H1: Phase-Guided Graphene Thermal Shield — Thermal Routing, Recession, Latency and Mass Constraints

Research question

Can phase-guided lateral heat routing improve a thermal-shield response, and does that benefit permit less normalized areal mass than passive FLG under the same comparison-specific protective constraints?

MODEL SCOPE

Public model description

A sequence of normalized thermal surrogates progresses from conservative lateral sheets to a multilayer stack with effective FLG transport, retained order-state control, phenomenological recession and prescribed damage. Back-face peak, finite-window exposure, recession and admissible mass remain separate observables. T1, E2, S1 and V1R supply methodological connections, not transferred validation of the H1 plant. No measured graphene constitutive law or physical controller is identified.

PROTOCOL

Declared evidence chain

Thirteen stages, H1.1–H1.12 plus H1.12R, test conservation, matched anisotropy, direct-demand and sample-and-hold alternatives, sink routing, multilayer recession, deterministic defects, moving loads and delay. The final closure replays the selected precision failures, accepts a double-precision refinement comparison, captures the late peak under a conditional discrete-model bound, and brackets admissible mass against references recomputed over the same observation window. Aggregate public outcomes are retained without supplying private reconstruction inputs.

Series: H1.1–H1.12 + H1.12R · transport · memory controls · multilayer recession · latency · constrained mass · precision/horizon closure

• H1.1–H1.12 + H1.12R
• transport
• memory controls
• multilayer recession
• latency
• constrained mass
• precision/horizon closure

The labels below preserve the public protocol identity. They are an index to the publication, not a substitute for its full methods or an open reproducibility bundle.

EVIDENCE

Results inside the model

1. At equal normalized mass, the delayed phase architecture lowers the captured late back-face peak relative to passive FLG by approximately 1.389% nominally and 1.044% under prescribed 25% dropout.
2. The extended local mass-saving interval versus passive FLG is [−0.0343%; −0.0242%]: the phase candidate requires more normalized mass. Both candidates still save mass relative to fixed B0; the phase candidate does not add a mass advantage over passive FLG.
3. Peak surface recession is the active constraint at the new local mass boundary; a lower back-face temperature does not by itself permit further material removal.
4. Static phase routing is effectively coincident with direct-demand routing, and classical sample-and-hold matches the tested memory advantage. These controls do not establish a unique phase mechanism.
5. The tested kinematic phase advance does not extend the operational latency boundary.
6. H1.12R closes the selected double-precision, horizon and mass-witness audit while retaining the eight failed single-precision trajectories and the negative additional-mass verdict as distinct outcomes.

BOUNDARY

CLAIM BOUNDARY

Numerical evidence is not physical validation. Transfer to a material, device, organism, environment, or operational service requires a separate validation chain whenever such a transfer is relevant.

Publication record