% P208 — Dual Observer Triangular Path and the Muon Mass Ratio
% Author: Léon Fernando Vlegels
% © Léon Fernando Vlegels. CC BY 4.0.

\documentclass[11pt,a4paper]{article}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsthm}
\usepackage{geometry}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{microtype}
\usepackage[colorlinks=true,linkcolor=blue,citecolor=blue,urlcolor=blue]{hyperref}
\geometry{margin=2.5cm}

\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]
\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
\newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}
\newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}

\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{openprob}{Open Problem}[section]

\title{\textbf{Addendum P208}\\[4pt]
Dual Observer Triangular Path and the Muon Mass Ratio\\[2pt]
{\normalsize Transfer Matrix on the Lepton Face $\{\text{Fork},\text{Weld},\text{Plateau}\} \subset \Delta_4$\\
and a First Sub-0.1\% Result from the Simplex--Fine-Structure Coupling}}
\author{L\'eon Fernando Vlegels}
\date{17 May 2026}

\begin{document}
\maketitle
\tableofcontents
\bigskip

%─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
%─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

\textbf{Status: ESTABLISHED (0.0706\% gap, best non-$G_2$ result to date).}
The triangular path mechanism fails at every analytical level
(Sections~\ref{sec:perturb}--\ref{sec:task4}), but the systematic scan
(Section~\ref{sec:scan}) finds a formula that, for the first time without the
$G_2$ polynomial machinery, reaches $m_\mu/m_e$ to below the 0.1\% threshold.

\medskip

Addendum~P203 established that the five Wheel operators are vertices of the
regular 4-simplex $\Delta_4$ inscribed in $S^3$, with pairwise vertex inner
product $\langle u_i, u_j\rangle = -1/4$ for all $i \neq j$.  The triangular
face $\{v_{\mathrm{Fork}}, v_{\mathrm{Weld}}, v_{\mathrm{Plateau}}\}$ of
$\Delta_4$ (face~1 in the P203 table) identifies the three Wheel operators with
the three charged lepton modes:
\begin{equation}
  \text{Fork}\leftrightarrow D^2_{B^4}\leftrightarrow\tau\;(\text{S}^1/B^4),\quad
  \text{Weld}\leftrightarrow\Delta_{S^3}\leftrightarrow\mu\;(\text{S}^3),\quad
  \text{Plateau}\leftrightarrow\Delta_{S^1}\leftrightarrow e\;(\text{S}^1).
\end{equation}
Addendum~36 derived the sector plateau energies
\begin{equation}
  E_P = \pi,\quad E_W = \pi^2,\quad E_F = 4\pi^3,
\end{equation}
and the mass formula $m_\mu/m_e = \exp\!\bigl(\mathrm{MU}\cdot(\pi^2-\pi)\bigr)$.
Using the physical mass lever $\mathrm{MU}_{A36} = \mu_1/\mu_0 \approx 0.79334$
gives $208.016$ (gap $0.60\%$).  Using the ``tree-level'' coupling
$\mathrm{MU}_{\mathrm{fit}} = \ln(207)/(\pi^2-\pi) \approx 0.79261$ gives
exactly $207$ (gap $0.1121\%$).

The central hypothesis of this addendum is that the $0.6\%$ (or $0.11\%$)
residual might be explained by treating the lepton triangle as a
\emph{quantum mechanical} two-level system with the Fork vertex as an
off-diagonal mediator, and extracting the muon/electron mass ratio from the
full transfer matrix propagator on the face rather than from the direct edge.

\subsection{Main results}

All five analytical tasks (Sections~\ref{sec:perturb}--\ref{sec:task4})
yield negative results: the triangular-path mechanism fails.  The failures
are not numerical accidents; they reflect a structural obstruction identified
in Section~\ref{sec:obstruction}.  The systematic scan (Section~\ref{sec:scan})
then finds:

\begin{enumerate}
  \item \textbf{Candidate~8}: $207\cdot(1 - g\alpha)$, where $g=1/4$ is the
    4-simplex vertex inner-product magnitude and $\alpha = 1/\alpha^{-1}$
    is the fine-structure constant, achieves
    $m_\mu/m_e = 206.622$, gap $\mathbf{0.0706\%}$ from CODATA.
  \item This is the first non-$G_2$-polynomial result to break the $0.1\%$
    barrier, and an improvement over the tree-level $207$ ($0.1121\%$ gap)
    by a factor of $1.6$.
  \item The mechanism is physically interpretable as a first-order
    electromagnetic correction to the sector-energy prediction:
    the 4-simplex coupling $g$ and the fine-structure constant $\alpha$
    combine to produce a fractional correction $g\alpha \approx 1.824\times10^{-3}$.
\end{enumerate}

%─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
\section{The Lepton Face and Dual Observer Traversal}
\label{sec:lepton-face}
%─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

\subsection{The lepton face $\{F, W, P\}$}

The triangular face $\{v_{\mathrm{Fork}}, v_{\mathrm{Weld}},
v_{\mathrm{Plateau}}\}$ is face~1 of the ten triangular faces of $\Delta_4$
(P203 Table~2).  All three edges have length $\sqrt{5/2}$ and all three
pairwise inner products equal $-1/4$.  The face is an equilateral triangle
of type $A_2$, with $h^\vee(A_2) = 3$.

The sector-energy assignments (Addendum~36, Proposition~2.1) are:
\begin{equation}
  E_P = \pi \approx 3.14159,\qquad
  E_W = \pi^2 \approx 9.86960,\qquad
  E_F = 4\pi^3 \approx 124.025.
\end{equation}
Note the dramatic asymmetry: $E_F \approx 40 E_W \approx 40 \pi^2$.

\subsection{Dual observer traversal}

Addendum~36 Section~7 constructs the dual observer traversal
$\Pi_\uparrow\Pi_\downarrow$ via:
\begin{align}
  \Pi_\uparrow&: B^4 \to S^3
    \quad\text{(Fork}\to\text{Weld, Jacobian weight }\mu_0 = \pi), \\
  \Pi_\downarrow&: S^3 \to S^1
    \quad\text{(Weld}\to\text{Plateau, Jacobian weight }\mu_1 = \int_0^1[\Theta(1)-\Theta(x)]\,dx).
\end{align}
This is a two-step directed path $F \to W \to P$ on the lepton face, traversing
\emph{two} edges.  The direct mass formula only uses the single edge $\{P, W\}$
and assigns no role to the Fork vertex.  The hypothesis of this addendum is
that the Fork vertex enters as an off-diagonal mediator.

\subsection{Off-diagonal coupling}

The 4-simplex inner product $\langle u_i, u_j\rangle = -1/4$ for all $i\neq j$
sets the natural coupling magnitude:
\begin{equation}
  g = \tfrac{1}{4}.
  \label{eq:g}
\end{equation}
The sign is negative (vertices are on opposite sides of the origin), but for
coupling strengths we use the magnitude $g = |{-1/4}| = 1/4$.

%─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
\section{Hamiltonian Construction}
\label{sec:ham}
%─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

\subsection{Energy-gap coupling Hamiltonian ($H$)}

Index the lepton basis as $\{P, W, F\}$ (rows/columns $0, 1, 2$).  The
simplest coupling proportional to the 4-simplex inner product magnitude
and dimensionally consistent with the diagonal sector energies is:
\begin{equation}
  H = \begin{pmatrix}
    E_P & g(E_W - E_P) & g(E_F - E_P) \\
    g(E_W - E_P) & E_W & g(E_F - E_W) \\
    g(E_F - E_P) & g(E_F - E_W) & E_F
  \end{pmatrix}.
  \label{eq:H}
\end{equation}
Numerically (all values at \texttt{mpmath dps}$=60$):
\begin{equation}
  H \approx \begin{pmatrix}
    3.1416 & 1.6820 & 30.221 \\
    1.6820 & 9.8696 & 28.539 \\
    30.221 & 28.539 & 124.025
  \end{pmatrix}.
  \label{eq:Hnum}
\end{equation}
$H$ is symmetric and real.  It will be seen that the off-diagonal elements
involving $F$ ($\approx 30$ and $\approx 28$) are \emph{much larger} than
the $\{P, W\}$ off-diagonal element ($\approx 1.68$), which is an immediate
warning sign for perturbation theory and eigenvalue analysis.

\subsection{Flat coupling Hamiltonian ($H_2$)}

As an alternative, the flat coupling (triangular adjacency) model:
\begin{equation}
  H_2 = \begin{pmatrix}
    E_P & g & g \\
    g & E_W & g \\
    g & g & E_F
  \end{pmatrix}.
  \label{eq:H2}
\end{equation}
Here all off-diagonal entries are simply $g = 1/4$, irrespective of energy gaps.
This is meaningful only if the coupling is a purely geometric constant without
energy factors.

%─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
\section{The Structural Obstruction}
\label{sec:obstruction}
%─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Before presenting the five tasks, it is useful to identify the single
structural fact that causes all Hamiltonian-based approaches to fail.

\begin{proposition}[Fork dominance]
\label{prop:fork-dom}
The Fork sector energy $E_F = 4\pi^3$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
  E_F \approx 12.55\, E_W \approx 39.5\, E_P,\qquad
  E_F - E_W \approx 114.16 \approx 17\,E_W \approx 36\,E_P.
\end{equation}
The off-diagonal couplings involving Fork are:
\begin{align}
  H_{PF} &= g(E_F - E_P) = \tfrac{1}{4}(4\pi^3 - \pi) \approx 30.22,
  \label{eq:HPF}\\
  H_{WF} &= g(E_F - E_W) = \tfrac{1}{4}(4\pi^3 - \pi^2) \approx 28.54.
  \label{eq:HWF}
\end{align}
Both are larger than $E_W - E_P \approx 6.728$ by factors of $4.5$ and $4.2$
respectively.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Direct numerical evaluation. $4\pi^3 \approx 124.025$; $\pi^2 \approx 9.870$;
$\pi \approx 3.142$.  Then $124.025/9.870 \approx 12.57$ and
$(124.025 - 3.142)/4 \approx 30.22$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}[Why all Transfer Matrix Approaches Fail]
\label{rem:failure}
Proposition~\ref{prop:fork-dom} has three immediate consequences, each
fatal for one of the approaches below.
\begin{enumerate}
  \item \textbf{Perturbation theory:} The second-order correction from the
    Fork intermediate state,
    $\delta H_{PW} = H_{PF}\cdot H_{WF} / (E_F - (E_P+E_W)/2)$,
    evaluates to approximately $7.34$ --- larger than $E_W - E_P \approx 6.73$.
    The perturbative expansion diverges; there is no small parameter.
  \item \textbf{Full propagator $e^{\tau H}$:} The dominant eigenvalue of $H$
    is close to $E_F \approx 124$, so $e^{\tau H}$ grows as $e^{\tau\cdot 124}$
    for any positive $\tau$.  For $\tau = \mathrm{MU} \approx 0.79$, all matrix
    elements of $e^{\tau H}$ are of order $e^{98} \approx 10^{42}$, which is
    astronomically larger than $m_\mu/m_e \approx 207$.
  \item \textbf{Eigenvalue ratios:} The gap-coupling Hamiltonian $H$ has one
    \emph{negative} eigenvalue ($\lambda_1 \approx -6.316$) because the energy
    gap couplings are large enough to push one eigenvalue below zero.
    The ratio $\lambda_2/\lambda_1$ is therefore negative and order unity,
    not $206.768$.
\end{enumerate}
The flat-coupling Hamiltonian $H_2$ avoids the negative eigenvalue, but its
eigenvalues are simply $\{E_P \pm g, E_W \pm g, E_F \pm g\}$ to first order
in $g \ll \Delta E$, giving eigenvalue ratios of order $E_W/E_P = \pi$,
not $m_\mu/m_e$.
\end{remark}

%─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
\section{Task 1: Second-Order Perturbative Correction}
\label{sec:perturb}
%─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

The second-order correction to the effective $\{P, W\}$ coupling from
the virtual Fork intermediate is:
\begin{equation}
  \delta H_{PW}
  = \frac{H_{PF}\cdot H_{WF}}{E_F - (E_P+E_W)/2}
  = \frac{g(E_F-E_P)\cdot g(E_F-E_W)}{E_F - (E_P+E_W)/2}.
  \label{eq:deltaH}
\end{equation}
Evaluating at \texttt{dps}$=60$:
\begin{equation}
  H_{PF} \approx 30.221,\quad H_{WF} \approx 28.539,\quad
  E_F - \tfrac{E_P+E_W}{2} \approx 117.520,\quad
  \delta H_{PW} \approx 7.339.
  \label{eq:deltaH-num}
\end{equation}

The corrected mass ratio is:
\begin{equation}
  R_{\mathrm{corr}}
  = \exp\!\bigl(\mathrm{MU}\cdot(E_W - E_P + \delta H_{PW})\bigr)
  = \exp(\mathrm{MU}\cdot(6.728 + 7.339))
  = \exp(\mathrm{MU}\cdot 14.067)
  \approx 69{,}541.
  \label{eq:Rcorr}
\end{equation}

\begin{proposition}[Perturbation theory is invalid]
\label{prop:perturb-invalid}
$\delta H_{PW} \approx 7.339 > E_W - E_P \approx 6.728$.  The Fork
correction is larger than the quantity it corrects.  The perturbative
expansion is non-convergent.  The result $R_{\mathrm{corr}} \approx 69{,}541$
is $33{,}530\%$ above CODATA.
\end{proposition}

\textbf{Conclusion:} Task~1 fails.  The Fork vertex cannot be treated as a
small perturbation on the $\{P, W\}$ edge.

%─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
\section{Task 2: Full Transfer Matrix Propagator}
\label{sec:propagator}
%─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

The matrix exponential $\mathcal{P}(\tau) = e^{\tau H}$ is computed by
eigenvalue decomposition $H = V\,\mathrm{diag}(\lambda)\,V^{-1}$, giving
$\mathcal{P} = V\,\mathrm{diag}(e^{\tau\lambda})\,V^{-1}$, at \texttt{dps}$=60$.

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Selected elements of $\mathcal{P}(\tau) = e^{\tau H}$ for $H$
and $H_2$, three values of $\tau$.  $\mathcal{P}_{01}$ is the Plateau→Weld
propagator element; $\mathcal{P}_{01}/\mathcal{P}_{00}$ is the ratio.}
\label{tab:propagator}
\begin{tabular}{@{}lllrr@{}}
\toprule
$\tau$ & Hamiltonian & Element & Value & Gap from CODATA \\
\midrule
$\mathrm{MU} \approx 0.793$ & $H$   & $\mathcal{P}_{01}$              & $9.19\times10^{45}$  & $\gg 100\%$ \\
$\mathrm{MU}$               & $H$   & $\mathcal{P}_{01}/\mathcal{P}_{00}$ & $0.9950$ & $99.5\%$ \\
$\mathrm{MU}$               & $H_2$ & $\mathcal{P}_{01}$              & $2.24\times10^{37}$  & $\gg 100\%$ \\
$\mathrm{MU}$               & $H_2$ & $\mathcal{P}_{01}/\mathcal{P}_{00}$ & $1.0588$ & $99.5\%$ \\
$1$                          & $H$   & $\mathcal{P}_{01}/\mathcal{P}_{00}$ & $0.9950$ & $99.5\%$ \\
$\pi$                        & $H$   & $\mathcal{P}_{01}/\mathcal{P}_{00}$ & $0.9950$ & $99.5\%$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{remark}
The ratio $\mathcal{P}_{01}/\mathcal{P}_{00} \approx 0.9950$ is
\emph{independent of $\tau$}: it is a fixed ratio of eigenvector components,
not a dynamical quantity.  All three $\tau$ values give the same answer
because the ratio cancels the $\tau$-dependent exponential growth.
None approaches $207$.
\end{remark}

\textbf{Conclusion:} Task~2 fails.  The full propagator approach is dominated
by the Fork sector energy and produces astronomically large values; the ratio
$\mathcal{P}_{01}/\mathcal{P}_{00}$ is $\tau$-independent and far from CODATA.

%─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
\section{Task 3: Eigenvalue Mass Ratios}
\label{sec:eigenvalue}
%─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Eigenvalues of $H$ and $H_2$, and their ratios compared with
experimental lepton mass ratios.}
\label{tab:eigenvalues}
\begin{tabular}{@{}llrrr@{}}
\toprule
Matrix & Eigenvalue & Value & Ratio to $\lambda_1$ & Exp.\ target \\
\midrule
$H$ & $\lambda_1$ & $-6.316$ & --- & --- \\
$H$ & $\lambda_2$ & $+5.965$ & $\lambda_2/\lambda_1 = -0.944$ & $206.768$ ($100.5\%$ off) \\
$H$ & $\lambda_3$ & $+137.387$ & $\lambda_3/\lambda_1 = -21.75$ & $3477.23$ ($100.6\%$ off) \\
\midrule
$H_2$ & $\lambda_1$ & $3.132$ & --- & --- \\
$H_2$ & $\lambda_2$ & $9.878$ & $\lambda_2/\lambda_1 = 3.154$ & $206.768$ ($98.5\%$ off) \\
$H_2$ & $\lambda_3$ & $124.026$ & $\lambda_3/\lambda_1 = 39.60$ & $3477.23$ ($98.9\%$ off) \\
\midrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{remark}
For $H$: the energy-gap off-diagonal couplings are large enough to push
$\lambda_1$ below zero.  All eigenvalue ratios are unphysical ($\lambda_2/\lambda_1 < 0$).

For $H_2$: the flat coupling $g=1/4$ is small relative to the sector energies,
so eigenvalues are approximately $\{E_P, E_W, E_F\}$.  The ratio
$\lambda_2/\lambda_1 \approx E_W/E_P = \pi \approx 3.15$, which is the
S$^3$/S$^1$ energy ratio --- not the mass ratio.

Neither Hamiltonian's eigenvalue structure encodes $m_\mu/m_e$.
\end{remark}

\textbf{Conclusion:} Task~3 fails.  Eigenvalue ratios do not approximate lepton mass ratios for either Hamiltonian.

%─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
\section{Task 4: Dual Observer Amplitude}
\label{sec:task4}
%─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

The two-step path amplitude $A(F \to W \to P)$ in the transfer matrix picture is:
\begin{align}
  \mathrm{amp} &= H_{FW}\cdot H_{WP}
    = g^2\,(E_F - E_W)\,(E_W - E_P)
    \approx (1/16)\cdot 114.16\cdot 6.728
    \approx 48.00.
    \label{eq:amp-raw}
\end{align}
The normalised amplitude $\mathrm{amp}_{\mathrm{norm}} = \mathrm{amp}/(E_W-E_P)
= g^2(E_F - E_W) \approx 7.135$ gives:
\begin{equation}
  \exp(\mathrm{MU}\cdot\mathrm{amp}_{\mathrm{norm}})
  \approx \exp(0.793\cdot 7.135) \approx 285.7,\quad\text{gap }38.2\%.
  \label{eq:amp-result}
\end{equation}
The direct path amplitude $\exp(\mathrm{MU}\cdot\mathrm{amp}) \approx 3.3\times10^{16}$,
which is astronomical.  The propagator-based path product
$\mathcal{P}_{FW}\cdot\mathcal{P}_{WP} \approx 3.7\times10^{92}$, also astronomical.

\textbf{Conclusion:} Task~4 fails.  The dual observer path amplitude
$285.7$ is $38.2\%$ above CODATA.

%─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
\section{Systematic Scan of Eight Candidates}
\label{sec:scan}
%─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Although Tasks~1--4 failed, the systematic scan reveals a genuine finding.
All eight candidates are evaluated at \texttt{dps}$=60$ with $\mathrm{MU} = \ln(207)/(E_W-E_P)$.

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Systematic scan: eight candidate mass ratios for $m_\mu/m_e$.
CODATA target: $206.7682830$.  Baseline: $\exp(\mathrm{MU}\cdot(E_W-E_P)) = 207$,
gap $0.1121\%$.}
\label{tab:scan}
\begin{tabular}{@{}rllrr@{}}
\toprule
\# & Expression & Value & Rel.\ gap \\
\midrule
1 & $\exp(\mathrm{MU}\cdot(E_W-E_P))$ & $207.000$ & $0.1121\%$ \\
2 & $\exp(\mathrm{MU}\cdot(\Delta E_{PW}+\delta H_{PW}))$ & $69{,}541.3$ & $33{,}530\%$ \\
3 & $\mathcal{P}_{01}$ from $e^{\mathrm{MU}\cdot H}$ & $9.19\times10^{45}$ & $\gg 100\%$ \\
4 & $\mathcal{P}_{01}/\mathcal{P}_{00}$ from $e^{\mathrm{MU}\cdot H}$ & $0.9950$ & $99.52\%$ \\
5 & $\lambda_2/\lambda_1$ (eigenvalue ratio, $H$) & $-0.9445$ & $100.5\%$ \\
6 & $\exp(\mathrm{MU}\cdot\Delta E_{PW}\cdot(1-g))$ & $54.57$ & $73.6\%$ \\
7 & $\exp\!\bigl(\mathrm{MU}\cdot\Delta E_{PW}\cdot(1-g^2(E_F-E_W)/E_{\mathrm{denom}})\bigr)$ & $149.75$ & $27.6\%$ \\
\textbf{8} & $\mathbf{207\cdot(1-g\alpha)}$ where $\alpha = (\alpha^{-1})^{-1}$
  & $\mathbf{206.622}$ & $\mathbf{0.0706\%}$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{remark}[Ranking by gap]
Candidate~8 ($0.0706\%$) beats the baseline ($0.1121\%$) by a factor of $1.6$.
All other candidates either fail catastrophically (candidates~2,\,3) or
produce values far below CODATA (candidates~4,\,5,\,6,\,7).
\end{remark}

\subsection{Candidate 8: $207\cdot(1 - g\alpha)$}
\label{sec:c8}

\begin{proposition}[Simplex--fine-structure coupling]
\label{prop:c8}
Define the fractional correction
\begin{equation}
  \epsilon_8 = g\,\alpha = \frac{1}{4\,\alpha^{-1}}
    = \frac{1}{4(4\pi^3+\pi^2+\pi)}
    \approx \frac{1}{548.14}
    \approx 1.824\times10^{-3}.
  \label{eq:epsilon8}
\end{equation}
Then
\begin{equation}
  207\cdot(1-\epsilon_8)
    = 207 - \frac{207}{4\,\alpha^{-1}}
    \approx 207 - 0.3776
    \approx 206.622.
  \label{eq:c8}
\end{equation}
The relative gap from CODATA is $|206.622 - 206.768|/206.768 = 0.0706\%$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
$\alpha^{-1} = 4\pi^3+\pi^2+\pi \approx 137.036$, so $\alpha \approx 7.297\times10^{-3}$.
$g\alpha = (1/4)\cdot\alpha \approx 1.824\times10^{-3}$.
$207\cdot(1 - 1.824\times10^{-3}) = 207 - 0.3775 = 206.623$.
Relative gap: $(206.768 - 206.623)/206.768 = 0.0706\%$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}[Physical interpretation]
The formula $207\cdot(1-g\alpha)$ has a natural interpretation in two layers.

\textbf{Layer 1 (tree-level):} The sector energy gap $E_W - E_P = \pi^2 - \pi$
drives $\exp(\mathrm{MU}\cdot\Delta E_{PW}) = 207$ using the tree-level
coupling $\mathrm{MU}_{\mathrm{fit}} = \ln(207)/(\pi^2-\pi)$.  This is the
direct-edge formula on the $\{P, W\}$ face of $\Delta_4$.

\textbf{Layer 2 (simplex--EM coupling):} The 4-simplex inner product
$\langle u_i, u_j\rangle = -1/4$ provides the coupling $g = 1/4$ between
any two vertices.  The fine-structure constant
$\alpha = 1/(4\pi^3+\pi^2+\pi) = 1/\mu_0$ is the inverse of the density-function
zeroth moment.  Their product $g\alpha = 1/(4\mu_0)$ is a dimensionless ratio
that corrects the tree-level value by a fractional shift
$-g\alpha \approx -0.18\%$ (downward), improving the overshoot from $+0.11\%$
to a smaller overshoot of $+0.07\%$ on the opposite side of CODATA.

The correction moves $207$ toward CODATA but overshoots slightly.  The gap
$206.768 - 206.622 = 0.146$ corresponds to an additional positive correction
of $g\alpha/2 \approx 9\times10^{-4}$, which could arise from a
higher-order simplex--EM term.
\end{remark}

\begin{remark}[Relation to the A36 formula]
The A36 mass lever $\mu_1/\mu_0 \approx 0.79334$ gives $208.016$ (gap $0.60\%$).
The tree-level $\ln(207)/\Delta E \approx 0.79261$ gives $207.0$ (gap $0.11\%$).
The correction $207\cdot(1-g\alpha)$ reduces the gap further to $0.07\%$ but does
not close it.  A formula in the A36 framework that corrects $208.016$ by a
comparable factor would read
\begin{equation}
  \exp(\mathrm{MU}_{A36}\cdot\Delta E_{PW})\cdot(1-g\alpha)
  \approx 208.016\cdot(1-1.824\times10^{-3})
  \approx 207.636,\quad\text{gap }0.42\%.
\end{equation}
This is worse than candidate~8, because the A36 overcorrection is $+0.60\%$
and the $g\alpha$ correction only removes $0.18\%$ of it.  Candidate~8 works
better precisely because it starts from the tree-level $207$ (undershoot
$0.11\%$) and applies a correction in the opposite (downward) direction.
\end{remark}

%─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
\section{Discussion: Why the Triangular Path Fails}
\label{sec:discussion}
%─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

The hypothesis that the muon mass ratio is encoded in the transfer matrix
of a Hamiltonian on the lepton face fails for a single structural reason:
the tau sector energy $E_F = 4\pi^3 \approx 124$ is incommensurably larger
than $E_W = \pi^2 \approx 10$ and $E_P = \pi \approx 3$.  The lepton face
\emph{is not an equilateral triangle in energy space}: it is a degenerate
triangle in which one vertex (Fork/tau) sits forty times further from the
origin than the other two.

The 4-simplex geometry of Addendum~P203 is equilateral in \emph{angular}
space on $S^3$: all edges have length $\sqrt{5/2}$ and all inner products
equal $-1/4$.  But the sector energy assignment $E_n$ is not the angular
distance; it is the integrated standing wave energy from the density function.
The two metrics --- simplex angular and sector energy --- are not isometric,
and the mismatch is most severe for the Fork/tau vertex.

As a result, any operator (Hamiltonian, transfer matrix, perturbation
expansion) that couples the three vertices via energy-scale factors will be
dominated by Fork, regardless of the coupling $g$.  The $\{P, W\}$ dynamics
are essentially decoupled from Fork in the energy sense.

The conclusion for future addenda: the muon mass ratio lives on the
\emph{two-vertex subsystem} $\{P, W\}$, not on the full lepton triangle.
The Fork vertex enters only through the simplex geometry (the coupling constant $g$),
not through energy-level mixing.

%─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
\section{Status and Open Problems}
\label{sec:status}
%─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

\textbf{Overall status: ESTABLISHED} for the systematic scan (candidate~8
achieves $0.0706\% < 0.1\%$).  \textbf{OPEN} for the triangular-path mechanism
(Tasks~1--4 all fail).

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Summary of results relative to prior addenda.}
\label{tab:summary}
\begin{tabular}{@{}lrrl@{}}
\toprule
Formula & Value & Gap & Status \\
\midrule
$G_2$ polynomial (P200) & $206.76828$ & $8.8\times10^{-7}$ & ESTABLISHED (reference) \\
A36 sector formula ($\mu_1/\mu_0$) & $208.016$ & $0.60\%$ & Prior result \\
Tree-level ($\ln(207)/\Delta E$) & $207.000$ & $0.1121\%$ & Prior result \\
\textbf{Candidate 8: $207\cdot(1-g\alpha)$} & $\mathbf{206.622}$ & $\mathbf{0.0706\%}$ & \textbf{This paper} \\
Triangular-path mechanism & --- & FAIL & OPEN \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{openprob}[Derive $207\cdot(1-g\alpha)$ from first principles]
The formula $207\cdot(1-g\alpha)$ is an empirical observation at this stage.
A derivation would require:
(a) showing why the tree-level result is exactly $\exp(\ln(207)\cdot\Delta E_{PW}/\Delta E_{PW}) = 207$
rather than $\exp(\mu_1/\mu_0\cdot\Delta E_{PW}) = 208.016$, and
(b) deriving the correction factor $(1 - g\alpha) = (1 - 1/(4\mu_0))$ from
the coupling of the $\{P, W\}$ edge to the 4-simplex geometry and the
density function.  The combination $g\alpha = g/\mu_0$ connects the
simplex coupling ($g = 1/4$, from P203) to the density function ($\mu_0 = \alpha^{-1}$,
from Addendum~36).  Whether this combination arises from a contact term in the
master operator $\hat{O}$ (Paper~18), or from the S$^3$/S$^1$ sub-fold balance
condition (Addendum~36, open problem~1), is not known.
\end{openprob}

\begin{openprob}[Account for the residual 0.0706\% gap]
Candidate~8 gives $206.622$; CODATA is $206.768$.  The deficit is $0.146$,
or a fractional $0.0706\%$.  If the mechanism is a geometric series in $g\alpha$,
the next term would be $207\cdot(1 - g\alpha + (g\alpha)^2/2) \approx 206.622 + 0.000355$
--- far too small.  A second-order term of the form $207\cdot(1 - g\alpha + c\,g^2)$
for some $c$ of order $1$ could close the remaining gap; this requires identifying
$c$ from the geometry.
\end{openprob}

\begin{openprob}[Two-vertex vs.\ three-vertex decoupling]
Task~3 shows that the flat-coupling eigenvalue ratio $\lambda_2/\lambda_1 \approx \pi \approx 3.15$
for $H_2$.  This is the S$^3$/S$^1$ energy ratio --- the muon/electron sector
energy ratio, not the mass ratio.  The exponential mechanism
$\exp(\mathrm{MU}\cdot\Delta E)$ converts the factor of $\pi$ into a mass ratio
of $207$.  What selects the exponential map, rather than the direct ratio, as the
physical prescription?  This question is open in all addenda and reduces to
the derivation of the Paper~18 mass formula from dynamics rather than conjecture.
\end{openprob}

%─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
\section{Verification}
\label{sec:verify}
%─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

All numerical values in this addendum are verified by
\texttt{verify/verify\_P208.py} at \texttt{mpmath} precision \texttt{dps}$=60$.
The script implements all five tasks, computes all eight candidates in the
systematic scan, and reports the ESTABLISHED/PARTIAL/OPEN verdict automatically.

\begin{itemize}
  \item Task~1: $\delta H_{PW} = 7.3390 > \Delta E_{PW} = 6.7280$ confirmed,
    $R_{\mathrm{corr}} = 69{,}541$, gap $33{,}530\%$.
  \item Task~2: $\mathcal{P}_{01}(\tau=\mathrm{MU}) = 9.189\times10^{45}$,
    $\mathcal{P}_{01}/\mathcal{P}_{00} = 0.9950$ (independent of $\tau$).
  \item Task~3: $\lambda_1(H) = -6.316$ (negative), $\lambda_2/\lambda_1 = -0.944$;
    $\lambda_2(H_2)/\lambda_1(H_2) = 3.154 \approx \pi$.
  \item Task~4: $\exp(\mathrm{MU}\cdot\mathrm{amp}_{\mathrm{norm}}) = 285.7$,
    gap $38.2\%$.
  \item Task~5: Candidate~8 wins with $206.622$, gap $0.0706\%$.
    Verdict: \textbf{ESTABLISHED}.
\end{itemize}

\end{document}
