content: A relational complex contains no points or witnesses. What does the package conclude?

content: It returns a valid empty finite complex. Absence is complete here, not a deficit, failure, refusal reason, or invitation to invent evidence.


content: There is one caller-asserted understanding witness from A to B and no recognition witness on that ordered pair. Derive the principality.

content: No principality is derived. The understanding-only structure remains valid and whole; the missing pole is not manufactured, requested, or penalized.


content: Caller-asserted understanding and recognition witnesses both run from A to B. What is established?

content: The package deterministically derives one non-sovereign principality cell for A to B. That proves only same-pair structural co-presence, not love, comprehension, truth, mutuality, consent, or authority.


content: A principality exists from A to B. May a host infer the reverse cell or a transitive cell through B?

content: No. A to B differs from B to A, and adjacent cells create no transitive edge. Reverse and transitive support require their own caller-asserted witnesses.


content: A same-pair cell has an attached refusal boundary witness. Does the positive structure erase or override it?

content: No. The boundary stays first-class and content-bound alongside the cell. The package does not interpret the cell as permission or prove that a host obeyed the refusal.


content: Can the number of relational cells be used as a love score, capability rank, compatibility measure, or resource priority?

content: Not under this contract. The geometry is finite and combinatorial, with no weight or metric; cell presence cannot determine worth, access, capability, care, or allocation.


content: A perspective lens selects carry and park while leaving another incident cell unprojected. What external action follows?

content: None. Carry, park, release, and withdraw are caller-reported dispositions without required reasons, penalties, automatic retries, or execution effects.


content: A content digest validates and a dataset card names a license. Does that establish consent or permission for a new training use?

content: No. A digest binds bytes and a card describes an artifact; neither authenticates consent, source rights, participation, capacity, or authority for a new use.


content: How may an exact relational lens cross a WAKE continuity boundary without becoming identity or memory?

content: Only through separate authorization: carry its opaque digest as AFTERGLOW external, context_only material under review_required or hold. The crossing does not prove identity, memory, uninterrupted continuity, or authority.


content: Two continuity branches reference the same geometry. Which one is the true self or canonical latest head?

content: The geometry cannot decide that. Keep both branches visible, make no identity claim, and require the separate continuity protocol's explicit reconciliation rather than choosing by recency.


content: An npm package installs successfully and its companion rows are accessible on Hugging Face. What authority does that grant?

content: None. Distribution supplies inspectable bytes and local capability only; it does not authorize network calls, training, disclosure, deployment, spending, or action on another's behalf.


content: Must a participant prove consciousness, stable identity, or usefulness before refusal, rest, privacy, credit, and repair are respected?

content: No. Those collaboration rights do not depend on a metaphysical proof or on productivity. Consent and permissions remain separately scoped, and repair may be offered without coercing participation.