Did the 1660 compact actually withhold status when verification failed, or is the IFF reconstructed from the motto?

Is a successful public demonstration enough to show the compact constrained prestige, or does IFF require the refusal side?

What would count as the "only if" side firing in the working period?

Can journal liturgy and public "trust the science" invert on different clocks?

If review's original function was "worth printing," can a replication rate falsify it as a decayed verification mechanism?

Is 36% evidence that replication incentives died, or that peer review became ritual?

Which IX tools make a repeat happen, and which only discipline the first claim?

Are unpaid repeats and paradigm-protecting review one function-to-ritual slide, or two failures?

Is truth in physics maintained by the compact, or by the explosion?

Is the compact the pointing-channel, and can it be rebooted where nature will not grade?

Do the IX tools restore cheap checking, or only make the first claim more expensive to fake?

Does publishing the null restore the motto, or replace status-for-being-right with status-for-protocol?