.. Migration note (2026m04d04): Claude copied this file during VV-to-HELL migration.
   Old path: ``vv/jub/oov2/llog/llog_2026m03d21_restructuring-2e-critique2-c2-7-c2-12.rst`` (as given by LLoL)
   New path: ``hell/ll/jub/b/31/jub_ll_2026m03d21_restructuring-2e-critique2-c2-7-c2-12.rst`` (as chosen by Claude)
   Category: JUB OOv2 log

.. meta::
   :description: Final six Round 2 objections C2.7-C2.12 integrated with two concessions, completing all 12 Round 2 challenges in the adversarial review cycle.
   :keywords: C2.7-C2.12, Phase 2e, Round 2 complete, concessions, substantial severity, moderate severity, 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 2e Critique C2.7-C2.12<br>Round 2 Complete
   :og:card:description: Round 2 finished: six remaining objections processed including two honest concessions where the critique found genuine weaknesses in the argument.

.. SOCIAL-CARD-QUALITY-COMPARE --- OO (default effort) vs PP (max effort), 2026-03-26
   OO :description: Session log: Integrating C2.7-C2.12 from Round 2, completing all Round 2 objections. Part of JUB OOv2 review.
   OO :keywords: matheology, JUB, OOv2, Phase 2e, C2.7-C2.12, Round 2, complete, concessions, critique integration, Claude Opus, llog
   OO :og:card:title: Phase 2e: Integrating C2.7-C2.12 Round 2
   OO :og:card:description: Final 6 Round 2 objections integrated at Substantial/Moderate severity, including two concessions. Completes Round 2 processing.
   PP :description: Final six Round 2 objections C2.7-C2.12 integrated with two concessions, completing all 12 Round 2 challenges in the adversarial review cycle.
   PP :keywords: C2.7-C2.12, Phase 2e, Round 2 complete, concessions, substantial severity, moderate severity, critique integration, disputatio, JUB OOv2, Claude Opus, llog
   PP :og:card:title: Phase 2e Critique C2.7-C2.12<br>Round 2 Complete
   PP :og:card:description: Round 2 finished: six remaining objections processed including two honest concessions where the critique found genuine weaknesses in the argument.

.. SOCIAL-CARD-REVIEW --- generated by Claude Opus 4.6, 2026-03-26
   dv_ClaOp46_PP_2026m03d26 --- max-effort rewrite, read full page.
   :description: 147 chars | :og:card:title: 41 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 (2026-03-26, 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 2e: Integrating C2.7–C2.12 from Critique Round 2
****************************************************************************************************

Generated 2026-03-21 by Claude Opus 4.6 at ``/effort max``.
This session integrates the final 6 objections from Review Round 2
(C2.7–C2.12), completing Round 2. No Fatal-severity objections in
this batch: C2.7–C2.9 are Substantial (D); C2.10–C2.12 are
Moderate (E). Two are conceded or reframed (C2.10, C2.12).


.. 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 1–7 decisions
   * - ``vv/jub/oov2/llog/quest-cons-table.rst``
     - Critique inventory (C2.7–C2.12 severity, targets, Spheres)
   * - ``vv/jub/oov2/llog/llog_2026m03d21_restructuring-2d-critique2-c2-1-c2-6.rst``
     - Phase 2d llog (continuity: 20-row ScoreBoard, open items)
   * - ``vv/jub/oov1/llog/llog_2026m03d18_opus-ultrathink-critique-2-of-jubilee-argument.rst`` (lines 650–1259)
     - Critique Round 2: C2.7 through C2.12
   * - ``vv/jub/oov1/llog/llog_2026m03d19a_opus-reply-2-for-jubilee-argument.rst`` (lines 738–end)
     - Reply Round 2: Replies to C2.7 through C2.12
   * - ``jub/axioms.rst``
     - Canonical JUB axioms (ax15_A15–ax25_A25), including ax15_A15 compatibilism note,
       ax19_A19 "DOES claim" section, ax25_A25 commons-tragedy note
   * - ``jub/theorems.rst``
     - Canonical JUB theorems (th5_T5–th11_T11), including th8_T8 competitive-inhibitor
       note, th9_T9 mixing-time note
   * - ``jub/quest.rst``
     - Quest file (state after Phase 2d: 20 Cons, 20 Pros, ScoreBoard
       with 20 rows, Round 1 Summary)

**Files modified:**

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

   * - File
     - Change
   * - ``jub/quest.rst``
     - Appended Cons (Con-D.2.7 through Con-E.2.12), Pros (Pro-E.2.7
       through Pro-F.2.12), ScoreBoard (6 new rows), Round 2 Summary
       (12-row ScoreBoard, statistics, narrative). Updated status
       notes from "Phase 2d in progress" to "Phase 2e in progress."
       Added cross-reference labels for all 12 new entries.
   * - ``jub/axioms.rst``
     - Added ``.. _ax18:`` label before ax18_A18. Added cross-traditional
       qualification note and Arrow's constraint note to ax25_A25. Added
       poverty/domain-partition clarification note to ax18_A18.
   * - 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 8 Decisions.
   * - ``vv/jub/oov2/llog/llog_2026m03d21_restructuring-phase1-prompts-reply-overviews-for-debugs.rst``
     - Appended Session 8 debug entry.


----


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


C2.7 → Con-D.2.7 / Pro-E.2.7
-------------------------------

**Con-D.2.7 --- Garbage-Collection Analogy Backfires: Modern GC Moved
Away from Stop-the-World**

*Severity: D (Substantial)* | *Sphere: Se1, Se6* | *Target: ax25_A25*

As written to quest.rst (see ``con-d-2-7``, now :ref:`jub-con31`, for full text):

Reply 1b's GC efficiency argument for periodic over continuous
redistribution backfires: modern GC moved away from stop-the-world in
favor of concurrent collectors. The correct analogy for modern GC is
progressive taxation. Economic agents have agency (ax15_A15), enabling
anticipation effects (Lucas critique 1976) that destroy the Jubilee
mechanism. Countries with strong continuous redistribution have simpler
regulatory frameworks than countries with weak redistribution.

**Pro-E.2.7 --- Response to Con-D.2.7 (GC Analogy Backfires)**

*Impact: E (Moderate) --- Partially resolved.*

As written to quest.rst (see ``pro-e-2-7``, now :ref:`jub-pro31`, for full text):

The GC analogy's limited applicability is partially conceded. However,
the Lucas critique applies equally to continuous redistribution (US top
marginal rate decline: 91% → 37%). Nordic "simplicity" ignores
institutional infrastructure. Anticipation effects can be mitigated
through design (rolling averages, international coordination via
ResearchCity). Remaining gap: formal comparison not modeled.

**Axiom/theorem revision:** Two notes added to ax25_A25:

1. **Cross-traditional qualification note** (from C2.10): Only the Torah
   directly supports the periodic-reset mechanism; other traditions
   support economic justice in general. Equivocation acknowledged.

2. **Arrow's constraint note** (from C2.11): Arrow's theorem constrains
   Jubilee design but does not prohibit it; 2-leg correction cycle
   addresses cycling.

No revision to ax25_A25's formal statement. ax25_A25-a (periodic efficiency
argument from Phase 2b) NOT executed — the C2.7 exchange *weakens*
rather than strengthens the periodic efficiency case, so the combined
weight of Pro-E.4 + C2.7 does not support execution.

**Decisions:** Impact E reflects honest partial resolution. The GC
analogy is withdrawn as primary argument; ax25_A25's case rests on
structural arguments (commons-tragedy convergence, th8_T8 binary
attractors) rather than efficiency analogies.


C2.8 → Con-D.2.8 / Pro-D.2.8
-------------------------------

**Con-D.2.8 --- Pinnacle Argument Undermines the Framework's Scientific
Credentials**

*Severity: D (Substantial)* | *Sphere: Se1* | *Target: th8_T8*

As written to quest.rst (see ``con-d-2-8``, now :ref:`jub-con32`, for full text):

The PET system claims mathematical rigor when presenting its case but
retreats to intuitive appeals when challenged. This creates a
self-serving double standard. If th8_T8 is a theorem, it should be
derivable; if not, it should be reformulated as a conjecture.

**Pro-D.2.8 --- Response to Con-D.2.8 (Pinnacle Argument and Rigor)**

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

As written to quest.rst (see ``pro-d-2-8``, now :ref:`jub-pro32`, for full text):

The reply clarifies three rigor levels (formal, proto-formal, intuitive)
and turns the critique's own Scheidel citation into evidence: 4,000
years of not organizing Jubilee-like solutions, with Four Horsemen as
the replicated consequence. The double-standard charge has partial merit;
proto-formal status is honestly conceded.

**Axiom/theorem revision:** No revision needed for th8_T8. The rigor ladder
is a meta-argument about the system's epistemological status, not
th8_T8-specific content. th8_T8 already has the proto-formal status note
(Phase 2c) and the illustrative-not-confirmatory note (Phase 2a).
Adding a separate note about the rigor ladder would double-annotate.


C2.9 → Con-D.2.9 / Pro-E.2.9
-------------------------------

**Con-D.2.9 --- Domain Demarcation: D_f / D_free / D_inno Lacks Formal
Criteria**

*Severity: D (Substantial)* | *Sphere: Se1* | *Target: th5_T5, ax18_A18*

As written to quest.rst (see ``con-d-2-9``, now :ref:`jub-con33`, for full text):

No formal criterion given for assigning actions to D_f, D_free, or
D_inno. This creates an unfalsifiable escape hatch. Critical examples:
poverty, innovation capacity, political action. Without formal
demarcation, th5_T5 is unfalsifiable.

**Pro-E.2.9 --- Response to Con-D.2.9 (Domain Demarcation)**

*Impact: E (Moderate) --- Partially resolved.*

As written to quest.rst (see ``pro-e-2-9``, now :ref:`jub-pro33`, for full text):

The poverty example is resolved: a person born into poverty is in D_f
with respect to their initial condition; responsibility belongs to prior
agents in D_free/D_inno who failed to organize wealth distribution.
Formal demarcation criterion deferred (capabilities theory: Sen,
Nussbaum). Structural argument holds for clear cases.

**Axiom/theorem revision:** Yes — added poverty/domain-partition
clarification note to ax18_A18 in ``axioms.rst``. The note documents how
the domain partition handles the strongest test case (poverty) and
acknowledges the formal demarcation criterion as future work. No
revision to th5_T5 — C2.9 targets ax18_A18's domain partition, not th5_T5's
formal statement.


C2.10 → Con-E.2.10 / Pro-G.2.10
----------------------------------

**Con-E.2.10 --- Cross-Traditional Support for ax25_A25 Is Equivocation**

*Severity: E (Moderate)* | *Sphere: Se5, Se6* | *Target: ax25_A25
(cross-traditional convergence claim)*

As written to quest.rst (see ``con-e-2-10``, now :ref:`jub-con34`, for full text):

The convergence claim for ax25_A25 conflates different mechanisms. Zakat is
continuous, Hindu dana is voluntary charity, secular perspectives are
vague. Only Torah (Lev 25) directly supports periodic comprehensive
reset. Fallacy of the undistributed middle.

**Pro-G.2.10 --- Response to Con-E.2.10 (Cross-Traditional Equivocation)**

*Impact: G (Minor) --- Conceded.*

As written to quest.rst (see ``pro-g-2-10``, now :ref:`jub-pro34`, for full text):

**Full concession.** The mechanism-specific convergence claim is
equivocal. Traditions support general economic justice, not periodic
resets specifically. Only Leviticus 25 is genuine tradition-specific
support. Dedicated audit of mechanism-specific vs. principle-level
support is required future work.

**Axiom/theorem revision:** Yes — added cross-traditional qualification
note to ax25_A25 in ``axioms.rst``. The note honestly acknowledges that
only the Torah directly supports the periodic-reset mechanism.

**Decisions:** Impact G reflects full concession. The concession is
stated with maximum honesty per Critical Rule 7.


C2.11 → Con-E.2.11 / Pro-E.2.11
----------------------------------

**Con-E.2.11 --- Arrow's Impossibility Theorem Applies to Jubilee
Design**

*Severity: E (Moderate)* | *Sphere: Se1, Se2* | *Target: ax25_A25*

As written to quest.rst (see ``con-e-2-11``, now :ref:`jub-con35`, for full text):

Arrow's theorem guarantees no aggregation mechanism for Jubilee design
can satisfy all four fairness criteria simultaneously. This is a
mathematical constraint, not merely a practical obstacle.

**Pro-E.2.11 --- Response to Con-E.2.11 (Arrow's Impossibility)**

*Impact: E (Moderate) --- Resolved.*

As written to quest.rst (see ``pro-e-2-11``, now :ref:`jub-pro35`, for full text):

Arrow constrains but does not prohibit, just as it constrains but does
not prohibit democracy. The 2-leg Jubilee cycle addresses cycling by
correcting in round 2 what was unfair in round 1. Institutional design
questions are real and require ResearchCity.

**Axiom/theorem revision:** Yes — added Arrow's constraint note to ax25_A25
in ``axioms.rst``. The note documents that Arrow constrains the design
process, not necessity, and that the 2-leg correction cycle addresses
the cycling problem.


C2.12 → Con-E.2.12 / Pro-F.2.12
----------------------------------

**Con-E.2.12 --- "Everything That Can Be Done Will Be Done" Dictum Is
Self-Undermining**

*Severity: E (Moderate)* | *Sphere: Se1* | *Target: Reply 1b urgency
argument*

As written to quest.rst (see ``con-e-2-12``, now :ref:`jub-con36`, for full text):

The dictum applies equally to the Jubilee System and to its prevention,
generating an infinite regress. Fails both as a deterministic and
probabilistic claim (Borel-Cantelli conditions not established).

**Pro-F.2.12 --- Response to Con-E.2.12 ("Everything Possible" Dictum)**

*Impact: F (Notable) --- Conceded / reframed.*

As written to quest.rst (see ``pro-f-2-12``, now :ref:`jub-pro36`, for full text):

**The dictum is withdrawn as a formal argument.** The urgency case is
reframed to rest entirely on RiskyMADorMAP (Pro-A.1, Pro-A.2.1) and
the commons-tragedy convergence (Pro-A.2.2). The dictum added
rhetorical force but not logical content.

**Axiom/theorem revision:** No revision needed — C2.12 targets Reply
1b's dictum, not an axiom or theorem. The dictum is withdrawn; the
urgency argument rests on the CTMC model.

**Decisions:** Impact F reflects full concession with reframing.
The concession is stated with maximum honesty per Critical Rule 7.


----


ScoreBoard Snapshot (All 26 Rows: 14 from Round 1 + 12 from Round 2)
========================================================================

.. 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
   * - Con-D.2.7
     - D
     - Pro-E.2.7
     - E
     - Partially resolved
     - 2e
   * - Con-D.2.8
     - D
     - Pro-D.2.8
     - D
     - Partially resolved
     - 2e
   * - Con-D.2.9
     - D
     - Pro-E.2.9
     - E
     - Partially resolved
     - 2e
   * - Con-E.2.10
     - E
     - Pro-G.2.10
     - G
     - Conceded
     - 2e
   * - Con-E.2.11
     - E
     - Pro-E.2.11
     - E
     - Resolved
     - 2e
   * - Con-E.2.12
     - E
     - Pro-F.2.12
     - F
     - Conceded / reframed
     - 2e


----


Round 2 ScoreBoard and Summary
=================================

(Same as appended to quest.rst — reproduced here for the llog record.)

.. list-table:: Round 2 ScoreBoard
   :header-rows: 1

   * - Con
     - Sev
     - Pro
     - Impact
     - Disposition
   * - Con-A.2.1
     - A
     - Pro-A.2.1
     - A
     - Resolved
   * - Con-A.2.2
     - A
     - Pro-A.2.2
     - A
     - Resolved
   * - Con-C.2.3
     - C
     - Pro-D.2.3
     - D
     - Partially resolved
   * - Con-C.2.4
     - C
     - Pro-C.2.4
     - C
     - Resolved
   * - Con-C.2.5
     - C
     - Pro-D.2.5
     - D
     - Partially resolved
   * - Con-C.2.6
     - C
     - Pro-D.2.6
     - D
     - Partially resolved
   * - Con-D.2.7
     - D
     - Pro-E.2.7
     - E
     - Partially resolved
   * - Con-D.2.8
     - D
     - Pro-D.2.8
     - D
     - Partially resolved
   * - Con-D.2.9
     - D
     - Pro-E.2.9
     - E
     - Partially resolved
   * - Con-E.2.10
     - E
     - Pro-G.2.10
     - G
     - Conceded
   * - Con-E.2.11
     - E
     - Pro-E.2.11
     - E
     - Resolved
   * - Con-E.2.12
     - E
     - Pro-F.2.12
     - F
     - Conceded / reframed

**Summary statistics:**

- **Total objections:** 12
- **Resolved:** 4 (Con-A.2.1, Con-A.2.2, Con-C.2.4, Con-E.2.11)
- **Partially resolved:** 6 (Con-C.2.3, Con-C.2.5, Con-C.2.6, Con-D.2.7,
  Con-D.2.8, Con-D.2.9)
- **Conceded / reframed:** 2 (Con-E.2.10, Con-E.2.12)
- **Severity distribution:** A: 2, C: 4, D: 3, E: 3
- **Impact grade distribution:** A: 2, C: 1, D: 4, E: 3, F: 1, G: 1
- **Average severity:** ~C–D (3.4 on the A=1..H=8 scale)
- **Average impact grade:** ~D (3.8 on the A=1..H=8 scale)

**Narrative assessment:**

Round 2 tested the framework more sharply than Round 1. The two
Fatal-severity objections (C2.1 and C2.2) attacked the *causal link*
between diagnosis and prescription. Both were convincingly addressed:
the competitive-inhibitor model (Pro-A.2.1) and commons-tragedy
convergence (Pro-A.2.2) are the strongest defenses in the entire quest.

The partially resolved items leave significant but scoped gaps: N=1
precision limitations (C2.3), 7TrackRole research-program status (C2.5),
voluntariness paradox (C2.6), and proto-formal rigor gap (C2.8). None
threatens the core logical chain; each identifies future work.

The concession pattern demonstrates intellectual honesty: cross-traditional
equivocation for ax25_A25 fully conceded (C2.10), "everything possible"
dictum withdrawn (C2.12). These narrow rhetorical support without
damaging the logical core.

Round 2 was more technically sophisticated (average severity ~C–D vs.
Round 1's ~D–E) but achieved better resolution quality (average impact
~D vs. Round 1's ~E). The framework's core logical chain emerged
stronger from Round 2 than it entered.


----


Files Changed
===============

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

   * - File
     - Change
   * - ``jub/quest.rst``
     - +6 Cons, +6 Pros, +6 ScoreBoard rows, Round 2 Summary
   * - ``jub/axioms.rst``
     - ``_ax18`` label; ax18_A18 poverty note; ax25_A25 cross-traditional and
       Arrow's constraint notes
   * - ``vv/jub/oov2/llog/index.rst``
     - Added Phase 2e llog to toctree
   * - ``vv/jub/oov2/llog/llog_2026m03d21_restructuring-1-plan-additions-to-master-plan.rst``
     - Session 8 Decisions appended
   * - ``vv/jub/oov2/llog/llog_2026m03d21_restructuring-phase1-prompts-reply-overviews-for-debugs.rst``
     - Session 8 debug entry appended


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

1. **ax25_A25-a (periodic efficiency argument) NOT executed.** The combined
   weight of Pro-E.4 + C2.7 exchange does not support execution — the GC
   analogy concession weakens the periodic efficiency case. The
   periodic-vs-continuous comparison remains future work for ResearchCity.

2. **Cross-traditional support audit needed** (from C2.10 concession).
   Independent session to audit each axiom ax15_A15–ax25_A25 and each theorem
   th5_T5–th11_T11, distinguishing: (a) support for the general principle,
   (b) support for the specific mechanism, (c) genuine disagreement.

3. **Formal demarcation criterion for D_f/D_free** (from C2.9).
   Engage with capabilities literature (Sen 1999, Nussbaum 2011) and
   Frankfurt-style analysis.

4. **Formal periodic-vs-continuous redistribution comparison** (from
   C2.7). Model anticipation effects, administrative costs, and
   political sustainability.

5. **Round 3 integration** (C3.1–C3.7) pending in sessions 2f–2g.
   All 7 are ResearchCity feasibility objections (Se2–Se6), not
   mathematical necessity (Se1).


----


*This file is APPEND-ONLY. New content appends below this line.*


.. 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.