test: constness isn't it either — add the one unambiguous check, then stop chasing

CONST-Blend == runtime-Blend exactly (0 differ) and both miss the verbatim on the
same 126, so Blend's constness is not the variable. Five hypotheses, five dead.

Worse: one number I reasoned from was circular. "FORCENOINLINE == operator stack
: 5000/5000" cannot fail by construction -- it feeds S.Sdf to a carve and compares
against the density the stack computed from that same S.Sdf. It measures nothing,
and I read it as corroboration.

The two carve bodies are now dumped from the file and diffed: character-identical,
same translation unit. So one of expression / TU / input is not actually
identical, and the counters can't say which because the SDF comparison only ran
inside the mismatch branch.

Added: feed my carve the SDF the verbatim reports using and compare to the
verbatim's own output, plus count S.Sdf != VerbSdf directly with no enclosing
condition. That distinguishes "same function, same input, different output"
(measurement artefact) from "the SDFs were never equal outside the mismatch set"
(fault back in the lattice).

Proportion: this is the last build worth spending here. The port is already
verified where it matters -- SDF bit-exact 126/126, 0 isosurface crossings out of
20000, geometry identical, window-invariant, every box verdict brute-forced. The
open question is why the final rounding differs by 1-2 ULP, and no decision in
this project turns on it. If the check doesn't resolve it: accept, correct the
docs, strip the scaffolding, resume Phase 1 step 3.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

OPSTACK-PROGRESS.md

@@ -680,3 +680,50 @@ scaffolding, and **resume Phase 1 step 3** — the port is proven correct (SDF e
 the final rounding differs, 0 isosurface crossings).
 
 ---
+
+## 2026-07-27 — hypothesis 5 dead too. One unambiguous check left, then I stop chasing.
+
+```
+CONST-Blend   ==  verbatim      : 4874 / 5000
+CONST-Blend   !=  runtime-Blend : 0
+```
+
+`Blend`'s constness is **not** the variable: the const and runtime carve forms are bit-identical to
+each other, and both miss the verbatim on the same 126. Five hypotheses, five dead.
+
+**Worse, one of the numbers I reasoned from was circular.** `FORCENOINLINE == operator stack :
+5000/5000` cannot fail by construction — it feeds `S.Sdf` to a carve and compares against the density
+the stack computed *from that same `S.Sdf`*. It measures nothing. I read it as corroboration.
+
+The two carve bodies have now been dumped from the file and diffed: **character-identical, same
+translation unit.** So of the three things I keep calling identical — expression, TU, input — one is
+false, and the counters cannot say which, because the SDF comparison only ran *inside* the mismatch
+branch.
+
+**The unambiguous check added:** feed my carve the SDF the verbatim reports using, compare to the
+verbatim's own output, and count `S.Sdf != VerbSdf` **directly, with no enclosing condition**.
+
+- `Recon == Ver` everywhere **and** SDFs equal everywhere ⇒ same function, same input, different
+  output ⇒ the difference is a measurement artefact, not a code one.
+- SDFs differ ⇒ they were never equal outside the mismatch set, the earlier counter was misleading,
+  and the fault is back in the lattice after all.
+
+### Proportion check — this is the last build I would spend on it
+
+**The port is already verified on every axis that affects the game:** SDF bit-exact on 126/126, the
+lattice/hashes/`Capsule` exactly right, **0 isosurface crossings out of 20000**, geometry identical,
+window-invariant across threads, and every box verdict survives brute force. The open question is why
+the *final rounding* differs by 1-2 ULP — and no decision anywhere in this project turns on the
+answer.
+
+**So: if this check doesn't resolve it, accept and move to Phase 1 step 3.** An unexplained
+deterministic difference deserves real effort — it is a real bug often enough to be worth six builds —
+but not unbounded effort when every consequence of it is already measured and benign.
+
+**UNVERIFIED:** the check.
+
+**Next single action:** rebuild, read `UNAMBIGUOUS DISCRIMINATOR`. Then either fix or accept, and in
+both cases correct `OPSTACK-PLAN §2.6` / `AUDIT §C9` / the test's INFO text, strip the diagnostic
+scaffolding, and resume step 3.
+
+---