# Minimal decisive experiment

**Status: proposed, not performed.** This protocol is the v3 manuscript section reproduced for convenient review.



Use four post-conversion conductor modules arranged as a resistive bridge with separately accessible terminals and independently bounded parallel reserve paths. Choose nonidentical nominal conductances, for example proportional to 1, 2, 1.4, and 0.8, so the intended voltage output is not a trivial zero signal. The bridge output is then about -0.30303 of a unit top-to-bottom drive under the declared branch orientation. Preserve a generic pair-comparison frontend and witness until all modules complete.

The first gate is a benchtop electronic emulation with switched passive resistors. It can decisively test the numerical representative selection, budgets, paired-gain cancellation, and reference-release logic. It cannot validate the proposed material backend. The second gate substitutes an actual scaffold-compatible post-conversion incremental deposition actuator, characterized before its use in the growth experiment.

Compare projective representative selection against a fixed representative and a matched conventional ratio controller. In separate conditions, vary shared detector gain, deliberately introduce differential arm error, remove the witness link early, and cross the measured reachable-reserve boundary. Verify final function with an independent instrument and the full four-port response under three independent grounded excitations. Measure deposited material, rejected modules, electrode/contact drift, and every intervention. The controller must not receive the final evaluator's conductance ground truth.

G2 is supported if measured reachable intervals predict feasible versus infeasible target bands and the minimum-material endpoint agrees within measurement/actuation error. It is falsified for a proposed backend if coupling, nonmonotone growth, discontinuous percolation jumps, or unstable contacts invalidate those intervals. G3 is supported only after its bounded noise, step, capacity, access, and seal premises are measured. An apparent counterexample with violated premises falsifies that backend or parameterization, not the mathematical implication.

G4 requires a separate ensemble across module counts and controlled bounded disorder. Four modules can test exact reachability and the boundary mechanism; they cannot establish an asymptotic transition. A scale study using 4, 16, and 64 switchable modules is a relatively inexpensive next stage. Replacing those controls by chemistry is a later gate. Sample sizes should follow a prospective power calculation after noise characterization; a few successful bridges cannot establish high-yield manufacture.

The highest-information negative control is differential bias with a small cycle residual. If the physical system detects it, identify which additional information breaks the G5 ambiguity. If it does not, bound its frequency or keep the corresponding calibration requirement. Neither outcome supports a self-certifying absolute nanofabricator.