Version 5 · earlier version; the current one is v6 · External review, round 3: minor issues

# Fall of a bound pair of two bodies in a sharp field

- **Subproject:** 05-ilang-free-fall
- **Package:** 13-pair-fall
- **Version:** v5
- **Mode:** external regeneration
- **Date:** 2026-10-11

## Changes from previous version

Trigger: `verification.r2.md` (external round 2 on v4: I1 major, I2 and I3 minor), the amendment of the question of 2026-10-11 after that round (item 2(c) restricted; the new parenthesis replaces the clarification before it), and one remark of the main model's review of v4. No display (13.1)–(13.30) is changed in its formula. No tag is renumbered or withdrawn. New tags: (13.31)–(13.35). Every sentence of v4 that is not listed here is kept word for word.

- **Header.** Version; this section and the section "Response to verification" replace those of v4 (which answered `verification.md`).
- **Setup.** "Notation added here": (13.34) is added to the displays that use the level data; one bullet on the two notions of a rate. "Standard facts used": F5 is new. The path of the script is `code/v5` in Steps 4.4 and 5.3 and in the section "Code".
- **I1 (item 2(c), the other order of the limits).** Step 5.3 is restated for the item as it now reads.
  - Kept word for word, apart from the labels (i), (ii), (N) in their heads: the derivations of (13.28), (13.29), (13.30), the proof for the levels of items 3 and 4 (its first sentence is restated), and the numerical members (one sentence on S1–S3 is added).
  - New: the sufficient condition $F_{i,\lambda}\equiv0$ with the spectral form of both conditions (13.31); the completion of the criterion for levels without a mirror pair (13.32); the proof that the eigenvector condition of v4 holds iff $g_1=g_2=0$ (13.33).
  - Regrouped: the bullets "Members for which …" of v4 are now the two determinations that the item asks for (the members with $g_1=g_2=0$; the levels of items 3 and 4 at $P_0=0$) and the bullet "The other members". The bullet "Members that stay open" is replaced by the answer to the third question of the item: where a member with the necessary condition and without the sufficient one is excluded, and where it is neither shown to exist nor excluded, with the reason.
  - Also changed: Result, item 2(c); Open issues, second item; twin (13.11), (13.29) and the new entries (13.31)–(13.33).
- **I2 (absolute and relative order of the difference).** Step 6.4, first bullet, with the new display (13.34); Step 7.4, the sentence on the speed $\tau d_0$. Result, items 3 and 4; table, first and third row; twin (13.15), (13.20) and the new entry (13.34).
- **I3 (rate parameter and reading).** Step 7.1: one bullet added, with the new display (13.35). Step 7.2: the bullet "Derivative used" ("rate parameter"; "exactly" is qualified), a new bullet "What $\varrho_i$ is a statement on", and the entry (13.21) of the list "What each display rests on". Step 7.3: one sentence at its head. Result, item 4; table, third row; Open issues, fifth item; twin (13.17), (13.18), (13.21), (13.24)–(13.26) and the new entry (13.35).
- **Remark of the main model (section "Code", item 2b).** "Below 0.5 % of the largest value of the same configuration" is now stated for the configurations to which it applies (S1 with $g_1$ only, and the three configurations of S2, S3 and S4), with their numbers.
- **Read-through of the orders in $\epsilon$.** Every sentence of the text, the Result, the table and the twin that states an order in $\epsilon$ ("of order", "to any order", "at leading order", "exact") was read against the display it cites. Changed, besides I2 and I3: Step 6.4, third bullet ("at leading order in $\mathsf R$" is added to its first equation, and the form of (13.34) that applies is named); Consistency check 2 (the remainder $O(\epsilon^4)$ of (11.14) is named); Open issues, fourth item (the two kinds of remainder are named). Read and left unchanged: (13.13)–(13.19), (13.22)–(13.26), (13.30) and the sentences on them.
- **Code.** `code/v5/pair_fall_check.py` is the script of v4 with the paths changed; no table is added, because no statement that is new in v5 rests on a number. All numbers of v4 are reproduced. Changed in the section "Code": the bullets "File" and "Run", and item 2b.

## Response to verification

- **I1: Accepted and fixed in Step 5.3** (with Result, item 2(c), and Open issues, second item). The item is answered as it reads since its restriction of 2026-10-11.
  - Determination for the two groups. The members with $g_1=g_2=0$: the other order exists and agrees. The levels of items 3 and 4 at $P_0=0$: it exists and agrees iff $g_1=g_2=0$, and does not exist otherwise (13.30).
  - The other members. (i) At a fixed window the limit exists for every sequence iff $\mathsf f_i\equiv0$ on $\mathcal P_0$ (13.28). (ii) Necessary for the other order: $c_i\equiv0$ (13.29). Sufficient: $F_{i,\lambda}\equiv0$ on $\mathcal P_0$ for all $\lambda$ (13.31); it contains the sufficient condition of v4 ($\psi_P$ an eigenvector of $\mathcal K$). (iii) The case that the issue names, $c_i\equiv0$ with $Q_P\mathcal K\psi_P\neq0$.
  - What is new on (iii). The eigenvector condition of v4 holds iff $g_1=g_2=0$ (13.33); so for $(g_1,g_2)\neq(0,0)$ every member with $c_i\equiv0$ is in the case of the issue. The criterion is completed for every member whose level has no mirror pair at one $P_1\in\mathcal P_0$: there $c_i\equiv0$ implies $F_{i,\lambda}\equiv0$, and the other order exists and agrees (13.32). For the members whose level has a mirror pair at every $P\in\mathcal P_0$, a member with the necessary condition and without the sufficient one is neither shown to exist nor excluded; this is said plainly, with the reason, and no short argument that decides it was found. Such members are no longer presented as "members that stay open", and no member with $(g_1,g_2)\neq(0,0)$ and $c_i\equiv0$ is exhibited.
- **I2: Accepted and fixed in Steps 6.4 and 7.4.** The absolute difference of the falls is of order $\epsilon^2\lvert g_{\rm c}\rvert$, the order of the falls themselves, and the relative difference is $-\Lambda$, of order $\epsilon^0$ (13.34). "Neither exactly nor to any order in $\epsilon$" is replaced by "neither exactly nor at the leading non-zero order $\epsilon^2$ at a fixed $u$", with the remark that the pair and its parts agree trivially through the orders $\epsilon^0$ and $\epsilon^1$. The same correction is made in Step 7.4, in the Result, in the table and in the twin.
- **I3: Accepted and fixed in Steps 7.1 and 7.2.** The rate parameter of the level (the number that multiplies $\lambda$ in the advance of (11.19)) is distinguished from the rate that a reading resolves within the remainder of (11.19). (13.17), (13.18), (13.21), (13.22) and (13.24)–(13.26) are statements on the rate parameter. The hierarchy under which a reading resolves the term of order $\epsilon^2$ of (13.17) is (13.35); for the terms of order $\epsilon^2$ of $\varrho_i$ the corresponding hierarchy is given for the readings of two pairs without gradients, and for one pair in the field they are stated to be statements on the rate parameter only. "Exact in the data" for (13.21) is qualified: an identity for the rate parameter, not for a rate inferred from readings.

## Setup and assumptions

- **Setting.** Objects, contract $C$, class $\mathcal W$, records, field, levels, bound level, packets, orders and the regime $\mathsf R$ are those of the question, used literally. Assumptions of the package (M8, A11): two Model D bodies, one medium with one operator and one strength, a binding of the class $\mathcal W$ without a factor of the field, the field coupled to the rest and clock terms only, the field start $\varphi$ sharp and stationary, and a packet of a bound level as the start (M9). Equal parameters of the two types are never assumed.
- **Inputs, as quoted in the question:** (11.1), (11.2), (11.5)–(11.9), (11.11)–(11.14), (11.16), (11.19)–(11.22) of 11-bound-pair; (8.10), (8.11) of 08-two-types; (2.1), (2.3) of 02-field-object; (4.7), (4.10), (4.11), (4.16), (4.24) of 04-branch-fall; (5.1), (5.5), (5.6), (5.11) of 04-ilang-time/05-moving-clock; (17.15) of 03-ilang-space/17-motion; (16.11) of 03-ilang-space/16-common-space. With (11.14) the question quotes the statement of Step 8 of 11-bound-pair on the differentiation of (11.12) in the data; with (11.11) the statement of its Step 7 (the reduction to $H_{\rm eff}$ with a remainder in norm); and three statements of its Step 10 on the dependence of the level on the rest costs. The statement of Step 7 and the statements of Step 10 are used in Step 7.2; the statement of Step 8 is used in Step 5.3.
- **Notation added here.**
  - The packet weight is written $g(P)$ and enters only through $g$, $g'$ and $\langle F\rangle_g:=\int\mathrm dP\,\lvert g(P)\rvert^2F(P)$. The common gradient ($g$ in the question) is written $g_{\rm c}:=g_1=g_2$.
  - $\mathfrak h:=\ell^2(\mathbb Z)\otimes\mathbb C^2\otimes\mathbb C^2$ is the fibre space; $\lvert P;\psi\rangle(x_1,x_2)=(2\pi)^{-1/2}e^{iP(\eta x_1+(1-\eta)x_2)}\psi(x_1-x_2)$, so that $\langle P;\psi\vert P';\psi'\rangle=\delta(P-P')\langle\psi\vert\psi'\rangle$ and $\lVert\Phi_g\rVert=1$.
  - $\Gamma(P)>0$ is the distance of $E_b(P)$ from the rest of the spectrum of $H(P)$; $R_P:=Q_P(H(P)-E_b(P))^{-1}Q_P$ with $\lVert R_P\rVert=1/\Gamma(P)$; $\mathcal U_P(\lambda):=\mathbb 1-e^{-i(H(P)-E_b(P))\lambda}$; $I_g$ as in (11.8); $\Gamma_g:=\min_{I_g}\Gamma>0$.
  - $\mathsf b:=\lvert g_1\rvert M_1+\lvert g_2\rvert M_2+2\kappa\lvert\langle X\rangle\rvert$, $\mathsf d_\eta:=\lvert1-\eta\rvert\lvert g_1\rvert M_1+\lvert\eta\rvert\lvert g_2\rvert M_2+\lvert1-2\eta\rvert\kappa\lvert\langle X\rangle\rvert$, $\tau_{\min}:=\min(\tau_1,\tau_2)$.
  - Two sets of data (Step 7). The **level data**: both parts on their levels, $(M_1,M_2)=(M^{(1)}_{k_1},M^{(2)}_{k_2})$; $a_i$, $a$, $u$, $\Lambda$, $\mathfrak m_i$, $\tau_{\rm p}$ without a label are taken with them, as in (13.13)–(13.16), (13.19), (13.20), (13.23), (13.34). The **clock data of the part $i$**: the mean rest cost $\bar M_i$ for the part $i$, whose clock is read, and the level $M_j=M^{(j)}_{k_j}$ for the other part $j\neq i$; quantities taken with them carry the label $[i]$: $a_{i[i]}:=\tau_i^2/(4\bar M_i)$, $a_{[i]}:=a_{i[i]}+a_j$, $u_{[i]}:=\lvert w\rvert/a_{[i]}$, $\Lambda_{[i]}:=1+\varsigma/\sqrt{1+u_{[i]}^2}$. In (11.19), (11.20), (13.17), (13.18), (13.21), (13.22) the symbols $M_i$, $a_i$, $a$, $u$, $\Lambda$ are those of the clock data of the part $i$, as (11.20) states: there $u=u_{[i]}$ and $\Lambda=\Lambda_{[i]}$. The two sets coincide iff $M^{(i)}_{k_i}=\bar M_i$, which is possible only for odd $N_i$ and $k_i=(N_i-1)/2$. Both $u$ and $u_{[i]}$ are fixed in $\mathsf R$, and $u_{[i]}/u=a/a_{[i]}$ does not depend on the binding, so an ordered limit in $u$ is one in $u_{[i]}$ as well.
  - Two notions of a rate (Step 7.1): the **rate parameter** of the level, the number that multiplies $\lambda$ in the advance of (11.19), and the rate that a **reading** of the clock label resolves within the remainder of (11.19).
- **Standard facts used.**
  - F1 (first order in a term of the contract): $e^{-i(H_0+\Delta)\lambda}=e^{-iH_0\lambda}-i\int_0^\lambda\mathrm ds\,e^{-iH_0(\lambda-s)}\Delta\,e^{-iH_0s}+O(\Delta^2)$ at fixed $\lambda$.
  - F2 (isolated simple eigenvalue of an analytic family): $E_b$ and $\psi_P$ are analytic in $P$ and in the data, $Q_P\psi_P'=-R_PV_\eta\psi_P$, and $\langle\psi_P\vert\psi_P'\rangle\in i\mathbb R$.
  - F3: an eigenvector of $H(P)$ for an eigenvalue outside the bands (11.2) decays exponentially in $\lvert r\rvert$ (finite range of the hopping and of $W$), locally uniformly in $P$; hence $\hat r\psi_P\in\mathfrak h$.
  - F4 (long chain): at fixed $\lambda$ the first-order coefficients on the chain $\lvert x_i\rvert\le L$ converge for $L\to\infty$ to those of the infinite chain, because the hopping has range one and $\Phi_g$, $\hat x_i\Phi_g$ are square summable.
  - F5 (spectral measures): for a bounded self-adjoint $H$ and vectors $\phi$, $\chi$, the map $S\mapsto\langle\phi\vert\mathbb 1_S(H)\vert\chi\rangle$ on the Borel sets is a finite complex measure carried by the spectrum of $H$; two finite complex measures on $\mathbb R$ with the same Fourier transform are equal; the spectrum of a norm-continuous family of bounded self-adjoint operators moves continuously.
- **Approximations and their range.** First order in $(g_1,g_2,\kappa\langle X\rangle)$ at fixed $\lambda$ (the size of the second order is not estimated). Records at leading order in $\kappa$ with the convention of the question: the bodies evolve by $C_{\rm bod}$. Items 3 and 4 at leading order in $\mathsf R$ at fixed $u$; their remainders are not uniform in $u$. Trivial member: for $g_1=g_2=0$ and $\kappa\langle X\rangle=0$ every first-order quantity below is zero; a statement with "iff", "only", "no" or "not at all" names this member where it would be false on it.

## Derivation

### Step 1. Reduced contract (item 1a)

1. Every term of $C$ is the identity on $\mathcal H_f$, or $\theta_i\,\hat x_i\otimes G_i\otimes\Phi$, or $C_f$. With $\Phi\varphi=\gamma\varphi$ and $C_f\varphi=e_f\varphi$, for every $\Psi\in\mathcal H_{b_1}\otimes\mathcal H_{b_2}\otimes\mathcal H_c$ (the computation of (2.3) and (8.10); $U$ is carried along unchanged):

$$
C\,(\Psi\otimes\varphi)=\bigl((C_{\rm red}+e_f)\Psi\bigr)\otimes\varphi,\qquad C_{\rm red}=\sum_{i=1,2}\Bigl[A_i+\sum_xP^{(i)}_x\otimes(1+g_ix)\,G_i+\kappa\,\hat x_i\otimes X\Bigr]+U .
\tag{13.1}
$$

2. Hence $e^{-iC\lambda}(\Psi\otimes\varphi)=e^{-ie_f\lambda}\,(e^{-iC_{\rm red}\lambda}\Psi)\otimes\varphi$ for all $\lambda$: the view of $\{b_1,b_2,c\}$ is pure and evolves by $C_{\rm red}$ (exact, for this start of the field only).
3. $C_{\rm red}$ is the contract of an admissible description of $b_1,b_2,c$. It is self-adjoint and independent of $\lambda$; $U$ is a pair term of $b_1,b_2$; $\kappa\,\hat x_i\otimes X$ are pair terms of $b_i,c$; $A_i+\sum_xP^{(i)}_x\otimes(1+g_ix)G_i$ acts on one object and is included in a pair term (A5). Its position-dependent rest and clock term is then a property of the type of $b_i$ (A10).
4. A binding with a factor of the field needs a term on $\mathcal H_{b_1}\otimes\mathcal H_{b_2}\otimes\mathcal H_f$, for example $\sum_{x_1,x_2}\lvert x_1\rangle\langle x_1\rvert\otimes\lvert x_2\rangle\langle x_2\rvert\otimes W(x_1-x_2)\otimes\Phi_{x_1x_2}$, that is not a sum of pair terms. Decompose the operators of each object into $\mathbb C\mathbb 1$ and the traceless ones: a sum of pair terms has no component that is traceless on all three objects, while $U'\otimes\Phi'$ has one whenever $U'\neq u_1\otimes\mathbb 1+\mathbb 1\otimes u_2$ and $\Phi'\notin\mathbb C\mathbb 1$. Such a three-object term is not of the form (1.10).

### Step 2. The operator on the two bodies (item 1b)

1. The partial expectation of $C-e_f$ in $\chi\otimes\varphi$ is, by (13.1),

$$
C_{\rm bod}=C^{\rm D}_1+C^{\rm D}_2+U+\sum_{i=1,2}g_i\,\hat x_i\otimes G_i+\kappa\langle X\rangle\,(\hat x_1+\hat x_2).
\tag{13.2}
$$

2. $[C_{\rm bod},D_i]=0$, so the levels are conserved, and $G_i=M_i\sigma^{(i)}_3$ on the levels $k_1,k_2$. With $\hat x_1=\hat X_\eta+(1-\eta)\hat r$ and $\hat x_2=\hat X_\eta-\eta\hat r$ the gradient terms $\Delta:=C_{\rm bod}-C_{\rm pair}$ are

$$
\begin{aligned}
\Delta&=\hat X_\eta\,\mathcal K+\hat r\,\mathcal D_\eta,\qquad \mathcal K:=g_1M_1\sigma^{(1)}_3+g_2M_2\sigma^{(2)}_3+2\kappa\langle X\rangle,\\
\mathcal D_\eta&:=(1-\eta)\,g_1M_1\sigma^{(1)}_3-\eta\,g_2M_2\sigma^{(2)}_3+(1-2\eta)\,\kappa\langle X\rangle .
\end{aligned}
\tag{13.3}
$$

3. Well-definedness (M6). A replacement of the listed terms that leaves $C$ unchanged leaves $\langle\chi\otimes\varphi\vert C\vert\chi\otimes\varphi\rangle$ unchanged. It can change the listed $C_f$ by a multiple of $\mathbb 1$, hence $e_f$: $C_{\rm bod}$ is fixed by $C$, $\chi$, $\varphi$ up to an additive real constant, which drops out of everything below. Let $b(x_1,x_2)$ be the block of $C_{\rm bod}$ that is diagonal in both positions, an operator on the internal labels. For $\lvert x_1-x_2\rvert>R$ it is $(1+g_1x_1)G_1+(1+g_2x_2)G_2+\kappa\langle X\rangle(x_1+x_2)$ up to the constant. $G_1$ and $G_2$ are traceless and act on the labels of one body each, so the three parts are linearly independent: $\kappa\langle X\rangle$ is the normalized trace of $b(x_1+1,x_2)-b(x_1,x_2)$ (both arguments in that region), $g_1G_1$ is its traceless part, and $G_1$ is the traceless part of $b(0,x_2)$ on the labels of $b_1$; likewise for $b_2$.
   - $g_1$, $g_2$, $\kappa\langle X\rangle$: fixed by $C_{\rm bod}$, well defined, independent of $\eta$. They are the coefficients read from $C_{\rm bod}$. The listed numbers $\gamma\theta_i$ and $\kappa\langle\chi\vert X\vert\chi\rangle$ can change under a relisting such as $X\to X-c$, $C^{\rm D}_i\to C^{\rm D}_i+\kappa c\,\hat x_i$. Used: the label $0$ of the two types (A2) and the finite range of $W$.
   - The operator that multiplies the centre label, $\mathcal K$ (on all levels $g_1G_1+g_2G_2+2\kappa\langle X\rangle$): fixed by $C_{\rm bod}$, independent of $\eta$.
   - The operator that multiplies $\hat r$: fixed by $C_{\rm bod}$ once $\eta$ is given. It depends on the convention, $\mathcal D_\eta=\mathcal D_0-\eta\,\mathcal K$, and is independent of $\eta$ iff $\mathcal K=0$, i.e. (as $M_i>0$) iff all three gradients vanish.

### Step 3. First-order velocities from a bound level (item 2a)

Class: every $W\in\mathcal W$, all data, every bound level, every $g\in\mathcal G(\mathcal P_0)$, all gradients. On the levels $k_1,k_2$ write $H_0:=C_{\rm pair}$ and $\Phi_g(\lambda):=e^{-iH_0\lambda}\Phi_g$.

1. $\Delta$ is diagonal in the positions, so $i[C_{\rm bod},\hat x_i]=V_i$ and $\mathrm d\bar m_i/\mathrm d\lambda=\langle V_i\rangle$ in the evolved state, exactly. The first-order velocity $v^{(1)}_i$ is the part of this expectation that is linear in the gradients. By F1,

$$
v^{(1)}_i(\lambda)=2\,\mathrm{Re}\,\bigl\langle\Phi_g(\lambda)\big\vert V_i\big\vert\Phi^{(1)}(\lambda)\bigr\rangle,\qquad
\Phi^{(1)}(\lambda):=-i\int_0^\lambda\mathrm ds\;e^{-iH_0(\lambda-s)}\,\Delta\,\Phi_g(s),
\tag{13.4}
$$

and the same formula with $V_i\to\hat r$ gives the first-order change of $\bar m_1-\bar m_2$. On a finite chain all operators are bounded; the long-chain limit is F4, with (13.5).
2. In the fibres $\Phi_g(s)$ is $g\,e^{-iE_bs}\psi_P$, and $\hat X_\eta$ acts as $i\partial_P$ ($g$ has compact support in $\mathcal P_0$), so

$$
\Delta\,\Phi_g(s)\ \longleftrightarrow\ e^{-iE_b(P)s}\bigl[s\,E_b'\,g\,\mathcal K\psi_P+\xi_P\bigr],\qquad
\xi_P:=i\,g'\,\mathcal K\psi_P+i\,g\,\mathcal K\psi_P'+g\,\hat r\,\mathcal D_\eta\psi_P ,
\tag{13.5}
$$

a vector of $\mathfrak h$ with $\int\mathrm dP\,\lVert\xi_P\rVert^2<\infty$ (F2, F3, $g\in C^1$ with compact support).
3. Split (13.5) along $\psi_P$ and in $Q_P\mathfrak h$. On $\psi_P$ the propagator is $e^{-iE_b(\lambda-s)}$. On $Q_P\mathfrak h$, $\int_0^\lambda\mathrm ds\,e^{-i(H-E_b)(\lambda-s)}=-iR_P\,\mathcal U_P(\lambda)$ and $\int_0^\lambda\mathrm ds\,s\,e^{-i(H-E_b)(\lambda-s)}=-i\lambda R_P+R_P^2\,\mathcal U_P(\lambda)$.
4. Part along $\psi_P$. $\langle V_i\rangle_P=E_b'$ by (11.7), and $\langle\mathcal K\rangle_P$, $\langle\hat r\mathcal D_\eta\rangle_P$ are real. The terms with $\lambda^2$ and with $\mathcal D_\eta$ are imaginary and drop out. With $2\,\mathrm{Re}\langle\psi_P\vert\mathcal K\vert\psi_P'\rangle=\partial_P\langle\mathcal K\rangle_P$ the rest is $\lambda\int\mathrm dP\,E_b'\,\partial_P\bigl(\lvert g\rvert^2\langle\mathcal K\rangle_P\bigr)=-\lambda\,\langle E_b''\langle\mathcal K\rangle\rangle_g$ (partial integration).
5. Part in $Q_P\mathfrak h$. The term $-i\lambda R_P$ gives $-\lambda\int\mathrm dP\,\lvert g\rvert^2E_b'\,2\,\mathrm{Re}\langle V_i\psi_P\vert R_P\vert\mathcal K\psi_P\rangle$. Since $V_1-V_2=i[H(P),\hat r]$ and $(H-E_b)\psi_P=0$,

$$
\begin{aligned}
R_PV_1\psi_P&=R_PV_\eta\psi_P+i(1-\eta)\,Q_P\hat r\psi_P,\qquad R_PV_2\psi_P=R_PV_\eta\psi_P-i\eta\,Q_P\hat r\psi_P,\\
2\,\mathrm{Re}\,\langle V_i\psi_P\vert R_P\vert\mathcal K\psi_P\rangle&=-\partial_P\langle\mathcal K\rangle_P\qquad(i=1,2).
\end{aligned}
\tag{13.6}
$$

The second line holds because $\partial_P\langle\mathcal K\rangle_P=-2\,\mathrm{Re}\langle\mathcal K\psi_P\vert R_P\vert V_\eta\psi_P\rangle$ (F2) and $\langle Q_P\hat r\psi_P\vert\mathcal K\psi_P\rangle=\langle\hat r\mathcal K\rangle_P-\langle\hat r\rangle_P\langle\mathcal K\rangle_P$ is real ($[\hat r,\mathcal K]=0$).
6. Result, for $i=1,2$ and every $\lambda$:

$$
\boxed{\;v^{(1)}_i(\lambda)=\lambda\,\langle\alpha\rangle_g+\rho_i(\lambda)\;},\qquad \alpha(P):=-E_b''(P)\,\langle\mathcal K\rangle_P+E_b'(P)\,\partial_P\langle\mathcal K\rangle_P ,
\tag{13.7}
$$

$$
\alpha=g_1\alpha_1+g_2\alpha_2+\kappa\langle X\rangle\,\alpha_X,\qquad
\alpha_i(P)=-M_i\bigl[E_b''\,\langle\sigma^{(i)}_3\rangle_P-E_b'\,\partial_P\langle\sigma^{(i)}_3\rangle_P\bigr],\qquad \alpha_X(P)=-2E_b''(P),
\tag{13.8}
$$

$$
\begin{aligned}
\rho_i(\lambda)&=-2\,\mathrm{Re}\int\mathrm dP\,\Bigl[i\lvert g\rvert^2E_b'\,\langle V_i\psi_P\vert R_P^2\,\mathcal U_P(\lambda)\vert\mathcal K\psi_P\rangle+g^{*}\langle V_i\psi_P\vert R_P\,\mathcal U_P(\lambda)\vert\xi_P\rangle\Bigr],\\
\lvert\rho_i(\lambda)\rvert&\le\tau_i\,\mathsf B_g,\qquad \mathsf B_g:=\frac4{\Gamma_g}\Bigl[\mathsf b\Bigl(\frac{\tau_{\min}}{\Gamma_g}+\lVert g'\rVert_2+\max_{I_g}\lVert\psi_P'\rVert\Bigr)+\mathsf d_\eta\max_{I_g}\lVert\hat r\psi_P\rVert\Bigr].
\end{aligned}
\tag{13.9}
$$

The bound uses $\lVert V_i\rVert\le\tau_i$, $\lvert E_b'\rvert\le\tau_{\min}$, $\lVert\mathcal U_P\rVert\le2$, $\lVert\mathcal K\rVert\le\mathsf b$, $\lVert\mathcal D_\eta\rVert\le\mathsf d_\eta$ and $\int\lvert g\rvert\lvert g'\rvert\le\lVert g'\rVert_2$.
7. Status. Both parts have the same coefficient $\langle\alpha\rangle_g$ of the growing part. The rests of the two parts are not equal on the class, and $\rho_i(0)=0$: they differ in the runs of the numerical sets S2–S5 and of S1 with $g_1$ only (section "Code"; at values of $\lambda$ within the range of each run, where the first-order separation changes), and they coincide under the conditions of Step 4.3, where $\bar m_1-\bar m_2=0$ (set S1 with the common or the plain gradient). The rest is bounded for all $\lambda$, in particular for all $\lambda\ge0$, under the conditions of the class alone: the level is isolated on the compact $I_g\subset\mathcal P_0$ ($\Gamma_g>0$) and $g\in\mathcal G(\mathcal P_0)$ ($\lVert g'\rVert_2<\infty$). $\rho_i$ does not depend on $\eta$ or on the phase of $\psi_P$; the single terms of the bound do. By (11.5) and F2, $\langle\sigma^{(i)}_3\rangle_P=\partial E_b/\partial M_i$ and $\partial_P\langle\sigma^{(i)}_3\rangle_P=\partial E_b'/\partial M_i$. Numerical check: section "Code".

### Step 4. Mean label separation (item 2b)

1. The computation of Step 3 with $V_i\to\hat r$ ($\langle\hat r\rangle_P$ is real; (13.6) is not used) gives, for every member of the class of item 2,

$$
\begin{aligned}
(\bar m_1-\bar m_2)^{(1)}(\lambda)&=\lambda\,\langle\beta\rangle_g+\sigma(\lambda),\qquad \lvert\sigma(\lambda)\rvert\le\max_{I_g}\lVert\hat r\psi_P\rVert\;\mathsf B_g,\\
\beta(P)&:=-\langle\mathcal K\rangle_P\,\partial_P\langle\hat r\rangle_P-2E_b'(P)\,\mathrm{Re}\,\langle\hat r\psi_P\vert R_P\vert\mathcal K\psi_P\rangle ,
\end{aligned}
\tag{13.10}
$$

where $\sigma$ is the first line of (13.9) with $V_i\psi_P\to\hat r\psi_P$. There is no term $\propto\lambda^2$: the first-order relative velocity $\rho_1-\rho_2=\langle\beta\rangle_g+\dot\sigma$ has no growing part. This holds alike for the common gradient and for $g_1\neq g_2$.
2. Bounded case (sufficient condition). Let $W(-r)^{*}=W(r)$ for all $r$ (complex conjugate of the matrix in the branch basis); every diagonal on-site binding has this property. The antiunitary $(\Theta\psi)(r):=\psi(-r)^{*}$ then commutes with $H(P)$ for every $P$ and $\eta$ ($\Theta S\Theta^{-1}=S^\dagger$ in (11.1)) and with $\mathcal K$, and $\Theta\hat r\Theta^{-1}=-\hat r$. For a simple level $\Theta\psi_P=e^{i\phi}\psi_P$, hence $\langle\hat r\rangle_P=0$ for all $P$ and $\langle\hat r\psi_P\vert R_P\vert\mathcal K\psi_P\rangle\in i\mathbb R$. So $\beta\equiv0$, and the first-order change of the separation is $\sigma(\lambda)$: bounded for all $\lambda\ge0$, for all values of the gradients.
3. Vanishing case (sufficient condition). Let $\tau_1=\tau_2$, $M_1=M_2$, $W(-r)=\mathsf S\,W(r)\,\mathsf S$ with $\mathsf S$ the exchange of the two branch labels, and $g_1=g_2$ (any $\kappa\langle X\rangle$). The exchange $\Sigma$ of the labels of the two bodies then commutes with $C_{\rm bod}$ and with the joint shift, $\Sigma\Phi_g=\pm\Phi_g$ (simple level) and $\Sigma\hat r\Sigma=-\hat r$. Hence $\bar m_1-\bar m_2=0$ for all $\lambda$, to all orders in the gradients.
4. Otherwise. For a binding without the property of 2, $\beta$ need not vanish: for the numerical control (`code/v5/pair_fall_check.py`, set S5) $\langle\beta\rangle_g\neq0$ for each of the three gradients (from the numerical level), so by (13.10) the first-order separation grows linearly in $\lambda$; the run of that set shows the slope over its range $\lambda\le400$ ($\lambda\le600$ for $g_1$ only): the internal structure of the level follows the first-order change $-\lambda\langle\mathcal K\rangle_P$ of the total label. This rests on that numerical control, not on an analytic example. With the property of 2 and without the conditions of 3 the change is bounded for all $\lambda$ (item 2 of this step) and need not vanish: in the runs of the sets S1–S4 (same file; $\lambda\le3000$ for S1–S3, $\lambda\le200$ for S4), except S1 with the common or the plain gradient, it is not zero and stays bounded over the range of the run. Whether it converges for $\lambda\to\infty$ is not derived, and the runs do not show it (section "Code", item 2b).

### Step 5. Drift acceleration (items 2c, 2d)

1. The first-order acceleration is $a^{(1)}_i=\mathrm dv^{(1)}_i/\mathrm d\lambda=\langle\alpha\rangle_g+\dot\rho_i(\lambda)$. Its rest is the derivative of (13.9) under the integral ($H(P)$ is bounded, $R_P\,\partial_\lambda\mathcal U_P=i\,Q_Pe^{-i(H-E_b)\lambda}$, and $\int\mathrm dP\,\lvert g\rvert\,\lVert\xi_P\rVert<\infty$):

$$
\dot\rho_i(\lambda)=2\,\mathrm{Re}\int\mathrm dP\,\Bigl[\lvert g\rvert^2E_b'\,\langle V_i\psi_P\vert R_P\,e^{-i(H(P)-E_b)\lambda}\vert\mathcal K\psi_P\rangle-i\,g^{*}\langle V_i\psi_P\vert Q_P\,e^{-i(H(P)-E_b)\lambda}\vert\xi_P\rangle\Bigr],\qquad
\lvert\dot\rho_i(\lambda)\rvert\le\tfrac12\,\tau_i\,\Gamma_g\,\mathsf B_g .
\tag{13.27}
$$

The bound uses the estimates listed under (13.9), $\lVert e^{-i(H-E_b)\lambda}\rVert=1$ and $\int\lvert g\rvert\,\lVert\xi_P\rVert\le\mathsf b\,(\lVert g'\rVert_2+\max_{I_g}\lVert\psi_P'\rVert)+\mathsf d_\eta\max_{I_g}\lVert\hat r\psi_P\rVert$; it holds for all $\lambda$. So $\dot\rho_i$ is bounded for every packet of the class. It is not shown to be small, and its decay for $\lambda\to\infty$ is neither derived nor excluded; in the numerical sets it is not negligible over the range of $\lambda$ used (section "Code": on half of the range the mean rates deviate from $\langle\alpha\rangle_g$ by up to $1.2\cdot10^{-2}$). Its window average is a difference quotient of the velocity, exactly: $\overline{a^{(1)}_i}=\langle\alpha\rangle_g+[\rho_i(\lambda_1+\Lambda)-\rho_i(\lambda_1)]/\Lambda$, so $\lvert\overline{a^{(1)}_i}-\langle\alpha\rangle_g\rvert\le2\tau_i\mathsf B_g/\Lambda$ for all $\lambda_1\ge0$, $\Lambda>0$.
2. Sharp total label. Class of sequences $\mathcal S(P_0,I)$: packets of $\mathcal G(\mathcal P_0)$ with supports in one compact interval $I\subset\mathcal P_0$, mean $P_0$ and $\delta P\to0$. Taylor's formula with $\int(P-P_0)\lvert g\rvert^2=0$ gives $\lvert\langle\alpha\rangle_g-\alpha(P_0)\rvert\le\frac12\max_I\lvert\alpha''\rvert\,\delta P^2$. Hence, with the window first and the sharp label second, for both parts:

$$
\boxed{\;a^{\rm drift}(P_0):=\lim_{\delta P\to0}\,\lim_{\Lambda\to\infty}\overline{a^{(1)}_i}=g_1\,\alpha_1(P_0)+g_2\,\alpha_2(P_0)+\kappa\langle X\rangle\,\alpha_X(P_0)\;},\qquad \alpha_i=-M_i\Bigl[E_b''\,\frac{\partial E_b}{\partial M_i}-E_b'\,\frac{\partial E_b'}{\partial M_i}\Bigr],\quad\alpha_X=-2E_b'' .
\tag{13.11}
$$

Here $E_b'=\langle V_i\rangle_P$ (11.7), $\partial E_b/\partial M_i=\langle\sigma^{(i)}_3\rangle_P$ (11.5), and $E_b''=-\eta^2\langle A_1\rangle_P-(1-\eta)^2\langle A_2\rangle_P-2\mathcal S_\eta(P)$ (11.9).
3. The other order (item 2(c) as restricted on 2026-10-11). Fix a window $[\lambda_1,\lambda_1+\Lambda]$, $\lambda_1\ge0$, $\Lambda>0$. The class of sequences is $\mathcal S(P_0,I)$ of 2, unchanged: it restricts $\lvert g\rvert^2$ (support in $I$, mean $P_0$, $\delta P\to0$) and leaves the phase of $g$ free. A class that restricts the phase is another class; no statement is made for it. All statements are for one part $i$. The item asks a determination (the other order exists and agrees with the defining order, or it does not exist) for two groups, the members with $g_1=g_2=0$ and the levels of items 3 and 4 at $P_0=0$; for the other members it asks three things, marked (i), (ii), (iii) below.
   - The fixed-window quantity. In (13.9) the packet enters through $\lvert g\rvert^2$ and through $g^{*}g'=\tfrac12(\lvert g\rvert^2)'+i\,\mathsf j_g$ with $\mathsf j_g:=\mathrm{Im}(g^{*}g')$, a continuous function with support in $I$. Put $F_{i,\lambda}(P):=\langle V_i\psi_P\vert R_P\,\mathcal U_P(\lambda)\vert\mathcal K\psi_P\rangle$ and $\mathsf A_{i,\lambda}(P):=-2\,\mathrm{Re}\bigl[iE_b'\langle V_i\psi_P\vert R_P^2\,\mathcal U_P(\lambda)\vert\mathcal K\psi_P\rangle+\langle V_i\psi_P\vert R_P\,\mathcal U_P(\lambda)\vert\,i\mathcal K\psi_P'+\hat r\mathcal D_\eta\psi_P\rangle\bigr]$, both analytic in $P\in\mathcal P_0$ (F2, F3) and independent of $g$. With $\xi_P$ of (13.5) and a partial integration of the term with $(\lvert g\rvert^2)'$, (13.9) is $\rho_i(\lambda)=\langle\mathsf A_{i,\lambda}-\partial_P\mathrm{Im}F_{i,\lambda}\rangle_g+2\int\mathrm dP\,\mathsf j_g\,\mathrm{Re}F_{i,\lambda}$. With the difference quotient of 1, exactly:

$$
\overline{a^{(1)}_i}=\langle\alpha\rangle_g+\frac1\Lambda\Bigl[\langle\mathsf G_i\rangle_g+2\int\mathrm dP\;\mathsf j_g(P)\,\mathsf f_i(P)\Bigr],\qquad
\mathsf f_i(P):=\mathrm{Re}\bigl[F_{i,\lambda_1+\Lambda}(P)-F_{i,\lambda_1}(P)\bigr],\quad
\mathsf G_i(P):=\Bigl[\mathsf A_{i,\lambda}(P)-\partial_P\mathrm{Im}F_{i,\lambda}(P)\Bigr]_{\lambda=\lambda_1}^{\lambda=\lambda_1+\Lambda} .
\tag{13.28}
$$

   $\mathsf f_i$ depends on the level, the gradients and the window; it does not depend on $\eta$ or on the phase of $\psi_P$ ($\mathsf G_i$ and $\mathsf j_g$ do; the bracket of (13.28) does not). The joint shift by $n$ labels, $g\to g\,e^{-inP}$, is the special case $\mathsf j_g\to\mathsf j_g-n\lvert g\rvert^2$.
   - (i) Existence at a fixed window (necessary and sufficient condition, for every member of the class of item 2). For every sequence of the class $\langle\alpha\rangle_g\to\alpha(P_0)$ and $\langle\mathsf G_i\rangle_g\to\mathsf G_i(P_0)$ (continuous functions on $I$; Chebyshev's inequality). The last term of (13.28) is not controlled by $\lvert g\rvert^2$. For a real number $c$ put $\tilde g:=g\,e^{ic\phi}$ with $\phi(P):=\int_{P_0}^P\mathsf f_i$. Then $\lvert\tilde g\rvert^2=\lvert g\rvert^2$, so $\tilde g$ belongs to a sequence of the class whenever $g$ does, and $\mathsf j_{\tilde g}=\mathsf j_g+c\,\mathsf f_i\lvert g\rvert^2$ changes the window average by $\frac{2c}\Lambda\langle\mathsf f_i^2\rangle_g$. $\mathsf f_i$ is analytic on the interval $\mathcal P_0$. If it does not vanish identically, its zeros are isolated and $\langle\mathsf f_i^2\rangle_g>0$ for every packet; with $c=c_n$ chosen along a given sequence, the window averages then diverge, or converge to any prescribed real number. This holds also if $\mathsf f_i(P_0)=0$; then $c_n\to\infty$ (the phase of the packet varies faster and faster). If $\mathsf f_i\equiv0$ on $\mathcal P_0$, the limit is $\alpha(P_0)+\mathsf G_i(P_0)/\Lambda$ for every sequence. Hence: at a fixed window the limit $\delta P\to0$ exists for every sequence of $\mathcal S(P_0,I)$ iff $\mathsf f_i\equiv0$ on $\mathcal P_0$ (equivalently on $I$).
   - (ii) A necessary condition (N) for the other order. "The other order exists on the class" means: for one $\lambda_1$ and all $\Lambda$ beyond some $\Lambda_0$ the limit $\delta P\to0$ exists for every sequence of the class, and the limit $\Lambda\to\infty$ of the result exists. Define $c_i$ by (13.29); it is analytic in $\lambda$ ($H(P)$ is bounded) and in $P$, and $\mathsf f_i(P)=c_i(\lambda_1;P)-c_i(\lambda_1+\Lambda;P)$. If the other order exists, $c_i(\lambda;P)=c_i(\lambda_1;P)$ for all $\lambda\ge\lambda_1+\Lambda_0$, hence for all $\lambda$ (analyticity). The mean of $c_i(\lambda;P)$ over $\lambda\in[0,T]$ tends to zero for $T\to\infty$ (mean ergodic theorem: $H(P)-E_b(P)$ has no kernel on $Q_P\mathfrak h$, simple level), so this constant is zero. So the other order exists on $\mathcal S(P_0,I)$ only if (N): $c_i\equiv0$ on $\mathbb R\times\mathcal P_0$, where

$$
c_i(\lambda;P):=\mathrm{Re}\,\bigl\langle V_i\psi_P\big\vert R_P\,e^{-i(H(P)-E_b(P))\lambda}\big\vert\mathcal K\psi_P\bigr\rangle,\qquad
c_i(0;P)=-\tfrac12\,\partial_P\langle\mathcal K\rangle_P,\qquad
\partial_\lambda^2c_i(0;P)=-\tfrac12\,\bigl\langle\,[V_i,[H(P),\mathcal K]]\,\bigr\rangle_P .
\tag{13.29}
$$

   The value at $\lambda=0$ is (13.6); the second derivative is $-\mathrm{Re}\langle V_i\psi_P\vert(H-E_b)\vert\mathcal K\psi_P\rangle$ with $(H-E_b)\mathcal K\psi_P=[H,\mathcal K]\psi_P$. Conversely, if $c_i\equiv0$ then $\mathsf f_i\equiv0$ for every window, and the limit $\delta P\to0$ exists for every window and every sequence. For a member with $c_i\not\equiv0$ there is a $P_1\in\mathcal P_0$ with $c_i(\cdot\,;P_1)\not\equiv0$; this function of $\lambda$ is analytic and, by its vanishing mean, not constant. So for every $\lambda_1$ the limit $\delta P\to0$ fails to exist on the class for all $\Lambda$ outside a set without accumulation point.
   - (ii) A sufficient condition (S), and the spectral form of (N) and (S). For $P\in\mathcal P_0$ let $\Omega_P:=\operatorname{spec}H(P)\setminus\{E_b(P)\}$, a compact set at the distance $\Gamma(P)$ from $E_b(P)$, and let $\nu_{i,P}$ be the complex measure of (13.31) on the Borel sets $S\subseteq\mathbb R$ (F5; $\mathbb 1_S$ is the indicator function of $S$). It is finite and carried by $\Omega_P-E_b(P)$, hence by $\lvert\omega\rvert\ge\Gamma(P)$, and with $R_P=Q_P(H(P)-E_b)^{-1}Q_P$:

$$
\nu_{i,P}(S):=\bigl\langle V_i\psi_P\big\vert\,Q_P\,\mathbb 1_S\bigl(H(P)-E_b(P)\bigr)\,\big\vert\mathcal K\psi_P\bigr\rangle,\qquad
c_i(\lambda;P)=\mathrm{Re}\int\frac{e^{-i\omega\lambda}}{\omega}\,\mathrm d\nu_{i,P}(\omega),\qquad
F_{i,\lambda}(P)=\int\frac{1-e^{-i\omega\lambda}}{\omega}\,\mathrm d\nu_{i,P}(\omega).
\tag{13.31}
$$

     - (N) at $P$, that is $c_i(\cdot\,;P)\equiv0$, holds iff $\nu_{i,P}(S)=\overline{\nu_{i,P}(-S)}$ for every $S$. Reason: $2c_i(\lambda;P)$ is the Fourier transform of the finite measure $\omega^{-1}\,\mathrm d\bigl[\nu_{i,P}(\omega)-\overline{\nu_{i,P}(-\omega)}\bigr]$ (F5). Equivalently: $\mathrm{Re}\,F_{i,\lambda}(P)=0$ for all $\lambda$, because $\mathrm{Re}\,F_{i,\lambda}=c_i(0;\cdot)-c_i(\lambda;\cdot)$ and the mean of $c_i$ over $\lambda$ vanishes.
     - (S) at $P$ is: $F_{i,\lambda}(P)=0$ for all $\lambda$. It holds iff $\nu_{i,P}=0$: the Fourier transform of $\omega^{-1}\nu_{i,P}$ is then constant, so this measure is a multiple of the point mass at $\omega=0$, where it has no mass.
     - (S) on $\mathcal P_0$ is sufficient for the other order, which then agrees with the defining order. Proof: $\mathsf f_i\equiv0$ for every window, $\mathsf G_i=\mathsf A_{i,\lambda_1+\Lambda}-\mathsf A_{i,\lambda_1}$, and $\lvert\mathsf A_{i,\lambda}(P)\rvert\le\frac{4\tau_i}{\Gamma(P)}\bigl[\mathsf b\,\bigl(\frac{\tau_{\min}}{\Gamma(P)}+\lVert\psi_P'\rVert\bigr)+\mathsf d_\eta\lVert\hat r\psi_P\rVert\bigr]$ for all $\lambda$ (the estimates listed under (13.9)). By (13.28) the limit $\delta P\to0$ is $\alpha(P_0)+[\mathsf A_{i,\lambda_1+\Lambda}(P_0)-\mathsf A_{i,\lambda_1}(P_0)]/\Lambda$ for every sequence, and the limit $\Lambda\to\infty$ of that is $\alpha(P_0)$: the two limits commute.
     - (S) implies (N). A member with (N) and without (S) has $\mathrm{Re}\,F_{i,\lambda}\equiv0$ for all $\lambda$ and $\mathrm{Im}\,F_{i,\lambda}\not\equiv0$ for some $\lambda$.
   - Where (N) and (S) coincide. The level has **no mirror pair at $P$** if no two points $E$, $E'$ of $\Omega_P$ satisfy $E+E'=2E_b(P)$, that is, if the compact sets $\Omega_P-E_b(P)$ and $E_b(P)-\Omega_P$ are disjoint. Then (N) at $P$ implies $\nu_{i,P}=0$: for a Borel set $S\subseteq\Omega_P-E_b(P)$ the set $-S$ does not meet the carrier of $\nu_{i,P}$, so $\nu_{i,P}(S)=\overline{\nu_{i,P}(-S)}=0$. If the level has no mirror pair at one $P_1\in\mathcal P_0$, it has none on a neighbourhood of $P_1$ (the two sets have a positive distance, and $E_b(P)$ and the spectrum of $H(P)$ move continuously, F5). For a member with (N), $F_{i,\lambda}(\cdot)$ then vanishes on that neighbourhood for every $\lambda$, hence on $\mathcal P_0$ (it is analytic in $P$): (S) holds. With the two bullets before:

$$
\text{no mirror pair at one }P_1\in\mathcal P_0:\qquad
\text{the other order exists on }\mathcal S(P_0,I)\iff c_i\equiv0\ \text{on}\ \mathbb R\times\mathcal P_0\iff F_{i,\lambda}\equiv0\ \text{on}\ \mathcal P_0\ \text{for all}\ \lambda ,
\tag{13.32}
$$

   and the other order then agrees with the defining order. For these members the criterion is complete. Among them is every member whose level lies below, or above, the whole rest of the spectrum of $H(P_1)$ at one $P_1\in\mathcal P_0$.
   - The eigenvector form of (S). If $\psi_P$ is an eigenvector of $\mathcal K$ ($Q_P\mathcal K\psi_P=0$), then $\nu_{i,P}=0$. On $\mathcal P_0$ this form holds iff $g_1=g_2=0$: for $(g_1,g_2)\neq(0,0)$, every binding of $\mathcal W$ and all data, $\psi_P$ is an eigenvector of $\mathcal K$ at no $P$ with $0<\lvert P\rvert<\pi$. Proof. $\mathcal K$ is diagonal in the branch states $\lvert s_1s_2\rangle$, and two of them that differ in the label $s_i$ only have eigenvalues that differ by $2g_iM_i$. So an eigenspace of $\mathcal K$ lies in an eigenspace of $\Sigma:=\sigma^{(1)}_3$ if $g_2=0$, of $\Sigma:=\sigma^{(2)}_3$ if $g_1=0$, and of $\Sigma:=\sigma^{(1)}_3\sigma^{(2)}_3$ if $g_1g_2\neq0$; hence $\Sigma\psi_P=s\,\psi_P$ with $s=\pm1$. Let $A_\Sigma$ be $A_1$, $A_2$, $A_1+A_2$ in the three cases: it anticommutes with $\Sigma$, and $H(P)-A_\Sigma-W(\hat r)$ commutes with $\Sigma$. The part of $(H(P)-E_b)\psi_P=0$ in the eigenspace $-s$ of $\Sigma$ is $A_\Sigma\psi_P+\frac12(1-s\Sigma)W(\hat r)\psi_P=0$, that is, by (11.1),

$$
\tfrac i2\bigl[B\,\psi_P(r+1)-B^{\dagger}\psi_P(r-1)\bigr]=-\tfrac12\,(1-s\Sigma)\,W(r)\,\psi_P(r)\quad(r\in\mathbb Z),\qquad
B:=\tau_1e^{i\eta P}\sigma^{(1)}_1,\quad -\tau_2e^{-i(1-\eta)P}\sigma^{(2)}_1,\quad\text{or their sum}
\tag{13.33}
$$

   in the three cases. $B$ is normal, so $\lVert B\phi\rVert=\lVert B^{\dagger}\phi\rVert$, and it is invertible for $0<\lvert P\rvert<\pi$ (the eigenvalues $\pm\tau_1e^{i\eta P}\pm'\tau_2e^{-i(1-\eta)P}$ of the sum vanish only for $\tau_1=\tau_2$ and $e^{iP}=\pm1$). For $\lvert r\rvert>R$ the right side is zero, so $\lVert B\psi_P(r+1)\rVert=\lVert B\psi_P(r-1)\rVert$, and square summability gives $\psi_P(r)=0$ for $\lvert r\rvert\ge R$. Where $\psi_P(r)=0$ the right side is zero as well, so $\psi_P(r)=\psi_P(r+1)=0$ implies $\psi_P(r-1)=0$. Starting from $r=R$ this gives $\psi_P\equiv0$, a contradiction.
   - Bindings that commute with $\mathcal K$. Let $[W(r),\mathcal K]=0$ for all $r$ (every diagonal binding). Then $[H,\mathcal K]=g_1M_1[A_1,\sigma^{(1)}_3]+g_2M_2[A_2,\sigma^{(2)}_3]$. With $\mathsf T_1:=e^{i\eta P}S^\dagger$, $\mathsf T_2:=e^{i(1-\eta)P}S$, so that $A_i=\frac{i\tau_i}2\sigma^{(i)}_1(\mathsf T_i-\mathsf T_i^\dagger)$ and $V_i=-\frac{\tau_i}2\sigma^{(i)}_1(\mathsf T_i+\mathsf T_i^\dagger)$: $[A_i,\sigma^{(i)}_3]=\tau_i\sigma^{(i)}_2(\mathsf T_i-\mathsf T_i^\dagger)$, $[V_i,[A_i,\sigma^{(i)}_3]]=-i\tau_i^2\sigma^{(i)}_3(\mathsf T_i^2-\mathsf T_i^{\dagger2})$ and $[V_i,[A_j,\sigma^{(j)}_3]]=0$ for $j\neq i$. Only the gradient of the part itself enters:

$$
\partial_\lambda^2c_i(0;P)=-\,g_i\,M_i\,\tau_i^2\;\mathrm{Im}\,\bigl\langle\sigma^{(i)}_3\,\mathsf T_i^{\,2}\bigr\rangle_P\quad\bigl([W(r),\mathcal K]=0\bigr),\qquad
\mathrm{Im}\,\bigl\langle\sigma^{(i)}_3\,\mathsf T_i^{\,2}\bigr\rangle_P=-\,\varsigma\,\frac{a_j\,\sin2P}{\sqrt{w^2+j(P)^2}}+O(\epsilon)\quad(\text{level (11.12)},\ j\neq i).
\tag{13.30}
$$

   The second relation uses (11.13) at a fixed $P$ with $j(P)\neq0$: $\langle\mathsf T_1^2\rangle_P=e^{2i\eta P}\sum_r\psi_P(r)^{*}\psi_P(r+2)=e^{i(2\eta P-\alpha)}\,\mathcal N_P^2\,\frac{2\rho}{1-\rho^2}=-\varsigma\,(a_1+a_2e^{2iP})/\sqrt{w^2+j^2}$, likewise $\langle\mathsf T_2^2\rangle_P=-\varsigma\,(a_2+a_1e^{2iP})/\sqrt{w^2+j^2}$, and $\sigma^{(i)}_3=1$ on $\lvert11\rangle$; the remainder is that of (11.13).
   - Determination for the members with $g_1=g_2=0$ (first group of the item): the other order exists on the class and agrees with the defining order. Here $\mathcal K=2\kappa\langle X\rangle\mathbb 1$, so $\psi_P$ is an eigenvector of $\mathcal K$ for every $P\in\mathcal P_0$ and (S) holds. This group contains:
     - the member with vanishing gradients: both orders give zero;
     - every member with $g_1=g_2=0$ and a plain gradient: both orders give $-2\kappa\langle X\rangle E_b''(P_0)$, for every binding of $\mathcal W$, every bound level and every $P_0$, the levels of items 3 and 4 at $P_0=0$ included.
   - Determination for the levels of items 3 and 4 at $P_0=0$ (second group of the item; for small $\epsilon$ at fixed hatted data and a fixed $\mathcal P_0$): the other order exists and agrees iff $g_1=g_2=0$ (previous bullet). For $(g_1,g_2)\neq(0,0)$ and any $\kappa\langle X\rangle$ it does not exist, for both parts: (N) fails, so the defining order exists, the other one does not, and the two limits do not commute. For the part $i$ with $g_i\neq0$: by (13.30), $\partial_\lambda^2c_i(0;P)\neq0$ at a fixed $P\in\mathcal P_0$ with $0<\lvert P\rvert<\pi/2$ (its leading term is of order $\epsilon^0$ in units of $\lvert g_i\rvert M_i\tau_i^2$, its remainder of order $\epsilon$). For the part $i$ with $g_i=0\neq g_j$: $c_i(0;P)=-\frac12g_jM_j\,\partial_P\langle\sigma^{(j)}_3\rangle_P$, and (11.5) with (11.12), differentiated once in $M_j$ at fixed $P$ (the statement quoted with (11.14); also the estimate of Step 7.2), gives $\langle\sigma^{(j)}_3\rangle_P=1-\frac{a_j}{M_j}\bigl[1+\varsigma\,\frac{a_j+a_i\cos2P}{\sqrt{w^2+j(P)^2}}\bigr]+O(\epsilon^4)$. The fraction is strictly increasing in $\cos2P$ for $\lvert P\rvert\le\pi/4$ (its derivative in $\cos2P$ is $a_i(w^2+a_i^2+a_ia_j\cos2P)/(w^2+j^2)^{3/2}>0$). So at a fixed $P\in\mathcal P_0$ with $0<\lvert P\rvert\le\pi/4$ the difference $\langle\sigma^{(j)}_3\rangle_P-\langle\sigma^{(j)}_3\rangle_0$ is of order $\epsilon^2$ and not zero, against a remainder $O(\epsilon^4)$: $\langle\sigma^{(j)}_3\rangle_P$ is not constant on $\mathcal P_0$. Hence, for these levels, the other order exists on the class iff $g_1=g_2=0$. At the point $P_0=0$ itself $\mathsf f_i(0)=0$ for every window ($\mathcal R$ of Step 6.1 commutes with $H(0)$ and with $\mathcal K$, $\mathcal R\psi_0=\pm\psi_0$ and $\mathcal RV_i(0)\mathcal R^{-1}=-V_i(0)$ give $F_{i,\lambda}(0)=0$); this does not help, because $\mathsf f_i\not\equiv0$ on $\mathcal P_0$.
   - The other members ($(g_1,g_2)\neq(0,0)$; levels other than those of items 3 and 4). The answers to (i) and (ii) are the conditions above: $\mathsf f_i\equiv0$ on $\mathcal P_0$ (13.28); (N) with (13.29), named necessary; (S) with (13.31), named sufficient. By (13.33) the eigenvector form of (S) does not hold for any of them. Every member with $c_i\not\equiv0$ violates (N): the defining order exists, the other one does not, and the two limits do not commute. In particular every member for which $\langle\mathcal K\rangle_P$ is not constant on $\mathcal P_0$. Among them:
     - Numerical members, from the numerical bound level of the script (tables "other order" and "second derivative" of `code/v5/pair_fall_check.py`, section "Code"), for the common gradient and for $g_1$ only, the configurations of the tables. Here $\partial_P\langle\mathcal K\rangle_P=g_1M_1\,\partial_P\langle\sigma^{(1)}_3\rangle_P+g_2M_2\,\partial_P\langle\sigma^{(2)}_3\rangle_P$. The sets S1–S3 are levels of the kind of items 3 and 4 at finite $\epsilon$: their numbers illustrate the derived statement of the bullet before and do not replace it.
       - The control set S5 (binding of range 1 without symmetry) at $P=0.2$, the total label of its evolution: $\partial_P\langle\sigma^{(1)}_3\rangle_P=-3.28\cdot10^{-2}$ and $\partial_P\langle\sigma^{(2)}_3\rangle_P=-3.89\cdot10^{-2}$, so $\partial_P\langle\mathcal K\rangle_P=-7.94\cdot10^{-2}\,g_{\rm c}$ for the common gradient and $-3.28\cdot10^{-2}\,g_1$ for $g_1$ only. Directly, for the window $[0,20]$ and the common gradient: $\mathsf f_1(0.2)=1.20\cdot10^{-2}\,g_{\rm c}$ and $\mathsf f_2(0.2)=-6.28\cdot10^{-2}\,g_{\rm c}$.
       - The sets S1–S4 (diagonal on-site bindings; packets at $P_0=0$ with supports $\lvert P\rvert\le0.5$) at $P=0.2$: $\partial_P\langle\sigma^{(1)}_3\rangle_P=-2.10\cdot10^{-3}$, $-1.49\cdot10^{-3}$, $+1.66\cdot10^{-3}$, $-2.40\cdot10^{-2}$, and $\mathsf f_1(0.2)\neq0$, $\mathsf f_2(0.2)\neq0$ for the three windows of the table, while $\lvert\mathsf f_i(0)\rvert\le1.5\cdot10^{-15}$. The set S4 is outside the regime $\mathsf R$; for it the statement is numerical only: $\partial_\lambda^2c_1(0;0.2)=-5.22\cdot10^{-2}\,g_1$.
       - The numbers change by less than $3\cdot10^{-15}$ with the range of the fibre and agree with a symmetric difference in $P$ to $2\cdot10^{-10}$. For S1–S4 the first relation of (13.30) holds to $2\cdot10^{-16}$, and for S1–S3 the second one to a relative $1.9\cdot10^{-3}$ (S1, S2) and $1.8\cdot10^{-2}$ (S3).
   - (iii) A member with (N) and without (S). By (13.32) its level has a mirror pair at every $P\in\mathcal P_0$. The answer to the third question of the item has two parts.
     - Excluded: in the part of the class in which the level has no mirror pair at one $P_1\in\mathcal P_0$. There (N) implies (S), by (13.32).
     - Neither shown to exist nor excluded: in the rest of the class, the levels with a mirror pair at every $P\in\mathcal P_0$. Reason: (N) is then the reflection property $\nu_{i,P}(S)=\overline{\nu_{i,P}(-S)}$ of a non-zero complex spectral measure of $H(P)$, for all $P$ of an interval. It is not reduced here to a condition on the data, and no short argument that decides it was found. The conditions that are reduced to expectation values, $\langle\mathcal K\rangle_P$ constant on $\mathcal P_0$ and a vanishing double commutator (13.29), are two of infinitely many (one for each derivative of $c_i$ at $\lambda=0$); every member examined here violates at least one of them, and they are not shown to exclude every member.
     - No member of the class with $(g_1,g_2)\neq(0,0)$ that satisfies (N) is exhibited, with or without (S); whether the class contains one is not decided.
     - For a member with (N) and without (S) the limit $\delta P\to0$ exists at every window and is $\alpha(P_0)+\mathsf G_i(P_0)/\Lambda$; whether it tends to $\alpha(P_0)$ for $\Lambda\to\infty$ is not derived, because $\partial_P\mathrm{Im}F_{i,\lambda}(P_0)$ contains $\partial_Pe^{-i(H(P)-E_b)\lambda}$, which is bounded here only by a multiple of $\lambda$. A classification of these members is not asked.
   - The evaluation of the other order is not asked (item 2(c) of the question) and is not given.
4. What multiplies the gradients. $E_b''(P_0)$ multiplies all three, but it is the whole coefficient only for $\kappa\langle X\rangle$: $\alpha_X=-2E_b''$, exactly, on the whole class. For $g_i$ it is weighted by $M_i\,\partial E_b/\partial M_i=M_i\langle\sigma^{(i)}_3\rangle_{P_0}$, and for $E_b'(P_0)\neq0$ the term $M_iE_b'\,\partial E_b'/\partial M_i$ enters in addition. Exceptional members:
   - $E_b''(P_0)=0$: $\alpha_X=0$, $\alpha_i=M_iE_b'\,\partial E_b'/\partial M_i$; at $P_0=0$ the inertia $\mathfrak m_b$ is not defined.
   - $E_b'(P_0)=0$: $\alpha_i=-M_iE_b''\langle\sigma^{(i)}_3\rangle_{P_0}$; at $P_0=0$ then, for $E_b''(0)\neq0$, $a^{\rm drift}(0)=-\langle\mathcal K\rangle_0/\mathfrak m_b$. The class does not imply $E_b'(0)=0$: the numerical level of the set S5 has $E_b'(0)=-1.17\cdot10^{-4}$ (section "Code"; a numerical member, not an analytic one). A sufficient condition for $E_b'(0)=0$ is $W(-r)=\sigma^{(1)}_3\sigma^{(2)}_3W(r)\sigma^{(1)}_3\sigma^{(2)}_3$ together with a level that the map $P\to-P$ takes to itself.
   - $\partial E_b'/\partial M_i=\partial_P\langle\sigma^{(i)}_3\rangle_{P_0}=0$: the additional term of $\alpha_i$ vanishes also for $E_b'(P_0)\neq0$.
   - $\langle\sigma^{(i)}_3\rangle_{P_0}=0$: the first term of $\alpha_i$ vanishes.
5. Common gradient (item 2d). With (11.6),

$$
\alpha_1+\alpha_2=-E_b''\,\mathcal M_P+E_b'\,\mathcal M_P',\qquad
\mathcal M_P:=M_1\langle\sigma^{(1)}_3\rangle_P+M_2\langle\sigma^{(2)}_3\rangle_P=E_b(P)-\langle A_1\rangle_P-\langle A_2\rangle_P-\langle U\rangle_P .
\tag{13.12}
$$

Of the five terms of the scaling relation only the two rest terms enter the coefficient of $g_{\rm c}$, through $\mathcal M_P$ and its derivative, next to the factors $E_b''$ and $E_b'$. The motion terms $\langle A_i\rangle_P$ and the binding term $\langle U\rangle_P$, which the field does not multiply, do not enter $\mathcal M_P$; $\mathcal M_P=E_b(P)$ iff $\langle A_1\rangle_P+\langle A_2\rangle_P+\langle U\rangle_P=0$.

### Step 6. Diagonal on-site binding in the regime $\mathsf R$ (item 3)

Class: every diagonal on-site binding with $\hat w_{11}\neq0$, the level (11.12), fixed hatted data, $P_0=0$.

1. At rest. $(\mathcal R\psi)(r):=\sigma^{(1)}_3\sigma^{(2)}_3\psi(-r)$ gives $\mathcal RH(P)\mathcal R^{-1}=H(-P)$ for a diagonal on-site binding, and by (11.12) the level near $\mathcal B_{++}$ is the only one for small $\epsilon$. So $E_b(-P)=E_b(P)$ and $E_b'(0)=0$, exactly. By (11.8), without gradients $\mathrm d\bar m_i/\mathrm d\lambda=\langle E_b'\rangle_g=O(\delta P^2)$ for all $\lambda$ (zero for even $\lvert g\rvert^2$): the pair is at rest in the sharp-total-label limit.
2. Closed form. (13.11) at $P_0=0$ is $a_{\rm pair}:=a^{\rm drift}(0)=-E_b''(0)\bigl[g_1M_1\langle\sigma^{(1)}_3\rangle_0+g_2M_2\langle\sigma^{(2)}_3\rangle_0+2\kappa\langle X\rangle\bigr]$, exactly. With (11.14) and (11.16):

$$
\boxed{\;a_{\rm pair}=\frac{\varsigma}{\sqrt{1+u^2}}\;\frac{g_1M_1(1+r_1)+g_2M_2(1+r_2)+2\kappa\langle X\rangle(1+r_X)}{\mathfrak m_1+\mathfrak m_2}\;},\qquad r_1,r_2,r_X=O(\epsilon^2)\ \text{at fixed }u .
\tag{13.13}
$$

With the curvature inertia $\mathfrak m_b=1/E_b''(0)$, which is defined for small $\epsilon$ ($E_b''(0)\neq0$ by (11.14)), the first line of this item is the exact form $a_{\rm pair}=-\langle\mathcal K\rangle_0/\mathfrak m_b$. At leading order in $\mathsf R$ it reads $a_{\rm pair}=-(g_1M_1+g_2M_2+2\kappa\langle X\rangle)/\mathfrak m_b$: with the exact $\mathfrak m_b$ the coefficient of $\kappa\langle X\rangle$ is exact, and the coefficient of $g_i$ carries the relative remainder $\langle\sigma^{(i)}_3\rangle_0-1=-\frac{a_i}{M_i}\Lambda+O(\epsilon^4)$. Since $\mathfrak m_ia^{(i)}=-(g_iM_i+\kappa\langle X\rangle)$, at leading order $a_{\rm pair}=-\varsigma(1+u^2)^{-1/2}\,\bar a$ with the inertia-weighted mean $\bar a:=(\mathfrak m_1a^{(1)}+\mathfrak m_2a^{(2)})/(\mathfrak m_1+\mathfrak m_2)$ of the free falls. Each coefficient is of order $\epsilon^2$; the remainders are not uniform in $u$. The form with $\bar a$ is a statement on the three coefficients: where their leading terms cancel in the sum, $a_{\rm pair}$ is given by the remainders $r_1,r_2,r_X$ (Steps 6.4 and 6.5).
3. Ordered limits of the leading coefficient (first $\epsilon\to0$ at fixed $u$, then $u$; the limit in $u$ is taken through the binding $\hat w_{11}$, at fixed $\hat\tau_i$, $M_i$ and gradients):

$$
u\to0:\ \ a_{\rm pair}\to-\varsigma\,\bar a\,\bigl[1-\tfrac12u^2+O(u^4)\bigr];\qquad
u\to\infty:\ \ a_{\rm pair}\to-\varsigma\,\frac{\bar a}{u}\,\bigl[1+O(u^{-2})\bigr]\to0 .
\tag{13.14}
$$

For $w_{11}<0$ the wide pair falls with $\bar a$: the sum of the weights $g_iM_i+\kappa\langle X\rangle$ over the sum of the inertias. For $w_{11}>0$ the level lies above the band, $\mathfrak m_b<0$, and the pair accelerates opposite to $\bar a$ at every $u$; by (4.7) its wide form $-\bar a$ is, at leading order, the same mean of the drift accelerations of the free parts at $p=\pi/2$ instead of at rest. A tight pair does not fall at this order: its inertia grows like $u$, its weight does not.
4. Ratios for $\langle X\rangle=0$ (item 3b), where $a^{(i)}=-\tau_i^2g_i$ and $g_i\neq0$:

$$
\frac{a_{\rm pair}}{a^{(i)}}=-\frac{\varsigma}{\sqrt{1+u^2}}\cdot\frac{g_1M_1+g_2M_2}{g_i\,\tau_i^2\,(\mathfrak m_1+\mathfrak m_2)}\,\bigl(1+O(\epsilon^2)\bigr),\qquad
\tau_{\rm p}^2:=\frac{M_1+M_2}{M_1/\tau_1^2+M_2/\tau_2^2}.
\tag{13.15}
$$

The factor $1+O(\epsilon^2)$ holds at a fixed ratio $g_1:g_2$ with $g_1M_1+g_2M_2\neq0$. For $g_1=g_2=0$ neither the pair nor a part falls, and no ratio is defined; the three cases have at least one non-zero gradient.
   - Common gradient, $\tau_1=\tau_2$ (the free parts fall alike): both ratios are $-\varsigma/\sqrt{1+u^2}$. For $w_{11}<0$ this is $<1$ at every fixed $u$. The absolute and the relative order of the difference are to be kept apart. With $\tau=\epsilon\hat\tau$ both falls are of order $\epsilon^2\lvert g_{\rm c}\rvert$ ($a^{(i)}=-\epsilon^2\hat\tau^2g_{\rm c}$, exactly), and by (13.13), at a fixed $u$,

$$
a_{\rm pair}-a^{(i)}=-\Lambda\,a^{(i)}\,\bigl(1+O(\epsilon^2)\bigr)=\Lambda\,\tau^2g_{\rm c}\,\bigl(1+O(\epsilon^2)\bigr),\qquad
\frac{a_{\rm pair}}{a^{(i)}}-1=-\Lambda\,\bigl(1+O(\epsilon^2)\bigr),\qquad
\Lambda=1+\frac{\varsigma}{\sqrt{1+u^2}}\in(0,2).
\tag{13.34}
$$

   The absolute difference is of order $\epsilon^2\lvert g_{\rm c}\rvert$, the order of the falls themselves; the relative difference is of order $\epsilon^0$. The pair and its parts agree trivially through the orders $\epsilon^0$ and $\epsilon^1$, at which both falls vanish, and they differ at the leading non-zero order $\epsilon^2$ at every fixed $u$, because $\Lambda\neq0$. So the pair falls like its parts neither exactly nor at the leading non-zero order $\epsilon^2$ at a fixed $u$, but only in the ordered wide-pair limit, with the leading relative difference $-\tfrac12u^2$ ($\Lambda=\tfrac12u^2+O(u^4)$ for $w_{11}<0$). For $w_{11}>0$: not at all (the ratio is $-(1+u^2)^{-1/2}<0$ at every $u$; it tends to $-1$ in the wide limit, where $\Lambda\to2$).
   - Common gradient, $\tau_1\neq\tau_2$ (the free parts differ, $a^{(1)}/a^{(2)}=\tau_1^2/\tau_2^2$): the ratios are $-\varsigma(1+u^2)^{-1/2}\tau_{\rm p}^2/\tau_i^2$, with $\tau_{\rm p}^2$ strictly between $\tau_1^2$ and $\tau_2^2$. The pair falls like both of its parts at no $u$ and in no limit. In the wide limit ($w_{11}<0$) the ratio differs from $1$ by $M_j(\tau_j^2-\tau_i^2)/(M_i\tau_j^2+M_j\tau_i^2)$, $j\neq i$. Exceptional: for the part with the smaller $\tau_i$ and $w_{11}<0$ the ratio is $1$, at leading order in $\mathsf R$, at the single value $u_*=(\tau_{\rm p}^4/\tau_i^4-1)^{1/2}$; this is the member (13.23) for $g_1=g_2$.
   - $g_1\neq g_2$: at leading order in $\mathsf R$, $a_{\rm pair}=-\varsigma(1+u^2)^{-1/2}\bar a$. If $\tau_1^2g_1=\tau_2^2g_2$ the free parts fall alike and the first case applies, with the first form of (13.34). Otherwise $a^{(1)}\neq a^{(2)}$, and the pair falls like both of its parts at no $u$ and in no limit: in the wide limit ($w_{11}<0$) $a_{\rm pair}-a^{(1)}\to\mathfrak m_2(a^{(2)}-a^{(1)})/(\mathfrak m_1+\mathfrak m_2)$. Exceptional members:
     - $g_1M_1+g_2M_2=0$: no fall at this order. The leading terms of (13.13) cancel, and $a_{\rm pair}=\varsigma(1+u^2)^{-1/2}\,g_1M_1\,(r_1-r_2)/(\mathfrak m_1+\mathfrak m_2)$, of order $\epsilon^4\lvert g_1\rvert$; it need not vanish. Numerical member: the set S2 with $g_2=-0.8\,g_1$ has $a_{\rm pair}=1.77\cdot10^{-5}\,g_1$, against the single terms $\mp1.00\cdot10^{-2}\,g_1$ (from the coefficients of the numerical level at $P_0=0$, section "Code").
     - One part only. By (13.15), for $g_i\neq0$ and $j\neq i$, at leading order in $\mathsf R$,

$$
\frac{a_{\rm pair}}{a^{(i)}}=1\iff\frac{g_j}{g_i}=\mathsf z_i(u):=-\,\frac{M_i+\varsigma\sqrt{1+u^2}\;\tau_i^2\,(\mathfrak m_1+\mathfrak m_2)}{M_j},\qquad \tau_i^2\,(\mathfrak m_1+\mathfrak m_2)=M_i+M_j\,\frac{\tau_i^2}{\tau_j^2}.
\tag{13.23}
$$

   For given data and $u$ this is one value of $g_j/g_i$, for both signs of $w_{11}$. For $w_{11}<0$, $\mathsf z_i(u)>\tau_i^2/\tau_j^2$, and it tends to $\tau_i^2/\tau_j^2$, the first case, for $u\to0$. For $w_{11}>0$, $\mathsf z_i(u)<-(2M_i+M_j\tau_i^2/\tau_j^2)/M_j<0$: the two gradients have opposite signs. On this member $a_{\rm pair}=a^{(i)}\neq a^{(j)}$, because $\mathsf z_i(u)\neq\tau_i^2/\tau_j^2$ for $u>0$: it concerns one part only. The exact ratio $a_{\rm pair}/a^{(i)}$ is affine in $g_j/g_i$ with a non-zero slope, so the exact member is one value as well, $\mathsf z_i(u)\,(1+O(\epsilon^2))$.
5. Clock levels (item 3c). With $u=4\lvert w\rvert\mathfrak m_1\mathfrak m_2/(\mathfrak m_1+\mathfrak m_2)$, (13.13) reads

$$
a_{\rm pair}=\varsigma\,\frac{g_1M_1+g_2M_2+2\kappa\langle X\rangle}{\sqrt{(\mathfrak m_1+\mathfrak m_2)^2+16\,w^2\,\mathfrak m_1^2\mathfrak m_2^2}}+O(\epsilon^2)\,\frac{\lvert g_1\rvert M_1+\lvert g_2\rvert M_2+2\kappa\lvert\langle X\rangle\rvert}{\sqrt{(\mathfrak m_1+\mathfrak m_2)^2+16\,w^2\,\mathfrak m_1^2\mathfrak m_2^2}},\qquad \mathfrak m_i=\frac{M^{(i)}_{k_i}}{\tau_i^2}.
\tag{13.16}
$$

   The remainder is additive: by (13.13) each of the three terms of the numerator carries its own relative remainder $r_1,r_2,r_X=O(\epsilon^2)$. The multiplicative form, the first term times $1+O(\epsilon^2)$, holds on every set of gradients with $\lvert g_1M_1+g_2M_2+2\kappa\langle X\rangle\rvert\ge c\,(\lvert g_1\rvert M_1+\lvert g_2\rvert M_2+2\kappa\lvert\langle X\rangle\rvert)$, $c>0$ independent of $\epsilon$. It does not hold where the leading terms cancel: there $a_{\rm pair}$ is the remainder (Step 6.4, member $g_1M_1+g_2M_2=0$).
   - Claim: at a fixed binding $w_{11}\neq0$ the leading coefficient is the same for all $N_1N_2$ pairs of levels iff $g_1=g_2=0$ and $\kappa\langle X\rangle=0$. Proof: call the numerator $\mathsf N$ and the root $h$. If $\mathsf N=\varsigma c\,h$ on four pairs $\{M_1,M_1'\}\times\{M_2,M_2'\}$ ($N_i\ge2$), take the mixed second difference. It is $0$ for $\mathsf N$ and strictly positive for $h$, because $4h^3\,\partial_{\mathfrak m_1}\partial_{\mathfrak m_2}h=4q\bigl[(\mathfrak m_1+\mathfrak m_2)^2+(1+q)\mathfrak m_1\mathfrak m_2\bigr]>0$ with $q:=16w^2\mathfrak m_1\mathfrak m_2$. So $c=0$, $\mathsf N=0$ on the four pairs, and all three gradients vanish.
   - Hence: for $\langle X\rangle=0$ iff $g_1=g_2=0$ (no fall); for $\langle X\rangle\neq0$ never.
   - Leading dependence (for $\mathsf N\neq0$): $\partial\ln a_{\rm pair}/\partial\ln M_i=g_iM_i/\mathsf N-\mathfrak m_i/(\mathfrak m_1+\mathfrak m_2)-\frac{u^2}{1+u^2}\frac{a_i}{a}$. For the common gradient with $\tau_1=\tau_2=\tau$ and $\langle X\rangle=0$ only the last term remains: $a_{\rm pair}=\varsigma g_{\rm c}\tau^2/\sqrt{1+u^2}$ with $u=\frac{4\lvert w\rvert}{\tau^2}\frac{M_1M_2}{M_1+M_2}$.
   - In the ordered wide-pair limit the leading coefficient $\varsigma\mathsf N/(\mathfrak m_1+\mathfrak m_2)$ is the same for all levels iff $\langle X\rangle=0$ and $\tau_1^2g_1=\tau_2^2g_2$ (two affine functions of $M_1,M_2$ that agree on the four pairs).
   - Comparison: a free part falls alike on all levels iff $\langle X\rangle=0$ (4.16). The pair with a non-zero fall does not, at any fixed binding $w_{11}\neq0$, because the binding $w$ does not scale with the levels while $a$ does. What is fixed here is the binding: it is the identity on the clock labels, so all pairs of levels have the same $w$, and $u=4\lvert w\rvert\mathfrak m_1\mathfrak m_2/(\mathfrak m_1+\mathfrak m_2)$ takes a different value for each pair of levels. "At a fixed $u$" in the other statements of this step refers to one pair of levels; no statement is made for pairs of levels compared at one common value of $u$, which would need a binding that depends on the levels (out of scope). In the ordered wide-pair limit it does iff $\langle X\rangle=0$ and $\tau_1^2g_1=\tau_2^2g_2$ (previous bullet). Without a fall (all three gradients zero) the fall is the same for all levels trivially, for the pair and for its parts.
6. $\langle X\rangle\neq0$ (item 3d). It adds $-2\kappa\langle X\rangle E_b''(P_0)$ to the drift acceleration, exactly and on the whole class of item 2 (13.8). At $P_0=0$ this is $-2\kappa\langle X\rangle/\mathfrak m_b$, in $\mathsf R$ equal at leading order to $\frac{\varsigma}{\sqrt{1+u^2}}\frac{2\kappa\langle X\rangle}{\mathfrak m_1+\mathfrak m_2}$. For a free part it adds $-\kappa\langle X\rangle/\mathfrak m_i$ (4.16). In both cases the plain gradient enters as the sum of the plain gradients over the curvature inertia, without a factor $\langle\sigma_3\rangle$, and it makes the fall depend on the levels. For the pair it is in addition reduced by $(1+u^2)^{-1/2}$ against the inertia-weighted mean, and reversed for $w_{11}>0$.

### Step 7. Fall and the clocks of the parts (item 4)

Class as in Step 6, with $\langle X\rangle=0$. Two sets of data meet in this step (Setup): $a_{\rm pair}$ is taken with the level data, the rate of the clock of the part $i$ with the clock data of the part $i$.

1. Rate (item 4a). At the label $x_0$ put $n_i:=1+g_ix_0>0$. The operator $(1+g_ix_0)G_i$ is the rest and clock operator of Model D with $m_i\to n_im_i$ and $\lambda_{0,i}\to\lambda_{0,i}/n_i$, hence $M^{(i)}_k\to n_iM^{(i)}_k$ and $\bar M_i\to n_i\bar M_i$. The zeroth order in the gradients is the pair without gradients and with these data. It is invariant under the joint shift, so (11.19) applies to a packet placed at $x_0$: the reading of the clock label of the part $i$ is $P_{N_i}(a;\vartheta_i)+\mathcal R_i$ with the advance $\vartheta_i=\Gamma_i(x_0)\,n_i\lambda/\lambda_{0,i}$. The rate is $\mathrm d\vartheta_i/\mathrm d\lambda$. With (11.20):

$$
\begin{aligned}
r_i(x_0)&=\frac{1+g_ix_0}{\lambda_{0,i}}\;\Gamma_i(x_0),\qquad \Gamma_i(x_0)=1-\frac{\tau_i^2}{4\,n_i^2\bar M_i^2}\,\Lambda(x_0)+O(\epsilon^4),\\
\Lambda(x_0)&=1+\frac{\varsigma}{\sqrt{1+u(x_0)^2}},\qquad u(x_0)=\frac{\lvert w\rvert}{a_1/n_1+a_2/n_2}
\end{aligned}
\tag{13.17}
$$

Here $a_1$, $a_2$, $u$, $\Lambda$ are those of the clock data of the part $i$ ($a_i$ with $\bar M_i$ for the part that is read and $M_j$ for the other part): $u(0)=u_{[i]}$ and $\Lambda(0)=\Lambda_{[i]}$, not $u$ and $\Lambda$ of (13.13).
   - Conditions, from (11.19): the clock of the part $i$ starts in $\lvert0\rangle$; the other part is on its level; the positions and branches are in a packet of the bound level of the data at $x_0$ with mean total label $0$ and spread $\delta P$; leading order in $\kappa$.
   - Range of $\lambda$: $\mathcal R_i$ is small for $\lambda\ll\lambda_{0,i}/\delta_i$ (in $\mathsf R$ with $\delta_i\to D_i/M_i$) and $\delta P^2(1+\lambda/\lambda_{0,i})\ll1$.
   - As a statement on the pair in the field, (13.17) is the zeroth order in $(\lvert g_1\rvert+\lvert g_2\rvert)\,s$, where $s\gtrsim1/(2\delta P)$ is the width of the packet in labels. The first-order corrections to the reading are not derived here.
   - Rate parameter and reading. Two things are called a rate, and they are kept apart from here on. The **rate parameter** of the level is the number that multiplies $\lambda$ in the advance of (11.19): $r_i(x_0)=n_i\Gamma_i(x_0)/\lambda_{0,i}$, a function of the data at $x_0$. (13.17) is a statement on it: its first equation is this definition, and the expansion of $\Gamma_i$ is (11.20). A **reading** of the clock label gives the distribution $q_i(a;\lambda)=P_{N_i}(a;r_i\lambda)+\mathcal R_i$, hence the rate only within the remainder $\mathcal R_i$ of (11.19). By (5.1), $\lvert\partial_\vartheta P_N(a;\vartheta)\rvert<2\pi$, so two rate parameters that differ by $\delta r$ give distributions $P_{N_i}$ that differ by less than $2\pi\lvert\delta r\rvert\lambda$. Hence a term $\delta r$ of the rate parameter is **resolved by a reading at $\lambda$** only if $\lvert\delta r\rvert\,\lambda\gg\lvert\mathcal R_i\rvert$; otherwise (11.19) does not distinguish the readings with the term from those without it. For the term of order $\epsilon^2$ of (13.17), $\delta r=-\frac{\tau_i^2}{4n_i\bar M_i^2}\Lambda(x_0)/\lambda_{0,i}$, this is the hierarchy

$$
\epsilon^2\,\ell\ \gg\ \delta_i^2\,(1+\ell)^2+\delta P^2\,(1+\ell)+\kappa,\qquad \ell:=\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_{0,i}} .
\tag{13.35}
$$

   The right side is $\mathcal R_i$ as (11.19) writes it (each term with the constant of its $O$; the last one is its record term $O(\kappa)$), and $\epsilon^2$ stands for $\tau_i^2\Lambda/(4\bar M_i^2)$ at a fixed $u$. (13.35) amounts to: $\delta_i\ll\epsilon$ (level spread; in $\mathsf R$, $\delta_i=D_i/M_i$), $\delta P\ll\epsilon$ (packet width), and $\ell$ in the range $\max(\kappa,\delta_i^2,\delta P^2)/\epsilon^2\ll\ell\ll\epsilon^2/\delta_i^2$ (record strength and range of $\lambda$), which is not empty iff in addition $\kappa\,\delta_i^2\ll\epsilon^4$; it is to be taken together with the range of $\lambda$ above, in which $\mathcal R_i$ is small. The conditions of the two bullets "Conditions" and "Range of $\lambda$" ($\mathcal R_i$ small) do not imply (13.35). Without (13.35) the term of order $\epsilon^2$ of (13.17) is a statement on the rate parameter only.
2. Relative change per label, to first order in the gradients ($\varrho_i=\partial_{x_0}\ln r_i$ at $x_0=0$):

$$
\varrho_i=g_i+\frac{\tau_i^2}{4\bar M_i^2}\Bigl[2\Lambda\,g_i+\frac{\varsigma\,u^2}{(1+u^2)^{3/2}}\,\frac{g_1a_1+g_2a_2}{a}\Bigr]+O(\epsilon^4)\,(\lvert g_1\rvert+\lvert g_2\rvert) .
\tag{13.18}
$$

In (13.18), as in (13.17), $a_1$, $a_2$, $a$, $u$, $\Lambda$ are those of the clock data of the part $i$ and carry the label $[i]$ wherever they meet the level data. At leading order $\varrho_i=g_i$, as for the free part. The term of order $\epsilon^2$ contains the gradient of the other part. Both are derived as follows.
   - Derivative used. $\Gamma_i=\partial E_b(0)/\partial M_i$, exactly, as an identity for the number $\Gamma_i$ of (11.19), by (11.5); and at the label $x_0$ the data are $n_1M_1$, $n_2M_2$ with $\tau_1$, $\tau_2$ and $W$ unchanged (item 1). The rate parameter is $r_i=n_i\Gamma_i/\lambda_{0,i}$, so its change with $x_0$ is the derivative of a known function of the data, not of an estimate. To first order in the gradients, without the expansion in $\mathsf R$ (with $M_i=\bar M_i$ for the part that is read, as in (13.17)):

$$
\varrho_i=g_i+\frac1{\Gamma_i}\sum_{j=1,2}g_j\,M_j\,\frac{\partial^2E_b(0)}{\partial M_j\,\partial M_i} .
\tag{13.21}
$$

   This uses the second derivatives of the level at $P=0$ in the rest costs $M_1$, $M_2$: one derivative in the data more than (11.14) and (11.20). A derivative of the remainder of (11.20) is thereby reduced to (11.12): that remainder is $\partial/\partial M_i$ of the remainder of (11.12).
   - What $\varrho_i$ is a statement on. $\varrho_i=\partial_{x_0}\ln r_i$ at $x_0=0$ is the relative change per label of the rate parameter of (13.17), which the question defines at zeroth order in the gradients, with the data at $x_0$. (13.21) is exact in the data in this sense only: it is an identity between derivatives of the level at $P=0$ (no expansion in $\mathsf R$; first order in the gradients). It is not an identity for a rate inferred from readings, which (11.19) fixes within $\mathcal R_i$ only. (13.18), (13.22) and (13.24)–(13.26) are statements on the rate parameter as well. What readings resolve of them:
     - Two pairs without gradients, with the data at the labels $0$ and $\Delta x$ of the chain: (11.19) applies to each, and a term $\delta\varrho$ of $\varrho_i$ changes the difference of the two advances by $\delta\varrho\,\Delta x\,\ell$, to first order in the gradients. By the criterion of item 1 the term can be resolved only under (13.35) with $\epsilon^2\to\lvert\delta\varrho\rvert\,\Delta x$: that is $\lvert g_i\rvert\Delta x$ for the leading term $g_i$, and $\epsilon^2(\lvert g_1\rvert+\lvert g_2\rvert)\Delta x$ for the terms of order $\epsilon^2$ of (13.18), for $\nu_i$ of (13.24), for (13.25) and for the terms of order $\epsilon^2$ of (13.26). Since $(\lvert g_1\rvert+\lvert g_2\rvert)\Delta x<4$ on the chain, the second hierarchy requires (13.35) up to that factor.
     - One pair in the field, read at two places: the corrections to the reading of first order in the gradients (the gradient across the packet, of relative order $(\lvert g_1\rvert+\lvert g_2\rvert)s$, item 1 of this step) enter at the order of $\varrho_i$ itself and are not derived here. No statement on such readings is made: for them (13.18) and (13.24)–(13.26), their terms of order $\epsilon^2$ included, are statements on the rate parameter only.
   - Regime $\mathsf R$. (11.12) at $P=0$ is $E_b(0)=M_1+M_2+\mathsf e(a)+\mathcal E$ with $\mathsf e(a):=a+\varsigma\sqrt{w^2+a^2}$ and the remainder $\mathcal E=O(\epsilon^4)$. With $\partial a/\partial M_j=-a_j/M_j$, $\mathsf e'=\Lambda$ and $\mathsf e''=\varsigma u^2/\bigl(a(1+u^2)^{3/2}\bigr)$, for $i,j=1,2$:

$$
\frac{\partial^2E_b(0)}{\partial M_j\,\partial M_i}=\delta_{ij}\,\frac{2a_i}{M_i^2}\,\Lambda+\frac{a_i\,a_j}{M_iM_j}\cdot\frac{\varsigma\,u^2}{a\,(1+u^2)^{3/2}}+\frac{\partial^2\mathcal E}{\partial M_j\,\partial M_i},\qquad \frac{\partial^2\mathcal E}{\partial M_j\,\partial M_i}=O(\epsilon^4)\ \text{at fixed }u .
\tag{13.22}
$$

   The two explicit terms are of order $\epsilon^2$.
   - Remainder of (13.22): the uniform estimate. Conditions: fixed hatted data with $\hat w_{11}\neq0$ (a fixed $u\in(0,\infty)$) and $\epsilon$ below a bound that depends on them. Let $M=(M_1,M_2)$, let $M^0$ be the real rest costs, $m_0:=\min(M^0_1,M^0_2)$ and $D_\delta:=\{M\in\mathbb C^2:\lvert M_i-M^0_i\rvert\le\delta\}$ with $\delta\le m_0/4$.
     - (i) In (11.11), $H(P)=H_0+\epsilon H_1+\epsilon^2H_2$ is linear in $M$, and $H_1$, $H_2$, $\Pi$ do not depend on $M$. For $M\in D_\delta$, $H_0$ is diagonal in the branches and its eigenvalue $M_1+M_2$ keeps the distance $\ge\frac32m_0$ from the other three. The reduction of Step 7 of 11-bound-pair (degenerate perturbation theory: the Riesz projector of $H(P)$ on the circle of radius $m_0$ around $M^0_1+M^0_2$, and the transformation back to $\Pi\mathfrak h$) is an expansion in $\epsilon$ that converges in norm for $\epsilon\lVert H_1\rVert+\epsilon^2\lVert H_2\rVert<m_0/4$. Its terms are built from $H_1$, $H_2$, $\Pi$ and the resolvent of $H_0$ on that circle, whose norm is $\le2/m_0$ on $D_\delta$, and its bounds use only these norms. So it holds on $D_\delta$ as for real $M$ (as a similarity; it is unitary for real $M$): $H_{\rm eff}$ is analytic in $M\in D_\delta$, its terms up to order $\epsilon^2$ are those of (11.11) (rational in $M$), its term of order $\epsilon^3$ vanishes for real $M$ by (11.11) and hence on $D_\delta$ (identity theorem), and the rest is analytic with norm $\le c_4\epsilon^4$ on $D_\delta$.
     - (ii) At $P=0$ the term of order $\epsilon^2$ of (11.11) is $\epsilon^2\hat h(M)$ with $\hat h$ independent of $\epsilon$: on the coefficient of $\lvert11\rangle$ it is $(a+w\,\delta_{r,0})\psi(r)-\frac a2[\psi(r+2)+\psi(r-2)]$. For real $M$ its eigenvalue $\mathsf e(a)$ is simple, at the distance $a(\sqrt{1+u^2}-1)$ from the rest $[0,2a]$ of its spectrum. Hence, for $\delta$ small (depending on the hatted data and on $u$, not on $\epsilon$), $\mathsf e(a)$ is a simple eigenvalue of $\epsilon^2\hat h(M)$, analytic on $D_\delta$, and the resolvent of $\epsilon^2\hat h(M)$ on a circle of radius $\gamma\epsilon^2$ around it is bounded by $C/\epsilon^2$ on $D_\delta$ (continuity on the compact $D_\delta$, and scaling).
     - (iii) Standard perturbation theory for an isolated simple eigenvalue of an analytic family, applied to the perturbation of norm $\le c_4\epsilon^4$: for $c_4C\epsilon^2<\frac12$ the level $E_b(0)$ is analytic in $M\in D_\delta$ and $\lvert\mathcal E\rvert\le c\,\epsilon^4$ there, with $c$ independent of $\epsilon$. Cauchy's estimate on the polydisc $D_\delta$ gives $\lvert\partial_{M_j}\partial_{M_i}\mathcal E\rvert\le2c\,\epsilon^4/\delta^2$ at $M^0$.
     - Range. $\delta$, $\gamma$, $C$, $c$ depend on the hatted data and on $u$; they are not bounded here for $u\to0$ (where $\gamma\to0$) or $u\to\infty$. This is the range that the third quoted statement of Step 10 of 11-bound-pair gives for its bounds. At a fixed $P$ with $j(P)\neq0$ the three steps hold with $J$, $J^{*}$ of (11.11) in the place of $a$.
   - Result. Insert (13.22) in (13.21), with $1/\Gamma_i=1+O(\epsilon^2)$ by (11.20) and $a_i/M_i=\tau_i^2/(4\bar M_i^2)$ for the part that is read: this is (13.18). Its leading order, $\varrho_i=g_i+O(\epsilon^2)(\lvert g_1\rvert+\lvert g_2\rvert)$, uses only that the second derivatives (13.22) are of order $\epsilon^2$; its term of order $\epsilon^2$ uses their values, with the remainder $O(\epsilon^4)$. What each display rests on:
     - (13.21): the definition of $\Gamma_i$ in (11.19), with (11.5); exact in the data as an identity for the rate parameter (bullet "What $\varrho_i$ is a statement on"), not for a rate inferred from readings.
     - (13.22), values: (11.12) differentiated twice in $M_1$, $M_2$. For $i=j$ the value is the first quoted statement of Step 10 of 11-bound-pair; the mixed value is obtained here in the same way.
     - (13.22), remainder: the uniform estimate above, that is (11.11) with the statement of its Step 7, extended to complex rest costs by standard analytic perturbation theory. It gives the dependence on $M_i$ on the scale $M_i$ that the second quoted statement of Step 10 states. The statement of Step 8, quoted with (11.14), is not used for (13.22).
     - (13.18): (13.21), (13.22) and (11.20). (13.24), (13.25): the mixed value of (13.22) with its remainder. (13.26): all values of (13.22) with their remainders.
     - Numerical check of (13.22) and of the term of order $\epsilon^2$: section "Code".
3. The number $\mathsf w_i^2$ (item 4b). It is formed with $\varrho_i$, the relative change of the rate parameter; (13.19), (13.20) and (13.24)–(13.26) are statements on it in the sense of item 2 of this step. In this item $u$, $\mathfrak m_i$, $\tau_{\rm p}$ are those of the level data and come from $a_{\rm pair}$ (13.13); $u_{[i]}$, $a_{[i]}$ are those of the clock data of the part $i$ and come from $\varrho_i$ (13.18); $j\neq i$ is the other part. By (13.21), (13.22), $\varrho_i$ is linear in the two gradients:

$$
\varrho_i=g_i\,\bigl(1+O(\epsilon^2)\bigr)+\nu_i\,g_j\,\bigl(1+O(\epsilon^2)\bigr),\qquad \nu_i:=\frac{\tau_i^2}{4\bar M_i^2}\cdot\frac{\varsigma\,u_{[i]}^2}{(1+u_{[i]}^2)^{3/2}}\cdot\frac{a_j}{a_{[i]}} .
\tag{13.24}
$$

$\nu_i$ is the coefficient of the gradient of the other part in (13.18): of order $\epsilon^2$, non-zero, with the sign of $w_{11}$. The two factors $1+O(\epsilon^2)$ depend on the data, not on the gradients. $\mathsf w_i^2$ is defined where $\varrho_i\neq0$:
   - at a fixed ratio $g_1:g_2$ with $g_i\neq0$, for small $\epsilon$: there $\varrho_i=g_i(1+O(\epsilon^2))\neq0$, and (13.19) holds;
   - for $g_i=0\neq g_j$: there $\varrho_i=\nu_i\,g_j\,(1+O(\epsilon^2))\neq0$, and (13.25) holds;
   - not on the member $\varrho_i=0$ with $g_j\neq0$. By (13.24) it is the single ratio $g_i/g_j=-\nu_i\,(1+O(\epsilon^2))$: of order $\epsilon^2$, with the sign opposite to that of $w_{11}$. There $a_{\rm pair}\neq0$ by (13.13), and $\lvert\mathsf w_i^2\rvert\to\infty$ as the ratio is approached;
   - not for $g_1=g_2=0$, where $\varrho_i=0$ and $a_{\rm pair}=0$.

   For $g_i\neq0$ at a fixed ratio $g_1:g_2$:

$$
\mathsf w_i^2:=-\frac{a_{\rm pair}}{\varrho_i}=-\frac{\varsigma}{\sqrt{1+u^2}}\cdot\frac{g_1M_1+g_2M_2}{g_i\,(\mathfrak m_1+\mathfrak m_2)}\,\bigl(1+O(\epsilon^2)\bigr)\qquad\Bigl[\,=-\frac{\varsigma\,\tau_{\rm p}^2}{\sqrt{1+u^2}}\,\bigl(1+O(\epsilon^2)\bigr)\ \text{for } g_1=g_2\Bigr].
\tag{13.19}
$$

   - Range of (13.19). The factor $1+O(\epsilon^2)$ holds uniformly on every set of ratios with $\lvert g_i\rvert\ge c\,\lvert g_j\rvert$ and $\lvert g_1M_1+g_2M_2\rvert\ge c\,(\lvert g_1\rvert M_1+\lvert g_2\rvert M_2)$, with $c>0$ independent of $\epsilon$ ($g_j=0$ included). For smaller $\lvert g_i/g_j\rvert$ the right-hand side of (13.19) is to be multiplied by $(1+\nu_ig_j/g_i)^{-1}$, by (13.24); the factor $1+O(\epsilon^2)$ is then uniform on $\lvert g_i+\nu_ig_j\rvert\ge c\,(\lvert g_i\rvert+\lvert\nu_ig_j\rvert)$. The additional factor is $1+O(\epsilon^2g_j/g_i)$ for $\lvert g_i/g_j\rvert\gg\epsilon^2$, of order one for $g_i/g_j$ of order $\epsilon^2$, and it has its pole on the member $\varrho_i=0$.
   - Equal to $\tau_i^2$: no, except on one member. At leading order $\varrho_i=g_i$ and $a^{(i)}=-\tau_i^2g_i$, so $\mathsf w_i^2=\tau_i^2$ iff $a_{\rm pair}=a^{(i)}$, i.e. iff $g_j/g_i=\mathsf z_i(u)$ of (13.23): one value of the ratio of the gradients at given data and $u$, for both signs of $w_{11}$. For the common gradient $\mathsf w_i^2/\tau_i^2=-\varsigma(1+u^2)^{-1/2}\tau_{\rm p}^2/\tau_i^2$, which is $\neq1$ except at $u_*$ of Step 6 for one part; for $w_{11}>0$ it is negative.
   - The same for $i=1,2$: where both numbers are defined, $\mathsf w_1^2/\mathsf w_2^2=\varrho_2/\varrho_1$ (exact; both contain the same $a_{\rm pair}$), which is $g_2/g_1$ at leading order at a fixed ratio with $g_1,g_2\neq0$. So: the same at leading order iff $g_1=g_2$; exceptional is the member $a_{\rm pair}=0$ (at leading order $g_1M_1+g_2M_2=0$), where both numbers vanish. For $g_1=g_2\neq0$, (13.18) gives at relative order $\epsilon^2$

$$
\frac{\mathsf w_1^2}{\mathsf w_2^2}=\frac{\varrho_2}{\varrho_1}=1+\frac{\tau_2^2}{4\bar M_2^2}\,\mathsf y(u_{[2]})-\frac{\tau_1^2}{4\bar M_1^2}\,\mathsf y(u_{[1]})+O(\epsilon^4),\qquad \mathsf y(u):=2+\varsigma\,\frac{2+3u^2}{(1+u^2)^{3/2}} .
\tag{13.26}
$$

   $\mathsf y(u)=2\Lambda+\varsigma u^2(1+u^2)^{-3/2}$ is the bracket of (13.18) for $g_1=g_2$, and $\mathsf y(u)>0$ for $u>0$ and both signs, because $(2+3u^2)^2<4(1+u^2)^3$. So the two numbers are the same at relative order $\epsilon^2$ iff $\tau_1^2\,\mathsf y(u_{[1]})/\bar M_1^2=\tau_2^2\,\mathsf y(u_{[2]})/\bar M_2^2$. This reduces to $\tau_1/\bar M_1=\tau_2/\bar M_2$ for the members with $u_{[1]}=u_{[2]}$, i.e. $\tau_1^2\,(1/\bar M_1-1/M_1)=\tau_2^2\,(1/\bar M_2-1/M_2)$, in particular when each part is on the level with $M^{(i)}_{k_i}=\bar M_i$; and in the ordered limits $u\to\infty$ (both signs, $\mathsf y\to2$) and $u\to0$ for $w_{11}>0$ ($\mathsf y\to4$). For $w_{11}<0$ and $u\to0$, $\mathsf y(u)=\tfrac34u^4+O(u^6)$: both terms of order $\epsilon^2$ vanish in the limit.
   - Data of the pair: yes. It contains the binding ($\varsigma$, $u$) and the clock levels (through $u$, and through $\tau_{\rm p}$ if $\tau_1\neq\tau_2$).
   - The case $g_i=0\neq g_j$. The free part $i$ then does not fall and its clock rate does not change, so (4.24) is empty for it. In the pair, (13.13) divided by (13.24) gives

$$
\mathsf w_i^2=-\frac{\varsigma}{\sqrt{1+u^2}}\cdot\frac{M_j}{(\mathfrak m_1+\mathfrak m_2)\,\nu_i}\,\bigl(1+O(\epsilon^2)\bigr)=-\,4\,\frac{\bar M_i^2\,M_j}{M_i}\cdot\frac{u\,(1+u_{[i]}^2)^{3/2}}{u_{[i]}^3\,\sqrt{1+u^2}}\,\bigl(1+O(\epsilon^2)\bigr)\qquad(g_i=0\neq g_j),
\tag{13.25}
$$

   with $M_i=M^{(i)}_{k_i}$, $M_j=M^{(j)}_{k_j}$; for $M^{(i)}_{k_i}=\bar M_i$ it is $-4M_iM_j(1+u^2)/u^2$. The second form uses $M_j/(\mathfrak m_1+\mathfrak m_2)=4a_1a_2M_j/a$ and $a_{[i]}/a=u/u_{[i]}$. It is of order $\epsilon^0$, while (13.19) is of order $\epsilon^2$; its remainder is a relative $O(\epsilon^2)$ at fixed $u$, not uniform in $u$. The three answers for (13.25):
   - $g_i=0\neq g_j$, equal to $\tau_i^2$: no, at every fixed $u$ and in both ordered limits. It is negative for both signs of $w_{11}$, and $\tau_i^2>0$ is of order $\epsilon^2$. For $u\to0$ it grows like $-u^{-2}$; for $u\to\infty$ it tends to $-4\bar M_i^2M_j/M_i$.
   - $g_i=0\neq g_j$, the same for $i=1,2$: no. The other part has $g_j\neq0$ and the number $\mathsf w_j^2$ of (13.19), of order $\epsilon^2$: $\mathsf w_i^2/\mathsf w_j^2=\varrho_j/\varrho_i=\nu_i^{-1}(1+O(\epsilon^2))$, of order $\epsilon^{-2}$, with the sign of $w_{11}$.
   - $g_i=0\neq g_j$, data of the pair: yes. The binding (through $u$, $u_{[i]}$; not its sign at this order), the levels of both parts ($M_i$, $M_j$), and the mean rest cost $\bar M_i$ of the part that is read.
   - Derivatives used: (13.19) is (13.13) divided by (13.18). (13.13) uses (11.14) and (11.16): the first derivatives of (11.12) in $M_i$, and $E_b''(0)$. Of (13.18) only the leading order $\varrho_i=g_i+O(\epsilon^2)(\lvert g_1\rvert+\lvert g_2\rvert)$ enters, hence the second derivatives (13.22) only through their order $\epsilon^2$, not through their values. The factor $1+O(\epsilon^2)$ holds at a fixed ratio $g_1:g_2$ with $g_i\neq0$ and $g_1M_1+g_2M_2\neq0$. For $g_1M_1+g_2M_2=0$ the leading term vanishes (no fall at this order, Step 6.4); then $\mathsf w_i^2=O(\epsilon^4)$ by (13.13), and its value is not determined here. (13.24), (13.25), (13.26) and the place of the member $\varrho_i=0$ use the values of the second derivatives (13.22), with their remainder $O(\epsilon^4)$: the mixed one in (13.24), (13.25), all of them in (13.26).
4. Free parts alike with one speed (item 4c): $g_1=g_2=g_{\rm c}$ and $\tau_1=\tau_2=\tau$, so that $a^{(i)}=-\tau^2g_{\rm c}$ is (4.24) with $v_{\max}=\tau d_0$. Both parts of the pair have the drift acceleration $a_{\rm pair}$, and $\bar x=d_0\,\bar m\,\hat e$ for both (17.15). Hence

$$
\frac{\mathrm d^2\bar x}{\mathrm d\lambda^2}\Big\vert_{\rm drift}=-\,\frac{\mathsf w^2}{\tau^2}\;\frac{v_{\max}^2}{d_0}\;\varrho_i\;\hat e,\qquad \frac{\mathsf w^2}{\tau^2}=-\frac{\varsigma}{\sqrt{1+u^2}}\,\bigl(1+O(\epsilon^2)\bigr).
\tag{13.20}
$$

The pair obeys a relation of the form (4.24) in which $v_{\max}^2$ is replaced by $-\varsigma\,v_{\max}^2/\sqrt{1+u^2}$. With the speed $\tau d_0$ itself it holds neither exactly nor at the leading non-zero order at a fixed $u$. Both sides of (4.24) are of order $\epsilon^2\lvert g_{\rm c}\rvert\,d_0$ and agree trivially through the orders $\epsilon^0$ and $\epsilon^1$, at which both vanish. At the order $\epsilon^2$ they differ, by (13.34) and $\varrho_i=g_{\rm c}(1+O(\epsilon^2))$, by $\Lambda\,\tau^2g_{\rm c}\,d_0\,\hat e\,(1+O(\epsilon^2))$: an absolute deviation of order $\epsilon^2$, and a relative one, $\mathsf w^2/\tau^2-1=-\Lambda\,(1+O(\epsilon^2))$, of order $\epsilon^0$ ($\Lambda$ of the level data). For $w_{11}<0$ it holds only in the ordered wide-pair limit, with the leading deviation $\mathsf w^2/\tau^2-1=-\tfrac12u^2+O(u^4)$; for $w_{11}>0$ not at all ($\mathsf w^2/\tau^2=-(1+u^2)^{-1/2}<0$ at every $u$; it tends to $-1$ in the wide limit). (13.20) is (13.19) for $g_1=g_2=g_{\rm c}\neq0$ and $\tau_1=\tau_2$, so it uses the same derivatives: (11.14), (11.16), and of (13.22) only the order $\epsilon^2$. In (13.20) $u$ is that of the level data; the clock data of the part $i$ enter through $\varrho_i$ (13.18) and change only the factor $1+O(\epsilon^2)$. For $g_{\rm c}=0$ both sides of (13.20) vanish, and the relation holds trivially with any speed.

## Result

Every statement is at first order in $(g_1,g_2,\kappa\langle X\rangle)$ at fixed $\lambda$, followed by the long chain, with the records at leading order in $\kappa$. "Derived" means derived here from the quoted inputs and standard facts; "numerical" means exhibited with the numerical level or the numerical evolution of the script (section "Code"). For vanishing gradients every first-order quantity is zero; a statement with "iff", "only" or "no" names this member where it would be false on it.

- **Item 1** (class: the contract $C$ of the question and the field start $\varphi$; exact; derived).
  - The two bodies and the medium evolve by $C_{\rm red}$ (13.1). It is the contract of an admissible description of $b_1,b_2,c$: yes. A binding with a factor of the field would need a term on three objects, which (1.10) does not contain.
  - $C_{\rm bod}$ is (13.2), fixed by $C,\chi,\varphi$ up to an additive constant; its gradient terms are (13.3).
  - Fixed by $C_{\rm bod}$ and well defined: $g_1$ yes; $g_2$ yes; $\kappa\langle X\rangle$ yes; the operator $\mathcal K$ at the centre label yes; the operator $\mathcal D_\eta$ at $\hat r$ yes, for given $\eta$. Of the five only $\mathcal D_\eta=\mathcal D_0-\eta\,\mathcal K$ depends on $\eta$, and it does iff at least one gradient is non-zero (for vanishing gradients $\mathcal K=\mathcal D_\eta=0$). The centre label $\hat X_\eta$ itself depends on $\eta$ in every case.
- **Item 2** (class: every $W\in\mathcal W$, all data, every bound level, every $g\in\mathcal G(\mathcal P_0)$, all gradients; exact relations at first order; derived, except the members named "numerical").
  - (a) $v^{(1)}_i=\lambda\langle\alpha\rangle_g+\rho_i(\lambda)$ (13.7), (13.8), with the same coefficient for both parts, and $\lvert\rho_i\rvert\le\tau_i\mathsf B_g$ for all $\lambda$ (13.9).
  - (b) $(\bar m_1-\bar m_2)^{(1)}=\lambda\langle\beta\rangle_g+\sigma(\lambda)$ with bounded $\sigma$ (13.10). There is never a term $\propto\lambda^2$. It stays bounded if $W(-r)^{*}=W(r)$ (all diagonal on-site bindings); it is zero under the sufficient condition of Step 4.3; for a binding without that property $\langle\beta\rangle_g\neq0$ for the control set S5 (numerical level; no analytic example), so that it grows linearly by (13.10); the run of S5 shows the slope for $\lambda\le400$. The answer is the same for the common gradient and for $g_1\neq g_2$, except that the vanishing case needs $g_1=g_2$.
  - (c) $a^{\rm drift}(P_0)=g_1\alpha_1+g_2\alpha_2+\kappa\langle X\rangle\alpha_X$ at $P_0$ (13.11): window average first, then $\delta P\to0$ on $\mathcal S(P_0,I)$; in this order both limits exist for every sequence of the class, and the rest of the first-order acceleration is bounded (13.27). The other order, on the same class, as the item reads since 2026-10-11:
    - Determination, members with $g_1=g_2=0$ (every binding, level and $P_0$; any $\kappa\langle X\rangle$): the other order exists and agrees with the defining order (the limits commute); both give $-2\kappa\langle X\rangle E_b''(P_0)$ (derived).
    - Determination, the levels of items 3 and 4 at $P_0=0$ (small $\epsilon$ at fixed hatted data): the other order exists and agrees iff $g_1=g_2=0$; for $(g_1,g_2)\neq(0,0)$ it does not exist, and the limits do not commute (derived, (13.30)).
    - Other members, (i): at a fixed window the limit $\delta P\to0$ exists for every sequence of the class iff $\mathsf f_i\equiv0$ on $\mathcal P_0$ (13.28); necessary and sufficient.
    - Other members, (ii): necessary for the other order is (N), $c_i\equiv0$ on $\mathbb R\times\mathcal P_0$ (13.29), equivalently $\mathrm{Re}\,F_{i,\lambda}\equiv0$ for all $\lambda$. Sufficient is (S), $F_{i,\lambda}\equiv0$ on $\mathcal P_0$ for all $\lambda$ (13.31); the other order then agrees with the defining order. The eigenvector form of (S), $Q_P\mathcal K\psi_P=0$, holds iff $g_1=g_2=0$ (13.33). Every member with $c_i\not\equiv0$ has no other order, in particular whenever $\langle\mathcal K\rangle_P$ is not constant on $\mathcal P_0$: the levels of the sets S1–S5 with the common gradient or with $g_1$ only (numerical).
    - Other members, (iii): a member with (N) and without (S) is excluded wherever the level has no mirror pair at one $P_1\in\mathcal P_0$; there (N), (S) and the existence of the other order are equivalent (13.32). Where the level has a mirror pair at every $P\in\mathcal P_0$, such a member is neither shown to exist nor excluded (Step 5.3, with the reason). No member with $(g_1,g_2)\neq(0,0)$ that satisfies (N) is exhibited. The evaluation of that order is not asked.
    - $E_b''(P_0)$ is not the only property of the level: $\partial E_b/\partial M_i$, $E_b'$ and $\partial E_b'/\partial M_i$ enter the coefficients of $g_i$.
  - (d) Of the terms of (11.6), the coefficient of the common gradient contains only the rest terms, through $\mathcal M_P$ and $\mathcal M_P'$ with the factors $E_b''$ and $E_b'$; its motion and binding terms do not enter (13.12).
- **Item 3** (class: diagonal on-site binding, $\hat w_{11}\neq0$, level (11.12), $P_0=0$; leading order in $\mathsf R$ at fixed $u$, then limits in $u$; derived from (11.14), (11.16)). Closed form (13.13), limits (13.14), ratios (13.15) with the member (13.23), levels (13.16). With a non-zero fall, for $\langle X\rangle=0$ and at leading order in $\mathsf R$: at no fixed $u$ does the pair fall like both of its parts; it does so only in the ordered wide-pair limit, for $w_{11}<0$ and free parts that fall alike ($\tau_1^2g_1=\tau_2^2g_2$). For free parts that fall alike, the difference of the falls at a fixed $u$ is $-\Lambda a^{(i)}$ (13.34): of order $\epsilon^2$ like the falls themselves, a relative difference of order $\epsilon^0$; the pair and its parts agree trivially through the orders $\epsilon^0$, $\epsilon^1$ and differ at the leading non-zero order $\epsilon^2$. At a fixed $u$ it falls like one part $i$ only on the member $g_j/g_i=\mathsf z_i(u)$ of (13.23), which for the common gradient is $u=u_*$. At a fixed binding $w_{11}\neq0$ its fall is the same for all pairs of levels iff all three gradients vanish (no fall); in the ordered wide-pair limit iff $\langle X\rangle=0$ and $\tau_1^2g_1=\tau_2^2g_2$. Without a fall the pair and its parts agree trivially.
- **Item 4** (same class, $\langle X\rangle=0$; derived from (11.19), (11.20), from (11.12), and from (11.11) with the statement of its Step 7).
  - Rate (13.17) and relative change (13.18), from (13.21), (13.22): both with the clock data of the part $i$ ($u_{[i]}$, $\Lambda_{[i]}$), not with the level data of (13.13). Both are statements on the rate parameter of the level, the number that multiplies $\lambda$ in the advance of (11.19); (13.21) is exact in the data as an identity for this parameter, not for a rate inferred from readings. A reading of the clock label resolves the term of order $\epsilon^2$ of (13.17) under the hierarchy (13.35) only: $\delta_i\ll\epsilon$, $\delta P\ll\epsilon$ and $\max(\kappa,\delta_i^2,\delta P^2)/\epsilon^2\ll\lambda/\lambda_{0,i}\ll\epsilon^2/\delta_i^2$. The terms of order $\epsilon^2$ of $\varrho_i$ can be resolved by the readings of two pairs without gradients only under (13.35) with $\epsilon^2\to\epsilon^2(\lvert g_1\rvert+\lvert g_2\rvert)\Delta x$; for the readings of one pair in the field they are statements on the rate parameter only (Step 7.2).
  - Number $\mathsf w_i^2$, formed with the relative change $\varrho_i$ of the rate parameter: (13.19) at a fixed ratio $g_1:g_2$ with $g_i\neq0$, of order $\epsilon^2$; (13.25) for $g_i=0\neq g_j$, negative and of order $\epsilon^0$; not defined on the member $g_i/g_j=-\nu_i(1+O(\epsilon^2))$ of (13.24) and for $g_1=g_2=0$. It equals $\tau_i^2$ only on the member (13.23), and never for $g_i=0\neq g_j$. It is the same for both parts at leading order iff $g_1=g_2$ (or $a_{\rm pair}=0$), and then at relative order $\epsilon^2$ iff the condition of (13.26) holds. It contains the binding and the clock levels.
  - Relation (13.20), with $u$ of the level data. With the speed $\tau d_0$ itself the relation fails at the leading non-zero order $\epsilon^2$ at every fixed $u$: the absolute deviation is of order $\epsilon^2$, the relative deviation is $\mathsf w^2/\tau^2-1=-\Lambda\,(1+O(\epsilon^2))$, of order $\epsilon^0$ (13.34); through the orders $\epsilon^0$ and $\epsilon^1$ both sides vanish.
  - What (13.18) rests on: the second derivatives of (11.12) in $M_1,M_2$ at $P=0$, with remainders $O(\epsilon^4)$ at fixed $u$ by the uniform estimate of Step 7.2, which extends (11.11) with the statement of its Step 7 to complex rest costs by standard analytic perturbation theory (constants not uniform in $u$). Its term of order $\epsilon^2$, and with it (13.24)–(13.26), uses their values (13.22); its leading order $\varrho_i=g_i$, and with it the factors $1+O(\epsilon^2)$ of (13.19) and (13.20), uses only that they are of order $\epsilon^2$.
- **Item 5.** In the table $u$ and $\Lambda$ are those of the level data, and $u_{[i]}$ that of the clock data of the part $i$. For the pair, "clock rate" is the rate parameter of (13.17).

| | Free part $i$ (upper branch, at rest) | Bound pair (level (11.12), $P_0=0$, leading order in $\mathsf R$) | Pair agrees with its parts |
|---|---|---|---|
| Drift acceleration from rest | $a^{(i)}=-(g_iM_i+\kappa\langle X\rangle)/\mathfrak m_i$; (4.16), (8.11) | $a_{\rm pair}=-\varsigma(1+u^2)^{-1/2}\,\bar a$; (13.11), (13.13) | with a non-zero fall: like both parts at no fixed $u$ (for $a^{(1)}=a^{(2)}$ the difference is $-\Lambda a^{(i)}$: absolute order $\epsilon^2$, relative order $\epsilon^0$); in the ordered limit $u\to0$ iff $a^{(1)}=a^{(2)}$ and $w_{11}<0$; like one part $i$ ($\langle X\rangle=0$, $g_i\neq0$) iff $g_j/g_i=\mathsf z_i(u)$, for both signs of $w_{11}$, which for the common gradient is $u=u_*$ ($\tau_1\neq\tau_2$, $w_{11}<0$, the part with the smaller $\tau_i$); without a fall: trivially; (13.14), (13.15), (13.23), (13.34) |
| Independent of the clock levels | iff $\langle X\rangle=0$; (4.16) | at a fixed binding iff $g_1=g_2=0$ and $\langle X\rangle=0$ (no fall); (13.16) | at no fixed $u$ with a non-zero fall; in the ordered limit $u\to0$ iff $\langle X\rangle=0$ and $\tau_1^2g_1=\tau_2^2g_2$; (13.16) |
| Number that ties it to the relative change of a clock rate ($\langle X\rangle=0$) | $\tau_i^2$, defined for $g_i\neq0$, from $a^{(i)}=-\tau_i^2g_i$; (4.24) | fixed ratio with $g_i\neq0$: $\mathsf w_i^2=-\varsigma(1+u^2)^{-1/2}(g_1M_1+g_2M_2)/(g_i(\mathfrak m_1+\mathfrak m_2))$, of order $\epsilon^2$; $g_i=0\neq g_j$: $\mathsf w_i^2=-4\bar M_i^2M_j\,u\,(1+u_{[i]}^2)^{3/2}/(M_i\,u_{[i]}^3\sqrt{1+u^2})$, negative, of order $\epsilon^0$; not defined at $g_i/g_j=-\nu_i(1+O(\epsilon^2))$ and for $g_1=g_2=0$; a statement on the rate parameter; (13.18), (13.19), (13.24), (13.25), (13.35) | for $g_1=g_2\neq0$, $\tau_1=\tau_2$: $\mathsf w^2/\tau^2=-\varsigma(1+u^2)^{-1/2}$, with the relative deviation $-\Lambda$ of order $\epsilon^0$ and the absolute deviation $-\Lambda\tau^2$ of order $\epsilon^2$; equal to $1$ only for $w_{11}<0$ in the ordered limit $u\to0$; otherwise $\mathsf w_i^2=\tau_i^2$ only on the member $g_j/g_i=\mathsf z_i(u)$ (one part; for the common gradient $u=u_*$), and never for $g_i=0\neq g_j$; (13.19), (13.20), (13.23), (13.25), (13.34) |

## Consistency checks

1. **One body, and no binding.** (13.8) applied to one free body on a level ($E=\sigma\omega$, $\langle\sigma_3\rangle=\partial E/\partial M=\sigma M/\omega$, $\mathcal K=G\sigma_3-\mathcal F$) gives $\alpha=-GM(\omega\omega')'/\omega^2+\sigma\mathcal F\omega''=-GM\tau^2\cos2p/\omega^2+\sigma\mathcal F\tau^2(M^2\cos2p-\tau^2\sin^4p)/\omega^3$. This is (4.7) with $g_\zeta=0$, for all $p$ and both branches. In the pair, the ordered limit of no binding ($u\to0$, $w_{11}<0$) of (13.13) is $\bar a$, equal to $a^{(1)}=a^{(2)}$ when the free parts fall alike. Passed.
2. **Common gradient against (11.6).** With (11.14) at $P=0$ (each value up to $O(\epsilon^4)$, the remainder of (11.14)): $\mathcal M_0=M_1+M_2-a\Lambda$ from $\langle\sigma^{(i)}_3\rangle_0$, and $E_b-\langle A_1\rangle_0-\langle A_2\rangle_0-\langle U\rangle_0=M_1+M_2+a+\varsigma\sqrt{w^2+a^2}-2a\Lambda-\varsigma w^2/\sqrt{w^2+a^2}=M_1+M_2-a\Lambda$. Passed, in agreement with (13.12).
3. **Dimensions.** Labels and $P$ are pure numbers and costs are $1/\lambda$. $g_i$ is per label, $\kappa\langle X\rangle$ a cost per label, $E_b''$ and $1/\mathfrak m$ are costs. (13.8), (13.13): cost$^2$, i.e. labels$/\lambda^2$. (13.10): $\beta$ is a cost, i.e. labels$/\lambda$. (13.17): $1/\lambda$. (13.19): $\mathsf w_i^2$ is a cost$^2$, like $\tau_i^2$. Passed.

## Open issues

- The second order in the gradients, and the range of $\lambda$ over which the first order describes the motion, are not estimated (out of scope); (13.9) and (13.10) bound first-order terms only.
- Item 2(c), the other order of the limits, for the members with $(g_1,g_2)\neq(0,0)$ other than the levels of items 3 and 4. A member that satisfies the necessary condition (N) without the sufficient condition (S) is excluded where the level has no mirror pair at one $P_1\in\mathcal P_0$ (13.32); where the level has a mirror pair at every $P\in\mathcal P_0$ it is neither shown to exist nor excluded (Step 5.3 (iii), with the reason). No member with $(g_1,g_2)\neq(0,0)$ that satisfies (N) is exhibited. The class $\mathcal S(P_0,I)$ leaves the phase of the packets free; no statement is made for a class that restricts it. Outside the scope of the question: a classification of the members between (N) and (S), and the evaluation of the limits in the other order.
- A binding of $\mathcal W$ with $\beta\not\equiv0$ is exhibited numerically (set S5), not analytically; the same holds for a level with $E_b'(0)\neq0$ (Step 5.4).
- The remainders of (13.13)–(13.20), (13.23)–(13.26) and (13.34) (a relative $O(\epsilon^2)$, or $O(\epsilon^4)$ against terms of order $\epsilon^2$ in (13.17), (13.18) and (13.26)) are not determined (for the sets S1–S3, with $\tau_i/M_i\le0.2$: numerically up to 4 % for (13.13) and up to 7 % for (13.22)) and are not uniform in $u$.
- The first-order corrections to the clock reading of a pair in the field (the gradient across the packet) are not derived. For this reason (13.18) and (13.24)–(13.26) are statements on the rate parameter only, as far as the readings of one pair in the field are concerned; the hierarchy (13.35) is necessary for a reading to resolve a term of order $\epsilon^2$ of the rate parameter, and its constants (those of the remainder of (11.19)) are not computed.
- The results hold for a binding and for motion terms without a factor of the field, the class of the question. Whether another admissible coupling makes the pair fall like its parts is outside this package.
- The remainder $O(\epsilon^4)$ of (13.22) rests on the uniform estimate of Step 7.2: the reduction (11.11) of 11-bound-pair, extended to complex rest costs by standard analytic perturbation theory. It is an argument at the physicist-formal standard; its constants $\delta$, $c$ are not computed and are not bounded for $u\to0$ or $u\to\infty$. The numerical check finds the scaling $\epsilon^4$ for the sets S1–S3 at three scales (section "Code", item 4). (13.24)–(13.26) and the place of the member $\varrho_i=0$ use the values (13.22) and share this estimate.
- Whether the rest $\dot\rho_i$ of the first-order acceleration decays for $\lambda\to\infty$ at a fixed packet is not derived (Step 5.1); the drift acceleration does not need it. Likewise, whether the bounded first-order separation of Step 4.2 converges for $\lambda\to\infty$ is not derived.

## Code

- **File:** `code/v5/pair_fall_check.py`, role: check. Outputs: `code/v5/output/summary.txt` (all numbers below), `code/v5/output/results.json`, `code/v5/output/first_order_motion.png`. It is the script of v4 with the paths changed; the evolution, its parameters, its tables and its numbers are those of v4. No table is added: no statement that is new in v5 ((13.31)–(13.35)) rests on a number.
- **What it does.**
  - It builds the fibre contract (11.1) on $\lvert r\rvert\le48$, finds the bound level attached to $\mathcal B_{++}$ on a grid of 161 values of $P$, and computes $\alpha$ (13.8) and $\beta$ (13.10) from it ($E_b''$ by (11.9); the reduced resolvent by full diagonalization).
  - It builds $\Phi_g$ with $g\propto\cos^4\bigl(\pi(P-P_0)/(2P_c)\bigr)$ on the chain $\lvert x_i\rvert\le60$ (121 sites, dimension 58564), evolves it by $C_{\rm bod}$ (13.2) with small gradients of both signs (Chebyshev expansion), and takes the symmetric difference.
  - The slope of a first-order quantity is its mean rate over $[0,\lambda_{\max}]$ with the weight $\propto\sin^4(\pi\lambda/\lambda_{\max})$. The sampling step is chosen so that no multiple of $2\pi/\text{step}$ lies near a frequency $\lvert E_n(P)-E_b(P)\rvert$ of the rest.
  - From the numerical level at $P=0$ (fibre $\lvert r\rvert\le64$) it computes the clock ratio $\Gamma_i=\langle\sigma^{(i)}_3\rangle_0$ and its derivative in the data, $T_{ij}:=M_j\,\partial\Gamma_i/\partial M_j=M_j\,\partial^2E_b(0)/\partial M_j\partial M_i=-2M_j\,\mathrm{Re}\langle\sigma^{(i)}_3\psi_0\vert R_0\vert\sigma^{(j)}_3\psi_0\rangle$, and compares them with (11.20), with (13.22) and, through (13.21), with (13.18).
  - From the numerical level at $P=0$ and $P=0.2$ (fibre $\lvert r\rvert\le96$) it computes $\partial_P\langle\sigma^{(i)}_3\rangle_P=-2\,\mathrm{Re}\langle\sigma^{(i)}_3\psi_P\vert R_P\vert V_\eta\psi_P\rangle$, $\partial_P\langle\mathcal K\rangle_P$ and $\mathsf f_i(P)=\mathrm{Re}\,F_{i,\Lambda}(P)$ of Step 5.3 for the windows $[0,\Lambda]$, $\Lambda=5,10,20$, by the sum over the levels of the fibre, per unit gradient (common gradient; $g_1$ only), and checks the identity (13.6).
  - From the numerical level at $P=0.1$ and $P=0.2$ (fibre $\lvert r\rvert\le96$) it computes $\partial_\lambda^2c_i(0;P)$ of (13.29) in four ways: by the sum over the levels of the fibre, by the double commutator of (13.29), by the first relation of (13.30) and, for S1–S3, by its second relation; per unit gradient of one part.
- **Sets.** Each with the common gradient, with $g_1$ only ($g_2=0$), and with a plain gradient in the place of $\kappa\langle X\rangle$.
  - S1: $\tau_i=0.2$, $M_i=1$, $w_{11}=-0.02$ ($u=1.00$). S2: $\tau=(0.20,0.18)$, $M=(1,1.25)$, $w_{11}=-0.02$ ($u=1.21$). S3: $\tau=(0.20,0.17)$, $M=(1,0.9)$, $w_{11}=+0.022$ ($u=1.22$). S4: $\tau=(1,0.8)$, $M=(1,1.2)$, $w_{11}=-0.9$. In all four the other $w_{s_1s_2}$ are non-zero, $P_0=0$ and $P_c=0.5$ ($\delta P=0.106$).
  - S5 (control): the data of S4 with a binding of range 1 that is neither diagonal nor symmetric, $P_0=0.2$, $P_c=0.4$ ($\delta P=0.085$).
  - Range: $\lambda\le3000$ (S1–S3), $200$ (S4), $400$ (S5). Gradients: $5\cdot10^{-7}$ (S1–S3), $2\cdot10^{-6}$ (S4, S5).
- **Item 2a.** The slopes of $v^{(1)}_1$ and $v^{(1)}_2$ agree with $\langle\alpha\rangle_g$ of (13.7), in all three configurations, to a relative $2\cdot10^{-5}$ (S1), $1.3\cdot10^{-5}$ (S2), $6\cdot10^{-6}$ (S3), $4\cdot10^{-7}$ (S4), $3\cdot10^{-5}$ (S5). Over the range of each run the rest $\lvert v^{(1)}_i-\lambda\langle\alpha\rangle_g\rvert$ is at most 3 % of the linear part at $\lambda_{\max}$.
- **Item 2b.** All numbers per unit gradient, over the range of each run.
  - S1–S4: $\lvert\langle\beta\rangle_g\rvert\le4\cdot10^{-15}$ (numerical level), in all configurations.
  - The configurations with a non-zero first-order separation are S1 with $g_1$ only and the three configurations of S2, S3 and S4. In them the separation stays bounded over the range of the run, as (13.10) with $\beta\equiv0$ states for all $\lambda$. Its largest value, for the common gradient, $g_1$ only and the plain gradient: $270$ (S1, $g_1$ only); $39.0$, $201$, $71.1$ (S2); $43.5$, $157$, $31.8$ (S3); $1.21$, $2.41$, $0.96$ (S4). In these ten configurations its weighted mean rate over the full range, times $\lambda_{\max}$, is below 0.5 % of the largest value of the same configuration: 0.43 % (S1 with $g_1$ only), 0.23 % (S2, all three), 0.17 % (S3, all three), below 0.002 % (S4). A convergence to a constant is not shown: over the two halves of the range the weighted mean rates times the half range are 22 % and 11 % of the largest value for S1 with $g_1$ only, and 14 % and 4.5 % for S2 with $g_1$ only.
  - For S1 with the common and the plain gradient the separation is zero within the noise of the difference ($3\cdot10^{-8}$ against $270$ for $g_1$ only), as in Step 4.3; a ratio of its mean rate to its largest value is a ratio of noise and is not stated.
  - S5: over $\lambda\le400$ the slopes are $-0.08662$, $-0.02819$, $-0.07457$ against $\langle\beta\rangle_g=-0.08651$, $-0.02813$, $-0.07444$; with $\lambda\le600$ the second slope is $-0.028139$.
- **Item 2c (members for the other order of the limits, Step 5.3).** Table "other order": the numerical level of the five sets at $P=0$ and $P=0.2$; all numbers per unit gradient.
  - $\partial_P\langle\sigma^{(i)}_3\rangle_P$ at $P=0.2$, $i=1,2$: S1 $-2.102\cdot10^{-3}$ (both); S2 $-1.490\cdot10^{-3}$, $-1.333\cdot10^{-3}$; S3 $+1.657\cdot10^{-3}$, $+1.946\cdot10^{-3}$; S4 $-2.398\cdot10^{-2}$, $-2.300\cdot10^{-2}$; S5 $-3.277\cdot10^{-2}$, $-3.888\cdot10^{-2}$. Hence $\partial_P\langle\mathcal K\rangle_P$ for the common gradient: $-4.20\cdot10^{-3}$, $-3.16\cdot10^{-3}$, $+3.41\cdot10^{-3}$, $-5.16\cdot10^{-2}$, $-7.94\cdot10^{-2}$; for $g_1$ only it is $M_1=1$ times the first number of each set.
  - $\mathsf f_i(P)=\mathrm{Re}\,F_{i,\Lambda}(P)$ at $P=0.2$ for $\Lambda=5,10,20$: non-zero for all sets, both parts, both configurations. S5 with the common gradient: $\mathsf f_1=7.07\cdot10^{-2}$, $2.34\cdot10^{-2}$, $1.20\cdot10^{-2}$ and $\mathsf f_2=2.83\cdot10^{-2}$, $1.11\cdot10^{-1}$, $-6.28\cdot10^{-2}$. The smallest value of the table is $3.7\cdot10^{-6}$ ($\mathsf f_2$ of S2 with $g_1$ only, $\Lambda=5$).
  - At $P=0$: for S1–S4 (symmetry $\mathcal R$ of Step 6.1) $\lvert\partial_P\langle\sigma^{(i)}_3\rangle_0\rvert\le2.4\cdot10^{-17}$ and $\lvert\mathsf f_i(0)\rvert\le1.5\cdot10^{-15}$. For S5: $E_b'(0)=-1.17\cdot10^{-4}$, $\partial_P\langle\mathcal K\rangle_0=3.36\cdot10^{-4}$ for the common gradient, and $\mathsf f_i(0)\neq0$.
  - Checks. The identity (13.6), $2\,\mathrm{Re}\langle V_i\psi_P\vert R_P\vert\mathcal K\psi_P\rangle=-\partial_P\langle\mathcal K\rangle_P$ for $i=1,2$, holds to $3\cdot10^{-16}$. A symmetric difference of $\langle\sigma^{(i)}_3\rangle_P$ in $P$ (step $10^{-4}$) agrees with the resolvent form to $2\cdot10^{-10}$. Fibre range $64$ against $96$: $3\cdot10^{-15}$. At these $P$ the level is outside the bands, with a distance to the rest of the spectrum of at least $8\cdot10^{-3}$.
  - Comparison for S1–S3 at $P=0.2$ (a check of the table; the formula is the derivative in $P$ of $\langle\sigma^{(i)}_3\rangle_P$ of Step 5.3): the leading order obtained from (11.12) by one derivative in $M_i$ and one in $P$, $\varsigma\,\frac{a_i}{M_i}\,\frac{2a_j\sin2P\,(w^2+a_j^2+a_ia_j\cos2P)}{(w^2+j(P)^2)^{3/2}}$, deviates from the numbers above by $8\cdot10^{-4}$ (S1), up to $3\cdot10^{-3}$ (S2) and $-4.3\cdot10^{-2}$ (S3).
  - Table "second derivative" (added in v4; (13.29), (13.30)), at $P=0.1$ and $P=0.2$, per unit gradient of one part. The sum over the levels of the fibre agrees with the double commutator of (13.29) to $4\cdot10^{-16}$ for all five sets. For S1–S4 it agrees with the first relation of (13.30) to $2\cdot10^{-16}$, and the gradient of the other part contributes less than $4\cdot10^{-16}$. Values at $P=0.2$ for the parts $1$, $2$: S1 $-5.552\cdot10^{-3}$ (both); S2 $-3.919\cdot10^{-3}$, $-6.128\cdot10^{-3}$; S3 $+4.354\cdot10^{-3}$, $+3.529\cdot10^{-3}$; S4 $-5.216\cdot10^{-2}$, $-7.683\cdot10^{-2}$; at $P=0.1$ they are about half of these. The second relation of (13.30) deviates by a relative $-1.7\cdot10^{-3}$ to $-1.9\cdot10^{-3}$ (S1), $-0.6\cdot10^{-3}$ to $-1.6\cdot10^{-3}$ (S2) and $-1.7\cdot10^{-2}$ (S3). For S5, whose binding does not commute with $\mathcal K$, the first relation of (13.30) does not apply (it deviates by up to $2\cdot10^{-2}$) and the gradient of the other part contributes (up to $1.3\cdot10^{-3}$), as (13.29) allows. Fibre range $64$ against $96$: $6\cdot10^{-16}$.
- **Item 3.** The coefficients of (13.13) deviate from those of the numerical level at $P_0=0$ by $-5\cdot10^{-4}$ to $+2.5\cdot10^{-3}$ (S1), up to $2.9\cdot10^{-3}$ (S2), and $-2.2\cdot10^{-2}$ to $-3.8\cdot10^{-2}$ (S3), against $(\tau_i/M_i)^2\le0.04$. With $\tau\to s\tau$, $w\to s^2w$ and $s=1,\tfrac12,\tfrac14$ the deviations fall by factors $3.8$ to $4.5$ per step. The slopes of the evolution agree, to the same deviations, with (13.13) averaged over the packet through (11.12). The member of Step 6.4 with cancelling leading terms is formed from these coefficients: for S2 they are $-9.9939\cdot10^{-3}$ for $g_1$ and $-1.25145\cdot10^{-2}$ for $g_2$.
- **Item 4 (the derivative of the clock ratio in the data).** Sets S1–S3 and their scalings $\tau\to s\tau$, $w\to s^2w$, $s=1,\tfrac12,\tfrac14$. In this table the rest costs $M_i$ of the set are used for the part that is read as well ($\bar M_i=M_i$), so the clock data and the level data coincide.
  - The four numbers $T_{ij}$ deviate from (13.22) by a relative $5.4\cdot10^{-3}$ to $1.1\cdot10^{-2}$ (S1, S2) and $-2.7\cdot10^{-2}$ to $-7.0\cdot10^{-2}$ (S3) at $s=1$. Per step in $s$ the relative deviations fall by factors $3.8$ to $4.0$ and the absolute ones by $15$ to $16$: for these three sets and three scales the deviation from (13.22) scales like $\epsilon^4$, in agreement with Step 7.2.
  - $\varrho_i-g_i$ from (13.21), for the common gradient, $g_1$ only and $g_2$ only, deviates from the term of order $\epsilon^2$ of (13.18) by up to $1.6\cdot10^{-2}$ (S1, S2) and $5.5\cdot10^{-2}$ (S3) at $s=1$, with factors $3.9$ to $4.0$ per step. The column of the common gradient is the term $\frac{\tau_i^2}{4\bar M_i^2}\mathsf y$ of (13.26); the columns of the gradient of the other part are $\nu_i$ of (13.24).
  - $1-\Gamma_i$ deviates from (11.20) by $7\cdot10^{-3}$ to $9\cdot10^{-3}$ (S1, S2) and $-4\cdot10^{-2}$ (S3) at $s=1$, with factors $3.9$ to $4.0$ per step.
  - Checks: a symmetric difference of $\Gamma_i$ in $M_j$ (relative step $10^{-4}$) agrees with the resolvent form to $7\cdot10^{-8}$; fibre range $48$ against $64$: $5\cdot10^{-12}$.
- **Cross-checks of (13.23) and (13.25).** They are formed here from numbers that the script prints; the script does not print them, and no statement rests on them.
  - (13.25), part $2$ with $g_2=0\neq g_1$ and $\bar M_i=M_i$: minus the coefficient of $g_1$ of the level at $P_0=0$, divided by $T_{21}/\Gamma_2$, is $-7.927$ (S1), $-8.314$ (S2), $-5.868$ (S3), against $-4M_1M_2(1+u^2)/u^2=-8$, $-8.395$, $-6.017$: deviations $-0.9$ %, $-1.0$ %, $-2.5$ %, and a negative number for both signs of $w_{11}$.
  - (13.23), S2: with the coefficients $-9.9939\cdot10^{-3}$ of $g_1$ and $-1.25145\cdot10^{-2}$ of $g_2$ of the level at $P_0=0$ and $a^{(1)}=-0.04\,g_1$, the pair falls like the part $1$ at $g_2/g_1=2.3977$, against $\mathsf z_1(u)=2.3994$.
- **Convergence** (configuration $g_1$ only; relative change of the slopes).
  - Chain: $45$ against $60$: $3\cdot10^{-7}$ (S1), $5\cdot10^{-8}$ (S4); $75$ against $60$: $1.5\cdot10^{-6}$ (S5).
  - Gradient doubled: $2\cdot10^{-6}$. Other sampling step: below $10^{-6}$. Fibre range $48$ against $64$: $10^{-13}$ in $\alpha$.
  - Narrower packet ($P_c=0.35$): the same agreement with its own $\langle\alpha\rangle_g$.
  - Range of $\lambda$: on half of the range the slopes deviate by up to $1.2\cdot10^{-2}$; the full range reduces this to the values of item 2a.
- **Run.** Once, in the foreground: 341 s. No package was installed.

## Methods used

- Reduction of a contract on an eigenstate of the field operators; partial expectation
- Fibre decomposition under the joint shift of two bodies
- First-order perturbation theory in a term of the contract (Duhamel formula)
- Perturbation theory of an isolated simple eigenvalue; reduced resolvent
- Commutator identities for velocity operators; Hellmann–Feynman relations
- Antiunitary and exchange symmetries of the fibre contract
- Window averaging of bounded oscillating terms; packets with a sharp total label
- Phase-modulated sequences of packets; isolated zeros of real-analytic functions
- Spectral measures; uniqueness of the Fourier transform of a finite complex measure
- Two-step recursion for an eigenvector in a symmetry sector of the fibre contract
- Leading-order expansion in a scaling regime with ordered limits; absolute and relative orders
- Mixed second differences (strict supermodularity) for a uniqueness argument
- Numerical evolution by a Chebyshev expansion with a symmetric difference in the gradients
- Second derivatives of an eigenvalue in the data; Cauchy estimate for the derivatives of an analytic remainder
- Analytic perturbation theory for an isolated part of the spectrum (Riesz projector); identity theorem
- Mean ergodic theorem for the time average of a unitary group
- Resolution of a rate by a reading distribution against its remainder

Author: Ivan Honis · ivan.honis@ndot.io · License: CC BY 4.0 · Human–AI note