote-on-page, G2-numerals-declared, G4-ids-resolve, DAG-acyclic · content sha256 61ab7e953fc400d36aaf09173ebd153580e71672165f27a4a7ec7bef08a0e191

Review this entry

Reviewer verdict line (one per entry, as text): LIB2-280 | PASS or FAIL(G1–G8) or NOT RUN | quote | PDF page | one sentence. G1 source supports the exact scoped assertion · G2 evidence class fits (numbers ≡ digit source) · G3 labels as printed, not converted · G4 comparison typed · G6 public scope · G7 history real · G8 caution present and true. Machine surfaces: index.json · capsule.md.

Generated from library_v2.jsonl. Declared volatile fields (R36): BUILD_STAMP.
BUILD_STAMP S371a · 2026-09-26T22:53Z · master 01d1a5873ede42f5 · cut 9dcc6ce9a8ee3e02