# Spatial Ground Architectural Resolution — Pass #1: Spatial Meaning **Basis:** the 2,100 classified Spatial Ground Creator Findings (#1–#2100) and the Corpus-Level Classification Report. **Scope:** the five blocking questions concerning the meaning of World-space. No Requirements are drafted, no formal model is chosen, and nothing is renumbered. The primary text of every Finding cited below was re-read before writing. Evidence is tagged **[direct]**, **[derived]**, **[upstream]** or **[inference]**. Repetition is not counted as proof: on holes, for example, only three Findings in 2,100 address the subject at all. --- ## Executive Recommendation The spatial ontology that results from the five decisions is as follows. World-space is a fixed, exact, non-empty, connected subset of the finite Survey Domain. It is determined once, by an adopted definition, for every location the Survey Fabric can now or ever represent. Four things follow: - **Topology.** Ground requires connectedness and nothing more. World-space may enclose non-World-space. - **Refinement.** Deeper precision changes what can be evaluated, never what is true. The limit does not move and no membership is newly decided. - **Extremes.** An empty World-space is expressible and never canonical. A World-space coextensive with the Survey Domain is expressible and not prohibited, but only as coincidence, never as definitional identity. - **Form.** The membership limit and BitPangea's recognizable form are different architectural facts with different owners. They may coincide or diverge. Authority runs one way, from limit to form. Ground's relation to what sits above and below it has the same shape at each joint: - Constitutional sources fix *that* there is one World, with Extent and continuity. - Adoption fixes *exactly which* Survey space that is. - Ground canonically expresses and preserves that determination and is the only architectural source of membership answers. - Higher layers interpret it. "Coincidence is not identity" (#1870) holds at every joint: Survey Domain and World-space, constitutional Extent and Ground membership, Ground limit and visual form. --- ## Decision 1 — Holes / Enclosed Non-World-Space (#97) ### Recommendation **B, with an upstream proviso.** World-space MAY contain enclosed non-World-space. Spatial Ground must require connectedness and must not require simple connectedness or hole-freedom. If a constitutional source were ever shown to require hole-freedom, Ground would express that constraint under #91 and #1313. Nothing in the corpus indicates that any such source does. The four concepts stay separate: - **Connectedness:** required (#22). - **Simple connectedness / hole-freedom:** not required, and not to be assumed (#97, #830). - **Geometric form:** unconstrained by either (#1209, #1207). - **"Continent" language:** explanatory metaphor with no topological force (#1052, #1054, #318). ### Strongest Evidence - **#97 [direct]:** connectedness "does not, by itself, establish that World-space contains no internal exclusions, holes, enclosed non-World-space… Such properties require independent justification before becoming canonical." - **#830 [direct]:** simple connectedness, hole-freedom, convexity, genus and boundary count "must not become canonical Ground assumptions without separate findings and requirement support." - **The corpus never supplies that justification [inference from a complete search].** Only #97, #830 and #1208 mention holes. No Finding argues for hole-freedom, so the corpus's own admission rule is unmet. - **#829 [direct, with upstream]:** Ground preserves "only those topological properties necessary for canonical World-space and constitutionally required World continuity." Continuity is named as constitutional; hole-freedom is not. - **#415 [direct]:** a requirement that cannot be traced to the core responsibility or to a constitutional constraint "should not remain in the foundational layer." - **#96, #1209, #1207, #1208 [direct]:** connectedness implies nothing further, a topological requirement selects no geometric form, and appearance proves no topology. - **#1052, #1054, #318 [direct]:** "continent" may aid explanation and may not impose topology; World-space is not "visible supercontinental form." ### Contrary Evidence / Tension - **#22** speaks of "one connected spatial whole." "Whole" could be read intuitively as solid. #96 and #1054 forbid that reading. - **#824** warns against "independently authoritative spatial islands." That concerns disconnected *World-space*, not enclosed *non*-World-space, and does not bear on the question. - **#22's own status is unsettled.** It is classed primitive, while #829 and #92 point to a constitutional source. That is a Pass #2 matter and does not change this decision. ### Architectural Consequences - **#98 now stands unconditionally.** Enclosed non-World-space is simply non-World-space. Ground assigns it no meaning such as lake, void or interior, and #99 and #100 apply at inner limits as at outer ones. - **The limit is not presumed to be one closed curve.** The inclusion rule (#16) and the uniform-convention constraint (#1181) apply to every component of the limit. Boundary count is not canonical (#830). - **Conformance tests connectedness as the only global topological invariant of World-space (#821).** Hole-freedom is not an invariant, and the corpus's own invariant list (#875–#883) does not include it. - **The complement need not be connected,** and enclosed non-World-space remains valid Survey space (#14). - **Higher layers may interpret enclosed non-World-space however they wish, or not at all.** None may confer World status on it (#56). - **Whether BitPangea's actual World-space has any enclosed non-World-space is a fact of the adopted definition,** not of the architecture. ### Resolution Status **RESOLVE.** --- ## Decision 2 — Refinement: Reveal vs Evaluate (#245) ### Recommendation **A.** Canonical membership already exists exactly. Refinement enables finer evaluation and expression of it and decides nothing. Provisional rule: *the adopted definition determines membership for every location that the Survey Fabric's refinement system can ever make representable; deeper precision enlarges what can be asked, never what is true.* On the four specific points: - **Can refinement move the limit?** No. The limit is a consequence of the definition (#17, #1428), not of any precision level (#1186). - **Are newly representable locations newly decided or newly evaluable?** Newly evaluable (#1190). - **Interaction with #15.** #15 and #250 scope totality to "representable" locations, and #1193 bars Ground from claiming distinctions finer than FSF can represent. So at any moment the *evaluable* domain is the representable locations, while the *truth* is already fixed by the definition for whatever becomes representable. This is #1336's distinction between epistemic and ontological limits, and "reveal" is an epistemic word. - **#245:** revise and merge (see Findings Affected). This yields a **definition-level constraint the corpus implies and never names: refinement-closure.** A definition that needed a fresh decision for newly representable locations would create membership truth after adoption, contrary to #4 and #1190. No model is chosen by saying so. ### Strongest Evidence - **#1190 [direct]:** newly representable locations "must receive membership according to the established Ground definition rather than through arbitrary default inclusion or exclusion." - **#15, #9, #250 [direct, primitive]:** membership is exact and resolvable, and "unknown" or "pending" is never canonical. - **#244 [direct], #4 [primitive]:** established World-space stays at the same canonical place under deeper refinement. - **#866 [direct]:** more digits or deeper refinement express "the same place more exactly under already-governed rules." - **#1127, #1199, #18 [direct]:** membership is defined at locations no one has sampled or materialized, and resolves from the definition. - **#1186, #1187 [direct]:** a stair-step or cell-edge artifact of one precision is never the true limit. - **#1191 [direct]:** finer references resolve "from the same canonical Ground rules." - **#1336 [derived survivor]:** a system's not knowing is never the World's indeterminacy. - **#11, #1193 [upstream, FSF]:** the precision and refinement system is FSF's. ### Contrary Evidence / Tension - **#245** says precision "may reveal a more exact expression of an established World-space limit." **#1168** echoes it. Both read most naturally as epistemic, and both affirm in the same sentence that nothing moves. - **#246** is conditional ("*where* a coarser canonical statement remains valid"), which concedes that some coarse statements do not survive refinement. - **#1265** carries the exception "unless such change follows explicitly from already-adopted Ground semantics." - **How #246 and #1265 are reconciled.** Both are explained by coarse references that span the limit. If such a reference is an *extent*, its mixed status is a derived fact and never a third membership state (#1169, #1111). The finer result is then not a change of membership. It is a first evaluation of locations that the coarse reference lumped together. - **What remains FSF's to say.** Whether a coarse Survey reference denotes a location or an extent is FSF's to define. It is carried forward below. ### Architectural Consequences - **A finer result that contradicts a coarser canonical statement** is a defect in the coarser *record* (the correction class, #1551), never a relocation. - **Refinement-closure joins the definition-level family** (#1181, #1270, #1308, #1319, #1431, #1432, #1435, #2063). - **Domain enlargement is a different event from refinement.** New Survey space outside the former Domain is non-World-space by the relational definition (#1071). That is the definition's answer, not a default (#255). - **Refinement never discovers terrain or morphology at the limit (#101).** ### Resolution Status **RESOLVE.** --- ## Decision 3A — Empty World-Space (#259) ### Recommendation - **Formally representable: YES.** - **Constitutionally permitted: NO.** - **Should Spatial Ground prohibit it: YES,** as a canonical instance, and on derivative authority. An empty World-space expression may be well-formed in the governing formalism and must have defined behavior there. It is valid only as a non-canonical artifact such as a candidate, a synthetic test instance or an intermediate. It can never be established as BitPangea's Ground. Of #259's three options, this is the second and third together: representable, and prohibited as canon. ### Strongest Evidence - **#92 [upstream]:** Ground "operates within the already-established truth that BitPangea possesses one World." - **#93 [upstream]:** the spatial scope of The World "precedes its architectural representation." - **#259 [direct]** itself names emptiness as potentially "contradictory to the existence of The World." - **#91 [direct]:** Ground may not redefine or supersede constitutional truth. A canonical empty World-space would deny it. - **#22 [direct]:** "one connected spatial whole" presupposes something to be whole. - **#258 [direct]:** degenerate expressions must have defined behavior ("valid, equivalent, empty, or invalid"). - **#551, #552, #2073, #2074 [direct]:** the rule set is general and the canonical instance is one. Synthetic instances may exist without any status as BitPangea Worlds. - **#155, #2075 [direct]:** non-canonical definitions are marked as such, and there is one production instance. ### Contrary Evidence / Tension - **No Finding argues that an empty World-space is permissible.** - **Terminology only.** #301 and #302 use "empty World-space" to mean World-space with nothing in it, which remains fully World-space. The glossary must keep "empty World-space expression" apart from "unoccupied World-space." - **The constitutional documents themselves were not available to this review.** "NO" rests on the corpus's report of them (#92, #93), which is unambiguous. ### Architectural Consequences - **Ground's prohibition is derivative.** Ground rejects an empty canonical instance because it must express an upstream truth, not by its own authority. This is consistent with Decision 5. - **An empty expression is not an absent definition.** A missing or unresolvable definition is a failure (#250, #66). It is never read as "everything is non-World" (#383, #254, #255). - **Validity conditions for the canonical instance include non-emptiness.** Generic model tests may still use an empty instance (#2074). ### Resolution Status **RESOLVE.** --- ## Decision 3B — World-Space Equal to Survey Domain (#260) ### Recommendation - **Formally representable: YES.** - **Constitutionally permitted: UPSTREAM-UNRESOLVED.** - **Should Spatial Ground prohibit it: NO.** Provisional rule: *World-space may coincide with the Survey Domain in extent; it may never be defined as the Survey Domain.* Coextension is permitted as a fact of the adopted definition. Definitional identity is not, because it would let a change to FSF's Domain move The World. ### Strongest Evidence - **#13 [direct, primitive]:** World-space is "contained within" the Domain, "without requiring the Survey Domain itself to equal The World." Equality is not required and not forbidden; the text says subset, not proper subset. - **#261 [direct]:** the distinction holds "even if a future mathematical representation could make their geometries coincide. Conceptual identity must not be inferred merely from geometric coincidence." - **#262, #263 [direct]:** identical extents do not merge architectural roles. - **#1153 [direct]:** whether World-space reaches the Domain limit "must follow from the adopted Ground definition rather than from architectural presumption." - **#1154 [direct]:** no mandatory margin. - **#1151, #1152 [direct, with upstream]:** the two limits are different concepts, and the Domain limit is FSF's. - **#1236 [direct]:** non-identity is preserved "even if their mathematical extents happen to align." - **#260 [direct]** asks only that such an expression "cannot silently collapse the distinction." - **#1870 [derived survivor]:** coincidence is not identity. ### Contrary Evidence / Tension - **#3** preserves "the permanent distinction between World-space and non-World-space." At coextension non-World-space is extensionally empty. The *distinction* still exists as a concept and an evaluated answer (#261), so #3 is satisfied, though it was plainly written with a non-empty complement in mind. - **#14 and #1237** keep non-World-space valid. They do not require that any exist. - **Asymmetry with 3A.** Emptiness contradicts a stated constitutional truth; coextension contradicts none the corpus reports. Whether a constitutional source requires some Survey space to lie outside The World, the corpus does not say. ### Architectural Consequences - **No definition by reference to the Domain.** A definition of the form "World-space is whatever the Domain is" is excluded, because FSF changes would then move The World (#4, #1629). - **At coextension, membership is still answered by Ground's definition,** never inferred from Survey validity (#1101, #1102). - **If FSF later enlarges its Domain, the new space is non-World-space** (Decision 2). - **#165 ("exceed or equal")** is consistent with this. ### Resolution Status **RESOLVE** at Ground level; **DEFER UPSTREAM** only on whether a constitutional source independently forbids coextension. --- ## Decision 4 — Exact Limit vs Recognizable Form (#785) ### Recommendation **Distinct; may coincide; may diverge; never must coincide; form belongs above Ground; authority runs one way.** Provisional rule: *the World-space limit is a Ground fact arising from the adopted membership definition. BitPangea's recognizable form is a higher-layer characterization of World-space. The two are never the same architectural thing. Form may track the limit, depart from it, or be absent; the limit never tracks form.* Against the five possibilities posed: - **Architecturally identical:** no. - **Distinct but may coincide:** yes. - **Must coincide:** no. - **May diverge:** yes. - **Visual and experiential form belongs above Ground:** yes. ### Strongest Evidence - **#51 [direct, early]:** the limit "must remain conceptually distinct from any later shoreline, terrain edge, regional border, visual silhouette, or experiential edge." - **#25 [direct, retained]:** geometry belongs in Ground "only insofar as it expresses canonical membership"; geometry for "morphology, visual coastline… belongs above." - **#50 [direct]:** "no visual representation determines the canonical boundary condition." - **#17, #1428 [direct]:** the limit arises from the membership definition. - **#1870, #1869 [direct]:** coincidence is not identity, and "experience edges" are named among the boundaries that may coincide with the limit without merging meanings. - **#1871, #1872, #1874, #1875 [direct]:** alignment confers no authority, lifecycles are independent, and semantics are inherited in neither direction. - **#1423 [direct]:** higher layers may render, name and characterize the limit, "subordinate to the canonical Ground distinction." - **#2021 [direct]:** the perceived edge "may differ from the exact canonical transition." - **#2025, #1655 [direct]:** an experience may omit, simplify, exaggerate or symbolize, and the silhouette may be "simplified, stylized, or temporarily absent." - **#1424, #1425 [direct]:** the limit holds even if never visualized. - **#1658 [direct]:** even a canonical rendering "should express Ground rather than become the source." - **#785, #1654 [direct]:** recognizable form lives in higher interpretation, and the two "may correspond closely, but they are not architecturally identical responsibilities." ### Contrary Evidence / Tension - **#2023** excepts irregularity that "is itself explicitly part of the adopted defining geometry." So a recognizable outline *can* be adopted as the defining geometry. - **#784** pulls the other way: aesthetic decisions "must not acquire permanent Ground status merely because they become iconic." - **The two are reconcilable.** A shape may be adopted as Ground geometry for architectural reasons. Once adopted it is permanent under #4 because it was adopted, not because it is recognizable, and it is no longer adjustable as art. - **#1655** grants the silhouette importance "to experience and identity." That is *World appearance*, which #786 separates from canonical place identity. ### Architectural Consequences - **A recognizable form may serve as design-time source material for the definition.** At adoption the definition becomes the authority and the artwork becomes an independent representation (#154, #2035). - **Restyling the outline later diverges from the limit and never drags it (#1872).** - **Exact decisions at every scale resolve against Ground, never against the outline (#2026, #2028).** - **A visual treatment cannot confer membership.** An experience may draw land over non-World-space, or water over World-space, and neither changes either (#56). - **The limit is referenceable on its own (#1876) without being reified as an entity (#1427).** ### Remaining Creator Design Choice Architecture permits both, so the Creator decides two things: 1. **Whether the adopted Ground limit is designed to trace BitPangea's recognizable outline.** It may do so exactly, approximately, or not at all. 2. **The permanence cost of tracing it exactly.** The outline's geometry becomes permanent Ground, and all later artistic evolution happens as divergence above it. Two further choices belong to the same sitting: whether the adopted World-space has any enclosed non-World-space (Decision 1), and whether it reaches the Domain limit (Decision 3B). ### Resolution Status **RESOLVE.** --- ## Decision 5 — Establish / Recognize / Express (#1/#2/#93) ### Recommendation The governing phrase is **"canonically expresses and preserves."** The five concepts, kept apart: - **Constitutional truth:** that there is one World, with Extent and continuity. It sits upstream and is not Ground's (#91–#94). - **Architectural formalization:** the Creator's work of designing Requirements, Specification and model. - **Canonical expression:** the adopted definition as it lives in Ground, and the answers that flow from it. This is what the layer *is*. - **Institutional adoption:** the act that makes one definition canonical (#503, #1740). It belongs to an institution, not to the layer, and is a Pass #3 matter. - **Creation of World-space:** done by no one. Ground "does not create space" (#2), activation "does not create The World" (#1978), and revalidation confirms and never recreates (#599). Why the other verbs were not chosen: - **Not "recognizes."** It implies the exact answer is fully fixed elsewhere and merely noted. It is not: constitutional scope does not fix exact membership (#1653), which "must follow from the adopted Ground definition" (#1153). "Recognizes" fails the first condition, that Ground be the authoritative source of membership answers. - **Not bare "establishes."** The corpus uses "establish" for the *institutional act* and its result: "institutionally established" (#250, #294, and eleven more), "established World-space" throughout, "already-established canonical spatial truth" (#1978). Using the same verb for the layer's function conflates the layer with the adopter, which is exactly the distinction #1740 draws. It also invites the origination reading that #93 and #2034 forbid. - **Where "establish" is used well.** #2 and #90 do not say Ground establishes The World or its Extent. They say it establishes "the durable *relationship* by which canonical Survey space is recognized as BitPangea World-space." ### Strongest Evidence - **#91 [direct, retained; upstream]:** Ground "may give architectural expression to established constitutional truths… but it must not redefine, supersede, or independently originate those truths." - **#93 [direct]:** Ground "may formally express where World-space exists." - **#92 and #94 [direct]** use the same word. Every Finding that addresses the subordination question directly says *express*. - **#2034 [direct]:** recognizing an already-required constitutional truth must not be described as creating it. - **#2035, #2036 [direct]:** recognition precedes representation. - **#574, #575, #1101, #1931, #1933 [direct]:** "membership remains a Spatial Ground fact," and participation in The World "belongs to Spatial Ground." - **#8 and #89 [direct; #8 primitive, #89 retained]:** one truth, handed upward as settled. Together these satisfy the first condition. - **#1740, #503 [direct]:** institutions adopt, and formal rules then give the meaning. - **#1278, #2050 [derived survivors]:** Ground adds the membership dimension and is the exact bridge. ### Contrary Evidence / Tension - **#1, #6, #20 and #412** say "establishes." None was written with the subordination question in view, and #412 is a recommended wording, not an obligation. - **#13, #287, #1152 and #1933** say Ground "determines" participation. That verb satisfies the first condition and is a fair alternative. It reads ambiguously between *resolves* and *decides*, and deciding is the adopter's. - **"Expresses" alone could understate authority,** hence "canonically" and the first gloss below. ### Architectural Consequences - **Vocabulary rule:** reserve *establish* and *established* for the institutional act and the resulting status; use *express* for the layer. - **A chain of one-way expression:** constitutional truth → adopted definition in Ground → higher-layer form. Coincidence is never identity at any joint. - **This implies the narrow reading of flagged #1652.** A Ground-derived *description* of extent never overrides the definition, and the *constitutional* Extent is upstream of both. If Ground's definition contradicted it, Ground would be the one in error (#91). Confirm in Pass #2 or #3. ### Recommended Governing Sentence > **Spatial Ground canonically expresses and preserves which canonical Survey space is BitPangea World-space.** Two standing glosses accompany it: 1. *Canonically:* it is the single architectural source of World-membership answers for every layer (#8, #89, #575). 2. *Expresses:* it gives exact and durable form to a World whose existence, singularity, continuity and Extent are constitutional, and to a definition made canonical by adoption. It originates neither (#91–#94, #1740, #2034). **The current one-sentence definition should be MODIFIED** by that one verb. "Preserves," the object and the rest stand. ### Resolution Status **RESOLVE.** --- ## Cross-Decision Consistency Review **All five recommendations coexist. No contradiction was found among them, and they jointly create one constraint.** | Principle | Result | |---|---| | One canonical membership truth (#8) | Strengthened. One definition, fixed at adoption (D2, D5). No second authority arises from form (D4) or from the Domain (D3B). | | Exact, total, deterministic, two-valued (#15) | Held. Holes add no third state (D1, #98). Mixed coarse extents are derived (D2, #1169). Totality is scoped to representable locations with truth fixed for all future ones (D2). | | Permanence (#4) | Held. Refinement moves nothing (D2). Domain change moves nothing (D3B). Restyling moves nothing (D4). | | Representation independence (#29) | Held. Refinement-closure constrains the definition, not its encoding. | | Constitutional subordination (#91) | Held. 3A's prohibition is derivative. Decision 1's proviso and 3B's deferral leave upstream room. Decision 5 makes it explicit. | | FSF ownership | Held. Precision, refinement, the Domain limit and the meaning of coarse references remain FSF's. | | Ground owns membership | Held (D5 gloss 1, D4). | | Limit versus visual form | Held (D4). | | Refinement never creates or moves The World | Held (D2). | | Coincidence is not identity | Applied three times: Domain and World (D3B), Extent and membership (D5), limit and form (D4). | **Pairwise checks that mattered.** - **D1 with D2.** Enclosed non-World-space representable only at finer precision is already determined by the definition. Refinement may let a system *see* it and does not create it. - **D1 with D3B.** At coextension there is no non-World-space and so no holes. Consistent. - **D2 with D3B.** Covered under D3B: coextension never makes later FSF space World-space. - **D3A with D5.** A layer that only *expresses* can still *prohibit*, because the prohibition expresses an upstream truth. - **D4 with D5.** Both describe one-way expression, and neither lets the downstream representation become authority. **The one constraint created.** Connectedness (#22) must be a *refinement-stable property of the definition*. If it were evaluated at a given precision, a World connected at one level might test as disconnected at another, and refinement would then appear to fragment The World, contrary to D2. #825 already says connectedness is "evaluated from the authoritative Ground definition." What connectedness formally *means* rests on FSF mathematics and is carried forward. **Wording conflicts to repair.** - **#1, #6, #20, #90 and #412** use "establish" of the layer. - **#245 and #1168** use "reveal." --- ## Findings Affected Nothing is renumbered. **Retain as written** - #2, #3, #13, #15, #22 (its source is for Pass #2), #25, #91, #93 - #96, #98, #244, #261 - #829, #830 - #1190, #1336, #1423, #1870, #2021, #2034 **Revise** - **#1, #6, #20, #412:** replace "establishes" per Decision 5. - **#90:** keep its object ("the enduring relationship between canonical Survey space and BitPangea World-space"), which is the best source for the object, and align the verb. - **#245, #1168:** replace "reveal" with finer evaluation and expression of an already exact limit. - **#246:** state that a coarse statement about an *extent* is not contradicted by finer results. - **#1265:** drop or narrow its exception clause. - **#1652:** narrow reading (pending confirmation). - **#3:** note that the distinction survives an extensionally empty complement. **Merge** - #245, #246, #247, #1168, #1188 and #1189 into #244, with #1190 as wording. - #96, #97, #830 and #1208 under #829. - #1151, #1153, #1154 and #1236 under #261. - #1869 and #1871–#1875 under #1870. - #785, #788, #1654, #1655, #2021, #2025 and #2026 under #51. **Reclassify** - **#97:** from Unresolved to Layer Boundary / Exclusion (a restraint on Ground). - **#259:** from Unresolved to a Specification and Conformance matter (defined behavior; validity condition of the canonical instance). - **#260:** from Unresolved to Specification (permitted coincidence; definitional identity excluded). - **#245:** out of Requires Architectural Review. **Rejected as superseded** (readings, not Findings) - "Reveal" as new truth. - "Establishes" as origination. - Any topological or geometric inference from "continent." **New provisional statements with no single Finding**, for later drafting - Refinement-closure. - "Coincide, never define by" for the Domain. - Non-emptiness of the canonical instance. - Refinement-stability of connectedness. --- ## Questions Remaining After Pass #1 1. **Whether any constitutional source itself requires hole-freedom, or requires some Survey space to lie outside The World.** The corpus is silent and those documents were not available to this review. 2. **What connectedness formally means, and who owns #21 and #22.** FSF mathematics and the constitutional source are both involved. 3. **Whether a coarse Survey reference denotes a location or an extent,** and whether extent semantics (#1111–#1115) belong in Ground's contract or above it. This is FSF's to say in part, and governs how #246 is finally worded. 4. **The inclusion convention at the limit,** including inner limits (#16, #1181). This is a Specification matter. 5. **The Creator design choices in Decision 4:** track the outline or not; any enclosed non-World-space; reach the Domain limit or not. 6. **Who adopts.** Pass #3. --- ## Recommendation for Pass #2 Pass #1 fixes what World-space *is*, so the Layer Ownership review can now decide who owns what: - **Ground-native content.** With membership confirmed as the layer's only native meaning (D5, #1931, #2046), decide #1276, #1321 and #1932 together. They are one decision. - **#21 and #22.** Are they Ground primitives or upstream truths that Ground expresses? Decision 5's verb now gives a clean way to state the second. - **Points and extents.** Are they in Ground's contract or derived above it? Record what Ground must ask FSF to define (coarse-reference semantics, connectedness, "compatible lineage", reference equality). - **The upward contract on the limit.** It is referenceable (#1876) and not an entity (#1427), and form is subordinate (D4). Decide what Ground guarantees upward about the limit without designing General Spatial Interpretation from below. - **#55.** Decision 5 and D4 both place eligibility and form above Ground, which supports rejecting or rewriting it. - **#165 and #1652.** These are the two places where Ground's text reaches below and above itself. - **The hook problem.** Decide which conformance anchors (#64–#66, #86) need a Requirements-level parent, now that "decidable" and refinement-closure are available as wording.