Scope and limits

THE FINDING IS ABOUT SRC-085'S INTERNAL CONSISTENCY, NOT ABOUT ANY OF ITS NUMBERS BEING WRONG. Its p.37 prose sentence and its two efficiency tables describe the same system in different decompositions, and the prose sentence states the chain term where a reader takes it for a beam-geometry fact. The 0.003 per cent shape agreement reported by the first computation is NOT reproducible as stated: it uses that route's own radiated power and peak rather than the source's stated pair, which give 0.17 per cent, and the ratio depends on a range the source never states. Use 0.17 per cent, with the range attached, or do not use it. No computation here modelled the omitted error terms, so none of these figures is a prediction of what the built system would have delivered. AN OPEN QUESTION AGAINST THIS CLAIM, RAISED 2026-09-06 AND NOT RESOLVED HERE. A second reading of the page found that Table B-1 has NO Rectenna Energy Collection row at all, and that its own brace groups Intercept Efficiency 0.95 with Ideal Beam 0.965, Inter-Subarray Errors 0.956 and Intra-Subarray Errors 0.981 to a printed 0.86 - 0.965 x 0.956 x 0.981 x 0.95 = 0.85976, which has been checked arithmetically. If that reading holds, THE COMPARABLE AGGREGATE in Table B-1 against the figures' collection term is 0.86 and not 0.95, and a reconciliation setting 0.95 against 0.88 compares an intercept term to a collection term. It would NOT overturn this claim's central comparison, which sets our computed intercept against Table B-1's intercept row, but it bears on how the two decompositions were reconciled. Table B-1 has NOT been rendered and the question is recorded rather than settled. ANSWERED 2026-09-06, IN THE DIRECTION THE QUESTION ANTICIPATED, AND THE CLAIM STANDS. Table B-1 was rendered at 600 dpi per block. Only one combination reproduces the printed 0.86 - Ideal Beam 0.965 x Inter-Subarray 0.956 x Intra-Subarray 0.981 x Intercept 0.95 = 0.85976 - and it SKIPS Atmosphere Absorp., a row the drawn brace appears to enclose. So the aggregate comparable to the figures' collection term IS 0.86 and the 0.95 IS the geometric intercept alone. Whether the document intends that grouping or drew the brace wrongly is not settled and does not need to be: both readings leave 0.95 an intercept term rather than a collection term, which is what this claim's central comparison turns on. Every product was re-checked. CALC-090 carries the brace work. The 0.31 per cent agreement rests on a pairing of terms that is ours, not the document's: it sets Table B-1's beam-quality and intercept terms, without B-1's own Atmosphere Absorp. 0.98, against Figure A-9's Average Atmosphere 0.98 times Rectenna Energy Collection 0.88, while A-9 also lists a separate Mechanical Tolerances 0.98. Other pairings of the two tables are possible and are not tested here.