9.9 The boundary of the claim

The framework does not solve creativity by renaming it theory extension. It specifies a representation in which certain creative acts can be proposed, compared, and audited. It remains possible that the decisive new object is invisible to every current probe, that no available generator proposes it, or that its value becomes evident only after years of use. Those limitations are part of the challenge rather than reasons to collapse transformation back into search over a fixed output grammar.

Part II now turns these distinctions into algorithms. Its starting question is deliberately operational: for a particular domain, what state is maintained, which two local repair directions are realized, what mixed witness and finite test diagnose failure, which less disruptive controls must be exhausted, what typed package change may be proposed, what prior structure is transported, and what independent evidence can admit and retain the resulting construction?