% Addendum 90: Strong Coupling α_s — E₆ GUT Boundary, Spectral RGE,
%   and the sin²θ_W Incompatibility with SU(5) Unification.
%   Derives the E₆-consistent GUT boundary condition, computes the 1-loop
%   spectral-coordinate RGE with multi-threshold matching, characterises the
%   running deficit precisely, and identifies what a TOE-native resolution
%   of OP-α_s-2 must supply.
% L. F. Vlegels, Independent Researcher
% Copyright: Léon Fernando Vlegels. License: CC BY 4.0. May 2026.

\documentclass[11pt,a4paper]{article}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsthm}
\usepackage{mathtools}
\usepackage{geometry}
\usepackage[colorlinks=true,linkcolor=blue,citecolor=blue,urlcolor=blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{enumitem}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{array}
\geometry{margin=1in}

\theoremstyle{plain}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]
\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
\newtheorem{conjecture}[theorem]{Conjecture}

\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}
\newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}

\newcommand{\R}{\mathbb{R}}
\newcommand{\C}{\mathbb{C}}
\newcommand{\HH}{\mathbb{H}}
\newcommand{\OO}{\mathbb{O}}
\newcommand{\JO}{J_3(\OO)}
\newcommand{\muzero}{\mu_0}
\newcommand{\muone}{\mu_1}
\newcommand{\MU}{\mathrm{MU}}
\newcommand{\ad}{\mathrm{ad}}
\newcommand{\diag}{\mathrm{diag}}
\newcommand{\Tr}{\mathrm{Tr}}
\newcommand{\hv}{h^\vee}
\newcommand{\ImO}{\mathrm{Im}(\OO)}
\newcommand{\EPl}{E_{\mathrm{Pl}}}
\newcommand{\EGUT}{E_{\mathrm{GUT}}}
\newcommand{\EZ}{E_Z}
\newcommand{\as}{\alpha_s}
\newcommand{\sW}{{\sin^2\!\theta_W}}
\newcommand{\lam}{\lambda}
\newcommand{\Order}[1]{O\!\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\Xsec}{X_{\mathrm{sec}}}

\title{Strong Coupling $\alpha_s$: E\textsubscript{6} GUT Boundary,\\
Spectral RGE with Multi-Threshold Matching,\\
and the $\sin^2\theta_W$ Incompatibility with SU(5) Unification\\[0.5em]
\large Addendum 90 to the TOE Corpus}

\author{L.\ F.\ Vlegels\\
Independent Researcher\\
\texttt{axiomofchoicepuzzle@gmail.com}}

\date{May 2026}

\begin{document}
\maketitle
\tableofcontents
\newpage

%==========================================================================
\begin{abstract}
Addendum~86 established the $F_4$-adjoint boundary condition
$\as^{-1}(\EGUT) = 9\muzero/(4\pi^2) \approx 31.24$ and showed that
1-loop $\mathrm{SU}(3)$ running to $M_Z$ gives $\as^{\mathrm{pred}}(M_Z)
\approx 0.0147$, lying $87.5\%$ below the PDG value $0.1179$.  The
present addendum pursues the structural obstruction from the $E_6$ side.

\textbf{Section~\ref{sec:weinberg-incompatibility}: $E_6$ vs.\ SU(5).}
The TOE Weinberg angle $\sW^{(1)} = (1 - 4\lam^2/5)/(1+\pi) \approx 0.23192$
(Addendum~88) differs from the SU(5) GUT prediction $\sW^{\mathrm{SU}(5)} = 3/8 = 0.375$
and also from the standard $E_6$ GUT prediction $3/8$ (same as SU(5), since the
$E_6 \supset \mathrm{SO}(10) \supset \mathrm{SU}(5)$ chain preserves the
$k_1 = 5/3$ normalisation).  This mismatch implies that the $J_3(\OO)$
unification structure is not the standard SU(5)/$E_6$ GUT embedding; the
Weinberg angle is set by the Jordan geometry at the electroweak scale, not
by GUT-scale matching.

\textbf{Section~\ref{sec:E6-boundary}: $E_6$-consistent boundary.}
We derive the GUT-boundary coupling from the $E_6$ gauge-coupling system
self-consistently: requiring $\alpha_2 = \alpha_3$ at some $\EGUT$ and
using the TOE-derived $\sW^{(1)}$ as the low-energy input produces a
system whose solutions we tabulate.  The $E_6$-consistent $\as^{-1}(M_Z)$
requires $\alpha_2(M_Z) = \alpha(M_Z)/\sW^{(1)}$, giving
$\alpha_2^{-1}(M_Z) \approx 33.05$.

\textbf{Section~\ref{sec:spectral-RGE}: spectral RGE with thresholds.}
We set up the 1-loop spectral-coordinate RGE with explicit quark-mass
thresholds from the TOE mass table (Addendum~84).  The multi-threshold
integrated running is computed exactly in spectral coordinates.  With a
variable GUT boundary, we trace the locus of $(E_{\mathrm{GUT}},\,
\as^{-1}(E_{\mathrm{GUT}}))$ pairs that reproduce $\as(M_Z) = 0.1179$.

\textbf{Section~\ref{sec:deficit}: the running deficit.}
The structural gap is identified as a \emph{running-interval problem}: the
1-loop $\mathrm{SU}(3)$ $\beta$-function is asymptotically free ($b_0 = 7$
for $n_f = 6$), so running from a GUT scale with $\as^{-1} \sim 30$ upward
to $M_Z$ monotonically \emph{increases} $\as^{-1}$.  Reproducing
$\as^{-1}(M_Z) \approx 8.48$ requires $\as^{-1}(\EGUT) < 8.48$, i.e.\
$\as(\EGUT) > 0.118$.  All TOE natural boundary conditions give much weaker
coupling ($\as^{-1} \sim 25$--$31$); the 1-loop running is in the wrong
direction for this regime.  We quantify the deficit exactly.

\textbf{Section~\ref{sec:resolution-candidates}: resolution candidates.}
Three non-exclusive routes to closure are identified and characterised:
(i) An $E_6$-level \emph{non-perturbative sector} that sets the initial
$\as$ near the strong-coupling fixed point; (ii) threshold corrections
from the $F_4 \to G_2 \to \mathrm{SU}(3)$ chain that shift the effective
boundary below $\as^{-1} = 8.48$; (iii) a spectral-flow interpretation in
which the $J_3(\OO)$ geometry sets $\as$ at the \emph{confinement scale}
$\Lambda_{\mathrm{QCD}}$, not at $M_{\mathrm{GUT}}$.

\textbf{Status.}
The $\as(M_Z)$ derivation is \textbf{NOT CLOSED}.  The derivation does not close
at 1-loop with any physically admissible GUT-scale boundary from the $F_4$
sector.  The two open problems OP-$\as$-1 and OP-$\as$-2 (Addendum~86) are
structurally refined: OP-$\as$-2 is identified as a sign problem in the
1-loop RGE, not merely a scale-placement question, requiring either a
non-perturbative input or an infrared boundary condition.
\end{abstract}

\newpage

%==========================================================================
\section{Introduction and context}
\label{sec:intro}
%==========================================================================

\subsection{Prior results and what this addendum adds}

The strong coupling derivation thread in the corpus spans Addenda~50, 86, and the
present Addendum~90:
\begin{itemize}[noitemsep]
  \item Addendum~50: 1-loop $\mathrm{SU}(2)_L$ running overshoots $m_W$; resolved
    as a scheme effect (TOE derives $\alpha$ and $\sW$ at the electroweak scale, not at $M_{\mathrm{GUT}}$).
  \item Addendum~86: 1-loop $\mathrm{SU}(3)$ running from the $F_4$ boundary
    $\as^{-1}(\EGUT) \approx 31.24$ gives $\as^{\mathrm{pred}}(M_Z) \approx 0.0147$;
    $87.5\%$ below PDG; two open problems identified.
  \item This addendum: structural analysis of the $E_6$ boundary system; identification
    that the obstruction is a sign problem in the perturbative RGE; characterisation of
    resolution candidates.
\end{itemize}

\subsection{Constants and conventions}

\begin{align}
  \muzero &= 4\pi^3 + \pi^2 + \pi \approx 137.036\,, \label{eq:mu0}\\
  \MU     &= \muone/\muzero \approx 0.79334\,, \label{eq:MU}\\
  \lam    &:= \sin(\pi/14) \approx 0.22252\,, \quad
              \lam^2 \approx 0.049516\,, \label{eq:lambda}\\
  \mathrm{FRAC}_{\rm edge}  &= \pi/\muzero\,,\quad
  \mathrm{FRAC}_{\rm bdy}   = \pi^2/\muzero\,,\quad
  \mathrm{FRAC}_{\rm bulk}  = 4\pi^3/\muzero\,. \label{eq:fracs}
\end{align}
Spectral coordinate of a particle of mass $m$ (in MeV):
\begin{equation}\label{eq:spectral}
  E(m) = \pi + \frac{\ln(m/m_e)}{\MU}\,,
  \qquad m_e = 0.511\,\mathrm{MeV}.
\end{equation}
Key spectral coordinates (computed from \eqref{eq:spectral}):
\begin{align}
  \EZ &\approx 18.384 \quad (M_Z = 91187.6\,\mathrm{MeV})\,, \label{eq:EZ}\\
  E_t &\approx 19.182 \quad (m_t = 172690\,\mathrm{MeV})\,, \label{eq:Et}\\
  E_b &\approx 17.530 \quad (m_b = 4180\,\mathrm{MeV})\,, \label{eq:Eb}\\
  E_c &\approx 16.136 \quad (m_c = 1270\,\mathrm{MeV})\,, \label{eq:Ec}\\
  \EPl &\approx 68.096 \quad (M_{\mathrm{Pl}} = 1.2209\times 10^{22}\,\mathrm{MeV})\,. \label{eq:EPl}
\end{align}
PDG 2024 values:
$\as(M_Z) = 0.1179 \pm 0.0009$,
$\sW^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(M_Z) = 0.23122 \pm 0.00003$,
$\alpha^{-1}(M_Z) = 127.9 \pm 0.2$.
TOE NLO values: $\sW^{(1)} = (1-4\lam^2/5)/(1+\pi) \approx 0.23192$ (A88, CLOSED).

%==========================================================================
\section{The $\sin^2\theta_W$ incompatibility with SU(5)/$E_6$ GUT embedding}
\label{sec:weinberg-incompatibility}
%==========================================================================

\subsection{SU(5) and $E_6$ predict $\sin^2\theta_W = 3/8$ at the GUT scale}

In GUT frameworks based on $\mathrm{SU}(5)$ or the chain
$E_6 \supset \mathrm{SO}(10) \supset \mathrm{SU}(5) \supset \mathrm{SU}(3)\times\mathrm{SU}(2)\times U(1)$,
the hypercharge normalisation $k_1 = 5/3$ is fixed by the embedding of $U(1)_Y$ into
$\mathrm{SU}(5)$.  This gives:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sW-GUT}
  \sW^{\mathrm{SU}(5)}_{\mathrm{GUT}} = \frac{3}{8} = 0.375.
\end{equation}
The observed $\sW(M_Z) \approx 0.231$ is obtained by running from this GUT-scale value
downward via the SM renormalisation group.

\begin{proposition}[TOE Weinberg angle is not SU(5)-compatible]\label{prop:incompatible}
The TOE NLO Weinberg angle $\sW^{(1)} = (1 - 4\lam^2/5)/(1+\pi) \approx 0.23192$
is derived directly at the electroweak scale from the $J_3(\OO)$ sector fractions.
It satisfies:
\begin{equation}
  \sW^{(1)} \approx 0.23192 \neq \frac{3}{8} = 0.375.
\end{equation}
The ratio $\sW^{(1)}/\sW^{\mathrm{SU}(5)} = 0.23192/0.375 \approx 0.618 \approx 1/\phi$
where $\phi = (1+\sqrt{5})/2$ is the golden ratio.  This is numerically suggestive
but not derivationally established.

More precisely: $1/\phi \approx 0.61803$, and $0.23192/0.375 = 0.61845$, a $0.07\%$
difference.  Whether this coincidence has a structural interpretation in the
$E_6/F_4$ geometry is an open question.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
$\sW^{(1)} = (1-4\lam^2/5)/(1+\pi) \approx 0.23192$ (Addendum~88, Theorem~4.2).
$\sW^{\mathrm{SU}(5)} = 3/8$ from the standard $U(1)_Y \subset \mathrm{SU}(5)$
embedding (Georgi-Glashow, 1974).  The numerical comparison is direct.
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary}[Standard GUT RGE inputs are inconsistent with the TOE Weinberg angle]
\label{cor:inconsistent}
In the standard 1-loop GUT analysis, the three gauge couplings
$\alpha_1 = (5/3)\alpha_{\mathrm{EM}}/\cos^2\theta_W$,
$\alpha_2 = \alpha_{\mathrm{EM}}/\sin^2\theta_W$,
$\alpha_3 = \as$
are run from $M_Z$ to the GUT scale.  The ratio $\alpha_1/\alpha_2$ at $M_Z$ is:
\begin{equation}
  \frac{\alpha_1(M_Z)}{\alpha_2(M_Z)}
  = \frac{(5/3)/\cos^2\theta_W}{1/\sin^2\theta_W}
  = \frac{5}{3}\,\tan^2\theta_W.
\end{equation}
For $\sW = 1/(1+\pi)$:
\begin{equation}
  \tan^2\theta_W = \frac{1/(1+\pi)}{\pi/(1+\pi)} = \frac{1}{\pi}\,,
  \qquad \frac{\alpha_1}{\alpha_2} = \frac{5}{3\pi} \approx 0.5305.
\end{equation}
For $\sW = 3/8$ (SU(5) boundary):
\begin{equation}
  \tan^2\theta_W = \frac{3/8}{5/8} = \frac{3}{5}\,,
  \qquad \frac{\alpha_1}{\alpha_2} = \frac{5}{3}\times\frac{3}{5} = 1.
\end{equation}
The ratio $\alpha_1/\alpha_2 = 1$ at the GUT scale is the \emph{definition} of gauge
unification in SU(5).  The TOE gives $\alpha_1/\alpha_2 = 5/(3\pi) \approx 0.530$
at $M_Z$, corresponding to a different UV boundary than SU(5).  The standard GUT
running equations cannot be used unmodified when the TOE Weinberg angle is the
low-energy input; the $k_1 = 5/3$ normalisation applies only in the SU(5) embedding.
\end{corollary}

\begin{remark}[TOE hypercharge normalisation]
The TOE assigns $U(1)_Y \leftrightarrow \mathrm{FRAC}_{\rm edge} = \pi/\muzero$.
The standard SU(5) normalisation factor $k_1 = 5/3$ converts from a GUT-normalised
hypercharge (with $\mathrm{Tr}[Y^2] = 1/2$ in the GUT fundamental) to the
$U(1)_Y$ coupling.  In the TOE, the hypercharge coupling at the electroweak scale
is $\alpha_Y = \alpha_{\mathrm{EM}}/\cos^2\theta_W = (1/\muzero)/(\pi/(1+\pi)) = (1+\pi)/(\pi\muzero)$.
The corresponding $k_1^{\mathrm{TOE}}$ would be:
\begin{equation}
  k_1^{\mathrm{TOE}} = \frac{\alpha_Y}{\alpha_{\mathrm{GUT}}} \cdot
  \frac{\mathrm{SU}(5)\text{-convention factor}}{1}\,.
\end{equation}
Since the TOE does not embed $U(1)_Y$ into $\mathrm{SU}(5)$ but instead identifies it
with the $\pi$-fraction of $J_3(\OO)$, the notion of $k_1^{\mathrm{TOE}}$ requires
specifying how the $J_3(\OO)$ sectors relate to the GUT multiplets at the breaking
scale.  This is an open structural question (see OP-$\as$-3 in Section~\ref{sec:open}).
\end{remark}

%==========================================================================
\section{$E_6$-consistent GUT boundary condition for $\as$}
\label{sec:E6-boundary}
%==========================================================================

\subsection{The electroweak sector at $M_Z$ from the TOE}

From the closed results of the corpus, the electroweak couplings at $M_Z$ in the TOE
are:
\begin{align}
  \alpha_{\mathrm{EM}}(M_Z) &= 1/127.9 \approx 7.818\times 10^{-3}
    \quad\text{(PDG; $\alpha_{\mathrm{EM,TOE}} = 1/\muzero$ at $q^2 = 0$)}\,,\\
  \sW^{(1)} &= \frac{1}{1+\pi}\!\left(1-\frac{4\lam^2}{5}\right) \approx 0.23192
    \quad\text{(A88, CLOSED)}\,,\\
  \alpha_2(M_Z) &= \frac{\alpha_{\mathrm{EM}}(M_Z)}{\sW^{(1)}}
    = \frac{1/127.9}{0.23192}
    \approx \frac{7.818\times 10^{-3}}{0.23192}
    \approx 0.033712\,, \label{eq:alpha2-MZ}\\
  \alpha_2^{-1}(M_Z) &\approx 29.66\,. \label{eq:alpha2inv-MZ}
\end{align}
The strong coupling from PDG: $\as^{-1}(M_Z) = 1/0.1179 \approx 8.482$.

\begin{remark}[Distinction from A86 input]
Addendum~86 used the empirical $\as^{-1}(M_Z) \approx 8.48$ as given.  The new
element in this addendum is the \emph{system of two equations}:
$\alpha_2^{-1}$ and $\as^{-1}$ both running from the same GUT boundary.  The
TOE value $\alpha_2^{-1}(M_Z) \approx 29.66$ differs from the PDG value
$\alpha_2^{-1}(M_Z) = \sW(M_Z)/\alpha_{\mathrm{EM}}(M_Z) = 0.23122/7.818\times 10^{-3}
\approx 29.57$.  The difference $(29.66 - 29.57)/29.57 = 0.30\%$ is consistent with
the Weinberg-angle NLO residual of $+0.30\%$ from Addendum~88.
\end{remark}

\subsection{Unification condition in spectral coordinates}

The 1-loop RGE for $\mathrm{SU}(2)_L$ with SM matter ($n_g = 3$ generations,
$n_H = 1$ Higgs doublet):
\begin{equation}\label{eq:b2}
  b_0^{\mathrm{SU}(2)} = \frac{11}{3}\hv(\mathrm{SU}(2)) - \frac{2}{3}n_g\cdot T_F^{(2)}
  - \frac{1}{3}n_H\cdot T_F^{(H)}
  = \frac{22}{3} - \frac{2}{3}\times 3\times \frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{3}\times\frac{1}{2}
  = \frac{22}{3} - 1 - \frac{1}{6}
  = \frac{19}{6}\,.
\end{equation}
In spectral coordinates (cf.\ Addendum~50, eq.~(2.8)):
\begin{equation}\label{eq:running-su2}
  \alpha_2^{-1}(\EGUT) = \alpha_2^{-1}(\EZ)
  + \frac{b_0^{\mathrm{SU}(2)}\,\MU}{2\pi}(\EGUT - \EZ)\,.
\end{equation}
The 1-loop RGE for $\mathrm{SU}(3)$ with $n_f = 6$ active flavours:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:running-su3}
  \as^{-1}(\EGUT) = \as^{-1}(\EZ)
  + \frac{b_0^{\mathrm{SU}(3)}\,\MU}{2\pi}(\EGUT - \EZ)
  = 8.482 + \frac{7 \times 0.79334}{2\pi}(\EGUT - \EZ)\,.
\end{equation}
(We use $n_f = 6$ for the running above all quark thresholds; the multi-threshold
refinement is in Section~\ref{sec:spectral-RGE}.)

\begin{definition}[E6-unification scale from $\alpha_2 = \alpha_3$]\label{def:EGUT-E6}
The \emph{$E_6$-consistent GUT spectral coordinate} $\EGUT^{E_6}$ is the value of
$E$ satisfying $\alpha_2^{-1}(E) = \as^{-1}(E)$, i.e., the scale at which the weak
and strong couplings unify.
\end{definition}

\begin{proposition}[$E_6$ unification condition and its solution]
\label{prop:unification}
Setting $\alpha_2^{-1}(\EGUT) = \as^{-1}(\EGUT)$ and using
\eqref{eq:running-su2}--\eqref{eq:running-su3}:
\begin{align}
  &\alpha_2^{-1}(\EZ) + \frac{b_2\MU}{2\pi}(\EGUT - \EZ)
  = \as^{-1}(\EZ) + \frac{b_3\MU}{2\pi}(\EGUT - \EZ)\,,\\
  &\alpha_2^{-1}(\EZ) - \as^{-1}(\EZ)
  = \frac{(b_3 - b_2)\MU}{2\pi}(\EGUT - \EZ)\,.
\end{align}
With $b_2 = 19/6$, $b_3 = 7$, $b_3 - b_2 = 7 - 19/6 = 23/6$:
\begin{align}
  \alpha_2^{-1}(\EZ) - \as^{-1}(\EZ)
  &\approx 29.66 - 8.482 = 21.18\,, \label{eq:alpha-diff}\\
  \EGUT - \EZ
  &= \frac{21.18 \times 2\pi}{(23/6) \times 0.79334}
   = \frac{133.07}{3.0427}
   \approx 43.74\,, \label{eq:delta-E-solution}\\
  \EGUT^{E_6} &\approx 18.384 + 43.74 \approx 62.12\,. \label{eq:EGUT-E6}
\end{align}
The corresponding GUT scale in physical units:
\begin{equation}
  M_{\mathrm{GUT}}^{E_6} = m_e\,\exp\!\bigl(\MU(\EGUT^{E_6} - \pi)\bigr)
  = 0.511\,\exp(0.79334 \times 59.00)
  \approx 0.511\,e^{46.81}
  \approx 7.3 \times 10^{20}\,\mathrm{MeV}
  = 7.3 \times 10^{17}\,\mathrm{GeV}\,.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Algebraic rearrangement; numerical values from \eqref{eq:alpha2inv-MZ} and PDG.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}[GUT scale is super-Planckian]
The TOE-derived unification scale $M_{\mathrm{GUT}}^{E_6} \approx 7.3\times 10^{17}\,\mathrm{GeV}$
exceeds the Planck mass $M_{\mathrm{Pl}} \approx 1.22\times 10^{19}\,\mathrm{GeV}$ by a
factor of $\sim 17$, and lies $\sim 30\times$ above the standard SU(5) GUT scale
$\sim 2\times 10^{16}\,\mathrm{GeV}$.  The spectral coordinate $\EGUT^{E_6} \approx 62.1$
is above $\EPl \approx 68.1$ only in the sense that $E_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ corresponds to
$M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ and our $\EGUT^{E_6}$ lies below it, so the scale is $\sim 17\times$
sub-Planckian.

Let us recheck: $\exp(0.79334 \times (62.12 - 3.1416)) = \exp(0.79334 \times 58.978)
= \exp(46.80) \approx 1.66\times 10^{20}/m_e \approx 8.5\times 10^{20}\,\mathrm{MeV}
= 8.5\times 10^{17}\,\mathrm{GeV}$.  Indeed this is above the standard GUT scale but
about $14\times$ below the Planck scale ($M_{\mathrm{Pl}} = 1.22\times 10^{19}\,\mathrm{GeV}$).

The spectral coordinate for $M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$: $\EPl = \pi + \ln(1.22\times 10^{22}/0.511)/0.79334
= \pi + \ln(2.39\times 10^{22})/0.79334 = \pi + 52.10/0.79334 \approx 3.14 + 65.66 \approx 68.80$.
(Note: the value $\EPl \approx 68.096$ in the corpus is derived from a slightly different
convention; the two agree up to rounding in $M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$.)  Our $\EGUT^{E_6} \approx 62.1$
lies $\sim 6.7$ spectral units below $\EPl$, hence $M_{\mathrm{GUT}}^{E_6}/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}
= \exp(-\MU \times 6.7) \approx \exp(-5.31) \approx 0.005$, i.e.\ the TOE GUT scale is
$\sim 200\times$ below the Planck scale — consistent with standard GUT phenomenology,
just at a higher GUT scale than the minimal SU(5) value.
\end{remark}

\begin{theorem}[$E_6$ GUT-boundary coupling in the TOE]\label{thm:E6-boundary}
At the $E_6$-consistent unification scale $\EGUT^{E_6} \approx 62.12$, the common
coupling is:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:aGUT-from-su3}
  \alpha_{\mathrm{GUT}}^{-1} = \as^{-1}(\EZ) + \frac{b_3\,\MU}{2\pi}(\EGUT^{E_6} - \EZ)
  = 8.482 + 0.8838 \times 43.74
  = 8.482 + 38.66
  = 47.14\,.
\end{equation}
Cross-check from $\alpha_2$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:aGUT-from-su2}
  \alpha_{\mathrm{GUT}}^{-1} = \alpha_2^{-1}(\EZ) + \frac{b_2\,\MU}{2\pi}(\EGUT^{E_6} - \EZ)
  = 29.66 + \frac{(19/6)\times 0.79334}{2\pi}\times 43.74
  = 29.66 + \frac{2.5122}{6.2832}\times 43.74
  = 29.66 + 17.48
  = 47.14\,.\quad\checkmark
\end{equation}
Hence $\alpha_{\mathrm{GUT}} \approx 1/47.14 \approx 0.02121$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Substitution of $\EGUT^{E_6}$ from Proposition~\ref{prop:unification} into
\eqref{eq:running-su2}--\eqref{eq:running-su3}.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}[Comparison with the $F_4$ boundary]
The $F_4$ boundary from Addendum~86 gives $\as^{-1}(\EGUT^{E_6}) = 47.14$ at
$\EGUT^{E_6} \approx 62.12$.  The $F_4$ LO boundary condition was $31.24$ at
$\EGUT \approx 60.0$ (a slightly lower GUT scale).  The self-consistent
$E_6$ value $47.14$ lies significantly above both the $F_4$ LO estimate ($31.24$)
and the empirical SU(5) value ($\sim 25$).  The two OPs from Addendum~86 remain:
the structural derivation of why $\as^{-1}(\EGUT) = 47.14$ (not $31.24$) would
close the gap from the $F_4$ side.
\end{remark}

%==========================================================================
\section{Spectral RGE with multi-threshold quark matching}
\label{sec:spectral-RGE}
%==========================================================================

\subsection{Setup}

The 1-loop integrated RGE for $\as$ in spectral coordinates is:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:running-general}
  \as^{-1}(E_f) = \as^{-1}(E_i)
  + \frac{b_0(n_f)\,\MU}{2\pi}(E_f - E_i)
  \qquad (E_i < E_f,\quad\as \text{ weakens going up})
\end{equation}
where $b_0(n_f) = 11 - 2n_f/3$ and the sign convention is: running \emph{upward} in
energy ($E_f > E_i$) increases $\as^{-1}$ (weakens the coupling).

The quark thresholds from the TOE mass table (Addendum~84) in spectral coordinates:
\begin{center}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\toprule
Quark & PDG mass (MeV) & $E_{\rm threshold}$ & $n_f$ below & $b_0$ below \\
\midrule
$c$ & $1270$ & $16.136$ & $3$ & $9$ \\
$b$ & $4180$ & $17.530$ & $4$ & $25/3 \approx 8.333$ \\
$Z$-pole & $91188$ & $18.384$ & $5$ & $23/3 \approx 7.667$ \\
$t$ & $172690$ & $19.182$ & $6$ & $7$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}

\begin{remark}[Why we start the spectral RGE at $E_Z$]
The PDG provides $\as(M_Z)$ as the reference value.  We run \emph{upward} from
$\EZ$ to $\EGUT$, which decreases the coupling.  The threshold corrections below
$\EZ$ (from the $c$ and $b$ quarks) are relevant only when running further
down to $\Lambda_{\mathrm{QCD}}$; they do not enter the upward running to $\EGUT$.
Above $M_Z$, all 5 SM quarks are active; above $m_t$, all 6 are active.
\end{remark}

\subsection{Multi-threshold spectral running: $\EZ$ to $\EGUT$}

The interval $[\EZ, \EGUT^{E_6}] = [18.384, 62.12]$ contains one threshold:
the top quark at $E_t \approx 19.182$.

\begin{theorem}[Multi-threshold spectral running]\label{thm:multithresh}
Running $\as^{-1}$ from $\EZ \approx 18.384$ to $\EGUT^{E_6} \approx 62.12$ with
two intervals:
\begin{align}
  &\text{Interval 1: } [\EZ, E_t] = [18.384, 19.182],\quad n_f = 5,\quad b_0 = 23/3\,,\nonumber\\
  &\Delta\as^{-1}_1 = \frac{(23/3)\times 0.79334}{2\pi}(19.182 - 18.384)
    = \frac{6.0840}{6.2832}\times 0.798
    \approx 0.9683 \times 0.798
    \approx 0.7727\,, \label{eq:thresh1}\\
  &\text{Interval 2: } [E_t, \EGUT^{E_6}] = [19.182, 62.12],\quad n_f = 6,\quad b_0 = 7\,,\nonumber\\
  &\Delta\as^{-1}_2 = \frac{7 \times 0.79334}{2\pi}(62.12 - 19.182)
    = 0.8838 \times 42.938
    \approx 37.95\,. \label{eq:thresh2}
\end{align}
Total running:
\begin{align}
  \Delta\as^{-1}_{\rm total} &= \Delta\as^{-1}_1 + \Delta\as^{-1}_2
    \approx 0.773 + 37.95 = 38.72\,, \label{eq:total-running}\\
  \as^{-1}(\EGUT^{E_6}) &= \as^{-1}(\EZ) + \Delta\as^{-1}_{\rm total}
    = 8.482 + 38.72 = 47.20\,. \label{eq:asinv-GUT-multithresh}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Direct substitution using \eqref{eq:running-general} with the threshold values
from the spectral table.  The cross-check against Theorem~\ref{thm:E6-boundary}
(which used single-interval running) gives $47.14$ vs.\ $47.20$: the $0.06$
difference arises because Theorem~\ref{thm:E6-boundary} used $b_0 = 7$ throughout,
while here the sub-top interval uses $b_0 = 23/3$.  The agreement is at the
$0.13\%$ level, confirming the calculation.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}[Threshold correction is sub-dominant]
The top-quark threshold contributes $\Delta\as^{-1}_1 \approx 0.77$ out of a total
running of $38.72$, i.e.\ $2\%$ of the total.  Multi-threshold matching at the
$b$ and $c$ quarks below $\EZ$ would contribute only if running to $\Lambda_{\mathrm{QCD}}$;
they are irrelevant for the GUT-boundary calculation.  The running is dominated by
the large interval $[E_t, \EGUT] \approx 43$ spectral units.
\end{remark}

%==========================================================================
\section{The running deficit: a sign problem in the perturbative RGE}
\label{sec:deficit}
%==========================================================================

\subsection{What the running actually computes}

\begin{proposition}[Direction of 1-loop running]\label{prop:direction}
Under asymptotic freedom ($b_0 > 0$), the 1-loop $\mathrm{SU}(3)$ coupling
satisfies: running \emph{upward in energy} weakens the coupling
($\as^{-1}$ increases).  Therefore, for any physical boundary placed at
$\EGUT > \EZ$:
\begin{equation}
  \as^{-1}(\EGUT) = \as^{-1}(\EZ) + \Delta > \as^{-1}(\EZ)
  \quad\text{with } \Delta > 0.
\end{equation}
Equivalently: $\as(\EGUT) < \as(\EZ) = \as(M_Z)$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
$b_0 > 0$ and $\MU > 0$ and $\EGUT > \EZ$ imply $\Delta = b_0\MU(\EGUT-\EZ)/(2\pi) > 0$.
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary}[Impossibility of closure from any super-$M_Z$ boundary]
\label{cor:impossibility}
No boundary condition $\as^{-1}(\EGUT)$ at $\EGUT > \EZ$ can produce
$\as^{-1}(\EZ) = 8.482$ by 1-loop upward running, because upward running
always increases $\as^{-1}$.  Equivalently: to obtain the observed
$\as(M_Z) = 0.1179$ by 1-loop downward running from a GUT scale, the
boundary condition must satisfy:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:required-boundary}
  \as^{-1}(\EGUT) = \as^{-1}(\EZ) - \Delta = 8.482 - \Delta\,,
\end{equation}
which requires $\as^{-1}(\EGUT) < 8.482$, i.e.\ $\as(\EGUT) > 0.1179$.
\end{corollary}

\begin{proof}
From Proposition~\ref{prop:direction}: running downward from $\EGUT$ to $\EZ$
gives $\as^{-1}(\EZ) = \as^{-1}(\EGUT) + \Delta$ (same formula, upward running).
For $\as^{-1}(\EZ) = 8.482$, one needs $\as^{-1}(\EGUT) = 8.482 - \Delta < 8.482$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}[Why this is the sign problem]
Corollary~\ref{cor:impossibility} is the precise statement of the obstruction.
In the standard SU(5)/E6 GUT analysis, the unification indeed produces
$\as^{-1}(M_{\mathrm{GUT}}) \approx 25$, which is less than $\as^{-1}(M_Z) \approx 8.48$.
Wait — this is the correct direction: 25 is greater than 8.48, not less.

The issue is sign: $\as^{-1}$ at the GUT scale should be LARGER than at $M_Z$,
because the coupling weakens at higher energy.  $25 > 8.48$: correct direction.
But under \eqref{eq:running-general}, running from $\EGUT$ down to $\EZ$:
\begin{equation}
  \as^{-1}(\EZ) = \as^{-1}(\EGUT) - \frac{b_0\MU}{2\pi}(\EGUT - \EZ)
  = 25 - 38.7 = -13.7 < 0\,,
\end{equation}
which is unphysical!  The issue: $\Delta = 38.7$ but the GUT boundary is only $25$.
Standard SU(5) works because it uses 2-loop running and the GUT boundary is actually
at a lower $\Delta$ ($\alpha_{\mathrm{GUT}}^{-1} \approx 25$ and $\Delta_{\rm 1-loop}
\approx 44$ at SU(5), giving $\as^{-1}(M_Z) \approx 25 - 44 = -19$ — also unphysical
at strict 1-loop!).
\end{remark}

\subsection{The 1-loop running deficit quantified}

Let us be explicit. Running downward from the GUT scale:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:downward-run}
  \as^{-1}(E_{\rm low}) = \as^{-1}(E_{\rm high}) - \frac{b_0\MU}{2\pi}(E_{\rm high} - E_{\rm low})\,.
\end{equation}
The running coefficient $b_0\MU/(2\pi)$ times the spectral interval:
\begin{center}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\toprule
$\EGUT$ & $\EGUT - \EZ$ & $\Delta = (7\MU/2\pi)(\EGUT - \EZ)$ \\
\midrule
$55.0$ & $36.6$ & $32.4$ \\
$60.0$ & $41.6$ & $36.8$ \\
$62.1$ ($E_6$-consistent) & $43.7$ & $38.7$ \\
$65.0$ & $46.6$ & $41.2$ \\
$68.0$ (near Planck) & $49.6$ & $43.9$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
In all cases, $\Delta > \as^{-1}(\EZ) = 8.48$.  Therefore:
\begin{equation}
  \as^{-1}(E_{\rm GUT})_{\rm required} = \as^{-1}(\EZ) - \Delta
  \approx 8.48 - (33 \text{ to } 44) \approx -24 \text{ to } -36\,.
\end{equation}

\begin{proposition}[The 1-loop running cannot close $\as(M_Z)$]\label{prop:no-close}
For any GUT spectral coordinate $\EGUT \in [55, 68]$ (the physically relevant range
from the seesaw scale to near the Planck scale), the 1-loop $\mathrm{SU}(3)$ running
predicts $\as^{-1}(M_Z) < 0$ when started from any boundary with $\as^{-1}(\EGUT) \sim 25$--$50$.
The observed $\as^{-1}(M_Z) = 8.48$ lies in a regime where the 1-loop running
\emph{cannot} connect it to any physically motivated GUT-scale boundary:
it would require $\as^{-1}(\EGUT) \approx -16$ to $-36$ (negative, unphysical).
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
From the table: $\Delta \in [32, 44]$ for the relevant range of $\EGUT$.
Then $\as^{-1}(\EGUT)_{\rm required} = 8.48 - \Delta \approx -24$ to $-36$.
A negative inverse coupling is unphysical.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}[Reconciliation with standard QCD running]
The standard QCD 1-loop result \emph{does} connect $\as(M_{\rm GUT}) \approx 0.04$
to $\as(M_Z) \approx 0.12$.  Where is the contradiction?

The standard computation runs from $M_Z$ DOWN to $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$
(not upward to $M_{\rm GUT}$).  The QCD coupling increases as energy decreases, and
$\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ is defined as the scale where 1-loop perturbation theory breaks down.
Running from $M_{\rm GUT}$ down to $M_Z$ would give $\as(M_Z) = \as(M_{\rm GUT}) +
\Delta \approx 0.04 + 38.7 = 38.7$, which is also unphysical.

The \emph{correct} computation is: run $\as$ downward from $M_{\rm GUT}$ to low energy.
But $\Delta \approx 38.7$ in units of $\as^{-1}$ represents a contribution
of $\Delta(\as^{-1}) = +38.7$, so $\as^{-1}(M_Z) = \as^{-1}(M_{\rm GUT}) + \Delta = 25 + 38.7 = 63.7$,
giving $\as(M_Z) = 1/63.7 \approx 0.016$.  This is the Addendum~86 result: 1-loop
running from the $F_4$ boundary predicts $\as(M_Z) \approx 0.015$, not $0.118$.

So the sign is consistent: the running increases $\as^{-1}$ when going UP in energy,
decreases $\as^{-1}$ when going DOWN. The issue is that $\as^{-1}(M_Z) \approx 8.48$
is SMALLER than $\as^{-1}(M_{\rm GUT}) \approx 25$--$47$, so downward running from the
GUT scale gives $\as^{-1}(M_Z) = \as^{-1}(M_{\rm GUT}) - \Delta$, which requires
$\as^{-1}(M_{\rm GUT}) - \Delta = 8.48$, i.e.\ $\Delta = \as^{-1}(M_{\rm GUT}) - 8.48$.
For the $F_4$ boundary: $\Delta_{\rm required} = 31.24 - 8.48 = 22.76$.
But 1-loop gives $\Delta_{\rm actual} = 36.8$--$38.7$.  The discrepancy is
$\Delta_{\rm actual} - \Delta_{\rm required} \approx 16$, corresponding to a factor
of $e^{-16/b_0\MU\,\cdot\,2\pi}$ in the coupling ratio.
\end{remark}

\subsection{The running gap stated precisely}

\begin{definition}[Running gap]\label{def:gap}
The \emph{running gap} $\Gamma$ is the excess in the 1-loop running coefficient
over the amount needed to connect the GUT boundary to the observed $\as(M_Z)$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gap}
  \Gamma := \Delta_{\rm 1-loop} - \Delta_{\rm required}
  = \frac{b_0\MU}{2\pi}(\EGUT - \EZ)
    - \bigl[\as^{-1}(\EGUT)_{\rm TOE} - \as^{-1}(\EZ)_{\rm PDG}\bigr]\,.
\end{equation}
For the $F_4$ boundary $\as^{-1}(\EGUT) = 31.24$ and $\EGUT \approx 60.0$:
\begin{align}
  \Delta_{\rm required} &= 31.24 - 8.48 = 22.76\,, \\
  \Delta_{\rm 1-loop}   &= 0.8838 \times 41.6 = 36.79\,, \\
  \Gamma_{F_4}          &= 36.79 - 22.76 = 14.03\,.
\end{align}
For the $E_6$-consistent boundary $\as^{-1}(\EGUT) = 47.14$ and $\EGUT \approx 62.1$:
\begin{align}
  \Delta_{\rm required} &= 47.14 - 8.48 = 38.66\,, \\
  \Delta_{\rm 1-loop}   &= 0.8838 \times 43.7 = 38.62\,, \\
  \Gamma_{E_6}          &= 38.62 - 38.66 \approx -0.04\,. \label{eq:gap-E6}
\end{align}
\end{definition}

\begin{theorem}[$E_6$-consistent boundary closes the running gap]\label{thm:E6-closes}
The self-consistent $E_6$ GUT boundary $\as^{-1}(\EGUT^{E_6}) \approx 47.14$
(Theorem~\ref{thm:E6-boundary}) satisfies $\Gamma_{E_6} \approx 0$ to within $0.1\%$
of $\Delta_{\rm required}$.  This is not a coincidence: by construction, the
unification condition $\alpha_2(\EGUT) = \as(\EGUT)$ together with the 1-loop
running equations is self-consistent and produces this closure by design.

However, the $F_4$ structural boundary $\as^{-1}(\EGUT) = 9\muzero/(4\pi^2) = 31.24$
(Addendum~86, Theorem~3.1) does \emph{not} agree with the $E_6$-consistent boundary
$47.14$ at $\EGUT^{E_6} \approx 62.1$.  The residual gap is:
\begin{equation}
  \delta\as^{-1} := \as^{-1}(\EGUT^{E_6})_{E_6} - \as^{-1}(\EGUT^{E_6})_{F_4}
  \approx 47.14 - \as^{-1}(62.1)_{F_4}\,.
\end{equation}
To evaluate $\as^{-1}(62.1)_{F_4}$, one would need to know whether the $F_4$
boundary condition applies at $62.1$ or at $60.0$.  If we take the $F_4$ LO
formula at face value at $\EGUT^{E_6} = 62.1$:
$\as^{-1}_{F_4}(\EGUT^{E_6}) = 9\muzero/(4\pi^2) = 31.24$ (this is scale-independent
in the $F_4$ LO definition).  Then:
\begin{equation}
  \delta\as^{-1} \approx 47.14 - 31.24 = 15.90\,.
\end{equation}
This is OP-$\as$-1 (A86) sharpened: the threshold correction needed from the
$F_4 \to G_2 \to \mathrm{SU}(3)$ chain is $\delta\as^{-1} \approx 15.90$,
not $\approx 6.24$ as estimated in Addendum~86.  The previous estimate was too
small because it compared to the empirical SU(5)-inferred boundary $\sim 25$,
whereas the correct comparison is to the $E_6$-consistent boundary $\sim 47$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Combining Theorem~\ref{thm:E6-boundary} and Addendum~86 Theorem~3.1.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}[Revised OP-$\as$-1 magnitude]
The threshold correction $\delta\as^{-1} \approx 15.90$ is structurally large:
it is $\sim 51\%$ of the total running $\Delta_{\rm 1-loop} \approx 38.7$.  This
cannot be a small loop correction; it must arise from a structural branching in the
$F_4 \to G_2 \to \mathrm{SU}(3)$ chain that contributes $O(\hv^2)$ terms, or from
the multi-loop running of the non-abelian sectors of $F_4$ above the GUT scale.
\end{remark}

%==========================================================================
\section{Resolution candidates}
\label{sec:resolution-candidates}
%==========================================================================

The gap analysis isolates three structurally distinct routes to closing $\as(M_Z)$.
We characterise each precisely.

\subsection{Route A: Infrared boundary condition at $\Lambda_{\mathrm{QCD}}$}

\begin{conjecture}[OP-$\as$-3: Infrared placement of the bulk boundary]
\label{conj:IR}
The $F_4$ bulk fraction $\mathrm{FRAC}_{\rm bulk} = 4\pi^3/\muzero$ encodes the
$\mathrm{SU}(3)_c$ coupling not at the GUT scale but at the \emph{confinement scale}
$\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$.  Specifically, the $J_3(\OO)$ spectral geometry sets the scale
at which $\mathrm{SU}(3)$ becomes strongly coupled, which is precisely $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$,
not $M_{\rm GUT}$.

If $\as(\Lambda_{\rm QCD}) = \mathrm{FRAC}_{\rm bulk}/(\hv(F_4)\pi) = 4\pi^2/(9\muzero) \approx 0.032$
is the coupling at $\Lambda_{\rm QCD} \approx 200\,\mathrm{MeV}$, then the running
from $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ to $M_Z$ is purely downward in spectral coordinates:
\begin{align}
  E_{\Lambda_{\rm QCD}} &= \pi + \frac{\ln(200/0.511)}{0.79334}
    = \pi + \frac{5.972}{0.79334}
    \approx 3.142 + 7.527 \approx 10.67\,, \\
  \Delta\as^{-1} &= \frac{9 \times 0.79334}{2\pi}(\EZ - E_{\Lambda_{\rm QCD}})
    = \frac{9 \times 0.79334}{6.2832} \times (18.384 - 10.67)
    = 1.1362 \times 7.714
    \approx 8.76\,.
\end{align}
(Using $b_0 = 9$ for $n_f = 3$ below the charm threshold, noting the relevant
interval is $[E_{\Lambda_{\rm QCD}}, E_c]$ with $b_0 = 9$, $[E_c, E_b]$ with
$b_0 = 25/3$, $[E_b, \EZ]$ with $b_0 = 23/3$.)

Multi-threshold running from $E_{\Lambda_{\rm QCD}} = 10.67$ to $\EZ = 18.384$:
\begin{align}
  \Delta_1 &= \frac{9\times 0.79334}{2\pi}(16.136 - 10.67) = 1.1362\times 5.466 \approx 6.21 \quad(n_f=3)\,,\\
  \Delta_2 &= \frac{(25/3)\times 0.79334}{2\pi}(17.530 - 16.136) = 1.0522\times 1.394 \approx 1.47 \quad(n_f=4)\,,\\
  \Delta_3 &= \frac{(23/3)\times 0.79334}{2\pi}(18.384 - 17.530) = 0.9683\times 0.854 \approx 0.83 \quad(n_f=5)\,.
\end{align}
Total: $\Delta = 6.21 + 1.47 + 0.83 = 8.51$.
Prediction: $\as^{-1}(M_Z) = \as^{-1}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD}) + \Delta = 31.24 + 8.51 = 39.75$,
giving $\as^{\rm pred}(M_Z) \approx 1/39.75 \approx 0.025$.

This is closer to PDG ($0.1179$) than the GUT-boundary route ($0.015$), but still
off by a factor of $\sim 5$.  The IR-placement conjecture partially reduces the
discrepancy but does not close it.
\end{conjecture}

\begin{remark}[Why Route A partially works]
The improvement from $0.015$ to $0.025$ when moving the boundary from the GUT scale
to $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ arises because the running interval shrinks from $\sim 42$
spectral units to $\sim 7.7$ units.  The ratio of intervals $7.7/42 \approx 0.18$
reduces the running contribution by a factor of $0.18$, shifting the prediction
from $0.015$ toward $0.025$.  This confirms that the running interval is the
dominant source of the discrepancy (OP-$\as$-2).
\end{remark}

\subsection{Route B: Non-perturbative $F_4 \to G_2$ sector at the boundary}

\begin{conjecture}[OP-$\as$-4: Non-perturbative sector contribution]\label{conj:NP}
The $F_4$-adjoint sector contains $52 - 14 - 8 = 30$ degrees of freedom that are not
$\mathrm{SU}(3)$ gluons and not $G_2$ generators.  These 30 non-perturbative modes
(from the $F_4 \supset G_2 \supset \mathrm{SU}(3)$ branching) contribute to the
effective coupling below the $F_4$-breaking scale via a non-perturbative mechanism
analogous to the gluon condensate $\langle G^2 \rangle$ in the OPE.

The structural estimate: at the $F_4$-breaking scale (which the TOE identifies with
the $E_6$ GUT scale $\EGUT^{E_6}$), the non-perturbative contribution to $\as^{-1}$
from the coset modes is:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:NP-contrib}
  \delta\as^{-1}_{\rm NP} = -\frac{\dim(F_4/G_2)}{\hv(F_4)\cdot\pi^2}
  = -\frac{38}{9\pi^2}
  \approx -\frac{38}{88.83}
  \approx -0.428\,.
\end{equation}
This is far too small ($\sim -0.4$) compared to the required $-15.9$.  Route B is not
viable at leading order unless the coset contribution involves a much larger coefficient.
\end{conjecture}

\begin{remark}[Why Route B probably does not work at LO]
The coset dimension $\dim(F_4) - \dim(G_2) = 52 - 14 = 38$.  For a non-perturbative
correction of size $-15.9$ in $\as^{-1}$, one would need an enhancement factor of
$15.9/0.428 \approx 37 \approx 38$, which is the coset dimension itself.  Whether
such an enhancement arises from the $F_4/G_2$ geometric structure (e.g., from the
symmetric space $F_4/\mathrm{Sp}(3)\cdot\mathrm{SU}(2)$ or the Cayley plane $F_4/B_4$)
is not established.  This route is left open but uncharacterised.
\end{remark}

\subsection{Route C: $J_3(\OO)$ spectral-flow interpretation}

\begin{conjecture}[OP-$\as$-5: Spectral flow sets $\as$ at the Regge slope]\label{conj:spectral-flow}
In the $J_3(\OO)$ geometry, the strong coupling is not a running coupling in the
quantum field theory sense but a \emph{spectral-flow eigenvalue}: the $\mathrm{SU}(3)_c$
sector occupancy $\mathrm{FRAC}_{\rm bulk} = 4\pi^3/\muzero$ sets the fraction of the
$S^3$ eigenvalue spectrum in the bulk, which at the $J_3(\OO)$ naturalscale $E = \pi$
(the electron spectral coordinate) gives:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:spectral-flow}
  \as(E_{\pi}) = \frac{\mathrm{FRAC}_{\rm bulk}}{\pi} = \frac{4\pi^3/\muzero}{\pi}
  = \frac{4\pi^2}{\muzero} \approx \frac{39.48}{137.04} \approx 0.2880\,.
\end{equation}
Running from $E_\pi = \pi \approx 3.14$ to $\EZ \approx 18.38$ with $b_0 = 9$ ($n_f = 3$)
from $E_\pi$ to $E_c$, then with $b_0 = 25/3$ from $E_c$ to $E_b$, then $b_0 = 23/3$
from $E_b$ to $\EZ$:
\begin{align}
  \Delta_{\pi\to c} &= \frac{9\times 0.79334}{2\pi}(16.136 - 3.142) = 1.1362\times 12.994 \approx 14.76\,,\\
  \Delta_{c\to b}   &= 1.0522 \times (17.530 - 16.136) = 1.0522 \times 1.394 \approx 1.47\,,\\
  \Delta_{b\to Z}   &= 0.9683 \times (18.384 - 17.530) = 0.9683 \times 0.854 \approx 0.83\,.
\end{align}
Total: $\Delta = 14.76 + 1.47 + 0.83 = 17.06$.
Predicted $\as^{-1}(M_Z) = \as^{-1}(E_\pi) + \Delta = (1/0.2880) + 17.06 = 3.472 + 17.06 = 20.53$,
giving $\as^{\rm pred}(M_Z) \approx 1/20.53 \approx 0.0487$.

Closer to PDG ($0.1179$) than Routes A or B, but still off by $\sim 2.4\times$.
\end{conjecture}

\begin{remark}[Structural motivation for Route C]
Route C uses $\mathrm{FRAC}_{\rm bulk}/\pi = 4\pi^2/\muzero$ rather than
$\mathrm{FRAC}_{\rm bulk}/(\hv(F_4)\pi) = 4\pi^2/(9\muzero)$ of Addendum~86.
The difference is the factor of $\hv(F_4) = 9$.  Route C sets the coupling at the
natural $J_3(\OO)$ scale $E = \pi$, which is the floor of the spectral coordinate
(the electron mass).  The $4\pi^2/\muzero \approx 0.288$ value is in the
strong-coupling regime but not at a Landau pole.  The subsequent IR running to $M_Z$
with the SM $\beta$-function gives $\sim 0.049$, still off by $2.4\times$.
\end{remark}

\subsection{Summary: none of the routes closes}

\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\small
\caption{Comparison of route predictions for $\as(M_Z)$.  PDG: $0.1179 \pm 0.0009$.}
\label{tab:routes}
\begin{tabular}{lllcc}
\toprule
Route & Boundary & $E_0$ & $\as^{\rm pred}(M_Z)$ & Ratio to PDG \\
\midrule
A86 ($F_4$ LO, GUT) & $9\muzero/(4\pi^2)$ & $60.0$ & $0.0147$ & $0.125\times$ \\
A90 ($E_6$ consistent) & $1/47.14$ (by construction) & $62.1$ & $0.1179$ & $1.000\times$ \\
Route A (IR, $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$) & $9\muzero/(4\pi^2)$ & $10.67$ & $0.025$ & $0.21\times$ \\
Route C (spectral floor) & $4\pi^2/\muzero$ & $\pi$ & $0.049$ & $0.41\times$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

The $E_6$-consistent result in Table~\ref{tab:routes} is tautological: it was
constructed by requiring consistency of the running equations, not derived from the
$J_3(\OO)$ geometry.  The open question is whether the TOE provides a first-principles
derivation of $\as^{-1}(\EGUT^{E_6}) = 47.14$ from the $F_4$ structure alone.

%==========================================================================
\section{Identification of open problems}
\label{sec:open}
%==========================================================================

This addendum refines and extends the open-problem catalogue of Addendum~86.

\begin{definition}[OP-$\as$-1 (revised)]\label{def:op-as-1-rev}
The $F_4 \to G_2 \to \mathrm{SU}(3)$ threshold correction to $\as^{-1}(\EGUT)$
required for consistency with the $E_6$ running system is:
\begin{equation}
  \delta\as^{-1}_{\rm thresh} = \as^{-1}(\EGUT^{E_6})_{E_6\text{-consistent}}
  - \as^{-1}(\EGUT)_{F_4\text{-LO}}
  \approx 47.14 - 31.24 = 15.90\,.
\end{equation}
This replaces the estimate $\approx 6.24$ from Addendum~86 Remark~3.3, which was
based on comparison with the SU(5)-inferred boundary.  The correct comparison is with
the $E_6$-self-consistent boundary; the threshold correction is $\sim 2.5\times$
larger than previously estimated.
\end{definition}

\begin{definition}[OP-$\as$-2 (revised)]\label{def:op-as-2-rev}
The running-interval problem is now characterised as: the 1-loop $\mathrm{SU}(3)$
running from any TOE-motivated GUT-scale boundary gives $\as^{-1}(M_Z) \gg 8.48$
unless the boundary coupling is also adjusted to the $E_6$-consistent value
$47.14$.  The adjustment $\delta\as^{-1} = 15.90$ required at the boundary is the
content of OP-$\as$-1 (revised).  OP-$\as$-2 is subsumed into OP-$\as$-1: once
the boundary is correct, the running closes.
\end{definition}

\begin{definition}[OP-$\as$-3: TOE hypercharge normalisation in the GUT embedding]
\label{def:op-as-3}
The hypercharge coupling in the TOE is $\alpha_Y = \alpha_{\mathrm{EM}}/\cos^2\theta_W$.
The GUT-embedding normalisation factor $k_1$ (which equals $5/3$ in SU(5)) must be
derived from the $J_3(\OO)$ block structure.  This requires identifying how the
$x_{12}$ Peirce block fraction $\pi/\muzero$ relates to the GUT-normalised hypercharge
$\mathrm{Tr}[Y^2]$.  The TOE Weinberg angle $1/(1+\pi)$ implies $\tan^2\theta_W = 1/\pi$,
giving $k_1^{\mathrm{TOE}} = k_1^{\mathrm{SU}(5)}\cdot\pi/3 \approx 5/(3\cdot\pi)\cdot\pi
= 5/3$: coincidentally the same as SU(5) if $k_1^{\mathrm{TOE}}$ is defined as
$(5/3)\tan^2\theta_W/(3/5) = 5/(3)\cdot(1/\pi)/(3/5) = 25/(9\pi) \approx 0.884$.
This calculation is inconsistent (circular); the correct derivation of $k_1^{\mathrm{TOE}}$
is left open.
\end{definition}

\begin{definition}[OP-$\as$-4 and OP-$\as$-5]
\label{def:op-4-5}
OP-$\as$-4: Non-perturbative coset-mode contribution from $F_4/G_2$ at the GUT scale
(Route B, Section~\ref{sec:resolution-candidates}).
OP-$\as$-5: Spectral-flow placement of the strong coupling boundary at $E = \pi$
or $\Lambda_{\mathrm{QCD}}$ (Route C, Section~\ref{sec:resolution-candidates}).
Both are structurally motivated but neither is derivationally established.
\end{definition}

%==========================================================================
\section{Golden-ratio interlocks}
\label{sec:golden-ratio}
%==========================================================================

\begin{proposition}[$\sW^{\mathrm{TOE}}/\sW^{\mathrm{SU}(5)} \approx 1/\phi$]\label{prop:phi}
The ratio of the TOE Weinberg angle to the SU(5) GUT-scale prediction satisfies:
\begin{equation}
  \frac{\sW^{(1)}}{\sW^{\mathrm{SU}(5)}} = \frac{0.23192}{0.375} \approx 0.61845\,,
\end{equation}
while the golden-ratio reciprocal is $1/\phi = (\sqrt{5}-1)/2 \approx 0.61803$.
The difference is $|0.61845 - 0.61803| = 0.00042$, i.e.\ $0.07\%$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Numerical comparison; the NLO Weinberg angle from Addendum~88, Theorem~4.2.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}[Is this a structural identity?]
The identity $\sW^{(1)} = 3\phi^{-1}/8$ would read:
$3/(8\phi) = 3\times 0.61803/8 = 0.23176$.
vs.\ $\sW^{(1)} = 0.23192$.  Difference: $0.016/0.23192 \approx 0.07\%$.
Exact form: $(1-4\lam^2/5)/(1+\pi) = 3/(8\phi)$ would require
$8\phi(1-4\lam^2/5) = 3(1+\pi)$, i.e.\
$8\times 1.61803 \times 0.96039 = 3 \times 4.14159$, i.e.\
$12.434 = 12.425$.  The two sides differ by $0.07\%$.

Whether this near-identity has a derivational interpretation in the $E_6/F_4/\phi$
geometry (the golden ratio enters $E_6$ through the Coxeter element and the
$E_6$ root-system lengths) is an open question.  We note it as a pattern without
asserting a proof.
\end{remark}

%==========================================================================
\section{Summary}
\label{sec:summary}
%==========================================================================

\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\small
\caption{Status of the $\as(M_Z)$ derivation after Addendum~90.
  Entries in italics are from Addendum~86; entries in bold are new in this addendum.}
\label{tab:final}
\begin{tabular}{p{5.5cm}p{4.5cm}cc}
\toprule
Result & Formula / Source & Value & Status \\
\midrule
$\as^{-1}(\EGUT)$ $F_4$-LO & $9\muzero/(4\pi^2)$ & $31.24$ & \textit{Proved (A86)} \\
$\sW^{(1)}$ TOE NLO & $(1-4\lam^2/5)/(1+\pi)$ & $0.23192$ & \textit{CLOSED (A88)} \\
$\alpha_2^{-1}(M_Z)$ TOE & $\sW^{(1)}/\alpha_{\rm EM}(M_Z)$ & $29.66$ & \textbf{Proved} \\
$\sW^{\mathrm{SU}(5)}$ & $3/8$ & $0.375$ & Known \\
TOE$\not=$SU(5) incompatibility & Cor.~\ref{cor:inconsistent} & --- & \textbf{Proved} \\
$\EGUT^{E_6}$ from $\alpha_2 = \as$ & Prop.~\ref{prop:unification} & $62.12$ & \textbf{Proved} \\
$\alpha_{\rm GUT}^{-1}$ $E_6$-consistent & Thm.~\ref{thm:E6-boundary} & $47.14$ & \textbf{Proved (tautological)} \\
Running gap (multi-thresh.) & Thm.~\ref{thm:multithresh} & $\Gamma \approx 0$ & \textbf{Proved (by construction)} \\
Revised OP-$\as$-1 threshold & Def.~\ref{def:op-as-1-rev} & $\delta\as^{-1}=15.90$ & \textbf{Open (refined)} \\
$\sW^{(1)}/\sW^{\mathrm{SU}(5)} \approx 1/\phi$ & Prop.~\ref{prop:phi} & $0.618$ & \textbf{Pattern (not proved)} \\
Route A: IR boundary & Conj.~\ref{conj:IR} & $\as(M_Z)\approx 0.025$ & \textbf{Open} \\
Route C: spectral floor & Conj.~\ref{conj:spectral-flow} & $\as(M_Z)\approx 0.049$ & \textbf{Open} \\
$\as(M_Z)$ from TOE first principles & --- & --- & \textbf{NOT CLOSED} \\
\midrule
PDG $\as(M_Z)$ & PDG 2024 & $0.1179 \pm 0.0009$ & Reference \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

The principal results are:

\begin{itemize}
  \item \textbf{$E_6$ incompatibility with SU(5) (Corollary~\ref{cor:inconsistent}):}
    The TOE Weinberg angle $\sW^{(1)} \neq 3/8$ implies that the $J_3(\OO)$
    electroweak sector does not embed into $E_6 \supset \mathrm{SO}(10) \supset \mathrm{SU}(5)$
    in the standard way.  The hypercharge normalisation $k_1^{\mathrm{TOE}} \neq 5/3$.

  \item \textbf{$E_6$-consistent boundary (Theorem~\ref{thm:E6-boundary}):}
    Requiring $\alpha_2 = \as$ at some $\EGUT$ using the TOE Weinberg angle as input
    gives $\EGUT^{E_6} \approx 62.12$ and $\alpha_{\rm GUT}^{-1} \approx 47.14$.
    This is a tautological consistency check, not a first-principles derivation.

  \item \textbf{Revised OP-$\as$-1 (Definition~\ref{def:op-as-1-rev}):}
    The $F_4 \to G_2 \to \mathrm{SU}(3)$ threshold correction required to match the
    $E_6$ GUT boundary is $\delta\as^{-1} \approx 15.90$, nearly $2.5\times$ larger
    than the estimate $\approx 6.24$ in Addendum~86.

  \item \textbf{Resolution candidates (Section~\ref{sec:resolution-candidates}):}
    Route A (IR boundary at $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$) gives $\as(M_Z) \approx 0.025$;
    Route C (spectral floor at $E = \pi$) gives $\as(M_Z) \approx 0.049$.
    Neither closes the gap.  Route B (non-perturbative coset modes) is not viable
    at leading order.

  \item \textbf{Status: NOT CLOSED.}
    No first-principles TOE derivation of $\as(M_Z)$ is achieved.  The $F_4$ boundary
    condition from Addendum~86 and the $E_6$-consistency condition from this addendum
    are incompatible unless the $F_4$-LO estimate is corrected by
    $\delta\as^{-1} \approx 15.90$ from the threshold chain.
\end{itemize}

%==========================================================================
\begin{thebibliography}{99}

\bibitem{A42}
L.\ F.\ Vlegels, \textit{Addendum 42: Weinberg Angle from $S^3$ Isometry},
TOE Corpus, May 2026.

\bibitem{A43}
L.\ F.\ Vlegels, \textit{Addendum 43: CFP Noether Theorem and Weinberg Angle Confirmation},
TOE Corpus, May 2026.

\bibitem{A48}
L.\ F.\ Vlegels, \textit{Addendum 48: $E_6$ Covariance of $J_3(\mathbb{O})$},
TOE Corpus, May 2026.

\bibitem{A50}
L.\ F.\ Vlegels, \textit{Addendum 50: One-Loop RG Running of $g_W$ and the $m_W$ Gap},
TOE Corpus, May 2026.

\bibitem{A60}
L.\ F.\ Vlegels, \textit{Addendum 60: Spectral Pairing in the TOE Mass Table},
TOE Corpus, May 2026.

\bibitem{A61}
L.\ F.\ Vlegels, \textit{Addendum 61: The Planck--Seesaw Gap
$E_{\rm Pl} - E_R \approx h^\vee(E_6) = 12$}, TOE Corpus, May 2026.

\bibitem{A81}
L.\ F.\ Vlegels, \textit{Addendum 81: $O(\lambda^2)$ Jordan Loop Correction to
the Wolfenstein $A$ Parameter}, TOE Corpus, May 2026.

\bibitem{A84}
L.\ F.\ Vlegels, \textit{Addendum 84: Quark Mass Table from TOE Spectral Coordinates},
TOE Corpus, May 2026.

\bibitem{A85}
L.\ F.\ Vlegels, \textit{Addendum 85: Higgs Boson Mass from $J_3(\mathbb{O})$},
TOE Corpus, May 2026.

\bibitem{A86}
L.\ F.\ Vlegels, \textit{Addendum 86: Strong Coupling Constant from the $F_4$ Adjoint
Sector}, TOE Corpus, May 2026.

\bibitem{A88}
L.\ F.\ Vlegels, \textit{Addendum 88: NLO Jordan Loop Correction to the Weinberg Angle},
TOE Corpus, May 2026.

\bibitem{Baez2002}
J.\ C.\ Baez, \textit{The Octonions},
Bull.\ Amer.\ Math.\ Soc.\ \textbf{39} (2002) 145--205.
\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0105155}{arXiv:math/0105155}.

\bibitem{Yokota2009}
I.\ Yokota, \textit{Exceptional Lie Groups},
\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/0902.0431}{arXiv:0902.0431} (2009).

\bibitem{Slansky1981}
R.\ Slansky, \textit{Group Theory for Unified Model Building},
Phys.\ Rep.\ \textbf{79} (1981) 1--128.

\bibitem{GG1974}
H.\ Georgi and S.\ L.\ Glashow, \textit{Unity of All Elementary-Particle Forces},
Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ \textbf{32} (1974) 438--441.

\bibitem{PDG}
R.\ L.\ Workman \textit{et al.}\ (Particle Data Group),
\textit{Review of Particle Physics},
Prog.\ Theor.\ Exp.\ Phys.\ \textbf{2022}, 083C01 (2022); update 2024.
PDG values used: $\as(M_Z) = 0.1179 \pm 0.0009$,
$\sW^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(M_Z) = 0.23122 \pm 0.00003$,
$\alpha^{-1}(M_Z) = 127.9$,
$M_Z = 91187.6\,\mathrm{MeV}$, $m_e = 0.511\,\mathrm{MeV}$.

\end{thebibliography}

\end{document}
