SOURCE_DIGEST: 86cf11f789f87ca890bc2e3e9c761b4a78210db208020fe00d89f703ced68885

### Verification of Round-1 Correction
The round-1 correction has been successfully implemented and verified. In Section 7.1, the `PartnerAPI` (\(S_3\)) source now explicitly exposes a `contactEmail` attribute on `Account` resources. In Table 2 (Section 7.4), the \(F_3\) assignments explicitly document that the "contact email and numeric lifecycle normalize," capturing the mapping obligation ("email normalization, enum authority, and URI stability"). Section 7.7 reinforces this separation of concerns by confirming that a shared normalized email across the marketplace and partner sources acts solely as evidence for a candidate match (\(r_{23}\)) rather than forcing known equivalence, correctly decoupling mapping logic from governed identity decisions.

### Re-audit of Central Boundaries
1. **Conditional \(N \times M\) toward \(N+M\) accounting with sparse topology:** The formal definitions of the connection graph remain sound. Proposition 5.2 correctly models a sparse topology (\(|A|=4\) while \(N+M=6\)), maintaining the position that \(N \times M\) is conditional accounting and not a universal architectural win.
2. **Full governance/reconciliation/exception/physical cost:** Section 5.3 accurately defines the comprehensive cost model. It mathematically tracks the often-hidden costs of domain maintenance (\(C_D\)), identity reconciliation (\(C_R\)), exceptions (\(E_{ij}\)), and nonsemantic physical effort (\(C_X\)).
3. **Factorization and residual verdicts:** The immutable factorization artifact (Section 3.2) is cleanly formulated. The taxonomy resists treating arbitrary opaque fallback code as a successful mapping composition.
4. **Schema-arrow versus data-flow direction:** Section 4.1 correctly distinguishes the composition of schema arrows from data-flow operators. It explicitly notes that \(\Delta_{G \circ F}\) is contravariant and consumes a target instance, preventing the conflation of schema direction with forward ETL semantics.
5. **Exact/conditional/lossy/partial/ambiguous/unsupported/unknown distinctions:** The manuscript maintains a strict set of factorization verdicts (Section 3.3). The explicit definitions of structural transformations, partial mappings, and ambiguity in Section 6 cleanly bound what constitutes an acceptable closed mapping.
6. **Mapping versus matching versus governed identity:** The paper successfully preserves the distinction between automated schema matching (candidates), schema mapping (structural/semantic assignments), and identity reconciliation (authorized, record-level equivalence decisions).
7. **Federation/materialization/ETL/ELT as physical strategies:** Section 8 correctly models execution mechanics—be it virtual federation, ETL, ELT, or materialized snapshots—as distinct physical strategies bounded by a semantic equivalence contract rather than semantic properties themselves.
8. **Prior-art novelty boundary:** The manuscript appropriately positions itself against prior art, including model management, data exchange, GAV/LAV, information manifolds, Clio, and modern semantic layers, without overclaiming theoretical originality.
9. **Exact absence of a P4 integration runtime or experiment:** The paper is rigorously transparent regarding its evidence boundary. Sections 9 and 10 explicitly state that no accepted forward operator, source connector, factorization checker, loss analyzer, or controlled repair-surface experiment exists in the repository at the time of the evidence cut.

### Reproducibility and Claims
The reproducibility record accurately isolates the bounding of existing P1/P3 prerequisite evidence (Rust validation subsets and Lean laws) from the absent P4 end-to-end integration proof. Evidence labels (e.g., \textsc{engineering hypothesis}, \textsc{structural-only}) are utilized consistently and conservatively. There are no unsupported systems claims, narrative contradictions, or citation defects.

VERDICT: ACCEPT