Class v6 10.0l: the third external review (the objective durable GPU competitiveness; the definition on a reference population with cost per accepted unit of work; the coexistence model replaces the capex wall, a new document by 21:00; the claim statement above the served sentence, rotation an optional improvement)

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>

docs/design/class-v6-rotating-family.md

@@ -439,6 +439,8 @@ The conditions, read off the surface, which are the economic-resistance statemen
 
 #### 10.0h The served text (for the site audit lane, served as written; each number's label; what is withdrawn)
 
+**The claim statement above the sentence (the third review, 10.0l item 3), served verbatim:** "Igneum remains competitive on accessible commodity GPUs even when specialised mining hardware is assumed to exist, remain compatible and seek profit; its security does not rely on identifying that hardware or retiring it through emergency changes." Under it the three statements (energy, economic, response capability), rotation named as an optional improvement to the baseline, not the mechanism; the economic statement reads from the coexistence model (10.0l item 2, by 21:00 UK) once it exists, and until then names the model as owed rather than any threshold.
+
 **The sentence, as the external review words it (10.0f item 5), served verbatim, with one word made honest (the site audit lane's read, 16:5x UK: class v4 and v5 have eight registers per lane and the window is class v6's new core shape, so "retains" is read as "retains across every rotation"):** "Class v6 adopts the 64-register window and retains it across every rotation. Current modelling estimates a 2.2x to 2.4x energy-efficiency advantage for the strongest specialised designs assessed against the GPU tier (2.0x on the GPU's own node). The long-program and select-tree proposals were rejected. Economic resistance depends on development cost, deployment economics and productive hardware lifetime; family transitions receive an obsolescence benefit only where a loss of competitiveness is demonstrated; programmable multi-epoch designs are included in the assessment."
 
 **Where the figures come from (the coordinator, 16:1x UK): the served sentence's numbers are read from the k lane's PLACED GATED rows (17:30 UK; 10.0i), not from 725d2945's close and not from the 16:0x synthesis; until they land the figures sit in 10.0i's bracket, and the serve slips to 18:30 if the rows are late.** The labels on its numbers as first written: "2.2x to 2.4x" is modelled (the GPU side measured: the RTX 5080 at its 1,100 MHz lock 2.06 microjoules per hash and the RTX 5090 at its 1,300 MHz lock 2.33, both on class v4, PC 1 and rented pods, 8 October 2026; the chip side the k lane's synthesised 8-lane sequencer core with the 64-register window on ASAP7, scaled to N3 on TSMC's headline factors, claimed; the chip's memory the chip model's GDDR7 board, modelled; the card's cost of the window measured at stock on a rented 5090 and 4090 at 16:4x UK, within 5 percent per load with the liveness chain, no spill). "2.0x on the GPU's own node" is modelled (the same core node-for-node, k 1.09). Against the 32-lane window core the adversary would build the same figures read about 2.4x to 2.6x a node ahead and 2.0x to 2.2x node-for-node (synthesised, pending the re-optimised row by 18:00 UK); the served sentence's range is kept as the review wrote it and the 32-lane rows sit beside it on the page as the pending row. The window's k is synthesis-derived and not a lower bound.
@@ -451,7 +453,7 @@ The lines the page carries beside it, each labelled:
 - The evaluation rule (10.0g item 2) with the harness and scoring-rules links: the minimum over workloads of the maximum over free adversarial designs of E_GPU over E_adversary, under the 10 percent GPU-cost budget at the lock, the verifier limit, cross-vendor correctness and hardware accessibility; the rejected long program, select tree, wide read and scratchpad as negative controls with their measured rows.
 - The next programme (10.0g item 7): the connected-state experiment, the mixed integer and FP32 candidate, the multi-family programmable adversary; rotation is not expected to deliver the missing joule.
 
-Withdrawn, to be struck everywhere it appears: the lifetime claim ("under 1x per hash over its 180-day life"; 10.0f item 1); the USD 300 M and USD 340 M lines and any "the chain stays below X" wording (10.0f item 2); any chip-arrival probability (10.0g item 5); "Monero's hash never changes" (10.0g item 6); the 725d2945 sentence ("under 3x per joule at the knee, under 1x per hash over its life") and this lane's section 9 proposal; W = 8 as a next width (W = 4 at genesis, 8 measured not free, 16 never).
+Withdrawn, to be struck everywhere it appears: any "capex wall" or threshold as the economic headline (the coexistence model is the argument; the USD 23 M and 340 M rows are its rows, 10.0l); the lifetime claim ("under 1x per hash over its 180-day life"; 10.0f item 1); the USD 300 M and USD 340 M lines and any "the chain stays below X" wording (10.0f item 2); any chip-arrival probability (10.0g item 5); "Monero's hash never changes" (10.0g item 6); the 725d2945 sentence ("under 3x per joule at the knee, under 1x per hash over its life") and this lane's section 9 proposal; W = 8 as a next width (W = 4 at genesis, 8 measured not free, 16 never).
 
 #### 10.0i The adversary's re-optimised core, and the bracket the served figures sit in (the k lane, 16:0x UK; the coordinator's order 16:1x: the placed gated rows at 17:30 UK are the figures to serve, not 725d2945's and not this synthesis; the 18:00 serve slips to 18:30 if they are late)
 
@@ -490,6 +492,16 @@ The variant cs64s27x16 (a research class): a 64-register window per lane; per st
 
 For the window line of the close: this is a second measured card row (after 10.0e's) that the window costs the card under 1 to 5 percent, and a second liveness read (63 of 64) that a specialist must hold the state; the narrow per-step chain (about 11 of 64) is the first sign of the re-optimisation 10.0i and 10.0j are arguing over, a two-level file, and the chip score at 18:00 is what the window's defence is worth against it.
 
+#### 10.0l The third external review, taken (the coordinator, 17:0x UK; the founder accepts it; it reframes the objective and overrides 10.0f to 10.0h where they differ)
+
+**The objective is durable GPU competitiveness, not chip destruction.**
+
+**(1) The definition.** "Ordinary GPUs remain competitive" is measured on a published reference population (several vendors, memory sizes and generations, including used cards: the discrete-GPU cohort of 10.0g item 3, Apple reported and not headlined) in two situations: the existing owner (operate, after electricity, wear, fees and alternatives) and the new entrant (buy, operate, resell). The central measure is cost per ACCEPTED unit of work: annualised hardware plus power plus hosting, failures and fees, over accepted work (including rejects, downtime, epoch preparation and propagation). The hardware advantage is kept separate from the operating advantage (a 1.5x chip at USD 0.06 per kWh against a GPU at 0.25 is 6.25x on electricity alone). The target: **"across declared hardware and operating-cost conditions, accessible GPUs retain competitive economics and specialised hardware does not create an overwhelming additional barrier to entry".** What this document already holds toward it: the per-tier joules (10.4, measured on 14 card classes at stock and at the knee where the lock is allowed), the epoch costs (10.0d: the re-tune seconds and watts, the verifier ms per epoch build), the card's measured costs of the window and the floor (10.0e, 3.3); what it does not yet hold: the accepted-work denominator (rejects, downtime, propagation) per tier, the hosting and failure terms, the used-card prices and resale, and the electricity axis, which the coexistence model takes.
+
+**(2) The coexistence model** replaces the capex wall as the economic argument: a new document, `docs/analysis/class-v6/coexistence-model.md`, by 21:00 UK, with its first run on today's measured rows, labelled modelled. A five-year model with the development cost SUNK as a mandatory case (the opponent covers manufacturing, deployment and operation only); private mining and hardware sales; several productive lifetimes; growing and shrinking networks; falling token revenue; changing difficulty; used-GPU entry and exit; GPU generation upgrades with purchase and resale on both sides; cheaper derivative chip designs; and miners allowed to react. Its outputs: the cost advantage, the replacement economics, the accessible supply, the break-even electricity prices, and the network's dependence on individual suppliers. Success: a specialised supplier earns a normal return and GPUs stay close enough in total cost, obtainable and useful outside mining that entrants still compete. Failure: a supplier operating privately at much lower cost exhausts competitors' margins. **The USD 23 M and 340 M rows of 10.3, and lane 3's surface of 10.0f, become rows of that model and are never the headline.**
+
+**(3) The claim statement:** "Igneum remains competitive on accessible commodity GPUs even when specialised mining hardware is assumed to exist, remain compatible and seek profit; its security does not rely on identifying that hardware or retiring it through emergency changes." Under it the three statements of 10.0g item 1 (energy, economic, response capability), with rotation named as an optional improvement to the baseline, not the mechanism: 10.0d's schedule is what the rotation does when it runs, and the claim stands without it.
+
 #### 10.0d The rotation schedule the close adopts (the rotation lane, `docs/design/class-rotation-four-layers.md` on class-v6-rotation at bd43f808, build-3, gate green, 14:4x UK; one line per layer; both of this document's constraints held: the 180-day family epoch not shorter, W = 4 not drawn)
 
 | Layer | Boundaries a year | What it draws, from where | Exposure per boundary (this document's units) | Chip | Label |