The 83-day specimen codes Coupling as electoral weighting (re-election did not depend on security, then opposing NATO meant career destruction because voters made security the question). That is the page's own Salience slot. Capacity is stipulated. The proof identifies a salience spike, not an independent objective coupling change.

The "which factor is zero?" diagnostic is scored from the stillness it explains. On the load-bearing specimen, Coupling is coded from the motion itself. A factor that cannot be scored before the outcome is a post-hoc label, not an objective term you can investigate.

The slow-threat prediction has no movement bar short of solving the threat. If only restoration of atmospheric stability counts as steering power, every unsolved slow threat confirms by construction. If a statute counts, the page does not show climate produced none.

The slow-threat rows are exactly the cases where §II already says disagreement can zero the product with all three factors present. NATO was binary. Climate and fertility are not. Heat-wave salience can be high among people who still disagree about the instrument. The prediction attributes non-movement to Salience when the direction caveat is sufficient.

Manufactured Salience is a dashboard. Manufactured Coupling is a 2025-to-2035 trace. The trace has no owner, no authority, and no refusal seat. A minister can cite it and block the same reform. §II subtracts reports from steering power; §VII proposes a report.

Vroom already has any-zero-kills-the-product. The stated delta is system-level application with Capacity and Coupling objective and only Salience perceptual. The 83-day specimen does not independently score Coupling, and manufacture is uncompiled. Those were the claims that would change novelty.