Accord Transport as Residual-Preserving Governance: Freezing µ, Preserving ρ, and Auditing Interoperability Between Independent Frameworks

Scientific frameworks often fail not because a single internal claim is false, but because comparison procedures collapse residual differences, retune scoring rules after inspection, or confuse similarity with transport. This manuscript formulates Accord transport as a residual-preserving governance protocol for comparing independent frameworks without reducing one to the other. The proposed architecture is motivated by three recent developments: invariant closure tests in heterogeneous compute systems, boundary-holonomy closure tests in geometric carrier models, and rapidity-coordinate audits of gauge-coupling running. These examples suggest a common methodological pattern: independent contributions are evaluated against a frozen boundary condition, passed through a closure test, and then admitted, constrained, or blocked. The central claim is not physical, computational, or ontological unification. The claim is governance-level: a comparison architecture can itself be studied as an admissible object if its schema is frozen before comparison, its residual divergence ρ is explicitly preserved, and its transport output is tested against collapse baselines and null alternatives. We define a frozen µ-schema, a residual ledger ρ, an Accord map Aµ, and a pass/fail transport gate. A small synthetic demonstrator illustrates the difference between residual-preserving transport and centroid-collapse comparison; it is explicitly not a real HLV–FFGFT validation. The paper concludes with a protocol for a future genuine HLV–FFGFT Accord audit, including non-claims, external scoring requirements, and author-contribution statements. Stefaan Vossen’s conceptual contribution is acknowledged for identifying the governance-level reading that motivates this manuscript.

Foundational source works and conceptual provenance. The present paper builds on the invariant-closure bridge between Feeney’s Invariant Handshake and Kr¨uger’s BD17A-HOLONOMY-LOCKED protocol [14, 15]. It also inherits the claim-state discipline of operational falsification governance [16], the conditional bundle result of Run EW2 [17], and the rapidity-transit distinction introduced by De Jes´us [19]. The specific observation that governance itself may now be studied as an independent object, rather than only as an auxiliary comparison harness, was contributed in correspondence by Stefaan Vossen and is acknowledged below.