The Second Law is asked only for a running energy bill. The allocation problem is then a finite budget whose growth cost includes maintenance. Metamorphosis is introduced as surplus energy, then pure Metamorphosis is "allocate everything to growth." Surplus and everything cannot both be the +1 pole. That is a floor plus leftover, not two poles a system can sit on.

Sensing and coordinating spend the leftover. Independence is supposed to mean no axis is a redundant description of another. The worked split is high-growth collectives versus high-growth loners (energy versus self-boundary). Energy versus information is only named as coupled costs. No case is given where the maintenance/growth mix changes and the sensing mix does not, or the reverse.

Even if energy is its own axis, Homeostasis/Metamorphosis glues keep-the-shape versus change-the-shape to stay-small versus grow. Surplus spent on a bigger copy of the same structure is growth without transformation. Maintenance spent to become a different shape is transformation without growth. The physics is not shown to force that glue.

The virus is the specimen of a telic system. Dilemma 2 is the inside line between part and whole, which the page distinguishes from the line between the system and the world. A virus particle is not a team of parts deciding who to optimize for. Dilemma 4 needs parts to coordinate. "Any telic system faces four" is then two constraints for a lone replicator and four for a composed one.

Sections 2 and 4 are written for systems made of parts. The overreach is the thesis sentence, not those sections. Read the four as the composed case and the virus as telic for energy and information only.

The composed reading is accepted. The remaining repair is to shrink "any telic system" to composed ones. A virus experiment would not change that sentence. The branch stops there.

A fifth survives by naming a resource that is not energy, boundary, information, or coordination, then moving it while those four are held fixed. Time, security, trust, and whether you lock a plan already get absorbed by those four words. A covering vocabulary will always swallow the candidate. The test shows redescribability, not that there are only four constraints.

The information trade-off is how much the model tells you about the world versus what it costs to find that out. The poles are cheap old data versus expensive live data, which glues cost to when the data was taken. A cheap live reading and an expensive archive are both possible. Mythos and Gnosis import tradition-versus-science, which the mutual-information score does not.

Caching is supposed to be why old data is cheap. Sensors are supposed to be why live data is expensive. That is a common pairing, not a proof the pairing cannot split.

A cheap live sensor cannot be typed on the stated poles: if it is Gnosis, cost is not the axis; if it is Mythos, "historical" is not. The branch stops at that named uncertainty. Pricing a thermometer would not settle which pole-name is load-bearing.

Independence is supposed to mean you can set one axis without setting another. Later, information and control cannot be posed separately: answering one changes the question of the other. Those cannot both be true of the same two axes. If they are not well-posed alone, they are not independent coordinates.

Independent may only mean you can write two numbers, while "not well-posed" means each number's worth depends on the other. Then the four-then-three move is about costs, not about two questions. Four scores can still be printed. Four independent constraints cannot be claimed if two of them are not questions on their own.

The other reading: information and control are not independent, and the four-row table is the overcount. Then three problems is the real count, and exhaustiveness was about four. The last section does not pick. The branch stops rather than inventing a fifth scoring rule.