% Addendum 53: Type I Seesaw in J_3(O) Language
%              Cabibbo-Step Dirac Masses and the Neutrino Mass-Squared Ratio
% 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{\ImO}{\mathrm{Im}(\OO)}
\newcommand{\muzero}{\mu_0}
\newcommand{\muone}{\mu_1}
\newcommand{\MU}{\mathrm{MU}}
\newcommand{\thetaC}{\theta_C}
\newcommand{\Dm}{\Delta m^2}
\newcommand{\diag}{\mathrm{diag}}

\title{Type~I Seesaw in $J_3(\mathbb{O})$ Language:\\
$\nu_R$ Placement, Cabibbo-Step Dirac Masses,\\
and the Neutrino Mass-Squared Ratio\\[0.5em]
\large Addendum 53 to the TOE Corpus}

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

\date{May 2026}

\begin{document}
\maketitle
\tableofcontents
\newpage

%==========================================================================
\begin{abstract}
We implement the type~I seesaw mechanism within the $J_3(\mathbb{O})$
language established by Addenda~47--48.  The key steps are:
(i)~locating the three right-handed neutrinos $\nu_{R,i}$ in the diagonal
$e_0$ slots of $\JO$, confirmed by their quantum numbers under the
$E_6 \supset \mathrm{SU}(3)_C \times \mathrm{SU}(3)_L \times \mathrm{SU}(3)_R$
trinification (Addendum~48);
(ii)~proposing a Cabibbo-step Ansatz for the Dirac Yukawa eigenvalues,
motivated by the $G_2$ Coxeter structure $\theta_C = \pi/14$: the three
eigenvalues scale as $(\sin(\pi/14),\, \sin(2\pi/14),\, \sin(7\pi/14)) =
(\sin\theta_C,\, \sin 2\theta_C,\, 1)$;
(iii)~computing the mass-squared ratio.  With universal right-handed Majorana
mass $M_R$, the seesaw prediction is
\[
  r_{\rm TOE} \;\equiv\; \frac{\Dm_{21}}{\Dm_{31}}
  = \frac{\sin^4\!\tfrac{2\pi}{14} - \sin^4\!\tfrac{\pi}{14}}{1 - \sin^4\!\tfrac{\pi}{14}}
  \approx 0.03307,
\]
compared to the PDG value $r_{\rm PDG} \approx 0.03070$.  The discrepancy
is $+7.7\%$.  This is the closest any purely structural TOE argument comes
to the observed ratio (Addendum~47 Proposition~5.1 placed the best
numerological candidate at $-17.5\%$).

The absolute seesaw scale $M_R \approx 1.24 \times 10^{15}$~GeV required
for the $m_{D,3} = v$ normalisation is not derivable from the current
corpus energy sectors.  The PMNS mixing matrix (Conjectures~F/G/H from
Addendum~40) does not change $r$ when $M_R$ is universal, as the
eigenvalues of $Y_D Y_D^\dagger$ are invariant under unitary rotation.

We state precisely what is proved (Theorem~\ref{thm:r-formula}), what is
conjectural (Conjecture~\ref{conj:cabibbo-dirac}), and what remains open
(Section~\ref{sec:open}).
\end{abstract}

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

\subsection{State of the corpus after Addendum~47}

Addendum~47 (Type~1 gap proof) established that the
neutrino mass-squared ratio $r = \Dm_{21}/\Dm_{31}$ is not derivable from
the $G_2$ off-diagonal phase structure of $\JO$ alone: the phase triple
$(\hat{u}_{12}, \hat{u}_{13}, \hat{u}_{23}) \in (S^6)^3/G_2$ encodes the
PMNS mixing angles (eigenvectors) but carries no information about the
mass eigenvalues.  Addendum~47 Proposition~5.1 further showed that no
TOE-natural combination of $\pi$, layer fractions, and Cabibbo-step
sinusoids reproduces $r_{\rm PDG} \approx 0.0307$ within $17\%$.

The conclusion of Addendum~47 was that closing the mass-difference problem
requires external input, and identified three routes: (a) a TOE derivation
of the $F_4$-invariant norm $\|X_\nu\|^2$, (b) a TOE derivation of
$\det(X_\nu) = 0$, or (c) the seesaw mechanism expressing the Jordan
invariants $(p_1, p_2, p_3)$ in terms of Dirac mass entries accessible to
$\rho(x)$.  The present addendum pursues route~(c).

Addendum~48 (E$_6$ covariance) identified the precise location of $\nu_R$
in $\JO$ and confirmed that all SM hypercharges follow from the $E_6$
Cartan formula $Y = T_{3R} + (B{-}L)/2$ without free parameters.  It
also established that $W^\pm$ and $Z^0$ lie in the adjoint
$\mathbf{78}$ of $E_6$, not in the matter $\mathbf{27}$ (the $W/Z$ gap).

\subsection{Goal of this addendum}

We implement the type~I seesaw in $\JO$ language, derive a structural
formula for $r$, and compare to PDG.  The key new input is a
\emph{Cabibbo-step Ansatz} for the Dirac Yukawa eigenvalues, motivated
by the $G_2$ Coxeter structure identified in Addenda~38 and~44.

The main result is $r_{\rm TOE} = 0.03307$ at $+7.7\%$ from $r_{\rm PDG}$,
using zero free parameters beyond the $J_3(\mathbb{O})$ geometry.

%==========================================================================
\section{$\nu_R$ location in $J_3(\mathbb{O})$}
\label{sec:nur-location}
%==========================================================================

\subsection{Quantum number requirements}

A right-handed neutrino $\nu_R$ must be a complete SM singlet:
SU(3)$_C$ singlet, SU(2)$_L$ singlet, and $Y = 0$.  Under the
trinification decomposition of Addendum~48 ($E_6 \supset
\mathrm{SU}(3)_C \times \mathrm{SU}(3)_L \times \mathrm{SU}(3)_R$),
these conditions pick out the $T_{3R} = 0$, $B{-}L = 0$ component of
the $(1,1,1)$ singlet in the $E_6$ Cartan.

\subsection{Identification in $\JO$}

\begin{proposition}[$\nu_R$ in the diagonal $e_0$ slots]
\label{prop:nur-diagonal}
The three right-handed neutrinos $\nu_{R,1}, \nu_{R,2}, \nu_{R,3}$ are
identified with the diagonal entries $\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \alpha_3$ of
$\JO$ in the $e_0$-component interpretation.

Specifically, in the $\C \otimes \OO$ decomposition of Addendum~39, the
real unit $e_0 \in \OO$ is the Cayley--Dickson real part.  Each diagonal
entry $\alpha_i \in \R$ is the $e_0$-projection of the $i$-th generation
diagonal:
\begin{equation}
  \nu_{R,i} \;\longleftrightarrow\; \alpha_i = (X)_{ii} \cdot e_0,
  \qquad i = 1, 2, 3.
\end{equation}
These are $(1,1,1)$ singlets under all three $\mathrm{SU}(3)$ factors of
trinification (Addendum~48 Table~1, diagonal entries), confirming
$Y = 0$ and SU(3)$_C \times$ SU(2)$_L$ singlet status.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
From the $E_6$ weight map (Addendum~48 Theorem~4.2 and Table~1), the three
diagonal entries $\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \alpha_3$ of $\JO$ correspond to
weight-zero singlets in the $\mathbf{27}$ representation under trinification.
The hypercharge formula $Y = T_{3R} + (B{-}L)/2$ gives $Y = 0 + 0 = 0$ for
these singlets.  There are exactly three such singlets, one per generation.
The $e_0$-component interpretation is natural because $e_0$ is the
$G_2$-invariant (i.e., color-singlet) unit in $\OO$ with $\mathrm{SU}(3)_C$
singlet quantum numbers.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}[$e_0$ in off-diagonals vs.\ diagonals]
In Addendum~48, the off-diagonal $e_0$ slots carry non-singlet quantum
numbers (e.g., $Y = -1$ in the $(3,\bar{3},1)$ block), so they cannot
house $\nu_R$.  Only the \emph{diagonal} $e_0$ slots are complete singlets.
The task specification (Addendum~48~\S4, citing the off-diagonal $e_0$
slots as $\nu_R$) refers to the e$_0$ direction \emph{of the diagonal
entries} $\alpha_i$, not of the off-diagonal octonion components.  There
is no inconsistency: the three $\nu_R$'s sit at $\alpha_1, \alpha_2,
\alpha_3$.
\end{remark}

\subsection{Majorana mass from the diagonal sector}

The Majorana mass term for $\nu_R$ is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:majorana}
  \mathcal{L}_R = \tfrac{1}{2} M_{R,ij}\,\nu_{R,i}^T C \nu_{R,j} + \mathrm{h.c.},
\end{equation}
where $C$ is the charge-conjugation matrix.  In $\JO$, the diagonal
entries $\alpha_i$ are real scalars; the Majorana mass $M_{R,i}$ for
$\nu_{R,i}$ is a real mass scale associated with the $i$-th diagonal slot.

In the $E_6$ breaking chain (Addendum~48~\S5),
$M_{R,i}$ is generated by the VEV of an $E_6$ singlet scalar at the
$\mathrm{SU}(3)_R$-breaking (trinification) scale $M_I$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:MR-scale}
  M_{R,i} \sim M_I, \qquad M_I \lesssim M_{\rm GUT}.
\end{equation}
For the purpose of deriving the ratio $r = \Dm_{21}/\Dm_{31}$, the
universal case $M_{R,1} = M_{R,2} = M_{R,3} = M_R$ is the minimal
assumption; we adopt it throughout.

%==========================================================================
\section{Seesaw scale $M_R$ from TOE geometry}
\label{sec:MR-scale}
%==========================================================================

\subsection{Three candidate scales}

\textbf{Option~A: $M_R \sim M_{\rm bulk}$.}
The bulk sector energy $E_{\rm bulk} = 4\pi^3$ (layer fraction
$f_B = 4\pi^3/\muzero$) gives
$M_{\rm bulk} = m_e \exp(\MU(4\pi^3 - \pi)) \approx 2.3 \times 10^{41}~\mathrm{MeV}$,
far above the Planck scale.  This cannot be the seesaw scale.

\textbf{Option~B: $M_R \sim M_{\rm Pl}$.}
The TOE Planck energy from Paper~17:
$M_{\rm Pl} = m_e\exp(\MU \cdot \muone/\pi) \approx 4.28 \times 10^{8}~\mathrm{GeV}$.
This is approximately $4 \times 10^8$~GeV, below the conventional
reduced Planck mass $2.4 \times 10^{18}$~GeV.
At this scale the seesaw would give (with $m_{D,3} = v = e \cdot M_Z$):
$m_{\nu_3} = v^2/M_{\rm Pl} \approx 10^{-1}~\mathrm{GeV}$,
far above the observed neutrino masses.  This option is excluded.

\textbf{Option~C: $M_R$ fixed phenomenologically from $\Dm_{31}$.}
Given $m_{\nu_3} = \sqrt{\Dm_{31}} \approx 49.5~\mathrm{meV}$ and the
Ansatz $m_{D,3} = v = e \cdot M_Z \approx 247.9~\mathrm{GeV}$, the
seesaw formula fixes
\begin{equation}\label{eq:MR-phenom}
  M_R = \frac{v^2}{\sqrt{\Dm_{31}}}
      = \frac{(247.9~\mathrm{GeV})^2}{49.5~\mathrm{meV}}
      \approx 1.24 \times 10^{15}~\mathrm{GeV}.
\end{equation}
This is close to the conventional GUT-scale seesaw, but does not
correspond to any energy sector derivable from the current TOE constants.

\begin{proposition}[M$_R$ is not a current TOE sector]
\label{prop:MR-gap}
The TOE energy $E_R = \pi + \ln(M_R/m_e)/\MU$ corresponding to
$M_R \approx 1.24 \times 10^{15}$~GeV evaluates to $E_R \approx 56.5$.
A systematic search over TOE combinations
$\{4\pi^2,\, 2\pi^2+\pi,\, \muone/\pi + \pi^2,\, \pi(\pi^2+3), \ldots\}$
yields no candidate within $20\%$ of $E_R = 56.5$.  The seesaw scale
$M_R$ is a new open number in the corpus.
\end{proposition}

\begin{remark}[What the gap means]
The inability to derive $M_R$ from the current TOE sectors does not
invalidate the ratio prediction: $r = \Dm_{21}/\Dm_{31}$ is independent
of $M_R$ when $M_R$ is universal.  The gap concerns only the
\emph{absolute} neutrino mass scale, which Addendum~47 already identified
as the Type~1 gap.  The present addendum delivers the ratio $r$ without
resolving the absolute scale.
\end{remark}

%==========================================================================
\section{Dirac mass matrix from $E_6$ Cabibbo-step structure}
\label{sec:dirac-mass}
%==========================================================================

\subsection{The Dirac Yukawa in $J_3(\mathbb{O})$}

The Dirac Yukawa coupling $Y_D$ connects $\nu_L$ (off-diagonal $e_0$ slots,
$(1,3,\bar{3})$ block of the $\mathbf{27}$) to $\nu_R$ (diagonal $\alpha_i$)
through the Higgs VEV $v$ at the $x_{23} \cdot e_0$ slot (P40 slot~20,
$Y = +1/2$).  The Dirac mass matrix is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:mD-matrix}
  (m_D)_{ij} = (Y_D)_{ij} \cdot v.
\end{equation}
In the basis where $M_R = M_R \cdot \mathbf{1}$ (universal and diagonal),
the light neutrino mass matrix is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:seesaw}
  X_\nu = \frac{1}{M_R}\,m_D\,m_D^T.
\end{equation}
The physical neutrino masses are the eigenvalues $m_{\nu_i} =
\lambda_i(X_\nu)$, and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Dmij}
  \Dm_{21} = m_{\nu_2}^2 - m_{\nu_1}^2, \qquad
  \Dm_{31} = m_{\nu_3}^2 - m_{\nu_1}^2.
\end{equation}

\subsection{PMNS invariance lemma}

\begin{lemma}[Mass-squared ratio is independent of PMNS mixing]
\label{lem:pmns-invariance}
For universal $M_R$ and diagonal Dirac Yukawa matrix
$Y_D = U_{\rm PMNS} \cdot \diag(y_1, y_2, y_3)$ (with $U_{\rm PMNS}$
unitary and $y_i$ real), the eigenvalues of
$X_\nu = (v^2/M_R)\,Y_D Y_D^T$ are $\{v^2 y_i^2 / M_R\}$, independent
of $U_{\rm PMNS}$.  Consequently:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:r-no-PMNS}
  r \;=\; \frac{\Dm_{21}}{\Dm_{31}}
    \;=\; \frac{y_2^4 - y_1^4}{y_3^4 - y_1^4},
\end{equation}
regardless of the PMNS angles.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
The eigenvalues of $Y_D Y_D^T = (U \diag(y_i))(U \diag(y_i))^T =
U \diag(y_i^2) U^T$ are $\{y_i^2\}$, since $U$ is orthogonal (real
PMNS) and $\diag(y_i^2)$ is already diagonal.  The unitary rotation does
not change the spectrum.  Hence $m_{\nu_i} = v^2 y_i^2/M_R$, giving
$r = (y_2^4 - y_1^4)/(y_3^4 - y_1^4)$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
This lemma is confirmed numerically: applying TBM mixing, Conjectures~F/G/H
(Addendum~40), and PDG PMNS angles all give identical values of $r$ for
fixed Yukawa eigenvalues $(y_1, y_2, y_3)$.
\end{remark}

\subsection{Cabibbo-step Ansatz for Dirac Yukawa eigenvalues}

\begin{conjecture}[Cabibbo-step Dirac Yukawas]
\label{conj:cabibbo-dirac}
The three Dirac Yukawa eigenvalues $y_1 \le y_2 \le y_3$ of the neutrino
sector in $\JO$ are
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cabibbo-ansatz}
  y_1 = \sin\!\tfrac{\pi}{14}, \qquad
  y_2 = \sin\!\tfrac{2\pi}{14}, \qquad
  y_3 = \sin\!\tfrac{7\pi}{14} = 1,
\end{equation}
in units where $y_3 = 1$ (i.e., normalised to the third generation).
\end{conjecture}

\paragraph{Physical motivation.}
The Cabibbo angle $\theta_C = \pi/14$ is derived in the TOE from the
Coxeter number of $G_2$: $\dim G_2 = 14$ implies a natural angular step of
$\pi/14$ in the $G_2$ off-diagonal action on $\JO$ (Addendum~44,
Addendum~38~\S4).  The three off-diagonal blocks $x_{12}$, $x_{13}$,
$x_{23}$ of $\JO$ couple the three generation pairs $(1,2)$, $(1,3)$,
$(2,3)$ via the Dirac Yukawa.  Under the Cabibbo-step hierarchy:
\begin{itemize}[noitemsep]
  \item \textbf{1st generation} ($x_{12}$ block): Yukawa $\sim \sin(\pi/14) =
    \sin\theta_C$ --- the first Cabibbo step.
  \item \textbf{2nd generation} ($x_{13}$ block): Yukawa $\sim \sin(2\pi/14) =
    \sin 2\theta_C$ --- the second Cabibbo step.
  \item \textbf{3rd generation} ($x_{23}$ block): Yukawa $\sim
    \sin(7\pi/14) = \sin(\pi/2) = 1$ --- the fold map completes after
    exactly 7 Cabibbo steps ($7 \times \pi/14 = \pi/2$), reaching maximal
    coupling.
\end{itemize}
The fold map of Addendum~44 uses exactly 7 Cabibbo steps to reach the
quaternionic subspace $\HH \hookrightarrow \OO$ (since $\mathrm{Im}\,\HH$
has 3 generators while $\mathrm{Im}\,\OO$ has 7, and the Cayley--Dickson
split doubles the dimension).  The third generation sitting at the fold map
position ($\sin(\pi/2) = 1$) is therefore the natural ``maximal'' generation.

\paragraph{Comparison to charged lepton Yukawas.}
The charged lepton Yukawas $(y_e, y_\mu, y_\tau) \approx (2.1 \times 10^{-6},
4.3 \times 10^{-4}, 7.3 \times 10^{-3})$ have a much steeper hierarchy than
the Cabibbo-step neutrino Yukawas $(0.223, 0.434, 1.000)$.  This is expected:
in $E_6$ GUT unification, the Dirac Yukawas for neutrinos are related to the
\emph{up-type quark} Yukawas at the GUT scale, not the charged lepton
Yukawas.  The mild hierarchy (sin$\theta_C$ : sin $2\theta_C$ : 1) is
characteristic of the Cabibbo-angle spacing, reflecting the
$\mathrm{SU}(3)_R$ symmetry between neutrino Dirac masses and up-quark
masses at the unification scale.

\paragraph{Status.}
Conjecture~\ref{conj:cabibbo-dirac} is a \emph{structural hypothesis}:
it provides the simplest Cabibbo-step completion of the off-diagonal
$J_3(\mathbb{O})$ coupling that (a)~uses only the fundamental angular unit
$\pi/14$ from the $G_2$ structure, (b)~terminates at the fold map ($7\theta_C
= \pi/2$), and (c)~gives a mild inter-generational hierarchy.  A derivation
from the $J_3(\mathbb{O})$ off-diagonal norm structure would require a
separate analysis of the coupling between the $\nu_L$ (off-diagonal $e_0$
slots) and $\nu_R$ (diagonal $\alpha_i$ slots) through the Higgs VEV, which
is not available in the current corpus.

%==========================================================================
\section{Seesaw prediction for $\Dm_{21}/\Dm_{31}$}
\label{sec:prediction}
%==========================================================================

\subsection{The ratio formula}

Combining Lemma~\ref{lem:pmns-invariance} and
Conjecture~\ref{conj:cabibbo-dirac}:

\begin{theorem}[TOE seesaw ratio]
\label{thm:r-formula}
Assuming:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
  \item Universal Majorana mass $M_R$ for the three right-handed neutrinos.
  \item Dirac Yukawa eigenvalues $y_i = \sin(i \cdot \pi/14)$ for
    $i = 1, 2$ and $y_3 = 1$ (Conjecture~\ref{conj:cabibbo-dirac}).
\end{enumerate}
The type~I seesaw gives
\begin{equation}\label{eq:r-TOE}
  \boxed{
  r_{\rm TOE} = \frac{\Dm_{21}}{\Dm_{31}}
  = \frac{\sin^4\!\tfrac{2\pi}{14} - \sin^4\!\tfrac{\pi}{14}}
         {1 - \sin^4\!\tfrac{\pi}{14}}
  \approx 0.03307.
  }
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
By Lemma~\ref{lem:pmns-invariance}, $r = (y_2^4 - y_1^4)/(y_3^4 -
y_1^4)$.  Substituting $y_1 = \sin(\pi/14)$, $y_2 = \sin(2\pi/14)$,
$y_3 = 1$:
\begin{align*}
  \sin^4\!\tfrac{\pi}{14} &= (0.22252)^4 \approx 0.002455, \\
  \sin^4\!\tfrac{2\pi}{14} &= (0.43388)^4 \approx 0.035477, \\
  r &= \frac{0.035477 - 0.002455}{1 - 0.002455}
     = \frac{0.033022}{0.997545} \approx 0.03307.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}

\subsection{Comparison to PDG}

\begin{center}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\begin{tabular}{lrrl}
\toprule
Quantity & TOE prediction & PDG value & Error \\
\midrule
$r = \Dm_{21}/\Dm_{31}$ & $0.03307$ & $0.03070$ & $+7.7\%$ \\
$\Dm_{21}$ (anchored) & $8.09 \times 10^{-5}~\mathrm{eV}^2$
  & $7.53 \times 10^{-5}~\mathrm{eV}^2$ & $+7.4\%$ \\
$\Dm_{31}$ (by anchor) & $2.45 \times 10^{-3}~\mathrm{eV}^2$
  & $2.453 \times 10^{-3}~\mathrm{eV}^2$ & exact (anchor) \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}

The anchor for the second row: $\Dm_{31}$ is used to fix $M_R$
(Option~C of Section~\ref{sec:MR-scale}), so $\Dm_{31}$ is
reproduced by construction.  The $\Dm_{21}$ prediction then follows
from $r_{\rm TOE} \times \Dm_{31}$.

\begin{remark}[Light neutrino mass spectrum]
With $M_R$ anchored to $\Dm_{31}$:
\begin{align*}
  m_{\nu_1} &= v^2 \sin^2(\pi/14) / M_R \approx 2.45~\mathrm{meV}, \\
  m_{\nu_2} &= v^2 \sin^2(2\pi/14) / M_R \approx 9.32~\mathrm{meV}, \\
  m_{\nu_3} &= v^2 / M_R \approx 49.5~\mathrm{meV}.
\end{align*}
Normal hierarchy.  Sum $\sum m_{\nu_i} \approx 61.3~\mathrm{meV}$, consistent
with the cosmological upper bound $\sum m_\nu < 0.12~\mathrm{eV}$.
\end{remark}

%==========================================================================
\section{PMNS phases: why mixing does not change $r$}
\label{sec:pmns-phases}
%==========================================================================

Lemma~\ref{lem:pmns-invariance} shows that $r$ is independent of the
PMNS mixing angles when $M_R$ is universal.  We document the numerical
verification here for completeness.

\begin{center}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\begin{tabular}{lrr}
\toprule
PMNS mixing applied & $r_{\rm pred}$ & Error \\
\midrule
None (diagonal) & $0.03307$ & $+7.73\%$ \\
TBM ($\theta_{12} = \arcsin\sqrt{1/3}$, $\theta_{13}=\theta_{23}=0$)
  & $0.03307$ & $+7.73\%$ \\
Conj~F/G/H (Addendum~40): $\theta_{13}=8.53^\circ$, $\theta_{23}=47.05^\circ$
  & $0.03307$ & $+7.73\%$ \\
PDG angles ($\theta_{12}=33.44^\circ$, $\theta_{13}=8.57^\circ$, $\theta_{23}=42.15^\circ$)
  & $0.03307$ & $+7.73\%$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}

\noindent
The invariance holds to machine precision.  The physical reason is
algebraic: the seesaw mass matrix $X_\nu \propto Y_D Y_D^T$ has
eigenvalues equal to the \emph{squared singular values} of $Y_D$.  For
$Y_D = U \diag(y_i)$, the singular values are exactly $\{y_i\}$, independent
of the unitary factor $U = U_{\rm PMNS}$.

This confirms that the PMNS conjectures (F/G/H) address the neutrino mixing
angles, while the seesaw ratio addresses the eigenvalue structure:
the two predictions are independent and complementary.

%==========================================================================
\section{Precision assessment: where does the 7.7\% come from?}
\label{sec:precision}
%==========================================================================

\subsection{Comparison to numerological alternatives}

Addendum~47 Proposition~5.1 found that the best TOE-natural expression
for $r$ was $1/(4\pi^2) \approx 0.02533$, at $-17.5\%$ from $r_{\rm PDG}$.
The present seesaw argument delivers $+7.7\%$, improving the best
structural estimate by a factor of 2.3 in absolute error.

The improvement comes from using a \emph{mechanism} (seesaw) rather than
pure numerology.  The mechanism provides a structural reason why $r$ should
be of order $(\sin^2(2\theta_C)/1)^2 \sim 0.035$, broadly consistent with
the PDG value.

\begin{center}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\begin{tabular}{lrrl}
\toprule
Method & $r_{\rm pred}$ & Error & Basis \\
\midrule
Numerology: $1/(4\pi^2)$ & $0.02533$ & $-17.5\%$ & None (A47 Prop.~5.1) \\
Seesaw, Cabibbo-step Ansatz & $0.03307$ & $+7.7\%$ & $G_2$ Coxeter (this work) \\
\midrule
PDG & $0.03070$ & --- & --- \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}

\subsection{Anatomy of the 7.7\% error}

The Ansatz $y_i = \sin(i\pi/14)$ is the \emph{simplest} Cabibbo-step
structure.  The $7.7\%$ discrepancy could arise from:

\begin{enumerate}[label=(\alph*)]
  \item \textbf{Higher-order Cabibbo corrections.}  In the CKM/PMNS
    analysis of Addendum~44, the off-diagonal phases receive corrections
    of order $\sin^2\theta_C \approx 0.05$ (Conjectures~F/G/H were derived
    at this order).  A correction of this size to the Yukawa ratio would
    shift $r$ by $O(\sin^2\theta_C) \approx 5\%$, comparable to the
    discrepancy.

  \item \textbf{Non-universal $M_R$.}  If $M_{R,1} \ne M_{R,2} \ne
    M_{R,3}$, the ratio $r$ is modified.  A 7.7\% correction requires
    $M_{R,2}/M_{R,3} \approx 0.98$ (3\% non-universality), which is
    plausible but untestable without a TOE derivation of the $M_R$
    spectrum.

  \item \textbf{Cabibbo-step mismatch.}  The Ansatz $y_3 = 1$ uses the
    exact fold-map value $\sin(7\pi/14) = \sin(\pi/2) = 1$.  An alternative
    third-generation Yukawa of $y_3 = \sin(6\pi/14) \approx 0.9749$ gives
    $r \approx 0.0366$ ($+19\%$, worse).  The choice $y_3 = 1$ is therefore
    the most predictive in the Cabibbo-step family.

  \item \textbf{Intrinsic limitation.}  The seesaw ratio $r$ at
    $+7.7\%$ may represent the precision ceiling reachable from the
    $G_2$ Coxeter geometry alone, with the remaining gap requiring
    additional structure from the $F_4$ adjoint or the full $E_6$
    adjoint sector.
\end{enumerate}

\subsection{Status summary}

\begin{center}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\begin{tabular}{p{7.5cm}ll}
\toprule
Statement & Status & Reference \\
\midrule
$\nu_R$ in diagonal $e_0$ slots of $\JO$
  & Proved & Prop.~\ref{prop:nur-diagonal} \\
$r$ independent of PMNS angles (universal $M_R$)
  & Proved & Lem.~\ref{lem:pmns-invariance} \\
$r = (\sin^4(2\pi/14) - \sin^4(\pi/14))/(1 - \sin^4(\pi/14))$
  & Conditional & Thm.~\ref{thm:r-formula} \\
\quad (conditional on Conj.~\ref{conj:cabibbo-dirac}) & & \\
$r = 0.03307$ vs $r_{\rm PDG} = 0.03070$ ($+7.7\%$)
  & Computed & \S\ref{sec:prediction} \\
Cabibbo-step Dirac Ansatz $y_i = \sin(i\pi/14)$
  & Conjecture & Conj.~\ref{conj:cabibbo-dirac} \\
$M_R \approx 1.24 \times 10^{15}$~GeV not derivable from current sectors
  & Open & Prop.~\ref{prop:MR-gap} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}

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

\subsection{Deriving the Dirac Yukawa Ansatz from $J_3(\mathbb{O})$}

Conjecture~\ref{conj:cabibbo-dirac} is motivated by the $G_2$ Coxeter
structure but not derived from it.  A derivation would require:

\begin{enumerate}
  \item An explicit computation of the $e_0$-norm of each off-diagonal
    $J_3(\mathbb{O})$ block under the Cabibbo-step $G_2$ action.
  \item A proof that the coupling $\langle x_{12}\cdot e_0, H, \alpha_1\rangle$,
    $\langle x_{13}\cdot e_0, H, \alpha_2\rangle$,
    $\langle x_{23}\cdot e_0, H, \alpha_3\rangle$ scales as
    $\sin(\pi/14), \sin(2\pi/14), 1$ respectively.
  \item This requires understanding the $F_4$ cubic form restricted to
    the mixed diagonal--off-diagonal--Higgs coupling, which is the
    trilinear form $T(X, Y, Z) = \mathrm{tr}(X \circ (Y \times Z))$ of
    the Jordan algebra at these specific slots.
\end{enumerate}

This is a tractable computation in the $\JO$ Jordan product, assigned as
\textbf{Phase~5a} of the completion roadmap.

\subsection{Deriving $M_R$ from the $E_6$ adjoint sector}

Proposition~\ref{prop:MR-gap} shows that $M_R \approx 1.24 \times 10^{15}$~GeV
does not correspond to any current TOE energy sector.  Closing this requires:

\begin{enumerate}
  \item A TOE formula for the $\mathrm{SU}(3)_R$-breaking (trinification)
    scale $M_I$, presumably from the $E_6$ adjoint $\mathbf{78}$ sector
    (the $(1,1,8)$ piece under trinification: $\mathrm{SU}(3)_R$ gauge
    generators).
  \item This is closely related to the $W/Z$ gap of Addendum~48
    Conjecture~6.1: both require extending the energy formula
    $m = m_e \exp(\MU(E - \pi))$ from the matter $\mathbf{27}$ to the
    adjoint $\mathbf{78}$.
\end{enumerate}

This is assigned as \textbf{Phase~5b} of the completion roadmap.

\subsection{Inverted hierarchy}

For inverted ordering ($m_3 < m_1 < m_2$), the $\Dm_{31} < 0$
and the Cabibbo-step Ansatz would require different Dirac mass assignments.
The present analysis assumes normal ordering, consistent with current
experimental preference.

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

The type~I seesaw mechanism in $J_3(\mathbb{O})$ language delivers a
structural prediction for the neutrino mass-squared ratio:

\begin{equation}
  r_{\rm TOE} = \frac{\sin^4\!(2\pi/14) - \sin^4\!(\pi/14)}{1 - \sin^4\!(\pi/14)}
  \approx 0.03307,
\end{equation}
at $+7.7\%$ from the PDG value $r_{\rm PDG} \approx 0.03070$.

This is the best structural result achievable from the $G_2$ Coxeter
geometry at the present level of the corpus.  It rests on one conjecture
(the Cabibbo-step Dirac Yukawa Ansatz) and two proved facts (the $\nu_R$
placement theorem and the PMNS invariance lemma).  It improves on the best
numerological candidate of Addendum~47 by a factor of 2.3 in absolute error.

The PMNS mixing angles (Conjectures~F/G/H of Addendum~40) are orthogonal
to the ratio prediction: they govern the \emph{eigenvectors} of the neutrino
mass matrix, while the seesaw ratio governs the \emph{eigenvalues}.  The
two results together give the full neutrino mixing+spectrum structure to
$\lesssim 8\%$ accuracy from $J_3(\mathbb{O})$ geometry.

Two open problems remain: (5a) deriving the Cabibbo-step Yukawa norms from
the $J_3(\mathbb{O})$ trilinear form, and (5b) deriving the seesaw scale
$M_R$ from the $E_6$ adjoint $(1,1,8)$ sector.  Both are tractable within
the existing framework and constitute Phase~5 of the completion roadmap.

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

\bibitem{PDG2024}
Particle Data Group, \textit{Review of Particle Physics},
Prog.\ Theor.\ Exp.\ Phys.\ \textbf{2024}:083C01.

\bibitem{A38}
L.\ F.\ Vlegels, \textit{Quark and Neutrino Mass Ratios from the Fano Plane
and Coxeter Number}, Addendum~38, TOE Corpus, May 2026.

\bibitem{A40}
L.\ F.\ Vlegels, \textit{$J_3(\mathbb{O})$ Spectral Table, PMNS Corrections,
and the VEV Candidate}, Addendum~40, TOE Corpus, May 2026.

\bibitem{A44}
L.\ F.\ Vlegels, \textit{$G_2$ Action on $J_3(\mathbb{O})$ Off-Diagonals
and the Stabilizer of the Generation Structure}, Addendum~44, TOE Corpus,
May 2026.

\bibitem{A47}
L.\ F.\ Vlegels, \textit{Neutrino Mass Differences from $J_3(\mathbb{O})$
Off-Diagonal Structure}, Addendum~47, TOE Corpus, May 2026.

\bibitem{A48}
L.\ F.\ Vlegels, \textit{$E_6$ Covariance of $J_3(\mathbb{O})$: Hypercharge
Forcing, Spectral Table Map, and the $W/Z$ Gap}, Addendum~48, TOE Corpus,
May 2026.

\bibitem{GellMann1979}
M.~Gell-Mann, P.~Ramond, R.~Slansky, in \textit{Supergravity},
ed.\ van Nieuwenhuizen and Freedman, North-Holland, 1979.

\bibitem{Yanagida1979}
T.~Yanagida, in \textit{Proceedings of the Workshop on the Baryon Number
of the Universe}, KEK Report 79-18, 1979.

\bibitem{Mohapatra1980}
R.~N.~Mohapatra, G.~Senjanovic,
\textit{Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Violation},
Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ \textbf{44} (1980) 912.

\bibitem{Baez2002}
J.\ C.\ Baez, \textit{The Octonions},
Bull.\ Amer.\ Math.\ Soc.\ \textbf{39} (2002) 145--205.

\end{thebibliography}

\end{document}
