C01.1 · Claims used

Registrar for every row: **NONE — files-only**. The following are direct suite statements, not reconstructed Registrar records.

| Source | Words printed by the suite | Role here | |---|---|---| | Paper 0 §4, PDF p.15 | “All products are taken in the split-octonion algebra Os with the Cayley–Dickson construction” | Product convention to implement, not a physical prediction. | | Paper 1 abstract, PDF p.23 | “All local split-octonion products are understood in Cayley–Dickson form with the SplitCD inner product; the older Fano/sign-flip surrogate is not used.” | The independently programmed comparison uses the stated Cayley–Dickson form. | | Paper 1 abstract, PDF p.23 | “The neutral (4, 4) signature is a model choice that places both conventions on equal footing, not a consequence forced by the convention equivalence alone; this is stated as an adopted premise, not a derivation.” | Computing this norm does not derive the physical choice of this carrier. | | Appendix A §A.7.8, PDF p.147 | “The split octonions Os form an alternative algebra (satisfying x2 y = x(xy) and yx2 = (yx)x).” | The local implementation must satisfy these identities; it is tested below. | | Appendix A §A.7.8, PDF p.147 | “for the generic cross-block Yukawa trilinear (three independent split-octonion entries, Paper 6) that containment is not established” | Alternativity does not close the unperformed QFT generator census. |

These passages supply definitions and scope language, not a printed formal mathematical-status label for this newly executed table. No status is inferred. The suite also prints Artin’s theorem in Appendix A §A.7.8, but proving that general theorem is not a task completed by this run.

**Source discrepancy to retain visibly.** Appendix A §A.1, PDF p.135, says:

> All split-octonion products in the current suite are taken in Cayley–Dickson form. Writing elements as pairs (p, q) over the compact octonions,

The run below constructs a pair of **quaternions**. Its dimension output is four per half and eight in the pair; a pair of eight-dimensional compact octonions would have dimension sixteen. Thus the quoted base-algebra wording does not describe this eight-dimensional construction. This is a reported source defect, not a silently repaired quotation. The code checks agreement with the displayed product formula using quaternion halves; agreement with every banked array or call site is **[NOT VERIFIED]**.