"Same information-theoretic mechanism" and "information loss proportional to the distance" require a distance quantity that can be compared across kilometers, years of delay, hierarchy layers, and formalization. Without that quantity, the four rows are analogies under one header.

Distant aid fails because the donor's countable object is delivery statistics, not because bits are lost with kilometers. Deaton's revenue-source recode is an incentive rewrite. Filing it under physical-distance physics misidentifies the operator.

Multiplicative compounding and the shinise contrast are kind-hypotheses. Family-firm ownership, legal continuity, and time preference are confounded with "four gradients near zero." "Expected information retention: near zero" has no protocol.

Inverse-confidence and "invest where your gradient is lowest" are a repair object with no closer. A donor already selected for visible distant lives will not self-administer "confidence should fall." Without a seat that can refuse a grant for stacked distance, the design section is a caption.

"Information gradient" occupies the cognitive slot the epistemic- distance section says formalizations occupy. Unpacking the synthesis recovers the warning — farther is worse, confidence should fall — not four substrate-specific operators plus a quantity.

Hayek's knowledge problem, Scott's legibility, and Deaton's aid- accountability already name knowledge-with-distance. The remainder that would change novelty is the identity-plus-multiplicative claim, including the "conservation law" sentence. If that remainder has no fail condition, novelty is the filing header.

Recoding the drowning-child difference as physics captures the moral object. The action set — prefer local — is the same as parochialism. Without a closer who can fail a local-only policy as gradient-theatre, "calibration" is a license.