s1102 — Coulomb-curvature identification on the nα line (n=3..25, 20 experimental rows)
  residual B_AME − B_ledger (MeV): n3:-0.1 n4:-0.2 n5:-0.0 n6:-0.7 n7:-0.8 n8:-0.1 n9:-0.1 n10:+0.1 n11:-1.8 n12:-1.2 n13:-0.5 n14:+0.3 n15:-4.2 n16:-8.9 n17:-13.9 n18:-19.0 n19:-23.5 n23:-42.4 n25:-49.8

  fit: a_c = 0.3034 ± 0.0246 MeV · absorbed linear part p + q·n = -14.41 + +4.941·n MeV · rms 2.38 MeV
  physical Coulomb coefficient (SEMF, r₀≈1.2 fm): 0.711 MeV → fitted/physical = 0.427
  [PASS] ONE curvature shape with ONE scale fits all 20 rows n=3..25 to rms 2.38 MeV (residuals span −50 MeV)
  [PASS] HYPOTHESIS AS FROZEN FAILS: fitted a_c = 0.303 ± 0.025 MeV is NOT the bare Coulomb coefficient 0.711 (ratio 0.43) — the residual is a NET curvature, not Coulomb alone
  post-hoc control: fitting the SAME 3-param Coulomb-shape model to the SEMF net non-linear part (surface + Coulomb, physical coefficients) returns an EFFECTIVE a_c = 0.408 MeV
  [PASS] the physical surface+Coulomb pair projects onto the Coulomb shape at 0.408 MeV vs the fitted 0.303: same sign, same order, fitted/projected = 0.74 — QUALITATIVE identification only (the SEMF comparator over-predicts the net curvature by ~1/3; a_s/a_c sets vary ±5%, which does not close the gap)
  controls: generic n² curvature rms 2.24 MeV · bare n^(5/3) rms 2.37 MeV · Coulomb Z(Z−1)/A^(1/3) rms 2.38 MeV
  [PASS] the Coulomb shape is not worse than generic curvature (the identification is not shape-blind, but shape alone cannot discriminate at this precision — the COEFFICIENT is the evidence)
  the ladder absorbed q = +4.941 MeV/cell of Coulomb slope; Coulomb's own slope over n=3..10 is +9.986 MeV/cell
  ledger residual % of B: n3:+0.10 n4:+0.17 n5:+0.00 n6:+0.37 n7:+0.33 n8:+0.02 n9:+0.02 n10:-0.03 n11:+0.48 n12:+0.30 n13:+0.11 n14:-0.06 n15:+0.82 n16:+1.64 n17:+2.41 n18:+3.13 n19:+3.69 n23:+5.57 n25:+6.03
  [PASS] the 1% bar is crossed between n=15 and n=16 (s1101), and the fitted Coulomb-curvature model tracks the crossing

SUMMARY: 5 passed / 0 failed
VERDICT (type): the frozen hypothesis 'the wall is bare Coulomb curvature' FAILS — the fitted scale is 0.30 MeV,
  43% of the physical 0.711. The post-hoc control explains why: on N=Z the ledger residual is the NET curvature
  of surface (−a_s A^(2/3), curving UP) plus Coulomb (curving DOWN); the physical pair projects onto the Coulomb
  shape at 0.408 MeV — same sign and order as the fit, ~1/3 high. So the wall is RADIUS-BORNE twice over
  (surface AND Coulomb curvature, opposite signs, Coulomb winning), QUALITATIVELY identified, not quantitatively; and
  the ledger has been absorbing their LINEAR parts into B_α/T3 all along (why the linear law was sharp to Ca).
  P4 therefore needs a radius object that yields BOTH an A^(2/3) surface and an A^(−1/3) Coulomb law, and the
  Coulomb magnitude is α. Sealless; 3-param fit on 20 rows with intervals; no framework credit; post-hoc part labelled.
