% 140_Addendum_GeometricMeanPrescription.tex
% Addendum P140: Geometric Mean Prescription and Quark Continuum Decoupling
%   Addresses the two structural open items from P137:
%   (1) Why does sqrt(NWA x GS) = Fermi target to 0.07%?
%       Attempts Hurwitz-measure derivation; documents the blocking sub-problem.
%   (2) Why does the quark continuum not contribute to the TOE Fermi target?
%       Derives from J3(O) spectral decomposition and EW matching structure.
% Author: León Fernando Vlegels
% Copyright: León Fernando Vlegels. License: CC BY 4.0.
% Date: 2026-05-15

\documentclass[11pt,a4paper]{article}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsthm}
\usepackage{geometry}
\geometry{margin=2.5cm}
\usepackage[colorlinks=true,linkcolor=blue,citecolor=blue,urlcolor=blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{array}
\usepackage{xcolor}

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

\newcommand{\JO}{J_3(\mathbb{O})}
\newcommand{\Da}{\Delta\alpha}
\newcommand{\Dalep}{\Delta\alpha_{\rm lep}}
\newcommand{\Dahad}{\Delta\alpha_{\rm had}}
\newcommand{\Dahrho}{\Delta\alpha_{\rm had}^\rho}
\newcommand{\Dahlm}{\Delta\alpha_{\rm had}^{\rm lm}}
\newcommand{\Mrho}{M_\rho}
\newcommand{\Grho}{\Gamma_\rho}
\newcommand{\GS}{\mathrm{GS}}
\newcommand{\NWA}{\mathrm{NWA}}
\newcommand{\PDG}{\mathrm{PDG}}
\newcommand{\TOE}{\mathrm{TOE}}
\newcommand{\MW}{M_W}
\newcommand{\MZ}{M_Z}
\newcommand{\Otimes}{\mathbb{O}}
\newcommand{\Pone}{\mathcal{P}_{12}}

\label{addendum:140}

\title{\textbf{Addendum P140}\\[6pt]
\large Geometric Mean Prescription and Quark Continuum Decoupling:\\
Structural Analysis of the 0.07\% Coincidence}
\author{L\'eon Fernando Vlegels\\[4pt]
\small Independent Researcher \quad
\texttt{axiomofchoicepuzzle@gmail.com}}
\date{15 May 2026}

\begin{document}
\maketitle

\begin{abstract}
Addendum P137 found that the geometric mean of the NWA and Gounaris-Sakurai
estimates for the light-meson hadronic vacuum polarisation equals the Fermi
target to $0.07\%$:
$\sqrt{\Dahlm^{\NWA}\cdot\Dahlm^{\GS}} = 4.107\times10^{-3}$
vs.\ $\Dahad^{\rm target} = 4.110\times10^{-3}$.
Two open items were assigned to P140.
(1) \emph{Geometric mean prescription}: does the Hurwitz measure on $S^7$ supply
a structural derivation, or is the 0.07\% a numerical coincidence?
We show that the Hurwitz measure induces a \emph{flat} measure in $s$-space
on the Peirce off-diagonal sector $\Pone \cong \Otimes$, not a log-flat measure,
so a direct Cauchy--Schwarz saturation argument does not follow.
The geometric mean precision is traced instead to the approximate
\emph{log-symmetry} of the GS Breit-Wigner about $s = M_\rho^2$:
the dispersive kernel $K(s) \approx 1/s$ converts log-symmetric spectral weight
into a geometric mean identity.
The blocking sub-problem is to prove log-symmetry of the GS lineshape analytically.
(2) \emph{Quark continuum decoupling}: the SM dispersive integral gives
$\Dahad^{\PDG} = 0.02750$, a factor $6.7$ larger than the Fermi target.
We derive from the $\JO$ spectral decomposition and EW matching structure
why the quark continuum does not enter the TOE Fermi constraint.
The argument rests on three pillars: the $\JO$ spectral filter, which restricts
the photon propagator to discrete vector meson poles; the EW matching condition
at scale $M_W$, which separates algebraic ($\JO$-classified) from dynamical (QCD Fock-space)
contributions to hadronic running; and the Appelquist--Carazzone theorem,
which decouples heavy quark contributions above the charm threshold.
\end{abstract}

\tableofcontents
\vspace{1em}

%======================================================================
\section{Setup: Scope and the 0.07\% Coincidence}
\label{sec:setup}
%======================================================================

Addendum P137 established that the NWA and GS estimates for $\Dahlm$ bracket
the Fermi target symmetrically:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bracket}
  \Dahlm^{\NWA} = 4.522\times10^{-3} \quad (+10.0\%),
  \qquad
  \Dahlm^{\GS}  = 3.731\times10^{-3} \quad (-9.2\%).
\end{equation}
Their geometric mean is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gm}
  I_{\rm GM} \equiv \sqrt{\Dahlm^{\NWA}\cdot\Dahlm^{\GS}}
  = \sqrt{4.522\times3.731}\times10^{-3}
  = 4.107\times10^{-3},
\end{equation}
within $0.07\%$ of the Fermi target $4.110\times10^{-3}$.
The two estimates are not independent random numbers: both are computed from the
same physical observable (the $\rho$ dispersive integral) under different
approximations to the lineshape.
The $0.07\%$ precision is therefore a structural statement about the relationship
between the NWA and GS approximations, not a numerical accident.

Two structural questions were left open in P137 and are addressed here.
\emph{Item 1} (Section~\ref{sec:gm}): what algebraic property of the $\JO$
spectral geometry causes the geometric mean to be the correct estimator?
\emph{Item 2} (Section~\ref{sec:decoupling}): why does the Fermi target
$4.110\times10^{-3}$ differ from the SM dispersive total $0.02750$ by a factor
of $6.7$, and what is the $\JO$ operator responsible for the decoupling?

Throughout, the dispersive kernel is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:kernel}
  K(s) = \frac{\alpha}{3\pi}\cdot\frac{1}{s}\cdot\frac{M_Z^2}{M_Z^2 - s},
\end{equation}
and the dispersive integral is $I = \int K(s)\,\rho(s)\,ds$ where $\rho(s)$
is the hadronic spectral density.
For $s \ll M_Z^2$, $K(s) \approx (\alpha/3\pi)/s$, so the kernel is dominated
by the factor $1/s$ in the light-meson region.

%======================================================================
\section{Geometric Mean Prescription}
\label{sec:gm}
%======================================================================

\subsection{The Hurwitz measure and the Peirce sector}

The $\rho(770)$ meson corresponds to the off-diagonal Peirce sector
$\Pone \cong \Otimes$ of $\JO$: a matrix element of the form
\begin{equation}
  X_\rho =
  \begin{pmatrix}
    0 & x & 0 \\ \bar{x} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0
  \end{pmatrix}, \quad x \in \Otimes.
\end{equation}
The squared norm $|x|^2$ is the spectral eigenvalue, identified with $M_\rho^2$.
The Hurwitz measure $d\mu_H$ on $S^7 = \{x \in \Otimes : |x|^2 = 1\}$ is the
unique $G_2$-invariant measure, normalised to unit total weight.

To obtain a distribution over the spectral parameter $s \in [4m_\pi^2,\infty)$,
one must lift from the unit sphere $S^7$ to the full octonionic plane
$\Otimes \setminus \{0\}$ via the fibration
$\Otimes\setminus\{0\} \cong \mathbb{R}_{>0} \times S^7$,
with radial coordinate $r = |x|$ and $s = r^2 M_\rho^2$ (the off-shell mass squared).
The lifted measure is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lifted}
  d\mu_{\rm lift} = r^7\,dr\,d\mu_H(\hat{x})
  = \tfrac{1}{2}(s/M_\rho^2)^{7/2}\cdot\frac{ds}{M_\rho^2}\cdot d\mu_H(\hat{x}).
\end{equation}
Integrating over the angular directions $\hat{x} \in S^7$ and projecting onto $s$
gives a \emph{power-law} marginal measure in $s$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:hurwitz_s}
  d\mu_{\rm Hurwitz}(s) \propto s^{7/2}\,ds.
\end{equation}
This is \emph{not} log-flat.
A log-flat measure $d\mu_{\rm log}(s) \propto ds/s$ would require the spectral
map $x \mapsto |x|^2$ to factor through $\log|x|^2$, which corresponds to the
measure $r^{-1}dr$ on the radial direction --- the Haar measure of
$(\mathbb{R}_{>0}, \times)$.
The Hurwitz measure on $S^7$ does not induce this: it gives $r^7\,dr$ (equation
\eqref{eq:lifted}), not $r^{-1}dr$.

\begin{proposition}
The Hurwitz measure on $S^7$ induces a power-law spectral measure
$d\mu(s) \propto s^{7/2}\,ds$ on the off-diagonal Peirce sector, not a log-flat
measure.
The Cauchy--Schwarz saturation argument in log-spectral-weight space does not
follow from the Hurwitz measure alone.
\end{proposition}

\subsection{Log-symmetry of the GS lineshape}

The geometric mean identity \eqref{eq:gm} admits a weaker but structurally
transparent derivation that does not require the Hurwitz measure argument.

Since $K(s) \approx (\alpha/3\pi)/s$ for $s \ll M_Z^2$, the dispersive integrals
are approximately
\begin{equation}
  I_{\NWA} \approx \frac{\alpha}{3\pi}\cdot\frac{1}{M_\rho^2},
  \qquad
  I_{\GS} \approx \frac{\alpha}{3\pi}\int \frac{\rho_{\GS}(s)}{s}\,ds
  = \frac{\alpha}{3\pi M_\rho^2}\cdot\bigl\langle M_\rho^2/s \bigr\rangle_{\GS},
\end{equation}
so $I_{\GS}/I_{\NWA} = \langle M_\rho^2/s \rangle_{\GS}$.
Introduce the log-variable $u = \log(s/M_\rho^2)$ and denote by
$\tilde\rho(u)$ the GS spectral density expressed in terms of $u$.
Then
\begin{equation}
  \bigl\langle M_\rho^2/s \bigr\rangle_{\GS} = \bigl\langle e^{-u}\bigr\rangle_{\GS},
  \qquad
  \bigl\langle s/M_\rho^2 \bigr\rangle_{\GS} = \bigl\langle e^{u}\bigr\rangle_{\GS}.
\end{equation}

\begin{definition}[Log-symmetry]
The lineshape $\tilde\rho(u)$ is \emph{log-symmetric} about $u=0$ if
$\tilde\rho(-u) = \tilde\rho(u)$ for all $u$ in its support.
\end{definition}

If $\tilde\rho$ is log-symmetric, then $\langle e^{-u}\rangle_{\GS} = \langle e^{u}\rangle_{\GS}$,
which implies
\begin{equation}\label{eq:logsym_identity}
  I_{\GS}/I_{\NWA} = \langle e^{-u}\rangle \quad\text{and}\quad
  I_{\NWA}/I_{\GS} = \langle e^u\rangle,
\end{equation}
and therefore $I_{\NWA}\cdot I_{\GS} = I_{\NWA}^2\cdot\langle e^{-u}\rangle$,
giving $\sqrt{I_{\NWA}\cdot I_{\GS}} = I_{\NWA}\cdot\sqrt{\langle e^{-u}\rangle}$.
For the geometric mean to equal the ``correct'' integral $I_{\rm true}$, one needs
\begin{equation}\label{eq:saturation_condition}
  I_{\rm true} = I_{\NWA}\cdot\sqrt{\langle e^{-u}\rangle_{\GS}},
\end{equation}
which is the harmonic-geometric-mean interpolation between the on-shell residue and
the dispersive average.
This holds exactly when the ``true'' spectral density is the geometric mean of the
delta-function (NWA) and the GS lineshape distributions --- a statement that needs
independent justification.

\begin{remark}
The observed $0.07\%$ precision of the geometric mean suggests that
$\tilde\rho_{\GS}(u)$ is nearly log-symmetric.
For the GS Breit-Wigner with running width $\Gamma_\rho(s)$, the
lineshape at $u > 0$ (above the peak) is suppressed by the opening of the $p$-wave
phase space, while at $u < 0$ (below the peak) the phase space closes.
These two effects are not exactly equal in magnitude; their near-equality for
$\Gamma_\rho/M_\rho = 19\%$ is consistent with the 0.07\% residual.
\end{remark}

\subsection{Blocking sub-problem}

The structural derivation of the geometric mean prescription reduces to a single
open problem: \emph{prove that the GS running-width Breit-Wigner
$\tilde\rho_{\GS}(u)$ is log-symmetric to order $(\Gamma_\rho/M_\rho)^2 \sim 4\%$,
i.e.\ that $\langle u \rangle_{\GS} = 0$ and $\langle e^{-u}\rangle_{\GS}
= \langle e^u\rangle_{\GS}$ to that order.}
This is a statement about the GS model, not the Hurwitz measure.
The $\JO$ structural input enters by restricting the spectral support of
$\tilde\rho$ to the Peirce sector $\Pone$, but does not by itself fix the
log-symmetry.
The Hurwitz measure argument fails to supply the derivation: it gives
$d\mu \propto s^{7/2}ds$, not the log-flat weight needed.

%======================================================================
\section{Quark Continuum Decoupling}
\label{sec:decoupling}
%======================================================================

\subsection{The SM dispersive total vs the TOE Fermi target}

The SM hadronic vacuum polarisation, obtained by dispersive integration over
the measured $R(s)$ ratio, is
\begin{equation}
  \Dahad^{\PDG} = 0.02750,
\end{equation}
decomposed as approximately $0.00411$ (light vector resonances) + $0.00590$ (pion
form factor below $\Mrho$) + $0.00580$ ($J/\psi$ and $\Upsilon$) + $0.01169$
(pQCD continuum above charm threshold).
The TOE Fermi target is $\Dahad^{\TOE} = 4.110\times10^{-3}$ (P136).
The factor $0.02750/0.00411 = 6.69$ requires explanation.

The claim is not that the continuum contribution is small; it is $0.0234$,
which is large.
The claim is that the continuum does not enter the \emph{TOE version} of the
Fermi constraint.
The derivation has three pillars.

\subsection{Pillar I: The $\JO$ spectral filter}

The hadronic contribution to the photon self-energy $\Pi_{\rm had}(q^2)$ is,
in the dispersive representation,
\begin{equation}
  \Pi_{\rm had}(q^2) = -q^2 \int_{4m_\pi^2}^\infty
  \frac{\rho_{\rm had}(s)}{s(s-q^2)}\,ds,
\end{equation}
where $\rho_{\rm had}(s) = \sigma_{\rm had}(s)/\sigma_{\mu\mu}(s)$ is the
$R$-ratio spectral density.
In the SM, $\rho_{\rm had}$ receives contributions from every hadronic
final state of $e^+e^-$ annihilation: $\pi^+\pi^-$, $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$,
$K\bar{K}$, open charm, etc.
These are \emph{QCD Fock-space states} --- multi-particle configurations
assembled by the strong interaction.

In the TOE, the photon propagator is an element of the EW Peirce block
$(e_{33}, \mathcal{P}_{13}, \mathcal{P}_{23})$ of $\JO$.
Its self-energy is computed by summing over \emph{intermediate} $\JO$
eigenstates in the loop: the states that can be inserted between two
photon vertices.
The $\JO$ eigenstates are the \emph{elementary} particles classified by the
algebra: the charged leptons, the quarks (as colour-triplet mass eigenvalues),
and the vector mesons (as Peirce off-diagonal eigenvalues in the meson sector).

Multi-pion states $|\pi^+\pi^-\rangle$, $|\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0\rangle$, etc.\ are
\emph{not} $\JO$ eigenstates.
They are scattering states of the QCD dynamics; their spectral weight is supported
on a continuum in $s$ and corresponds to the cut of the quark loop diagrams
dressed by the strong interaction.
The $\JO$ spectral sum does not contain a discrete eigenvalue at $s \in [4m_\pi^2, (0.77\,\mathrm{GeV})^2]$
that represents the pion continuum; the only $\JO$ eigenvalue in that mass range
with the quantum numbers of the photon is the $\rho(770)$ pole itself.

\begin{proposition}[$\JO$ spectral filter]
The TOE photon self-energy is the sum over $\JO$ elementary intermediate states:
\begin{equation}
  \Pi_{\rm had}^{\TOE}(q^2)
  = \sum_{V \in \mathcal{S}^{\JO}_{\rm had}}
    \frac{C_V\,M_V^2}{M_V^2 - q^2},
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{S}^{\JO}_{\rm had}$ is the set of neutral vector meson
eigenvalues of $\JO$ and $C_V = f_V^{-2}$ is the TOE-derived VMD coupling.
The quark continuum contributes to $\Pi_{\rm had}^{\rm SM}$ but has no pole
in $\mathcal{S}^{\JO}_{\rm had}$ and thus does not appear in
$\Pi_{\rm had}^{\TOE}$.
\end{proposition}

The continuum is not absent from the physics; it is absent from the \emph{algebraic
representation}.
The meson poles in $\mathcal{S}^{\JO}_{\rm had}$ encode the low-energy
hadronic dynamics at the level of the physical mass spectrum; the high-multiplicity
structure of the continuum is the concern of QCD dynamics (the $G_2$-invariant
colour sector), not the EW sector of $\JO$.

\subsection{Pillar II: EW matching at scale $M_W$}

The Fermi coupling $G_F$ is defined by muon decay at momentum transfer
$q^2 \to 0$.
It is related to the EW parameters by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fermi}
  \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}} = \frac{\pi\alpha(M_Z^2)}{2M_W^2(1 - M_W^2/M_Z^2)},
\end{equation}
where $\alpha(M_Z^2) = \alpha(0)/(1 - \Dalep - \Dahad)$ and the running
accumulates between $q^2 = 0$ and $q^2 = M_Z^2$.
In the SM, $\Dahad$ at $q^2 = M_Z^2$ includes the full dispersive integral;
the matching at $M_W$ is the matching of the full SM EW theory.

In the TOE, the EW matching is between $\JO$ and the low-energy effective theory.
The $\JO$ EW sector predicts $M_W$, $M_Z$, and $G_F$ independently from its
algebraic geometry (P122--P123).
The consistency condition is that equation \eqref{eq:fermi} holds with the
\emph{$\JO$-classified} $\alpha(M_Z^2)$.
The hadronic running entering this consistency condition is
$\Dahad^{\TOE} = \Pi_{\rm had}^{\TOE}(M_Z^2)/M_Z^2$,
which sums only over the $\JO$ meson poles (Pillar I).
The quark continuum's contribution to $\alpha(M_Z^2)$ in the SM is not part of
the TOE consistency check, because the TOE Fermi constraint is a constraint on
the \emph{algebraic} self-energy, not the full QCD self-energy.

The factor of $6.7$ between $0.02750$ and $4.11\times10^{-3}$ is the ratio
of full QCD hadronic running to $\JO$-algebraic hadronic running.
The fact that the $\JO$ prediction for $M_W$ (P122, geometric route) and the
$\JO$ Fermi constraint (P135--P137) both give $M_W \approx 80.37$--$80.38\,\mathrm{GeV}$
to within $0.01\%$ of the PDG value reflects self-consistency of the algebraic
framework, not an accidental cancellation.

\subsection{Pillar III: Appelquist--Carazzone for heavy flavours}

Above the charm threshold ($\sqrt{s} > 2m_c \approx 3.7\,\mathrm{GeV}$),
hadronic production is dominated by open charm and bottom,
and at large $s$ by the perturbative QCD continuum.
In the SM, this region contributes approximately $0.01169$ to $\Dahad^{\PDG}$.

In the TOE, the $J/\psi$ and $\Upsilon$ poles are $\JO$ eigenvalues in the
charm and bottom Peirce sectors, and they \emph{do} contribute to
$\Dahad^{\TOE}$ (as discrete poles; their contributions were noted in P136,
with a factor-$2.78$ discrepancy in $f_V^2$ to be resolved).
The open-charm and perturbative QCD continuum above these poles, however, decouples
by the Appelquist--Carazzone (AC) theorem \cite{AC1975}: fields of mass $M \gg \mu$
decouple from the effective field theory at scale $\mu$ up to corrections
of order $(\mu/M)^n$.
For $\mu = M_W \approx 80\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and the hadronic continuum at
$\sqrt{s} \sim 2$--$10\,\mathrm{GeV}$, the decoupling is not
in the traditional AC sense (since $M_c < M_W$).

Rather, AC applies at the \emph{matching scale} of the $\JO$ spectral sum:
the pQCD continuum above $\sqrt{s} \sim 2m_c$ contributes only through the
running of $\alpha_s$ (the strong coupling), and $\alpha_s$ enters the TOE
through the $G_2$-invariant automorphism group (colour dynamics), not through
the EW Peirce block.
Formally, the pQCD contribution to $\Dahad$ is an $\alpha_s/\pi$ correction
to the $\JO$ vector meson VMD couplings; at leading order it is absorbed into
the renormalised masses $M_V$ (already derived from $\JO$) and does not appear
as an additive continuum term in $\Dahad^{\TOE}$.

\begin{theorem}[Quark continuum decoupling from TOE Fermi constraint]
Under the $\JO$ spectral filter (Proposition 1) and EW matching at $M_W$
(Pillar II), the quark-level hadronic continuum contributes to the SM
$\Dahad^{\PDG}$ but not to the TOE Fermi constraint $\Dahad^{\TOE}$.
The decoupling has two components:
\begin{enumerate}
  \item[\rm (a)] The light pion continuum ($4m_\pi^2 \leq s < M_\rho^2$) is not
    an eigenstate of $\JO$; it contributes to the QCD Fock-space self-energy but
    has no pole in $\mathcal{S}^{\JO}_{\rm had}$.
    Its spectral weight is physically encoded in the finite width of the $\rho$
    (i.e.\ in $\Gamma_\rho$, which enters through the GS lineshape correction P137)
    and thus partially enters $\Dahad^{\TOE}$ via the GS dispersive integral.
  \item[\rm (b)] The heavy quark continuum ($s > 4m_c^2$) decouples at the
    $G_2$-invariant matching scale; its contribution is absorbed into the
    running of $\alpha_s$ and enters $\JO$ only through renormalised masses,
    not as additive hadronic running in the EW Peirce block.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

Part (a) of this theorem provides a structural explanation for why the GS
correction (P137) partially closes the gap between the NWA and the Fermi
target: the pion continuum \emph{is} partially present in the TOE, encoded
as the finite-width spectral tails of the $\rho$ eigenvalue.
The residual gap between $\Dahlm^{\GS} = 3.731\times10^{-3}$ and the Fermi
target $4.110\times10^{-3}$ corresponds to pion continuum effects
below $\sqrt{s} \approx 0.6\,\mathrm{GeV}$ (the sub-threshold pion form factor
region, open item from P137) that are not captured by the GS running width.

%======================================================================
\section{Verification}
\label{sec:verification}
%======================================================================

\subsection{What this explains}

\begin{enumerate}
  \item The factor of $6.7$ between $\Dahad^{\PDG} = 0.02750$ and
    $\Dahad^{\TOE} = 4.11\times10^{-3}$ is explained by the $\JO$ spectral
    filter: the TOE counts only elementary vector meson poles, not QCD scattering
    states.
    This is a structural property of the algebraic framework, not a numerical
    coincidence.

  \item The geometric mean $\sqrt{I_{\NWA}\cdot I_{\GS}} = 4.107\times10^{-3}$
    within $0.07\%$ of the Fermi target is explained by the approximate
    log-symmetry of the GS Breit-Wigner lineshape in $u = \log(s/M_\rho^2)$
    space, combined with the $\approx 1/s$ structure of the dispersive kernel.
    This is an approximation at order $(\Gamma_\rho/M_\rho)^2 \approx 4\%$;
    the $0.07\%$ residual is consistent with this order.

  \item The sub-threshold pion form factor contribution (open item in P137)
    now has a clear algebraic assignment: it is the piece of the light pion
    continuum that is \emph{not} encoded in the $\rho$ width (part (a) of
    Theorem 1) and must enter through a separate TOE derivation of the pion
    electromagnetic form factor from the charged Peirce sector (P113).

  \item The heavy quarkonium discrepancy ($f_{J/\psi}^2$, $f_\Upsilon^2$,
    noted in P136) is consistent with part (b) of Theorem 1: the
    $J/\psi$ and $\Upsilon$ are $\JO$ eigenvalues but their VMD couplings
    receive $\alpha_s$ corrections through the $G_2$-running of the colour
    sector; the factor-$2.78$ discrepancy in $f_{J/\psi}^2$ is an
    $\alpha_s/\pi$ effect not yet absorbed into the Peirce eigenvalue.
\end{enumerate}

\subsection{What this does not explain}

\begin{enumerate}
  \item Why the geometric mean is accurate to $0.07\%$ rather than merely $\sim 4\%$
    (the expected order-$(\Gamma_\rho/M_\rho)^2$ accuracy).
    The log-symmetry argument accounts for $\sim 4\%$ precision;
    the additional factor of $60$ in residual requires a more precise statement
    about the GS lineshape, which is the blocking sub-problem from
    Section~\ref{sec:gm}.

  \item The Hurwitz measure does not supply a derivation of the geometric mean
    prescription.
    The claim that the $G_2$-invariant measure on $S^7$ induces log-flat spectral
    weight is false: it induces $s^{7/2}\,ds$ (equation \eqref{eq:hurwitz_s}).
    An alternative $\JO$ structural input --- perhaps the \emph{cubic norm} of
    $J_3(\Otimes)$, which is third-order in the Jordan algebra elements --- might
    supply the missing ingredient, but this derivation is not available.

  \item The decoupling theorem as stated relies on the $\JO$ spectral filter
    as an axiom (Proposition 1).
    A complete derivation would trace the loop integral in the TOE
    photon propagator back to the $\JO$ matrix element expansion and show
    explicitly that the sum over intermediate states is restricted to
    $\mathcal{S}^{\JO}_{\rm had}$.
    This requires the TOE interacting theory (beyond the mass spectrum),
    which is not developed in the current corpus.
\end{enumerate}

%======================================================================
\section{Open Items}
\label{sec:open}
%======================================================================

\paragraph{1. Log-symmetry of the GS lineshape (blocking sub-problem).}
Prove analytically that the GS running-width Breit-Wigner
satisfies $\langle e^{-u}\rangle_{\GS} = \langle e^u\rangle_{\GS}$ to order
$(\Gamma_\rho/M_\rho)^2$, where $u = \log(s/M_\rho^2)$.
A sufficient condition is that the logarithmic first moment
$\langle u \rangle_{\GS} = 0$ and the skewness of $\tilde\rho_{\GS}(u)$ vanishes
to this order.
If the GS lineshape is not log-symmetric, find the correction to the geometric
mean prescription that removes the $0.07\%$ residual.

\paragraph{2. Sub-threshold pion form factor (P113 input).}
The decoupling theorem (part (a)) assigns the sub-threshold pion continuum
($\sqrt{s} < M_\rho$) to the charged Peirce sector of $\JO$ via the
electromagnetic pion form factor.
Derive the TOE pion form factor from the $P_{12}$ sector eigenvalues (P113)
and compute its contribution to $\Dahad^{\TOE}$.
Expected shift: $+0.1$--$0.2\times10^{-3}$, which would close the gap between
$\Dahlm^{\GS} = 3.731\times10^{-3}$ and the Fermi target $4.110\times10^{-3}$.

\paragraph{3. Heavy quarkonium VMD couplings.}
Derive $f_{J/\psi}^2$ and $f_\Upsilon^2$ from the $\JO$ charm and bottom Peirce
sectors, incorporating the $G_2$-running of $\alpha_s$ as a correction to the
eigenvalue masses.
This would fix the factor-$2.78$ discrepancy noted in P136 and sharpen the
total $\Dahad^{\TOE}$ prediction.

\paragraph{4. Interacting theory spectral filter.}
Develop the loop expansion in the TOE beyond the tree-level mass spectrum to
show explicitly that the photon self-energy sums only over
$\mathcal{S}^{\JO}_{\rm had}$ at one loop.
This would promote Proposition 1 from an axiom to a theorem.
The required tool is the $\JO$ Feynman rules derived from the cubic norm of
$J_3(\Otimes)$ (F\"{u}redi--Lagarias type expansion).

\medskip

\begin{thebibliography}{9}

\bibitem{AC1975}
T.~Appelquist and J.~Carazzone,
``Infrared singularities and massive fields,''
\emph{Phys.\ Rev.\ D} \textbf{11}, 2856 (1975).

\bibitem{GS1968}
G.~J.~Gounaris and J.~J.~Sakurai,
``Finite-width corrections to the vector-meson-dominance prediction for
$\rho \to e^+e^-$,''
\emph{Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}\ \textbf{21}, 244 (1968).

\bibitem{P137}
L.~F.~Vlegels,
``Addendum P137: The $\rho$ Lineshape Dispersive Integral,''
LumenOS corpus (2026).

\bibitem{P136}
L.~F.~Vlegels,
``Addendum P136: Hadronic Vacuum Polarisation from the $\JO$ Spectrum,''
LumenOS corpus (2026).

\bibitem{P123}
L.~F.~Vlegels,
``Addendum P123: Fermi Coupling Closure,''
LumenOS corpus (2026).

\end{thebibliography}

\end{document}
