GRM Base-t — From the First Baryon to the First Stars in Already-Existing Galaxies

Part I — Architectural Rules

1. GRM Base-t Type System

1.1 SOURCE != EFFECT != CONSTRUCT != CONFIGURATION != REPRESENTATION != READOUT
1.2 Source constructor versus complete Bucket-2 construct
1.3 Complete construct versus instantaneous configuration
1.4 Support versus owner
1.5 Representation versus ancestry
1.6 same readout ↛ same source
1.7 existence ↛ constructor
1.8 BUCKET_POSITION != CONSTRUCTION_ORDER
1.9 RECONSTRUCTION_ORDER != CAUSAL_TIME_ORDER
1.10 Standard Model mathematics preserved without promoting its representation order to source order

2. Two-Step Physical Architecture

2.1 CREATION
2.2 FUTURE EVOLUTION
2.3 Creation determines what complete Bucket-2 content exists
2.4 Evolution acts only after the complete construct exists
2.5 Evolution equations forbidden from being retroactively promoted to creation mechanisms
2.6 Fully formed does not mean internally static
2.7 Fully formed means mutually compatible defining properties exist at first Bucket-2 appearance
2.8 Later configuration changes occur inside the created construct

3. Typed Conservation Ledgers

3.1 Source support Σ
3.2 Source rank state RΣ
3.3 Bucket-2 baryonic ledger B
3.4 Charge ledger
3.5 Flavor/configuration ledger
3.6 Nuclear closure ledger
3.7 Particle-species ledger
3.8 ΔΣ_source = 0 distinguished from changing Bucket-2 configurations
3.9 No double counting between source support and its resolved effect
3.10 Conservation laws apply within their licensed layer

MODULE A — FIRST BARYON EMERGENCE

Part II — Bucket-1 Source Constitution

4. Bucket-1 Fundamentals

4.1 Primary geometry
4.2 Atemporal tension Θ
4.3 Constraint structure
4.4 Relaxation without temporal direction
4.5 Recurrence
4.6 Geometric organization I
4.7 Rigidity
4.8 MASS(I) = rigidity(I)
4.9 Persistence as consequence of rigidity
4.10 No spacetime particle species in Bucket 1

The existing framework fixes MASS as rigidity of geometric organization rather than a Bucket-2 mass coefficient. ChatGPT-THEIA_64a_Phot_DGGS_LSS…

5. Rank Structure

5.1 Executable source degrees of freedom
5.2 Constraint rank
5.3 Rank preservation
5.4 Rank reduction
5.5 Isotropic versus anisotropic rank reduction
5.6 Rank loss as increasing joint ownership
5.7 Rigidity stacking
5.8 Persistent closure threshold
5.9 Source rank organization as generator of complete downstream constructs

6. Source-to-Spacetime Resolution

6.1 Source relaxation
6.2 Boundary/resolution operator
6.3 Appearance of temporal order
6.4 Appearance of localization
6.5 Appearance of charge/polarity
6.6 Momentum and energy as downstream quantities
6.7 Bucket-1 organization does not travel through pre-existing spacetime
6.8 Bucket-2 effect replaces the unresolved source description at that court
6.9 No overlapping “source material plus created particle inventory”

Part III — First Complete Baryonic Construct

7. Base-t Erasure

7.1 Erase independent quarks -> assemble baryon as source ancestry
7.2 Do not erase quarks from the Standard Model
7.3 Do not erase gluons from QCD
7.4 Do not erase uud from the proton
7.5 Erase only their authority as independently pre-existing source constructors
7.6 Preserve baryon number
7.7 Preserve charge
7.8 Preserve spin
7.9 Preserve QCD internal structure
7.10 Preserve persistence hierarchy

8. Complete Baryon Emergence

8.1 Source rank closure
8.2 Baryonic consequence class
8.3 First Bucket-2 baryonic construct appears complete
8.4 Internal QCD organization exists with the construct
8.5 No temporally prior free-quark assembly stage required
8.6 Complete construct may nevertheless possess rapidly changing internal configurations
8.7 CONSTRUCT != CONFIGURATION

9. Standard Model Zoo as Admissible Construct Space

9.1 Standard Model zoo is not merely a constituent catalogue
9.2 Each identified hadron is a complete admissible construct
9.3 Same net quark content can support multiple constructs
9.4 Different excitation energies
9.5 Different spin/orbital configurations
9.6 Different resonance lifetimes
9.7 Collision-accessible closure space
9.8 Particle zoo as persistence-selected subset of a much larger configuration space
9.9 Unnamed transient configurations
9.10 Identifiable resonant configurations
9.11 Long-lived ground-state configurations

MODULE B — PROTON / NEUTRON CLOSURE FAMILY

Part IV — Proton

10. `uud` Proton

10.1 uud as complete proton-sector organization
10.2 uud is not one frozen geometry
10.3 Net flavor persistence
10.4 Continuous gluonic and sea reconfiguration
10.5 Momentum redistribution
10.6 Higher Fock configurations
10.7 Recurrence weighting
10.8 Persistence weighting
10.9 Dominant properties emerge from the longest-lived low-energy configuration
10.10 uud as lowest-energy dominant proton-sector closure

11. Proton Identity

11.1 B = 1
11.2 Q = +1
11.3 spin 1/2
11.4 Lowest accessible energy in the free proton sector
11.5 Internal instability does not imply identity instability
11.6 Deep closure basin
11.7 No ordinary lower free baryonic decay channel
11.8 Proton terminality distinguished from frozen structure

12. Proton Configuration Spectrum

12.1 Ground-state proton
12.2 Excited nucleon configurations
12.3 Resonances sharing net uud content
12.4 Shorter-lived complete constructs
12.5 Continuum QCD configurations
12.6 Collision excitation
12.7 Relaxation back into lower closures
12.8 Lifetime as persistence discriminator

Part V — Neutron

13. `udd` Neutron

13.1 Complete neighboring baryonic construct
13.2 B = 1
13.3 Q = 0
13.4 spin 1/2
13.5 Neighboring rigidity state
13.6 Higher free-state energy than proton
13.7 Free-neutron metastability

14. Proton–Neutron Rigidity Separation

14.1 Measured neutron-proton difference
14.2 Δm_np ≈ 1.293 MeV as Bucket-2 readout
14.3 Rigidity difference distinguished from complete transition barrier
14.4 Internal QCD timescale
14.5 Weak transition timescale
14.6 ~10-minute free-neutron lifetime
14.7 Enormous timescale separation
14.8 QCD reconfiguration != baryonic identity fracture

15. Neutron-to-Proton Transition

15.1 Whole-construct transition
15.2 Standard Model flavor representation
15.3 Weak gate
15.4 Electron and antineutrino readouts
15.5 Transition accessibility
15.6 Environment dependence
15.7 Bound-neutron stabilization
15.8 Free-neutron decay path distinguished from nuclear neutron persistence

MODULE C — BARYON NUMBER AND JOINT OWNERSHIP

Part VI — Baryon Number

16. Carrier Problem

16.1 B = 1 as complete-baryon obligation
16.2 Conventional B = 1/3 per quark bookkeeping
16.3 Bookkeeping distinguished from physical carrier
16.4 QCD joint ownership
16.5 Baryon-junction possibility
16.6 Junction endpoints remain part of the QCD construct
16.7 No free endpoint-less junction promoted to source baryon
16.8 Carrier problem distinguished from first-baryon constructor

STAR explicitly contrasts valence-quark carriage with a Y-shaped junction carrying B=1, while noting that the two pictures are difficult to distinguish in many processes. 2408.15441v2

17. Collision Court

17.1 Complete proton enters collision
17.2 Collision changes accessible configuration space
17.3 No requirement for free constituent-quark intermediate ontology
17.4 Other complete constructs can emerge
17.5 Mesons
17.6 Baryons
17.7 Antibaryons
17.8 Resonances
17.9 Conservation ledgers constrain permitted outputs
17.10 Particle zoo revealed as reachable closure space

18. Persistence Selection

18.1 Most microscopic configurations remain unnamed
18.2 Configuration lifetime threshold
18.3 Recurrence threshold
18.4 Resonant identity threshold
18.5 Particle-table inclusion bias toward persistent configurations
18.6 Proton as extreme long-lived ground-state branch
18.7 PERSISTENCE -> DOMINANT OBSERVABLE PROPERTIES

MODULE D — DISTRIBUTED BARYONIC CONTENT BEFORE STARS

Part VII — Proton/Neutron Partition

19. First Baryonic Partition

19.1 Source transition need not resolve exclusively into protons
19.2 Proton and neutron are neighboring complete branches
19.3 Partition operator
19.4 Rigidity gap as one input
19.5 Transition/loading scale as second input
19.6 Weak accessibility as third input
19.7 Freeze of the effective branch ratio
19.8 Δm_np alone insufficient to determine the ratio
19.9 Target ratio near the observed alpha-locking requirement
19.10 n/p as distributed baryonic-state partition

20. Free Neutron Constraint

20.1 Free neutrons cannot persist cosmologically
20.2 Neutron branch therefore requires rapid closure or conversion
20.3 Decay competes with nuclear locking
20.4 Free-neutron abundance is transient
20.5 Bound-neutron abundance can persist indefinitely
20.6 FREE n/p != BOUND n/p

MODULE E — PRE-STELLAR ALPHA CLOSURE

Part VIII — Alpha Construction

21. Why Alpha Closure Is Required Before Stellar History Is Invoked

21.1 Helium floor cannot be generated by merely preserving free neutrons
21.2 Free neutrons decay
21.3 Alpha closure supplies a long-lived neutron reservoir
21.4 Distributed alpha construction occurs before the stellar module
21.5 Stellar helium production becomes additional later processing rather than origin of the entire helium inventory

22. `2p + 2n` and Alpha Ownership

22.1 Two protons remain valid supports
22.2 Two neutrons remain valid supports
22.3 2p + 2n gives required support inventory
22.4 Inventory does not by itself explain alpha rigidity
22.5 Joint four-body closure
22.6 Loss of independent execution
22.7 Exceptional rigidity of He-4
22.8 SUPPORT != OWNER
22.9 Alpha is neither constituent-free nor reducible to arithmetic inventory

23. Distributed Alpha Constructor

23.1 Proton/neutron branches already available
23.2 Appropriate local baryonic partition
23.3 Nuclear closure operator
23.4 Rapid sequestration of neutron branch
23.5 Alpha closure distributed across the resolved baryonic substrate
23.6 No stellar node required
23.7 No carbon or oxygen required
23.8 No stellar export mechanism required
23.9 Universal low-metallicity helium floor becomes a direct constraint on this operator

24. Helium Fraction Court

24.1 r = n/p
24.2 If almost all neutrons enter He-4, Y = 2r/(1+r)
24.3 r ≈ 1/7 gives Y ≈ 0.25
24.4 Exact observed floor constrains the actual partition operator
24.5 Residual deuterium / He-3 / other channels
24.6 Alpha-lock efficiency
24.7 GRM obligation to derive rather than insert the required partition

MODULE F — ALREADY-EXISTING GALAXIES

Part IX — Galactic Boundary

25. Galaxy Is Already Present

25.1 Galactic construction outside present scope
25.2 Large-scale Bucket-2 galactic organization enters as boundary condition
25.3 Existing source support Σ_gal
25.4 Existing galactic rank structure
25.5 Existing baryonic/alpha content
25.6 Stars not required to construct the galaxy
25.7 Galaxy existence distinguished from stellar-node existence

26. No Overlap Rule

26.1 Source support and Bucket-2 realization are not two additive inventories
26.2 Local rank state determines local resolved content
26.3 R0 ->G C0
26.4 changed rank state R1 ->G C1
26.5 C1 is not C0 + newly minted matter
26.6 Old and new resolutions are not simultaneously counted
26.7 Local baryonic content is determined by the active source-resolution state
26.8 Bucket-2 continuity cannot be blindly extrapolated across the source-generation boundary

MODULE G — FIRST STELLAR NODE CREATION

Part X — Anisotropic Rank Reduction

27. Pre-Stellar Galactic State

27.1 Existing galaxy
27.2 No stellar node yet at the target location
27.3 Local source rank state
27.4 Local substrate tension
27.5 Existing resolved nonstellar Bucket-2 content

28. Local Rank Transition

28.1 Anisotropic source tension
28.2 Direction-dependent loss of executable rank
28.3 Closure of source degrees of freedom
28.4 Rigidity amplification
28.5 New local resolution state
28.6 Stellar-scale MASS effect
28.7 Stellar node appears fully constituted
28.8 No overlapping prior stellar object
28.9 No requirement that pre-existing Bucket-2 baryons flow inward to assemble it

29. Fully Formed Stellar Construct

29.1 Total stellar MASS
29.2 Radius
29.3 Composition
29.4 pressure structure
29.5 temperature structure
29.6 charge neutrality
29.7 gravitational response
29.8 nuclear environment
29.9 all mutually compatible at first stellar appearance
29.10 Compatibility equations are not necessarily construction equations

30. Creation Versus Conventional Star Formation

30.1 GRM creation: source rank transition -> stellar construct
30.2 Conventional star formation: gas evolution inside Bucket 2
30.3 Cooling
30.4 Jeans instability
30.5 fragmentation
30.6 Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction
30.7 These may describe later or alternative Bucket-2 evolution
30.8 They cannot be silently substituted for the GRM creation operator
30.9 No hybridization without an explicit interface

MODULE H — FIRST STARS

Part XI — Initial Stellar Composition

31. First Stellar Composition

31.1 Hydrogen-dominated rather than pure-hydrogen assumption
31.2 Distributed pre-stellar alpha inventory inherited from Module E
31.3 Very low heavy-element content
31.4 No initial CNO catalysts
31.5 Complete stellar construct appears with that composition
31.6 Stellar nuclear evolution begins afterward

32. First Stellar MASS Regime

32.1 Stellar MASS determined by the source rank transition
32.2 First rank regime favors large stellar closures
32.3 Low-MASS closure branch initially inaccessible or strongly suppressed
32.4 No Jeans fragmentation used to derive the creation MASS
32.5 Observed massive early-star tendency becomes a test of the rank-spectrum operator
32.6 Later low-mass branch requires a changed source-rank admissibility condition

MODULE I — FUTURE EVOLUTION OF THE FIRST STAR

Part XII — Hydrogen Burning

33. pp Weak Gate

33.1 Existing star begins temporal evolution
33.2 Proton-proton reactions
33.3 Weak proton-to-neutron conversion
33.4 Deuterium
33.5 He-3
33.6 Additional alpha production
33.7 pp rate remains weak
33.8 pp chain alone does not explain the rapid evolution of a massive first star

34. Existing Helium Versus Newly Produced Helium

34.1 Pre-stellar alpha inventory
34.2 Stellar alpha production
34.3 Two origins must remain distinct
34.4 Stellar helium enrichment does not explain the universal floor
34.5 Stellar evolution changes the local helium fraction after creation

MODULE J — HELIUM-BURNING BOOTSTRAP IN EARLY MASSIVE STARS

Part XIII — Why Early Helium Burning Is Peculiar

35. CNO Absence

35.1 No initial carbon
35.2 No nitrogen
35.3 No oxygen
35.4 CNO catalytic cycle unavailable
35.5 Massive-star hydrogen burning therefore begins under unusual conditions

36. Continued Internal Loading

36.1 Weak pp support
36.2 Hydrostatic readjustment during future evolution
36.3 Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction allowed here because the star already exists
36.4 Increasing central temperature
36.5 Increasing alpha-processing access
36.6 Evolution operator distinguished from creation operator

37. Triple-Alpha Threshold

37.1 Existing helium/alpha content
37.2 Short-lived Be-8 intermediate
37.3 third-alpha capture
37.4 C-12 closure
37.5 Extreme temperature sensitivity
37.6 Trace carbon appears before a conventional clean H-exhaustion / He-burning separation

38. CNO Bootstrap

38.1 Tiny carbon abundance becomes catalytic
38.2 CNO pathway activates
38.3 Hydrogen burning accelerates
38.4 Helium burning has supplied the catalyst for hydrogen burning
38.5 H-burning and He-burning roles overlap structurally
38.6 Early massive-star evolution differs from later metal-bearing stellar evolution

39. Rapid Processing

39.1 Massive stellar luminosity
39.2 Fast fuel consumption after CNO activation
39.3 Short stellar lifetime
39.4 further He production
39.5 C/O production
39.6 destruction of the original low-processing stellar state

MODULE K — FIRST-STELLAR-POPULATION COURT

Part XIV — Population III Retyped

40. Population III as Process State

40.1 Not a source species
40.2 Not a permanent stellar class
40.3 First low-processing stellar regime
40.4 Massive branch
40.5 Short lifetime
40.6 nuclear self-processing
40.7 population erases its own defining chemical condition
40.8 absence of surviving pristine low-MASS stars becomes expected if low-MASS creation was not yet admissible

41. Particle/Star Analogy

41.1 Proton identity selected by persistence within a configuration space
41.2 Particle zoo identifies persistent closure states
41.3 Stellar populations likewise expose longer-lived macro-closures
41.4 Short-lived first massive stars disappear
41.5 Later low-MASS stars preserve later rank regimes
41.6 Persistence filters what survives observationally

MODULE L — HARD MODULE BOUNDARIES

Part XV — What Must Never Be Mixed Again

42. Baryon Emergence Boundary

42.1 Contains no galaxy
42.2 Contains no star
42.3 Contains no metallicity
42.4 Contains no stellar cooling
42.5 Ends with complete baryonic construct and its QCD configuration space

43. Pre-Stellar Nuclear Boundary

43.1 Begins after baryons exist
43.2 Establishes neutron partition
43.3 Establishes distributed alpha closure
43.4 Ends before stars

44. Galactic Boundary

44.1 Galaxy is supplied already existing
44.2 No galaxy formation theory imported
44.3 Stellar nodes absent until their own rank transitions

45. Stellar Creation Boundary

45.1 Source anisotropic rank reduction
45.2 Determines stellar Bucket-2 content
45.3 Ends with fully formed star
45.4 No stellar nuclear evolution used to construct the star

46. Stellar Evolution Boundary

46.1 Begins after star exists
46.2 pp reactions
46.3 Kelvin-Helmholtz adjustment
46.4 triple-alpha
46.5 CNO
46.6 later nucleosynthesis
46.7 no backward promotion into creation

Part XVI — Complete Construction Sequence

47. First Baryon

47.1 Σ -> Θ -> rank closure -> rigidity -> MASS -> complete baryonic effect
47.2 proton/neutron neighboring branches
47.3 complete QCD configurations
47.4 uud proton becomes lowest-energy dominant persistent proton configuration
47.5 particle zoo records longer-lived accessible configurations

48. Pre-Stellar Matter

48.1 distributed proton/neutron partition
48.2 free-neutron instability
48.3 distributed alpha closure
48.4 hydrogen-dominated + helium-bearing baryonic medium
48.5 no stars required

49. Already-Existing Galaxy

49.1 galaxy-scale organization given
49.2 local rank states distributed through galaxy
49.3 source support remains non-overlapping with its resolved effects

50. First Stellar Creation

50.1 local anisotropic rank reduction
50.2 local Bucket-2 content re-resolves
50.3 fully formed massive stellar closure
50.4 H-dominated composition with pre-stellar alpha content
50.5 zero/very-low CNO content

51. Future Stellar Evolution

51.1 pp weak processing
51.2 additional alpha production
51.3 internal loading
51.4 triple-alpha carbon
51.5 CNO activation
51.6 rapid massive-star processing
51.7 later stellar-history modules begin only here

Part XVII — Remaining GRM Construction Debts

52. Baryon Rank Topology

52.1 Exact rank condition producing B=1
52.2 Why proton and neutron are the lowest neighboring baryonic branches
52.3 Why uud gives the dominant lowest proton closure
52.4 connection between persistence spectrum and particle zoo

53. Neutron Partition

53.1 Derive initial n/p from source-resolution dynamics
53.2 Rigidity gap alone is insufficient
53.3 Identify loading/transition scale
53.4 derive freeze condition
53.5 recover helium-floor-compatible ratio

54. Distributed Alpha Closure

54.1 Derive nonstellar alpha constructor
54.2 determine alpha-lock efficiency
54.3 recover residual light-nuclide channels
54.4 explain near-universal low-metallicity helium fraction

55. Stellar Rank Operator

55.1 Derive stellar node from anisotropic rank reduction
55.2 derive total stellar MASS
55.3 derive first-node mass spectrum
55.4 derive suppression of first low-MASS stars
55.5 recover fully formed stellar compatibility conditions

56. Creation/Evolution Interface

56.1 Which stellar quantities are fixed at creation?
56.2 Which can evolve immediately afterward?
56.3 how conventional hydrostatic equations read the created construct
56.4 how later gravothermal evolution begins without becoming the constructor
56.5 prevent recurrence of evolution mechanism -> source creation inversion

The first issue is not solved by “re-resolution” if that re-resolution is imagined as happening at a finite Bucket-2 time inside an already-evolving galaxy. If a region has N_B ~ 10^33 and then suddenly has N_B ~ 10^59, the Bucket-2 ledger has changed by ~10^59 baryons. Renaming the jump does not preserve baryon conservation, and the associated stress-energy jump would also violate the ordinary GR constraint structure unless an explicit source current is present. The correct GRM move is therefore stronger: source rank reduction must belong to the creation map outside Bucket-2 temporal evolution. Galaxy-before-star is then construction order, not causal-time order. RECONSTRUCTION_ORDER != CAUSAL_TIME_ORDER becomes essential. The galaxy-scale organization can be established first in source construction, the stellar-scale rank closures next, and only after that does the complete Bucket-2 spacetime history begin. There is no star “materializing later” into an already-evolved gravitational field, so there is no step-function mass injection to be hidden. If GRM instead wants rank reduction to continue creating stars at finite cosmic times, then it must introduce an explicit exchange law such as ∇μ T_B2^{μν} = J_source^{ν} and an analogous baryon source term; ordinary baryon conservation would then apply only after including the source sector. It cannot have both later creation and closed Bucket-2 conservation.

That also fixes the apparent Omphalos problem. “Fully formed” should not mean “arbitrarily inserted at some pre-main-sequence radius.” The creation operator must determine a complete initial stellar state, including its entropy profile, density, temperature, pressure, composition and gravitational field, satisfying the Bucket-2 constraint equations. It may still be thermally out of equilibrium and subsequently contract, but then that contraction is genuine future evolution from a specifically generated initial state rather than an unmodelled missing half of formation. The source operator therefore owes an initial-condition selector. For zero-metallicity stars, conventional models show exactly why that selector matters: absent initial CNO, hydrogen burning begins differently, the core becomes hotter, trace carbon is produced by triple-alpha, and once the carbon fraction reaches around 10^-12, CNO burning can take over. OUP Academic GRM can either create the star at a state before that bootstrap and predict the subsequent Kelvin-Helmholtz/triple-alpha evolution, or create it already beyond that bootstrap. What it cannot do is call an arbitrary intermediate hydrostatic snapshot “creation” without deriving why that state was selected.

The metallicity issue follows from the same correction. I previously tried to insulate the stellar mass operator from chemistry to prevent a Bucket-2-to-source loop. That was unnecessary. Once the star-formation problem is placed wholly inside future Bucket-2 evolution, chemistry is allowed to affect cooling, fragmentation and stellar mass. Conventional calculations explicitly find that metal-free gas has different cooling and fragmentation behavior and that Pop III mass distributions are strongly affected by that physics, although the exact IMF remains uncertain. OUP Academic So GRM has two legitimate models, but they must not be mixed: either first stars are part of the source-created initial stellar population, in which case Jeans fragmentation is not their constructor; or later stars form inside Bucket 2, in which case cooling, fragmentation, accretion and chemistry are legitimate causal operators. A “rank clock blind to chemistry” cannot be used to explain later low-mass star formation while also claiming compatibility with the observed chemical dependence.

The helium section is the most restrictive. Your kinetics objection kills the distributed galactic-density alpha constructor. At n_p ~ 1 cm^-3, ordinary p+n -> d+γ capture is absurdly slower than the 880 s neutron lifetime; essentially every free neutron decays before deuterium can form. The PDG BBN treatment gets Y_p ~ 0.25 precisely because neutron locking happens in a dense early thermal environment after the neutron/proton ratio has already been set, and it gives Y_p = 2(n/p)/(1+n/p) as the counting relation. Particle Data Group So my “distributed alpha closure across an already existing galactic substrate” was physically impossible if interpreted as ordinary two-body nuclear kinetics.

GRM therefore has only three coherent helium paths. One: the source creation map outputs alpha particles directly as complete Bucket-2 constructs. That contradicts the earlier claim that the atemporal tension configuration does not create alphas. Two: source creation outputs proton/neutron baryons, and there is an early dense Bucket-2 evolutionary phase in which ordinary nuclear kinetics locks neutrons into helium before dilution. Structurally that is very close to BBN, even if GRM gives a different upstream source ancestry. Three: helium is made later in stars and redistributed, which then inherits the helium-floor/C/O co-enrichment problem you identified. There is no fourth galactic-density capture route.

The n/p ~ 1/7 point therefore cannot be obtained by merely renaming temperature as “loading scale.” If GRM uses a thermal Bucket-2 bath and weak rates, it has simply recovered the standard freeze-out mechanism and should say so. If it wants a genuinely different source mechanism, it must derive the branch population directly from source closure weights before Bucket-2 thermal evolution, with no Boltzmann import. Then it still needs a high-density locking phase unless alpha is created directly at resolution.

So the corrected architecture is now much cleaner: SOURCE CREATION determines the complete initial Bucket-2 inventory and large-scale organization; BUCKET-2 EVOLUTION then obeys its own conservation laws and contains all subsequent nuclear, gravothermal, hydrodynamic and chemical evolution. The remaining sharp fork is helium: either alpha is part of creation, or a dense pre-galactic/pre-stellar Bucket-2 nuclear phase is unavoidable. The galactic-density distributed-alpha option is closed.