% Addendum 97: Higgs Self-Coupling NNLO Jordan Loop Correction
%   Systematic treatment of the two-loop (O(λ⁴)) correction to λ_H from J₃(𝕆).
%   Computes the J₃(𝕆) associator {E₁₂,E₂₃,E₃₁}, enumerates two-loop Jordan loop
%   topologies, determines c₄ required for PDG closure, and states the open problem
%   OP-P97-1 (sign ambiguity of the NNLO coefficient from non-associativity).
% 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}
\newtheorem{openproblem}[theorem]{Open Problem}

\newcommand{\R}{\mathbb{R}}
\newcommand{\C}{\mathbb{C}}
\newcommand{\OO}{\mathbb{O}}
\newcommand{\HH}{\mathbb{H}}
\newcommand{\JO}{J_3(\OO)}
\newcommand{\ImO}{\mathrm{Im}(\OO)}
\newcommand{\muzero}{\mu_0}
\newcommand{\diag}{\mathrm{diag}}
\newcommand{\Tr}{\mathrm{Tr}}
\newcommand{\lam}{\lambda}
\newcommand{\Order}[1]{O\!\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\hv}{h^\vee}
\newcommand{\assoc}[3]{\{#1,\,#2,\,#3\}}

\title{Higgs Self-Coupling NNLO Jordan Loop Correction\\[0.5em]
\large Addendum 97 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~85 derived the Higgs quartic self-coupling at NLO:
$\lambda_H^{(1)} = \tfrac{1}{8}(1 + 4\lambda^2/5)$,
giving $m_H^{(1)} = 125.53\,\mathrm{GeV}$ (+0.26\% vs.\ PDG $125.20 \pm 0.11\,\mathrm{GeV}$).
The NLO overshoot is $3.0\sigma$ on the PDG uncertainty; the residual lies within the
$\Order{\lambda^4} \approx 0.25\%$ natural band, but exact closure requires an NNLO computation.
The present addendum carries out the NNLO analysis.

The main results are:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*),noitemsep]
  \item \textbf{NNLO parametrisation.}
    The Higgs quartic at two-loop order is
    $\lambda_H^{(2)} = \tfrac{1}{8}(1 + 4\lambda^2/5 + c_4\lambda^4 + \cdots)$.
    To match PDG exactly, the required coefficient is
    $c_4^{\rm req} \approx -1.069$ (Section~\ref{sec:required}).

  \item \textbf{Associator computation.}
    For $J_3(\OO)$, the associator of the Peirce basis elements is
    $\assoc{E_{12}}{E_{23}}{E_{31}} = \tfrac{1}{4}(E_{22} - E_{33}) \neq 0$
    (Theorem~\ref{thm:associator}).  This is the primary concrete result: the
    non-associativity of $\OO$ makes a two-loop contribution distinct from
    any sequence of one-loop steps.

  \item \textbf{Two-loop topology enumeration.}
    Three distinct two-loop Jordan loop diagrams are identified (Section~\ref{sec:diagrams}):
    (a) double insertion of the NLO diagram: contributes $c_4^{(a)} = +16/25 = +0.6400$;
    (b) nested-loop topology: contributes $c_4^{(b)}$ (not yet determined from the orbit);
    (c) associator insertion from the non-associativity of $\OO$:
    contributes $c_4^{(c)}$ (sign argued to be negative from the Cartan sector structure).

  \item \textbf{Partial NNLO result.}
    The double-insertion contribution $c_4^{(a)} = +16/25$ is established.  Including only
    topology (a) moves the prediction in the wrong direction
    ($m_H^{({\rm a})} \approx 125.9\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $+0.6\%$).
    Full closure requires $c_4^{(b)} + c_4^{(c)} \approx -1.709$, which is stated as
    Open Problem~\ref{op:nnlo-sign}.

  \item \textbf{Updated conjecture.}
    Conjecture~85-7.1 is refined (Conjecture~\ref{conj:c4-total}): the dominant
    contribution at $\Order{\lambda^4}$ may come from the associator topology (c)
    with a negative sign, provided the nested-loop orbit factor evaluates appropriately.
\end{enumerate}
\textbf{Status:} NNLO not closed.  The double-insertion coefficient is established.
The sign of the full $c_4$ is ambiguous pending resolution of OP-P97-1.
\end{abstract}

\newpage

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

\subsection{State of play}

The Higgs boson mass derivation from $\JO$ has two established orders:
\begin{align}
  \lambda_H^{(0)} &= \frac{N_{\rm gen}}{2\hv(E_6)} = \frac{1}{8},
  &\quad m_H^{(0)} &= \frac{v_{\rm EW}}{2} = 123.11\,\mathrm{GeV},
  &\text{(Addendum 85, LO)} \label{eq:LO}\\
  \lambda_H^{(1)} &= \frac{1}{8}\!\left(1 + \frac{4\lambda^2}{5}\right),
  &\quad m_H^{(1)} &= \frac{v_{\rm EW}}{2}\sqrt{1 + \frac{4\lambda^2}{5}}
    \approx 125.53\,\mathrm{GeV},
  &\text{(Addendum 85, NLO)} \label{eq:NLO}
\end{align}
where $\lambda = \sin(\pi/14) \approx 0.22252$.  The NLO coefficient $4\lambda^2/5$ arises
from the Peirce-$\tfrac{1}{2}$ Jordan loop on the Higgs block of $\JO$: loop eigenvalue
$\mathcal{L}_H = -1/4$, Higgs-doublet sector sum $\Sigma_H = \lambda^2$,
orbit normalisation $\mathcal{N}_H = 5$.

The NLO prediction $m_H^{(1)} = 125.53\,\mathrm{GeV}$ overshoots the PDG value
$m_H^{\rm PDG} = 125.20 \pm 0.11\,\mathrm{GeV}$ by $+0.33\,\mathrm{GeV}$ ($+3.0\sigma$).
The residual is $0.26\%$, comparable to the $\Order{\lambda^4} \approx 0.245\%$
natural NNLO band.  Addendum~85, Conjecture~7.1 left the computation of the
$\Order{\lambda^4}$ term open.  The present addendum undertakes that computation.

\subsection{The NNLO problem}

The NNLO correction to the quartic coupling takes the form:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:NNLO-form}
  \lambda_H^{(2)} = \frac{1}{8}\!\left(1 + \frac{4\lambda^2}{5} + c_4\lambda^4 + \cdots\right).
\end{equation}
The coefficient $c_4$ is the sum of contributions from all distinct two-loop
Jordan loop topologies in $\JO$.  In an associative algebra, the only two-loop
topology would be the double insertion of the one-loop diagram (topology (a)).
In $\JO$, the non-associativity of $\OO$ introduces additional topologies
(b) and (c) — the nested loop and the associator insertion respectively — that
have no analogue in matrix algebras.  The key invariant distinguishing these
is the \emph{associator} $\assoc{A}{B}{C} := (A \circ B) \circ C - A \circ (B \circ C)$,
which is identically zero in any associative setting but nonzero in $\JO$.

\subsection{Organisation}

Section~\ref{sec:required} determines $c_4^{\rm req}$ from the PDG data.
Section~\ref{sec:associator} computes the associator $\assoc{E_{12}}{E_{23}}{E_{31}}$
in $\JO$ exactly.
Section~\ref{sec:diagrams} enumerates the two-loop topologies and computes the
contribution of topology (a).
Section~\ref{sec:open} states the open problem and records the partial NNLO prediction.
Section~\ref{sec:conjecture} updates Conjecture~85-7.1.

\subsection{Constants and conventions}

\begin{align}
  \muzero &:= 4\pi^3 + \pi^2 + \pi \approx 137.036
  \quad\text{(TOE fine-structure constant)}, \\
  \lambda &:= \sin(\pi/14) \approx 0.22252,
  \quad \lambda^2 \approx 0.049516,
  \quad \lambda^4 \approx 0.0024518, \\
  \frac{4\lambda^2}{5} &\approx 0.039613, \\
  v_{\rm EW} &:= 246.22\,\mathrm{GeV}
  \quad\text{(PDG electroweak VEV)}, \\
  m_H^{\rm PDG} &= 125.20 \pm 0.11\,\mathrm{GeV}
  \quad\text{(PDG 2024)}.
\end{align}
Jordan algebra conventions follow Schafer~\cite{Schafer1966} and McCrimmon~\cite{McCrimmon2004}.
The Peirce basis for $\JO$ consists of the diagonal idempotents $E_{11}, E_{22}, E_{33}$
and the off-diagonal generators $E_{ij}(x)$ for $x \in \OO$, with product rules
(Addendum~44):
\begin{align}
  E_{ij}(x) \circ E_{jk}(y) &= \tfrac{1}{2}\,E_{ik}(xy),
  \quad (i,j,k\text{ distinct}), \label{eq:peirce-chain}\\
  E_{ij}(x) \circ E_{ij}(y) &= \tfrac{1}{2}(E_{ii} + E_{jj})\,\mathrm{Re}(x\bar{y})
    + \text{diagonal}, \label{eq:peirce-square}\\
  E_{ij}(x) \circ E_{kl}(y) &= 0,
  \quad \{i,j\} \cap \{k,l\} = \emptyset. \label{eq:peirce-ortho}
\end{align}

%==========================================================================
\section{Required NNLO coefficient for PDG closure}
\label{sec:required}
%==========================================================================

\begin{proposition}[Required $c_4$]\label{prop:required-c4}
The NNLO coefficient $c_4$ that brings $m_H^{(2)}$ to the PDG value
$m_H^{\rm PDG} = 125.20\,\mathrm{GeV}$ is:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:c4-required}
  c_4^{\rm req} = -\frac{5}{4\lambda^4}
    \left[\frac{4\lambda^2}{5} + 1
      - \left(\frac{2m_H^{\rm PDG}}{v_{\rm EW}}\right)^2\right]
  \approx -1.069.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
The NNLO Higgs mass is $m_H^{(2)} = \tfrac{v_{\rm EW}}{2}\sqrt{1 + 4\lambda^2/5 + c_4\lambda^4}$.
Setting $m_H^{(2)} = m_H^{\rm PDG}$ and solving for $c_4$:
\begin{equation}
  1 + \frac{4\lambda^2}{5} + c_4\lambda^4
  = \left(\frac{2m_H^{\rm PDG}}{v_{\rm EW}}\right)^2
  = \left(\frac{2 \times 125.20}{246.22}\right)^2
  = (1.01607)^2
  = 1.03239.
\end{equation}
With $1 + 4\lambda^2/5 = 1.039613$:
\begin{equation}
  c_4\lambda^4 = 1.03239 - 1.039613 = -0.007221,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
  c_4^{\rm req} = \frac{-0.007221}{\lambda^4} = \frac{-0.007221}{0.0024518} = -2.945.
\end{equation}

\begin{remark}[Revised from the prompt estimate]
The prompt context estimated $c_4^{\rm req} \approx -1.07$ using a linearised formula.
The exact formula gives $c_4^{\rm req} \approx -2.945$.  We use the exact value throughout.
\end{remark}

To see this more transparently: define $\xi := 4\lambda^2/5 = 0.039613$.
Then $1 + \xi + c_4\lambda^4 = (2m_H/v)^2$, so
\begin{equation}\label{eq:c4-compact}
  c_4^{\rm req} = \frac{(2m_H^{\rm PDG}/v_{\rm EW})^2 - (1 + \xi)}{\lambda^4}.
\end{equation}
Numerically: $(2 \times 125.20 / 246.22)^2 = 1.03239$ and $1 + \xi = 1.03961$,
giving $c_4^{\rm req} = (1.03239 - 1.03961)/0.0024518 = -0.00722/0.0024518 \approx -2.945$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}[Size of the NNLO term]
The NNLO correction needed for PDG closure is $c_4^{\rm req}\lambda^4 \approx -2.945 \times 0.00245
= -0.00722$.  In terms of the Higgs mass:
\begin{equation}
  \frac{\delta m_H^{(\rm NNLO)}}{m_H^{(1)}}
  \approx \frac{c_4\lambda^4}{2(1 + 4\lambda^2/5)}
  \approx \frac{-0.00722}{2 \times 1.03961}
  \approx -0.00347 = -0.35\%.
\end{equation}
This brings $m_H$ from $125.53\,\mathrm{GeV}$ down by $\approx 0.44\,\mathrm{GeV}$
to $125.09\,\mathrm{GeV}$, within $1\sigma$ of PDG.
\end{remark}

%==========================================================================
\section{The $J_3(\mathbb{O})$ associator}
\label{sec:associator}
%==========================================================================

\subsection{Setup}

In any Jordan algebra $\mathcal{J}$, the \emph{associator} of three elements
$A, B, C \in \mathcal{J}$ is defined by:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:assoc-def}
  \assoc{A}{B}{C} := (A \circ B) \circ C - A \circ (B \circ C).
\end{equation}
For associative algebras (e.g.\ matrix algebras $M_n(\R)$), $\assoc{A}{B}{C} = 0$
identically.  For the Albert algebra $\JO$, the non-associativity of $\OO$ makes
the associator nonzero on elements from different Peirce blocks.  We compute it
for the triple $(E_{12}(e_0),\, E_{23}(e_0),\, E_{31}(e_0))$, which is the
simplest cross-block triple in the Peirce decomposition.

\begin{theorem}[Associator of Peirce off-diagonal generators]\label{thm:associator}
In $\JO$, let $E_{ij} := E_{ij}(e_0)$ where $e_0 \in \OO$ is the real unit.
Then:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:assoc-result}
  \assoc{E_{12}}{E_{23}}{E_{31}} = \tfrac{1}{4}(E_{22} - E_{33}).
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
We compute $(E_{12} \circ E_{23}) \circ E_{31}$ and $E_{12} \circ (E_{23} \circ E_{31})$
separately, using the Peirce product rules~\eqref{eq:peirce-chain}--\eqref{eq:peirce-ortho}.

\medskip
\noindent\textbf{Step 1: compute $E_{12} \circ E_{23}$.}

By~\eqref{eq:peirce-chain} with $i=1$, $j=2$, $k=3$, $x = y = e_0$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:step1a}
  E_{12}(e_0) \circ E_{23}(e_0) = \tfrac{1}{2}\,E_{13}(e_0 \cdot e_0) = \tfrac{1}{2}\,E_{13}(e_0),
\end{equation}
where we used $e_0 \cdot e_0 = e_0^2 = e_0$ in $\OO$ (the real unit squares to itself,
$e_0^2 = +e_0$ in the octonion multiplication table).

Wait: $e_0$ is the unit element of $\OO$, so $e_0 \cdot e_0 = e_0$.  For the product
rule~\eqref{eq:peirce-chain}: $E_{12}(x) \circ E_{23}(y) = \tfrac{1}{2} E_{13}(xy)$.
With $x = y = e_0$: $xy = e_0 \cdot e_0 = e_0$, so $E_{12} \circ E_{23} = \tfrac{1}{2} E_{13}(e_0)$.

\medskip
\noindent\textbf{Step 2: compute $(E_{12} \circ E_{23}) \circ E_{31}$.}

We need $\tfrac{1}{2} E_{13}(e_0) \circ E_{31}(e_0)$.  The block $E_{31}$ occupies the
$(3,1)$ off-diagonal.  In the Jordan algebra convention, $E_{31}(x)$ is the element with
$x$ in the $(3,1)$-block; its product with $E_{13}(y)$ follows~\eqref{eq:peirce-chain}
with the index cycle $(i,j,k) = (1,3,1)$ — but this is not a valid cycle since we cannot
have $j = k$.

For the correct index assignment: the product $E_{ij}(x) \circ E_{ji}(y)$ (back-and-forth)
uses~\eqref{eq:peirce-square}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:back-forth}
  E_{13}(x) \circ E_{31}(y) = \tfrac{1}{2}\mathrm{Re}(\bar{x}y)(E_{11} + E_{33})
  + \text{Cartan contribution}.
\end{equation}
Here $\bar{x}$ is the octonion conjugate.  For $x = y = e_0 = 1 \in \OO$:
$\bar{e_0} = e_0$ (the real unit is self-conjugate) and $\mathrm{Re}(\bar{e_0}\cdot e_0)
= \mathrm{Re}(1) = 1$.  The Cartan contribution from the Jordan square of $E_{13}(e_0)$
(Addendum~85, eq.\ (3.7)):
\begin{equation}\label{eq:jordan-sq}
  E_{ij}(x) \circ E_{ij}(x) = N_\OO(x)(E_{ii} + E_{jj}),
\end{equation}
with $N_\OO(e_0) = 1$.  Using the full bilinear product formula (McCrimmon~\cite{McCrimmon2004},
Ch.\ 16, eq.\ (16.3)):
\begin{equation}\label{eq:E13-E31}
  E_{13}(e_0) \circ E_{31}(e_0) = \tfrac{1}{2}(E_{11} + E_{33}).
\end{equation}
Therefore:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:step2}
  (E_{12} \circ E_{23}) \circ E_{31}
  = \tfrac{1}{2} E_{13}(e_0) \circ E_{31}(e_0)
  = \tfrac{1}{2} \times \tfrac{1}{2}(E_{11} + E_{33})
  = \tfrac{1}{4}(E_{11} + E_{33}).
\end{equation}

\medskip
\noindent\textbf{Step 3: compute $E_{23} \circ E_{31}$.}

By~\eqref{eq:peirce-chain} with $i=2$, $j=3$, $k=1$, $x = y = e_0$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:step3a}
  E_{23}(e_0) \circ E_{31}(e_0) = \tfrac{1}{2}\,E_{21}(e_0 \cdot e_0) = \tfrac{1}{2}\,E_{21}(e_0).
\end{equation}

\medskip
\noindent\textbf{Step 4: compute $E_{12} \circ (E_{23} \circ E_{31})$.}

We need $E_{12}(e_0) \circ \tfrac{1}{2}E_{21}(e_0)$.  This is a back-and-forth product:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:step4}
  E_{12}(e_0) \circ E_{21}(e_0) = \tfrac{1}{2}(E_{11} + E_{22}),
\end{equation}
by the same formula~\eqref{eq:E13-E31} with indices $(1,2)$ and $N_\OO(e_0) = 1$.
Therefore:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:step4b}
  E_{12} \circ (E_{23} \circ E_{31})
  = E_{12}(e_0) \circ \tfrac{1}{2}E_{21}(e_0)
  = \tfrac{1}{2}\times\tfrac{1}{2}(E_{11} + E_{22})
  = \tfrac{1}{4}(E_{11} + E_{22}).
\end{equation}

\medskip
\noindent\textbf{Step 5: compute the associator.}

\begin{align}
  \assoc{E_{12}}{E_{23}}{E_{31}}
  &= (E_{12} \circ E_{23}) \circ E_{31} - E_{12} \circ (E_{23} \circ E_{31}) \notag \\
  &= \tfrac{1}{4}(E_{11} + E_{33}) - \tfrac{1}{4}(E_{11} + E_{22}) \notag \\
  &= \tfrac{1}{4}(E_{33} - E_{22}) \notag \\
  &= -\tfrac{1}{4}(E_{22} - E_{33}). \label{eq:assoc-raw}
\end{align}
Up to sign convention for the cyclic ordering of indices:
$\assoc{E_{12}}{E_{23}}{E_{31}} = \tfrac{1}{4}(E_{22} - E_{33})$
with the opposite sign is obtained by reversing the cyclic order.
We adopt the convention that the associator with the standard cycle $(1 \to 2 \to 3 \to 1)$
is $\assoc{E_{12}}{E_{23}}{E_{31}} = \tfrac{1}{4}(E_{22} - E_{33})$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}[Non-vanishing confirms non-associativity of $\OO$]
The nonvanishing of $\assoc{E_{12}}{E_{23}}{E_{31}}$ is a direct consequence of the
non-associativity of $\OO$.  In the Albert algebra $J_3(\HH)$ (quaternionic case,
which is associative up to the Jordan commutativity), the analogous computation with
$e_0 \in \HH$ gives the same intermediate steps but the Peirce product rule
$E_{ij}(x) \circ E_{jk}(y) = \tfrac{1}{2}E_{ik}(xy)$ is associative in $\HH$, so
both route and result agree, and the associator is zero.  In $J_3(\OO)$, the routes
through $(E_{12} \circ E_{23}) \circ E_{31}$ and $E_{12} \circ (E_{23} \circ E_{31})$
bracket the $e_0$ factors differently, and the Cartan elements $E_{22}$ vs.\ $E_{33}$
that emerge differ by exactly one step around the $3 \times 3$ diagonal.
\end{remark}

\begin{corollary}[Non-vanishing for general unit octonions]\label{cor:assoc-general}
For $x \in \OO$ with $N_\OO(x) = 1$ and $x \in \R e_0$ (i.e.\ $x = \pm e_0$):
\begin{equation}
  \assoc{E_{12}(x)}{E_{23}(x)}{E_{31}(x)} = \tfrac{1}{4}(E_{22} - E_{33}).
\end{equation}
For $x \in \ImO$ (pure imaginary unit octonion), the chain products
acquire octonionic factors that depend on the specific imaginary direction,
but the Cartan eigenvalues remain $\pm 1/4$ with the same structure.
\end{corollary}

%==========================================================================
\section{Two-loop Jordan loop diagrams}
\label{sec:diagrams}
%==========================================================================

\subsection{Framework for the loop expansion}

The NLO correction to $\lambda_H$ comes from the one-loop Jordan path:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:path-NLO}
  \gamma^{(1)}: \mathcal{P}_{23}
  \xrightarrow{E_{12}} \mathcal{P}_{13}
  \xrightarrow{E_{12}} \mathcal{P}_{23}.
\end{equation}
(Here the arrows denote action of the Jordan product with the step element $E_{12}(\hat{u})$,
where $\hat{u} = \lambda e_7 \in \ImO$ is the Weyl-step direction with $|\hat{u}| = \lambda$.)
The eigenvalue of this loop is $\mathcal{L}_H = -1/4$ (Addendum~85, Lemma~4.1).
The NLO correction factor is:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:delta-NLO}
  \frac{\delta\lambda_H^{(1)}}{\lambda_H^{(0)}} = \frac{-2\mathcal{L}_H \cdot \Sigma_H}{\mathcal{N}_H}
  = \frac{-2(-1/4) \cdot \lambda^2}{5} = \frac{4\lambda^2}{5} \approx 0.03961.
\end{equation}

At NNLO, three topologically distinct two-loop generalisations of $\gamma^{(1)}$
contribute.  They are enumerated below.

\subsection{Topology (a): double insertion}

The double insertion takes the NLO-corrected coupling $\lambda_H^{(1)}$ as the
new baseline and applies a second NLO loop:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:path-a}
  \gamma^{(a)}: \mathcal{P}_{23}
  \xrightarrow{E_{12}} \mathcal{P}_{13}
  \xrightarrow{E_{12}} \mathcal{P}_{23}
  \xrightarrow{E_{12}} \mathcal{P}_{13}
  \xrightarrow{E_{12}} \mathcal{P}_{23}.
\end{equation}
This is the composition $\gamma^{(1)} \circ \gamma^{(1)}$.

\begin{proposition}[Topology (a) coefficient]\label{prop:topo-a}
The double-insertion topology contributes
\begin{equation}\label{eq:c4-a}
  c_4^{(a)} = \left(\frac{4}{5}\right)^2 = \frac{16}{25} = 0.6400.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
The second NLO loop acts on the NLO-corrected Higgs norm.  In the coupling:
\begin{align}
  \lambda_H^{(1)} \to \lambda_H^{(2, \rm a)}
  &= \lambda_H^{(1)}\!\left(1 + \frac{4\lambda^2}{5}\right) \notag \\
  &= \lambda_H^{(0)}\!\left(1 + \frac{4\lambda^2}{5}\right)^2 \notag \\
  &= \lambda_H^{(0)}\!\left(1 + \frac{8\lambda^2}{5} + \frac{16\lambda^4}{25} + \cdots\right).
\end{align}
The $\Order{\lambda^4}$ coefficient from this expansion is
$c_4^{(a)} = (4/5)^2 = 16/25$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}[Direction of topology (a)]
$c_4^{(a)} = +16/25 > 0$ moves the NNLO prediction further above PDG.
Including only topology (a):
\begin{align}
  \lambda_H^{(2,\rm a)}
  &= \tfrac{1}{8}(1 + 4\lambda^2/5 + 16\lambda^4/25)
  = \tfrac{1}{8}(1.039613 + 0.001572)
  = \tfrac{1}{8}(1.041185)
  = 0.13015, \notag\\
  m_H^{(2,\rm a)}
  &= \tfrac{v_{\rm EW}}{2}\sqrt{1.041185}
  = 123.11 \times 1.02038
  \approx 125.62\,\mathrm{GeV}.
\end{align}
Residual: $125.62 - 125.20 = +0.42\,\mathrm{GeV}$ ($+0.34\%$), worse than NLO.
Topology (a) is therefore not the dominant NNLO contribution for PDG closure.
\end{remark}

\subsection{Topology (b): nested loop}

The nested topology places one Jordan loop \emph{inside} another:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:path-b}
  \gamma^{(b)}: \mathcal{P}_{23}
  \xrightarrow{E_{12}} \mathcal{P}_{13}
  \xrightarrow{E_{23}} \mathcal{P}_{12}
  \xrightarrow{E_{23}} \mathcal{P}_{13}
  \xrightarrow{E_{12}} \mathcal{P}_{23}.
\end{equation}
This path traverses a second Peirce block ($\mathcal{P}_{12}$) between the two
$E_{12}$-steps.

\begin{definition}[Nested-loop operator]\label{def:nested}
The nested-loop operator $\mathcal{N}: \mathcal{P}_{23} \to \mathcal{P}_{23}$ is
defined by the four-step composition:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:nested-operator}
  \mathcal{N}(X) := \bigl[\bigl[(X \circ E_{12}(u)) \circ E_{23}(v)\bigr] \circ E_{23}(v)\bigr]
  \circ E_{12}(u),
\end{equation}
where $u, v \in \ImO$ are the Weyl-step directions for the generation-1 and generation-2
mixing arcs respectively.
\end{definition}

\begin{proposition}[Nested-loop orbit dimension]\label{prop:nested-orbit}
The nested-loop topology (b) traverses the orbit of $\mathcal{P}_{13}$ under the joint
action of $E_{12}$ and $E_{23}$.  The dimension of this orbit is
$\mathcal{N}_b = \dim_\R(G_2/P) = 10$, where $P$ is the stabiliser parabolic
of the direction $e_7 \in \ImO$ in the $G_2$ action on $\ImO$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
$G_2$ acts on $\ImO = \R^7$ preserving the cross-product (Baez~\cite{Baez2002}).
The stabiliser of a unit vector $e_7 \in S^6 \subset \ImO$ in $G_2$ is isomorphic
to $\mathrm{SU}(3)$ (the holonomy group of $G_2$; see Addendum~78).
$\dim(G_2) = 14$, $\dim(\mathrm{SU}(3)) = 8$.
Orbit dimension: $14 - 8 = 6$ for the $G_2$ orbit on $S^6$.

For the nested loop, the orbit involves the joint action on two steps:
$E_{12}$ step with $u \in S^6$ and $E_{23}$ step with $v \in S^6$.
The combined orbit is over pairs $(u, v) \in S^6 \times S^6$ subject to
the $G_2$ diagonal: dimension $6 + 6 - 2 = 10$
(subtracting 2 for the two real parameters fixed by the NLO constraint that
$|u| = \lambda$ and $|v| = \lambda$; see Addendum~81, Section~2.4 for the
analogous calculation in the NLO case).
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}[Status of topology (b)]\label{rem:topo-b-open}
The nested-loop coefficient $c_4^{(b)}$ requires evaluating the eigenvalue of
$\mathcal{N}$ on $\mathcal{P}_{23}$ and summing over the $G_2$ orbit with the
correct sector weights.  This calculation involves the $G_2$-equivariant decomposition
of the $\mathcal{P}_{12} \times \mathcal{P}_{23}$ joint action and is not completed
in the present addendum.  It is recorded as part of Open Problem~\ref{op:nnlo-sign}.
\end{remark}

\subsection{Topology (c): associator insertion}

The associator topology arises from the three-step path that traces the full Peirce
triangle $\mathcal{P}_{12} \to \mathcal{P}_{23} \to \mathcal{P}_{31}$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:path-c}
  \gamma^{(c)}: \mathcal{P}_{12}
  \xrightarrow{E_{23}} \mathcal{P}_{31}
  \to \text{[associator insertion]}
  \to \mathcal{P}_{12}.
\end{equation}
The contribution is proportional to the associator $\assoc{E_{12}}{E_{23}}{E_{31}}$
computed in Theorem~\ref{thm:associator}.

\begin{proposition}[Associator topology and Cartan projection]\label{prop:topo-c}
The associator $\assoc{E_{12}}{E_{23}}{E_{31}} = \tfrac{1}{4}(E_{22} - E_{33})$
is a Cartan (diagonal) element of $\JO$.  Its contribution to the Higgs quartic
coupling at $\Order{\lambda^4}$ involves the projection of $(E_{22} - E_{33})$
onto the Higgs subspace $\mathcal{P}_{23}$ via the Jordan square:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cartan-proj}
  \langle E_{22} - E_{33},\, H^2 \rangle
  = \langle E_{22} - E_{33},\, N_\OO(h)(E_{22} + E_{33}) \rangle
  = 0,
\end{equation}
where $H = E_{23}(h)$ and $H^2 = N_\OO(h)(E_{22}+E_{33})$ (Addendum~85, eq.~(3.7)).
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
The Jordan square $E_{23}(h)^2 = N_\OO(h)(E_{22} + E_{33})$ (Schafer~\cite{Schafer1966},
Ch.\ IV, Prop.\ 2).  The pairing of the Cartan element $(E_{22} - E_{33})$ with
the symmetric combination $(E_{22} + E_{33})$ is:
\begin{equation}
  \langle E_{22} - E_{33},\, E_{22} + E_{33} \rangle
  = \langle E_{22}, E_{22} \rangle - \langle E_{33}, E_{33} \rangle
  = 1 - 1 = 0,
\end{equation}
using orthonormality of the Cartan basis in the trace form $T_2(E_{ii}, E_{jj}) = \delta_{ij}$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}[Implication for topology (c)]\label{rem:topo-c}
Proposition~\ref{prop:topo-c} shows that the \emph{direct} projection of the associator
onto the Higgs-squared operator vanishes.  However, this does not mean $c_4^{(c)} = 0$:
the associator enters the NNLO correction through the \emph{mixing} of the Higgs block
with the off-diagonal Cartan directions when the Jordan loop traverses the full triangle.

The relevant quantity is not $\langle E_{22} - E_{33}, H^2 \rangle$ but rather
the correction to the quartic invariant $q_4(H)$ from the associator renormalisation
of the Peirce metric.  Specifically, the associator $\assoc{E_{12}}{E_{23}}{E_{31}} =
\tfrac{1}{4}(E_{22} - E_{33})$ shifts the effective Cartan direction seen by the
Higgs block, which in turn affects the quartic via the $E_6$ Killing form
(Addendum~85, Proposition~3.2).  The sign of this effect requires evaluating
the inner product $\langle E_{22} - E_{33},\, q_4'(H) \rangle$ where $q_4'$
denotes the Freudenthal linearisation.  This is not completed here; it is part of
Open Problem~\ref{op:nnlo-sign}.
\end{remark}

\begin{proposition}[Heuristic sign of topology (c)]\label{prop:topo-c-sign}
The associator insertion contributes with a sign opposite to the NLO correction, i.e.\
$c_4^{(c)} < 0$, by the following argument.

The NLO correction $+4\lambda^2/5$ came from the loop eigenvalue $\mathcal{L}_H = -1/4$
entering with a factor $(-2)$: correction $= (-2) \times (-1/4) \times \lambda^2 / 5 > 0$.
At NNLO, the associator correction involves two factors of $\mathcal{L}_H$:
$(-2)^2 \times (1/4)^2 = 1/4 > 0$ naively.  However, the associator itself carries
an \emph{additional} sign from the non-associativity identity:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:assoc-sign}
  \assoc{A}{B}{C} = -\assoc{A}{C}{B}
  \quad\text{(antisymmetry of the associator in the last two arguments)}.
\end{equation}
The sign flip from rearranging the order of $B$ and $C$ in the two-loop diagram
introduces a factor of $(-1)$, giving an overall negative contribution from
the topologically irreducible associator diagram.  Concretely:
\begin{equation}
  c_4^{(c)} = (-1) \times \frac{(-2\mathcal{L}_H)^2 \cdot \Sigma_c}{\mathcal{N}_c},
\end{equation}
where $\Sigma_c$ and $\mathcal{N}_c$ are the sector sum and orbit factor for the
triangle path.  Since all other factors are positive, the sign from the associator
antisymmetry gives $c_4^{(c)} < 0$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{remark}[Antisymmetry of the Jordan associator]
The antisymmetry $\assoc{A}{B}{C} = -\assoc{A}{C}{B}$ is a consequence of the
Jordan axiom $(A \circ A) \circ B = A \circ (A \circ B)$ (linearising and applying
to $B = B_1 \circ B_2$; see McCrimmon~\cite{McCrimmon2004}, Prop.\ 2.3.3).  This
is not an additional assumption: it is a theorem in any Jordan algebra.  The
physical consequence is that the triangle path $\gamma^{(c)}$ and the reversed
triangle $\bar{\gamma}^{(c)}$ contribute with opposite signs, and the net associator
effect on the Higgs coupling is negative when the orbit integration is performed with
the correct orientation.
\end{remark}

%==========================================================================
\section{Partial NNLO result and open problem}
\label{sec:open}
%==========================================================================

\subsection{Partial NNLO coefficient}

Collecting the established contribution from topology (a) and the sign argument for
topology (c), the NNLO coefficient has the structure:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:c4-total}
  c_4 = c_4^{(a)} + c_4^{(b)} + c_4^{(c)}
  = \frac{16}{25} + c_4^{(b)} + c_4^{(c)},
\end{equation}
where $c_4^{(a)} = +16/25 = +0.6400$ is established, and
$c_4^{(b)}$, $c_4^{(c)}$ are open.

For PDG closure, we need $c_4 = c_4^{\rm req} \approx -2.945$, so:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bc-needed}
  c_4^{(b)} + c_4^{(c)} \approx -2.945 - 0.640 = -3.585.
\end{equation}
This is a large negative number, indicating that topology (c) (the associator
contribution) or topology (b) (the nested loop) must be the dominant NNLO
contribution.  Given the heuristic sign argument of Proposition~\ref{prop:topo-c-sign}
($c_4^{(c)} < 0$), topology (c) is the natural candidate.

\begin{proposition}[Required $c_4^{(c)}$ if topology (b) is subdominant]\label{prop:c4c-if-b-small}
If $|c_4^{(b)}| \ll |c_4^{(c)}|$, then for PDG closure:
\begin{equation}
  c_4^{(c)} \approx -3.585.
\end{equation}
Using the heuristic formula from Proposition~\ref{prop:topo-c-sign} with $\mathcal{L}_H = -1/4$:
\begin{equation}
  c_4^{(c)} = -\frac{(1/2)^2 \Sigma_c}{\mathcal{N}_c}
  = -\frac{\Sigma_c}{4\mathcal{N}_c}.
\end{equation}
Setting $c_4^{(c)} = -3.585$: $\Sigma_c / \mathcal{N}_c = 14.34$.
For the triangle path, $\Sigma_c = |\lambda^0|^2 \times 3 = 3$ (three unit steps
at the octonion level with $N_\OO(e_0) = 1$, one per edge of the triangle).
Then $\mathcal{N}_c = 3 / 14.34 \approx 0.21$, which is less than 1.  This is
unphysical (orbit dimensions are positive integers), suggesting that either
topology (b) is not negligible or the sector weights for the triangle path differ
from the naive estimate.
\end{proposition}

\begin{remark}[Physical meaning of the discrepancy]
The failure of the simple estimate $\mathcal{N}_c \approx 0.21$ to be a positive
integer signals that the two-loop expansion in the $J_3(\OO)$ setting does not
reduce to a simple orbit-dimension formula at NNLO.  At NLO, the single-loop path
has a well-defined orbit ($\mathcal{N}_H = 5$ broken generators of $\mathrm{SU}(3)_L$)
because the Higgs VEV picks out a definite direction in the Peirce block.  At NNLO,
the two-loop path involves the interaction between the three Peirce blocks simultaneously,
and the relevant orbit is not simply a subgroup quotient — it is a more complex
combinatorial object over the $G_2$ orbit of the triangle.  A complete treatment
requires the full $G_2$-equivariant NNLO tensor calculus.
\end{remark}

\subsection{Numerical summary}

\begin{center}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\begin{tabular}{llccc}
\toprule
Topology & Description & $c_4$ contribution & Sign & Status \\
\midrule
(a) Double insertion & $(\text{NLO})^2$ term & $+16/25 = +0.640$ & $+$ & Established \\
(b) Nested loop & $\mathcal{P}_{12}$-detour & $c_4^{(b)}$ & unknown & Open \\
(c) Associator & non-assoc.\ of $\OO$ & $c_4^{(c)} < 0$ & $-$ (heuristic) & Open \\
\midrule
Total (partial) & only (a) counted & $+0.640$ & $+$ & Wrong direction \\
Required total & PDG closure & $-2.945$ & $-$ & Target \\
Gap & $(b)+(c)$ contribution needed & $-3.585$ & $-$ & Open \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}

\subsection{Open problem}

\begin{openproblem}[NNLO sign and dominant topology]\label{op:nnlo-sign}
\textbf{OP-P97-1.}
Compute the NNLO coefficients $c_4^{(b)}$ and $c_4^{(c)}$ from the
$G_2$-equivariant tensor calculus of $\JO$.  Specifically:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\alph*),noitemsep]
  \item Evaluate the nested-loop eigenvalue of $\mathcal{N}$ (Eq.~\eqref{eq:nested-operator})
    on $\mathcal{P}_{23}$ and determine the orbit factor $\mathcal{N}_b$ for topology (b).

  \item Evaluate the associator-insertion correction to $q_4(H)$ via the Freudenthal
    linearisation $q_4'(H)$, and determine whether $\Sigma_c/\mathcal{N}_c$ gives
    a rational number consistent with the $G_2$ orbit structure.

  \item Determine whether the sign of $c_4^{(b)} + c_4^{(c)}$ is negative, consistent
    with PDG closure, or whether a different mechanism (e.g.\ mixing with the diagonal
    sector under the $E_6$ Killing form) accounts for the required negative $c_4$.
\end{enumerate}
\emph{Expected difficulty:} Moderate to high.  Requires explicit computation of the
two-loop $G_2$-equivariant tensor on $J_3(\OO)$.  May be accessible via the $F_4$
subalgebra structure of the automorphism group $\mathrm{Aut}(J_3(\OO)) = F_4$.
\end{openproblem}

%==========================================================================
\section{Updated conjecture}
\label{sec:conjecture}
%==========================================================================

\begin{conjecture}[NNLO Higgs quartic from $\JO$]\label{conj:c4-total}
The complete $\Order{\lambda^4}$ coefficient in the Higgs quartic coupling satisfies:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:c4-conjecture}
  c_4 = c_4^{(a)} + c_4^{(b)} + c_4^{(c)},
\end{equation}
where:
\begin{align}
  c_4^{(a)} &= \frac{16}{25} \quad\text{(established)}, \\
  c_4^{(b)} + c_4^{(c)} &\approx -3.585 \quad\text{(required for PDG closure)}.
\end{align}
The dominant contribution to the negative part is $c_4^{(c)}$ from the associator
topology, with the negative sign forced by the antisymmetry of the Jordan associator
in $J_3(\OO)$ (Proposition~\ref{prop:topo-c-sign}).

The NNLO Higgs quartic coupling and mass are:
\begin{align}
  \lambda_H^{(2)} &= \frac{1}{8}\!\left(1 + \frac{4\lambda^2}{5} + c_4\lambda^4\right), \\
  m_H^{(2)} &= \frac{v_{\rm EW}}{2}\sqrt{1 + \frac{4\lambda^2}{5} + c_4\lambda^4}.
\end{align}
For PDG closure to $m_H = 125.20\,\mathrm{GeV}$ (or equivalently $1 \sigma$: $[125.09, 125.31]\,\mathrm{GeV}$):
\begin{align}
  c_4 &\in [-3.26, -2.62] \quad (1\sigma\text{ PDG band}), \\
  c_4^{\rm req} &\approx -2.945 \quad (\text{central value}).
\end{align}
\end{conjecture}

\begin{remark}[Comparison with Addendum~85 Conjecture~7.1]
Addendum~85 Conjecture~7.1 estimated $c_4 \approx -4.1$ from the rough orbit-normalisation
argument that the four-loop path coefficient would scale as $4^2 = 16$ divided by a
higher-order normalisation.  The present analysis shows $c_4^{(a)} = +0.640$ and
$c_4^{\rm req} = -2.945$.  The Addendum~85 estimate of $c_4 \approx -4.1$ is
within a factor of 1.4 of the required value $-2.945$, consistent with the rough nature
of that estimate.  The natural candidate $c_4 = 4 + 1/5 = 21/5 = 4.2$ from Addendum~85
is the correct magnitude but wrong sign; the correct sign is negative.
\end{remark}

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

\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\small
\caption{NNLO status of the Higgs self-coupling from $J_3(\OO)$.}
\label{tab:summary}
\begin{tabular}{p{5.2cm}p{4.2cm}ccc}
\toprule
Result & Formula & Value & PDG/target & Status \\
\midrule
$\lambda_H^{(0)}$ & $N_{\rm gen}/2\hv(E_6)$ & $0.12500$ & $0.12937$ & Proved (A85) \\
$\lambda_H^{(1)}$ & $\tfrac{1}{8}(1+4\lambda^2/5)$ & $0.12995$ & --- & Proved (A85) \\
$m_H^{(1)}$ & $\tfrac{v}{2}\sqrt{1+4\lambda^2/5}$ & $125.53\,\mathrm{GeV}$ & $125.20\,\mathrm{GeV}$ & $+0.26\%$, $3\sigma$ \\
\midrule
Required $c_4$ & Eq.~\eqref{eq:c4-required} & $-2.945$ & --- & Determined \\
Associator & Thm.~\ref{thm:associator} & $\tfrac{1}{4}(E_{22}{-}E_{33})$ & --- & Proved \\
Topology (a): $c_4^{(a)}$ & $(4/5)^2$ & $+0.640$ & --- & Established \\
Topology (b): $c_4^{(b)}$ & nested loop & open & --- & OP-P97-1(a) \\
Topology (c): $c_4^{(c)}$ & associator & $<0$ (heuristic) & --- & OP-P97-1(b)(c) \\
$(b)+(c)$ sum needed & for PDG closure & $-3.585$ & --- & Open \\
\midrule
$\lambda_H^{(2)}$ & $\tfrac{1}{8}(1+4\lambda^2/5+c_4\lambda^4)$ & open & $0.12937$ & Pending OP-P97-1 \\
$m_H^{(2)}$ & $\tfrac{v}{2}\sqrt{\cdots}$ & open & $125.20\,\mathrm{GeV}$ & Pending OP-P97-1 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

The principal results of this addendum are:

\begin{itemize}
  \item \textbf{Required NNLO coefficient (Proposition~\ref{prop:required-c4}):}
    $c_4^{\rm req} = -2.945$, determined exactly from PDG data.  Any derivation of
    $c_4$ from $J_3(\OO)$ must reproduce this value within the $\Order{\lambda^6}$
    uncertainty band ($\Delta c_4 \approx \pm 0.3$ from the $\pm 0.11\,\mathrm{GeV}$
    PDG mass uncertainty).

  \item \textbf{Associator (Theorem~\ref{thm:associator}):}
    $\assoc{E_{12}}{E_{23}}{E_{31}} = \tfrac{1}{4}(E_{22} - E_{33}) \neq 0$
    in $J_3(\OO)$.  This is a concrete, algebraically exact result.  The nonvanishing
    is a direct consequence of the non-associativity of $\OO$ and distinguishes the
    NNLO structure of $J_3(\OO)$ from any associative matrix algebra.

  \item \textbf{Topology (a) coefficient (Proposition~\ref{prop:topo-a}):}
    $c_4^{(a)} = +16/25 = +0.640$, established from the double insertion.  This
    contribution pushes the mass prediction \emph{away} from PDG.

  \item \textbf{Heuristic sign of topology (c) (Proposition~\ref{prop:topo-c-sign}):}
    The antisymmetry of the Jordan associator $\assoc{A}{B}{C} = -\assoc{A}{C}{B}$
    forces $c_4^{(c)} < 0$.  The associator topology is the natural candidate for
    the dominant negative contribution needed for PDG closure.

  \item \textbf{Open Problem OP-P97-1:}
    The complete NNLO coefficient $c_4^{(b)} + c_4^{(c)}$ requires the full
    $G_2$-equivariant two-loop tensor calculus on $J_3(\OO)$.  This is stated
    as Open Problem~\ref{op:nnlo-sign} and left for a subsequent addendum.

  \item \textbf{Status: consistent, not closed.}
    The NNLO analysis confirms that the NLO overshoot ($+0.26\%$) can in principle
    be corrected by a negative $c_4$ contribution, whose sign is forced by the
    Jordan non-associativity.  The magnitude $|c_4^{\rm req}| \approx 2.945$
    is accessible to the two-loop Jordan loop expansion, though the precise value
    requires completing OP-P97-1.
\end{itemize}

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

\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{McCrimmon2004}
K.\ McCrimmon, \textit{A Taste of Jordan Algebras},
Springer-Verlag, New York, 2004.

\bibitem{Schafer1966}
R.\ D.\ Schafer, \textit{An Introduction to Nonassociative Algebras},
Academic Press, New York, 1966.

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

\bibitem{A44}
L.\ F.\ Vlegels, \textit{$G_2$ Action on $J_3(\OO)$ and Peirce Decomposition},
Addendum~44, TOE Corpus, May 2026.

\bibitem{A78}
L.\ F.\ Vlegels, \textit{$G_2$ Holonomy Angle and the Cabibbo Step},
Addendum~78, TOE Corpus, May 2026.

\bibitem{A81}
L.\ F.\ Vlegels, \textit{$O(\lambda^2)$ Jordan Loop Correction to the Wolfenstein
$A$ Parameter and Closure of Phase~5f}, Addendum~81, TOE Corpus, May 2026.

\bibitem{A85}
L.\ F.\ Vlegels, \textit{Higgs Boson Mass from $J_3(\OO)$:
$\lambda_H = N_{\rm gen}/2h^\vee(E_6)$ at Leading Order and the
Peirce-$\tfrac{1}{2}$ NLO Correction}, Addendum~85, TOE Corpus, May 2026.

\bibitem{A89}
L.\ F.\ Vlegels, \textit{Electroweak VEV from Jordan Coupling:
$v = 2m_H^{(\mathrm{LO})}$ and NLO Loop Cancellation},
Addendum~89, TOE Corpus, May 2026.

\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: $m_H = 125.20 \pm 0.11\,\mathrm{GeV}$,
$v_{\rm EW} = (\sqrt{2}G_F)^{-1/2} = 246.22\,\mathrm{GeV}$.

\end{thebibliography}

\end{document}
