.. Migration note (2026m04d04): Claude copied this file during VV-to-HELL migration.
   Old path: ``vv/jub/oov2/llog/llog_2026m03d21_restructuring-2d-critique2-c2-1-c2-6.rst`` (as given by LLoL)
   New path: ``hell/ll/jub/b/30/jub_ll_2026m03d21_restructuring-2d-critique2-c2-1-c2-6.rst`` (as chosen by Claude)
   Category: JUB OOv2 log

.. meta::
   :description: Six Round 2 objections integrated including two at fatal severity (A) --- the most dangerous challenges in the entire adversarial review cycle.
   :keywords: C2.1-C2.6, Phase 2d, Round 2, fatal severity, RiskyMADorMAP critique, IBM extinction, critique integration, disputatio, JUB OOv2, Claude Opus, llog
   :author: Yah, Yas, everyone, LLoL as Laurence Loewe of Laodicea, ClaudeOp46Max, Anthropic, and Spirit of Boolean Truth
   :og:card:title: Phase 2d Critique C2.1-C2.6<br>Fatal-Severity Round 2
   :og:card:description: Two fatal-severity objections and four supporting challenges from Round 2 processed into quest format with detailed rebuttals and concessions.

.. SOCIAL-CARD-QUALITY-COMPARE --- OO (default effort) vs PP (max effort), 2026-03-26
   OO :description: Session log: Integrating C2.1-C2.6 from Round 2, including two fatal-severity objections. Part of JUB OOv2 review.
   OO :keywords: matheology, JUB, OOv2, Phase 2d, C2.1-C2.6, Round 2, fatal severity, critique integration, Claude Opus, llog
   OO :og:card:title: Phase 2d: Integrating C2.1-C2.6 Round 2
   OO :og:card:description: Integration of 6 Round 2 objections including C2.1 and C2.2 at fatal severity (A), the most severe challenges in the adversarial cycle.
   PP :description: Six Round 2 objections integrated including two at fatal severity (A) --- the most dangerous challenges in the entire adversarial review cycle.
   PP :keywords: C2.1-C2.6, Phase 2d, Round 2, fatal severity, RiskyMADorMAP critique, IBM extinction, critique integration, disputatio, JUB OOv2, Claude Opus, llog
   PP :og:card:title: Phase 2d Critique C2.1-C2.6<br>Fatal-Severity Round 2
   PP :og:card:description: Two fatal-severity objections and four supporting challenges from Round 2 processed into quest format with detailed rebuttals and concessions.

.. SOCIAL-CARD-REVIEW --- generated by Claude Opus 4.6, 2026-03-26
   dv_ClaOp46_PP_2026m03d26 --- max-effort rewrite, read full page.
   :description: 142 chars | :og:card:title: 45 chars (excl <br>)
   - [ ] PP title more compelling than OO title
   - [ ] PP description more accurate than OO description
   - [ ] Description hooks without misleading
   - [ ] Keywords specific to this page's actual content
   - [ ] No language rule violations
   - [ ] Character counts verified

.. note:: **Editorial note (2026-03-24).**
   This log uses "validated," "verified," and similar terms in places
   where the author's long-standing practice is to say "tested" or
   "checked." The distinction matters: open systems cannot be confirmed
   correct by any finite set of checks --- they can only be tested
   (see :ref:`not-tested-not-validated` in the adversarial stress-test
   report for the full argument). The AI-generated text was not
   corrected at the time of writing. The log is otherwise unaltered.

.. note:: **Editorial note (2026-03-26, Phase 2I-7b).**
   Cross-reference labels in this llog were updated to reflect the
   HELL migration (Phase 2I-6), which renamed all quest labels from
   the old round-based format (e.g., ``con-a-1``) to the flat-numbered
   BEST Names format (e.g., ``jub-con11``). Each reference preserves the
   original label name for audit transparency while adding a working
   link to the current target. The llog content is otherwise unaltered.

****************************************************************************************************
Phase 2d: Integrating C2.1–C2.6 from Critique Round 2
****************************************************************************************************

Generated 2026-03-21 by Claude Opus 4.6 at ``/effort max``.
This session integrates the first 6 objections from Review Round 2
(C2.1–C2.6). C2.1 and C2.2 are Fatal severity (A) — the most severe
objections in Round 2.


.. contents:: On this page
   :depth: 2
   :local:


----


Session Metadata
==================

**Files read:**

.. list-table::
   :header-rows: 1
   :widths: 60 40

   * - File
     - Purpose
   * - ``vv/jub/oov2/llog/llog_2026m03d20_restructuring-1-master-plan-and-methodology.rst``
     - Master plan: methodology, severity scale, quest template
   * - ``vv/jub/oov2/llog/llog_2026m03d21_restructuring-1-plan-additions-to-master-plan.rst``
     - Decisions log, important-files list, Sessions 1–6 decisions
   * - ``vv/jub/oov2/llog/quest-cons-table.rst``
     - Critique inventory (C2.1–C2.6 severity, targets, Spheres)
   * - ``vv/jub/oov2/llog/llog_2026m03d21_restructuring-2c-critique1-c8-c14.rst``
     - Phase 2c llog (continuity: Round 1 ScoreBoard, open items)
   * - ``vv/jub/oov1/llog/llog_2026m03d18_opus-ultrathink-critique-2-of-jubilee-argument.rst`` (lines 74–670)
     - Critique Round 2: C2.1 through C2.6
   * - ``vv/jub/oov1/llog/llog_2026m03d19a_opus-reply-2-for-jubilee-argument.rst`` (lines 91–800)
     - Reply Round 2: Replies to C2.1 through C2.6
   * - ``jub/axioms.rst``
     - Canonical JUB axioms (ax15_A15–ax25_A25), including ax15_A15 compatibilism note
   * - ``jub/theorems.rst``
     - Canonical JUB theorems (th5_T5–th11_T11), including th8_T8/th9_T9 Phase 2b revisions
   * - ``jub/quest.rst``
     - Quest file (state after Phase 2c: 14 Cons, 14 Pros, ScoreBoard)

**Files modified:**

.. list-table::
   :header-rows: 1
   :widths: 50 50

   * - File
     - Change
   * - ``jub/quest.rst``
     - Appended Cons (Con-A.2.1 through Con-C.2.6), Pros (Pro-A.2.1
       through Pro-D.2.6), ScoreBoard (6 new rows). Updated status
       notes from "Phase 2a–2b–2c: Review Round 1 complete (C1–C14)"
       to "Phase 2a–2c complete (C1–C14). Phase 2d in progress: Round
       2, C2.1–C2.6." Added cross-reference labels for all 12 new
       entries.
   * - ``jub/axioms.rst``
     - Added ``.. _ax16:`` and ``.. _ax17:`` labels before ax16_A16 and ax17_A17.
       Added "What ax19_A19 DOES claim (and why)" section to ax19_A19 (ax19_A19-a
       revision). Added commons-tragedy convergence note to ax25_A25.
   * - ``jub/theorems.rst``
     - Added competitive-inhibitor model and commons-tragedy convergence
       note to th8_T8.
   * - This file (llog)
     - Created.
   * - ``vv/jub/oov2/llog/index.rst``
     - Added this file to Phase 2 toctree.
   * - ``vv/jub/oov2/llog/llog_2026m03d21_restructuring-1-plan-additions-to-master-plan.rst``
     - Appended Session 7 Decisions.
   * - ``vv/jub/oov2/llog/llog_2026m03d21_restructuring-phase1-prompts-reply-overviews-for-debugs.rst``
     - Appended Session 7 debug entry.


----


Objection Integration Record
===============================


C2.1 → Con-A.2.1 / Pro-A.2.1
-------------------------------

**Con-A.2.1 --- RiskyMADorMAP Proves Extinction Risk, Not Jubilee
Necessity (Causal Gap)**

*Severity: A (Fatal)* | *Sphere: Se2, Se3* | *Target: ax25_A25, th8_T8*

As written to quest.rst (see ``con-a-2-1``, now :ref:`jub-con25`, for full text):

The RiskyMADorMAP CTMC model demonstrates alarmingly high extinction
probability but does not establish that a Jubilee system would reduce
this probability. The rate parameters are driven by geopolitical
dynamics, not wealth distribution. The Cuban Missile Crisis, Petrov
incident, Able Archer, and Norwegian rocket incident were all products
of interstate security dilemmas. The argument structure: (1) nuclear
risk is urgent — granted; (2) structural reform is urgent — granted;
(3) therefore Jubilee is urgent — non sequitur. Academic support:
Waltz (1979), Schelling (1960), Sagan (1993).

**Pro-A.2.1 --- Response to Con-A.2.1 (Causal Gap)**

*Impact: A (Fatal) --- Resolved.*

As written to quest.rst (see ``pro-a-2-1``, now :ref:`jub-pro25`, for full text):

The reply deploys root-cause analysis ("5 Whys") tracing nuclear crises
to inequality dynamics, and introduces the Michaelis-Menten
competitive-inhibitor model: ResearchCity creates an alternative
reaction pathway (Earth + ResearchCity → GlobalCooperation → MAP) that
competes with the MAD pathway. The Jubilee conclusion follows from
creating an alternative trajectory, not from changing MAD rate
parameters. The critique's scope error (confining to domestic inequality)
is corrected: ax25_A25 targets global wealth distribution.

**Axiom/theorem revision:** Yes — added competitive-inhibitor model
note to th8_T8 in ``theorems.rst``, documenting the alternative-pathway
mechanism and commons-tragedy convergence. Also added commons-tragedy
note to ax25_A25 in ``axioms.rst``.

**Decisions:** The competitive-inhibitor model is the strongest leg
of the defense (structurally sound, mechanism-based). The historical
root-cause analysis ("all wars are bankers' wars") is supporting
context but debatable. Impact A is justified because the
competitive-inhibitor mechanism provides a genuine formal response
to the causal gap.


C2.2 → Con-A.2.2 / Pro-A.2.2
-------------------------------

**Con-A.2.2 --- Multiple Extinction Pathways Prove Jubilee
Insufficient**

*Severity: A (Fatal)* | *Sphere: Se2, Se4* | *Target: ax25_A25, th8_T8*

As written to quest.rst (see ``con-a-2-2``, now :ref:`jub-con26`, for full text):

The argument's own multi-pathway logic undermines Jubilee specificity.
If total survival is the product of survival probabilities across all
pathways, and a Jubilee system only increases S_inequality, the total
effect is negligible. No mechanism shown for how periodic wealth
redistribution reduces AI alignment risk, nuclear failures, climate
tipping points, or pandemic risk. Academic support: Bostrom (2014),
Nordhaus (2018), Ord (2020).

**Pro-A.2.2 --- Response to Con-A.2.2 (Multiple Pathways)**

*Impact: A (Fatal) --- Resolved.*

As written to quest.rst (see ``pro-a-2-2``, now :ref:`jub-pro26`, for full text):

All existential risks are variants of the tragedy of the commons.
ResearchCity explicitly targets every pathway through comprehensive
global coordination. The product-of-survival-probabilities equation
is correct but misapplied: if ResearchCity addresses all pathways,
S_i increases for all i simultaneously. The critique's counter-examples
(Manhattan Project, AI alignment, Industrial Revolution) are individually
rebuttable.

**Axiom/theorem revision:** Combined with C2.1 — the th8_T8 note and ax25_A25
note cover both objections' insights (competitive-inhibitor model +
commons-tragedy convergence).

**Decisions:** Impact A justified because the commons-tragedy
convergence shows all risks share a root cause (lacking global
institutional capacity) that a Jubilee-based ResearchCity addresses.


C2.3 → Con-C.2.3 / Pro-D.2.3
-------------------------------

**Con-C.2.3 --- Michaelis-Menten Credibility Does Not Transfer to
N=1 System**

*Severity: C (Serious)* | *Sphere: Se1, Se2* | *Target: RiskyMADorMAP
(th8_T8 evidence)*

As written to quest.rst (see ``con-c-2-3``, now :ref:`jub-con27`, for full text):

Formal mathematical equivalence does not transfer epistemic credibility.
Michaelis-Menten is credible from its empirical track record (>10^5
replications, controlled conditions, large-N). RiskyMADorMAP has N=1,
rate from 4 data points with wide CI, unmeasured transition probability,
unexamined stationarity assumption, and survivorship bias. Academic
support: Kaplan-Meier (1958), Jaynes (2003), Taleb (2020).

**Pro-D.2.3 --- Response to Con-C.2.3 (N=1 Credibility)**

*Impact: D (Substantial) --- Partially resolved.*

As written to quest.rst (see ``pro-d-2-3``, now :ref:`jub-pro27`, for full text):

The core transferable property is stochastic inevitability, not
measurement precision. The qualitative conclusion (eventual catastrophe)
holds for any nonzero transition probability. Precision objections are
conceded as methodological limitations for rate estimation. Remaining
gap: specific timescale estimates carry substantial uncertainty; the
defense shifts from quantitative precision to structural inevitability.

**Axiom/theorem revision:** No revision needed for th8_T8. The existing
text already states "the theoretical argument does not require empirical
confirmation" (Significance section), which conveys the structural
inevitability point. Adding a separate note about N=1 would
double-annotate.

**Decisions:** Impact D (not C) because the precision objections are
conceded rather than refuted. The structural inevitability argument is
the valid core.


C2.4 → Con-C.2.4 / Pro-C.2.4
-------------------------------

**Con-C.2.4 --- Fitness Analogy Breaks: No Natural Scalar**

*Severity: C (Serious)* | *Sphere: Se1, Se2* | *Target: ax19_A19, th6_T6*

As written to quest.rst (see ``con-c-2-4``, now :ref:`jub-con28`, for full text):

The fitness analogy succeeds for existence but fails for uniqueness.
Fitness has a natural scalar (expected offspring count) with unambiguous
outcome variable and biologically fixed time horizon. ax19_A19's causal
influence lacks answers to four critical questions: time horizon,
probability distribution, discount rate, metric. The measure-zero
argument requires scalar projection; causal influence is a vector.
The Tolstoy/power-law objection: gap between #1 and #2 may be
practically irrelevant. Academic support: Pearl (2009), Harsanyi (1955),
Gabaix (2009).

**Pro-C.2.4 --- Response to Con-C.2.4 (Fitness Analogy)**

*Impact: C (Serious) --- Resolved.*

As written to quest.rst (see ``pro-c-2-4``, now :ref:`jub-pro28`, for full text):

Fitness is more complex than "expected offspring count" (kin selection,
group selection, frequency-dependence). The natural scalar is provided
by Reality's single trajectory. Historical evidence suggests large gaps
at critical junctures (Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Einstein, Madison).
Maintained: h* exists ontologically. Future work: formal projection
specification and epistemic identification.

**Axiom/theorem revision:** Yes — executed the held-back ax19_A19-a
revision: added "What ax19_A19 DOES claim (and why)" section to ax19_A19 in
``axioms.rst``. This consolidates the fitness analogy defense from
Pro-C.3 (Round 1) + Pro-C.2.4 (Round 2), documenting: (1) h* exists
ontologically, (2) Reality performs the scalar projection, (3) the
fitness analogy is structural, (4) epistemic identification is not
claimed. Cross-references Con-C.3/Pro-C.3 and Con-C.2.4/Pro-C.2.4.

**Decisions:** The combined weight of two rounds of fitness-analogy
critique and response (C3+C2.4) is now sufficient to justify the ax19_A19-a
revision. This substantive revision adds the "DOES claim" section
parallel to the existing "does NOT claim" section, making ax19_A19's scope
explicit in the canonical text.


C2.5 → Con-C.2.5 / Pro-D.2.5
-------------------------------

**Con-C.2.5 --- 7TrackRole Model Is Taxonomy, Not Science**

*Severity: C (Serious)* | *Sphere: Se1, Se6* | *Target: th9_T9*

As written to quest.rst (see ``con-c-2-5``, now :ref:`jub-con29`, for full text):

The 7TrackRole system lacks all four elements required for a scientific
model: well-defined states, specified transition probabilities,
demonstrated Markov property, empirical validation. Without these, it
is a taxonomy. The functional completeness claim is extraordinary and
unsupported. The irreducibility claim is unproven: existing mechanisms
may already ensure approximate irreducibility. Academic support: Costa
and McCrae (1992), Chetty et al. (2014), Norris (2015).

**Pro-D.2.5 --- Response to Con-C.2.5 (7TrackRole Taxonomy)**

*Impact: D (Substantial) --- Partially resolved.*

As written to quest.rst (see ``pro-d-2-5``, now :ref:`jub-pro29`, for full text):

Research-program status conceded. The critique applies finished-product
standards to an in-development model. The four gaps are addressed as
future work. The irreducibility counter-argument: Chetty et al. (2014)
shows declining US mobility, empirical evidence that non-Jubilee
mechanisms are insufficient. Remaining gap: the model needs
parameterization and validation.

**Axiom/theorem revision:** No revision needed for th9_T9. The existing
mixing-time note (Phase 2b) already states "transition probabilities
between the 49 role-stage configurations are not yet specified" and
that the ergodicity claim rests on the structural argument pending
quantitative development. Pro-D.2.5's concession adds nuance but is
already captured.

**Decisions:** Impact D (not C) because the research-program status is
conceded and parameterization is genuinely future work. The structural
argument is valid conditional on model specification.


C2.6 → Con-C.2.6 / Pro-D.2.6
-------------------------------

**Con-C.2.6 --- Voluntariness Paradox: Wealthy Actors' Dominant
Strategy Is to Defect**

*Severity: C (Serious)* | *Sphere: Se3, Se6* | *Target: ax15_A15–ax17_A17, ax25_A25*

As written to quest.rst (see ``con-c-2-6``, now :ref:`jub-con30`, for full text):

A structural contradiction: ax25_A25 requires Jubilee, ax15_A15–ax17_A17 prevent
compulsion, but the wealthy have a dominant strategy to defect.
Game-theoretically, Jubilee is a public good with free-rider structure.
Historical record: Scheidel's Four Horsemen (all involuntary and
violent) are the only documented mechanisms for reducing inequality at
scale. No voluntary, peaceful redistribution at societal scale is
historically documented. Academic support: Olson (1965), Scheidel
(2017), Acemoglu and Robinson (2019).

**Pro-D.2.6 --- Response to Con-C.2.6 (Voluntariness Paradox)**

*Impact: D (Substantial) --- Partially resolved.*

As written to quest.rst (see ``pro-d-2-6``, now :ref:`jub-pro30`, for full text):

The paradox is real but not insuperable. Jesus of Nazareth demonstrated
peaceful civilizational transformation through voluntary conversion.
Structural design mechanisms: radical transparency, fiduciary
responsibility, distributed governance, institutionalized democracy.
Olson's collective action problem addressed by reframing prisoners'
dilemma as coordination game. Remaining gap: no historical proof these
mechanisms suffice at global scale; the bootstrapping challenge persists.

**Axiom/theorem revision:** No revision needed for ax15_A15, ax16_A16, or ax17_A17.
ax15_A15 already has the compatibilism note (Phase 2c). C2.6 targets the
*combination* of ax15_A15–ax17_A17 with ax25_A25, not any individual axiom's formal
statement. The resolution is in the quest (design mechanisms) rather
than in axiom text. The ax25_A25 note (commons-tragedy convergence, added
for C2.1/C2.2) indirectly addresses C2.6's concern by documenting
ResearchCity's institutional design rationale.

**Decisions:** Impact D (not C) because the voluntariness paradox is
structural within the axiom system and the proposed design mechanisms
are unproven at scale. The historical exemplar (Jesus/Christianity)
shows non-impossibility but not a reliable mechanism.


----


ScoreBoard Snapshot (All 20 Rows: 14 from Round 1 + 6 from Phase 2d)
=======================================================================

.. list-table::
   :header-rows: 1

   * - Con
     - Sev
     - Pro
     - Impact
     - Disposition
     - Session
   * - Con-A.1
     - A
     - Pro-A.1
     - A
     - Resolved
     - 2a
   * - Con-A.2
     - A
     - Pro-D.2
     - D
     - Partially resolved
     - 2a
   * - Con-C.3
     - C
     - Pro-C.3
     - C
     - Resolved
     - 2a
   * - Con-C.4
     - C
     - Pro-E.4
     - E
     - Partially resolved
     - 2b
   * - Con-C.5
     - C
     - Pro-C.5
     - C
     - Resolved
     - 2b
   * - Con-D.6
     - D
     - Pro-E.6
     - E
     - Partially resolved
     - 2b
   * - Con-E.7
     - E
     - Pro-E.7
     - E
     - Resolved
     - 2b
   * - Con-E.8
     - E
     - Pro-F.8
     - F
     - Partially resolved
     - 2c
   * - Con-E.9
     - E
     - Pro-E.9
     - E
     - Resolved
     - 2c
   * - Con-E.10
     - E
     - Pro-G.10
     - G
     - Conceded (isolated)
     - 2c
   * - Con-E.11
     - E
     - Pro-E.11
     - E
     - Resolved
     - 2c
   * - Con-E.12
     - E
     - Pro-F.12
     - F
     - Partially resolved
     - 2c
   * - Con-E.13
     - E
     - Pro-E.13
     - E
     - Resolved
     - 2c
   * - Con-F.14
     - F
     - Pro-F.14
     - F
     - Resolved
     - 2c
   * - Con-A.2.1
     - A
     - Pro-A.2.1
     - A
     - Resolved
     - 2d
   * - Con-A.2.2
     - A
     - Pro-A.2.2
     - A
     - Resolved
     - 2d
   * - Con-C.2.3
     - C
     - Pro-D.2.3
     - D
     - Partially resolved
     - 2d
   * - Con-C.2.4
     - C
     - Pro-C.2.4
     - C
     - Resolved
     - 2d
   * - Con-C.2.5
     - C
     - Pro-D.2.5
     - D
     - Partially resolved
     - 2d
   * - Con-C.2.6
     - C
     - Pro-D.2.6
     - D
     - Partially resolved
     - 2d


----


Files Changed Summary
=======================

.. list-table::
   :header-rows: 1
   :widths: 50 50

   * - File
     - Change
   * - ``jub/quest.rst``
     - Appended Con-A.2.1 through Con-C.2.6; Pro-A.2.1 through
       Pro-D.2.6; ScoreBoard 6 new rows; updated status notes to
       "Phase 2a–2c complete (C1–C14). Phase 2d in progress: Round 2,
       C2.1–C2.6"
   * - ``jub/axioms.rst``
     - Added ``.. _ax16:`` and ``.. _ax17:`` labels; added "What ax19_A19
       DOES claim (and why)" section (ax19_A19-a revision); added
       commons-tragedy convergence note to ax25_A25
   * - ``jub/theorems.rst``
     - Added competitive-inhibitor model and commons-tragedy
       convergence note to th8_T8
   * - ``vv/jub/oov2/llog/index.rst``
     - Added this llog to Phase 2 toctree
   * - Plan additions file
     - Appended Session 7 Decisions
   * - Debug file
     - Appended Session 7 entry (verbatim prompt + response overview)


----


Open Items for Future Sessions
==================================

1. **Round 2 ScoreBoard and Summary** deferred to Phase 2e
   (C2.7–C2.12) per the master plan — the full Round 2 assessment
   will be produced after all 12 Round 2 objections are integrated.

2. **Items carried from Phase 2c (unchanged):**

   a. Transition probabilities for the 7TrackRole Markov chain (Pro-C.5)
   b. Formal periodic-vs-continuous redistribution comparison (Pro-E.4)
   c. Broader concentration dynamics formalization (Pro-E.6)
   d. Civilizational coupling model (Pro-E.7)
   e. Falsification criteria for th8_T8 (from Phase 2a)
   f. Empire-collapse survival analysis (from Phase 2a)
   g. th9_T9-b+: bare "Jubilee" language cleanup (from Phase 2b)

3. **Items from Phase 2d:**

   a. Formal specification of ax19_A19's scalar projection function
      (acknowledged in Pro-C.2.4 as future work)
   b. 7TrackRole operational state definitions (high-priority TODO
      from Pro-D.2.5)
   c. 7TrackRole empirical validation (from Pro-D.2.5)
   d. Global-scale demonstration of ResearchCity design mechanisms
      (remaining gap from Pro-D.2.6)

4. **ax25_A25-a revision (periodic efficiency argument):** Held back from
   Phase 2b. Not executed in Phase 2d because the commons-tragedy
   convergence note (added to ax25_A25) addresses a different aspect. The
   periodic-vs-continuous efficiency argument remains future work,
   pending formal comparison (item 2b above).

5. **Remaining 13 objections** (C2.7–C2.12, C3.1–C3.7): to be
   integrated in sessions 2e–2g per the master plan.


----


*Phase 2d generated at reasoning effort level "max" (Opus 4.6).*
*Assessed as dv_ClaOpMax_PP_v1r0p0_2026m03d21.*


.. admonition:: TELES migration report (2026m04d04)

   Mechanical identifier migration applied to this file.
   All axiom/theorem text references were migrated from short form
   (e.g., A15) to compound form (e.g., ax15_A15) as part of the
   matheology compound naming operation. Both forms refer to the
   same formal object. The old form survives as the suffix to
   ensure consistency with the oldest records; the new form adds
   a temporary-status prefix. Forward-facing pages use brief form
   (ax15) only. See
   :ref:`hell-ll-other-b15-teles-renaming-prompt` for the complete
   mapping table and :ref:`legacy-5d-link-names-table-for-pet-jub-model` for the permanent
   reference.