SYNTHESIS: CROSS-REPORT CONSTRAINT SET

This section does not restate the preface or the audit rules. Its role is narrower: to extract the minimum constraint set implied by the mini-reports (Part II) that any candidate mechanism must satisfy simultaneously.

  1. Comminution burden and phase-state outcome

    Across the reports describing dust production, mid-air loss of macroscopic structure, and the fine-mode particle record, the dominant outcome is not "fracture into chunks," but rapid conversion into a high-order particulate phase (dust/aerosol) at scale (Rapid Macroscopic Aerosolization, RMA, where invoked).

    Constraint: any adequate model must account for (i) the implied surface-area work and (ii) the observed absence (or reduction) of intermediate fragment populations where claimed.

  2. Selective coupling by electrical properties

    Multiple records emphasize differential effects by material class: strong alteration of conductors and/or high-loss materials occurring alongside comparative survival of nearby low-loss dielectrics (paper/textiles/plastics) in the same local scenes (Selective Impedance Heating, SIH, in this dossier's standardized vocabulary where invoked).

    Constraint: the driver must include a coupling rule based on conductivity/permittivity/impedance, not solely on proximity to heat, flame, or mechanical loading.

  3. Non-diffusive thermal signatures

    Several reports frame "hot/cool" mismatches: apparent high-energy material changes without the expected diffusive heat footprint, and visible "fire-like" phenomena without the expected phase-change collateral signatures (e.g., steam behavior, ignition of adjacent cellulose) where those would normally be mandatory.

    Constraint: the model must explain how energetic material transitions can occur without producing a conventional, spatially smooth thermal history.

  4. Geometric localization and boundary sharpness

    The dossier includes repeated claims of sharply bounded damage geometries: clean planar discontinuities, cylindrical voids, node-like footprints, and abrupt transitions over short distances (geometric flux / node-footprint style localization where invoked).

    Constraint: the mechanism must naturally generate hard spatial boundaries (or demonstrate why such boundaries emerge) rather than relying on stochastic impact patterns or broad isotropic blast behavior.

  5. Momentum partition and limited ground-coupled impulse

    Reports centered on foundation survivals, subgrade preservation, and low seismic coupling assert that a large portion of the system's momentum did not resolve as an expected ground-impulse signature.

    Constraint: any model must provide an explicit momentum/impulse partition that is consistent with the described survivals and with the reported seismic bounds.

  6. Field-like kinematic effects in non-structural targets

    Where the dossier describes anomalous motion of vehicles, dust plumes, and biological trajectories, the consistent theme is body-force behavior (lift/repulsion/lofting) that is not easily reduced to wind, blast overpressure, or tumbling impact (Dielectrophoresis, DEP, where invoked).

    Constraint: if those kinematics are upheld, the model must include an in-situ mechanism capable of applying a distributed force vector to target masses without the usual collateral aerodynamic signatures.

  7. Time-domain staging and precursor phenomena

    Several reports assert precursor or pre-kinetic phenomena (early particulate emission, EMI-like disruptions, prolonged vibration/rumble intervals) that temporally precede major structural transitions.

    Constraint: the mechanism must include a time-dependent activation profile (arming/saturation/discharge) rather than a single-step progressive failure narrative.


Model obligations implied by the constraint set

Obligations for Model A (kinetic/thermal)

Model A remains viable only if it can satisfy all constraints above while also producing its expected collateral signatures (thermal history consistency, rubble inventory consistency, mixing/settling behavior consistent with gravity currents, and impact/impulse signatures consistent with scale), without requiring ad hoc exceptions that create new missing collateral effects.

Obligations for SCIE / interferometric mechanisms

SCIE is only worth carrying forward if it can satisfy the same constraint set with specific, checkable signatures. In this dossier’s standardized language, that means:

  • Rapid Macroscopic Aerosolization (RMA) where claimed (not generic fragmentation),
  • IMD (Interferometric Molecular Dissociation)-consistent selectivity (material-linked coupling rather than proximity heating),
  • ECR (electron-cyclotron resonance)-consistent conductor phenotypes where steel-specific rapid alteration is asserted, and CLC/SIH-consistent phenotypes where conductive loops/vehicles are the primary affected targets,
  • Coulomb Explosion phenotypes where dielectric saturation is asserted,
  • Dielectrophoresis (DEP) force vectors only where the kinematics truly require a body-force explanation.

This synthesis therefore functions as the interface between Part II (claims) and Part III/IV (reconstruction and theory): it defines the constraint targets the reconstruction must hit, and it defines the collateral signatures that can falsify it.