Jill · model archive · evidence boundary

Moissanite cut study

This page preserves the intent of an exploratory crystal-optics design study without publishing unsupported optima or theorem receipts. It is a source-archive boundary, not a gem-cutting recommendation.

Former cut optimizerIllustrative angles and browser ray tracing
ArchivedUnsupported optima and theorem-like labels removed
Reopen with receiptsVersioned inputs, validated optics, and exact bindings

Archive status map: the former interactive model remains retired until its empirical inputs, runtime, and theorem bindings have independent receipts.

Interactive claim surface paused The former page mixed illustrative angles, empirical material claims, and theorem-like labels. Several displayed declaration names were absent from the pinned Jill source, and other excerpts omitted hypotheses or used different definitions. Those cards cannot honestly remain presented as proved results.

What remains supported

Pinned source identity Jill source snapshot 7ccede73474108f17d774ff6edc99c6f07b20711 is the identity used by the current manifest and structural proof graph.

Structural inventory The public graph records 1,025 declarations across 40 source files. Its zero observed lexical sorry and declared-axiom counts are parser observations—not a compiler or kernel receipt.

Two narrow manifest bindings Jill currently binds an upper bound for a typed weighted-sum model and a critical-angle monotonicity theorem. Neither theorem certifies the archived cut angles, ray tracer, Pareto labels, or physical performance claims.

What is not claimed

No displayed pavilion angle is certified as optimal for brilliance, fire, birefringence, durability, appearance, or manufacturing.
No browser visualization is Lean-extracted or linked to a dispatchable computation bundle.
No source theorem establishes an empirical comparison with diamond, a GIA result, or the performance of a finished stone.
No corpus count or absence of a lexical marker establishes that every claim was proved.

Reopening criteria

A future interactive study needs versioned material inputs with sources and uncertainty, a validated optical model, reproducible computation artifacts, exact source-declaration bindings with all hypotheses, and UI tests proving every displayed status comes from that evidence. Until then, the honest product is this boundary.

Jill source overview Read the evidence boundary Explore the opal model

Prior rendered page retained in Git object 4294bd514cda404df8b745ce81348d9a4d86b5f3. That identifier preserves history; it is not a verification receipt.