Archive register. This document is the belief layer of its functional companion: held as position, not theorem, in the author's first person. Per house doctrine it is never citable by live Adaptor House systems; it is published at historicalpresent.com/shared so the record shows not only what was argued but what was believed while arguing it.
I believe the identity is real: the unmarked line is the satisfied negation, with no residue. I believe it because I have looked for the residue where it would have to live — in the binding rules, in the corpus computations — and found only compounds of the one predicate. If receptive force is hiding anywhere in this system, it is hiding in a place I have not built yet, and Q1 keeps the door open for whoever finds it.
I believe the tradition comes out of this note vindicated more than corrected. It held absence-as-value for two millennia on phenomenological evidence alone — the vessel, the valley — without any instrument that could have told it it was wrong. We did not discover that the broken line is a truth; we discovered a way for that claim to lose. The tradition could only ever be believed. Now it can be tested, and my belief is that it tests well.
And I believe promoting the objection was the most respectful act in the paper. The archive's objector — yin as receptive force, not absence — stood for a reading I take seriously enough to give a formal win condition. An interlocutor who can now refute me is worth more than one who could only be honored. That exchange, too, is the collaboration this series records in its metadata: the model holding the structure steady, the author deciding which concession the house can afford to make.