diff --git a/paper/response-to-review.md b/paper/response-to-review.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..592072c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/paper/response-to-review.md
@@ -0,0 +1,224 @@
+# Response to the external review
+
+*Re: "The Evolution of Sex for Artificial Intelligence" (draft reviewed August 2026). This response
+accompanies a revised manuscript and a set of new experiments run directly in answer to the review.
+All results referenced here are committed, reproducible artifacts (configs, seeds, figures, and
+per-experiment READMEs in the repository); commit-level pointers are listed at the end.*
+
+---
+
+Thank you for this review. It is the most useful reading the manuscript has had: it does not dispute
+the programme, it disputes the *calibration* — and its central instrument, the distinction between
+**interpretation, explanation, and prediction**, is exactly the right one. We have acted on it in two
+ways: we revised the manuscript to claim only what the evidence supports, and we **ran the decisive
+experiment the review proposed** (§5 of the review), together with four supporting experiments. The
+short version of this letter: we accepted nearly everything, the manuscript is narrower and better for
+it, and the prediction rung of your ladder — the one the draft "was not yet convincing on" — has now
+been climbed at the small-model tier, with the falsifiers pre-registered and one internal prediction
+honestly reported as unconfirmed.
+
+## 1. The overall take, and the framing
+
+> *"The strongest idea is … treat multigenerational model populations as systems whose inheritance,
+> diversity, and compatibility must be managed—not merely as collections of models to optimise."*
+
+Adopted, verbatim, as the stated core contribution — it now closes the abstract's first paragraph and
+anchors §1. You articulated our thesis better than we had; we have taken the sentence with attribution
+to the review process rather than pretend we wrote it first.
+
+> *"The draft sometimes treats a useful biological correspondence as a mathematical identity, and an
+> illustrative experiment as confirmation of a general mechanism."*
+
+Accepted. This was the review's most consequential criticism and drove most of the textual changes
+below.
+
+## 2. Novelty: interpretation / explanation / prediction
+
+The ladder is now explicit in §1: we state which of our claims are interpretation (merged offspring
+as Fisher–Muller), which are explanation (the coordinate-vs-functional decomposition of merge
+failure), and which are prediction. The priority-dispute language — "nobody has," "none imports,"
+"the theory the tinkering has outrun" — has been removed entirely, replaced with "to our knowledge"
+and positive statements of what population genetics contributes. Merge-success *prediction* is now
+explicitly conceded as an occupied area (interpretable pairwise metrics; capacity/rate-distortion
+accounts), with our delta stated as mechanism, not existence.
+
+And the prediction rung is no longer only proposed — see §7 below.
+
+## 3A. Drift, Muller's ratchet, and model collapse
+
+Accepted in full. The manuscript now says: the *minimal inheritance model* is exactly Wright–Fisher;
+a real learner is Wright–Fisher **plus a signed, architecture-specific estimator-bias operator** — and
+we cite our own learning-kernel measurement against ourselves (the smoothing RNN resists collapse,
+the sharpening VAE accelerates it; the drift *signs* survive in every architecture tested). Muller's
+ratchet is scoped to the **irreversible arm** of collapse — the capabilities that, once lost from
+every parent and source, no recombination can rebuild — with your implication stated as the reason
+the correspondence earns its keep: recombination only reassembles what still survives, so the cure
+must act before fixation-by-loss. The glossary entries were carrying the same identity overclaims and
+have been fixed to match.
+
+## 3B. "Merge, don't average" — the operator boundaries
+
+Accepted. A dedicated boundary paragraph now answers your five questions in order:
+
+- **What is conserved?** Expected rare-item mass, at the single-parent level, exact in the minimal
+  model's rare-item regime.
+- **Under which operator?** Refitting a child to the **mean of the parents' output distributions** —
+  that operator only. The 1/K dilution exactly cancels the K-parent union gain there.
+- **Weight averaging and routing?** Explicitly labelled *empirical cousins*, not instances: a
+  nonlinear network's weight-mean does not compute its parents' output-mean, and a router keeps K
+  models' storage plus a classifier — a different parameter and inference budget from one fixed-size
+  child. The measured **headroom rule** is presented as the empirical bridge between the exact law
+  and the weight-space operators, which is all it is.
+- **Does the strongest-source operator need an oracle?** Yes, and the text now says so.
+- **Capacity?** When parental capabilities cannot coexist in the child's capacity, no operator
+  preserves the union — stated, with an explicit hand-off to the speciation section as the regime
+  where that boundary lives.
+
+New supporting evidence since the review: the multi-seed replication (below) adds that fusion is not
+only worse than union-preserving operators where headroom exists — it is far **less reliable**
+(95% CI ±0.10 across training seeds vs ±0.026 for routing/selection), which we think sharpens the
+practical half of this claim.
+
+## 3C. Model speciation
+
+Accepted, and this section received the most work — textual and experimental.
+
+**Textual.** A closing block, "What these experiments do and do not establish," now states the
+supported conclusion at exactly your formulation — *some merge failures reflect incompatible
+functional requirements rather than a mismatch in coordinates* — and then lists the qualifiers: (i)
+the conflict-condition impossibility is **information-theoretic and needs no population genetics**
+(now also a formal SI proposition: endpoints and chord are invariant under any function-preserving
+transformation, and any single merged model errs at rate ≥ μ(S)/2 against at least one parent); what
+the genetic frame adds is locating *which divergences generate such conflicts*; (ii) the
+epistasis-positions-the-cliff claim and the snowball are labelled **hypotheses at the neural tier**,
+verified only in the analytic model; (iii) alignment claims are scoped to the enumerated symmetries
+of the architecture tested, and "unmergeable" means by aligned linear interpolation — a barrier to
+that operator does not preclude every recombination method (routing sidesteps it by not blending).
+Emergent Dobzhansky–Muller incompatibilities are carried as the flagship *hypothesis*, with the
+regimes where our tests found none stated as bounds.
+
+**Experimental (new since the review).**
+
+1. *Alignment under the full symmetry group.* Anticipating the "one control does not prove the
+   optimum over all allowed symmetries" objection — and the 2026 richer-symmetry results — we
+   re-ran the decomposition aligning modulo the **complete** function-preserving unit symmetry group
+   of the ReLU MLP (per-unit positive rescaling ∘ permutation; the aligner provably recovers a
+   permuted-and-rescaled copy exactly). The conflict residual is unchanged (0.502 → 0.497); the
+   independent-init barrier still vanishes (0.001). The cliff now also carries a hybrid-fitness
+   readout: merged accuracy 0.97 → 0.03 with conflict.
+2. *The emergent test, pre-registered.* Divergent-but-compatible specialists (disjoint classes;
+   shifted-view conventions), out to 6.4× the base training: residual 0.000 everywhere, and the merge
+   *rescues* the two forgetting parents (~0.50 → 0.955). We report this null prominently — you
+   identified the sharper question ("which kinds of specialisation create merge-breaking
+   interactions, and which remain complementary?") and this is its first half of an answer:
+   *specialisation on shared ancestry did not break merging in any regime we tested; imposed
+   functional conflict always did.*
+3. *The LLM tier.* The same two knobs in 0.5B LoRA children of a frozen base (which pins the
+   coordinate system, so merge failure is functional by construction): conflicting conventions
+   produce **function-specific** hybrid breakdown (merged coherence below both parents; private,
+   disjoint skills unharmed in a budget-controlled design, 3 seeds), and over-training disjoint
+   specialists 1→12 epochs produces **no** emergent isolation (the merge improves, staying above the
+   best parent).
+
+## 4. Importance, scope, and the supporting overstatements
+
+- **"Three task families and one seed."** The LLM claims are now multi-seed with fixed test sets:
+  merges beat every specialist with non-overlapping CIs on the sharper metric (5 seeds); union vs
+  fusion and directed-selection vs soup replicated at 3 seeds on the hard benchmark. Three
+  lexically-distinct families remain a stated limitation; the full grounded LLM society remains
+  explicitly unbuilt and is flagged as such.
+- **Open-ended growth.** Accepted — the §11 closing has been rewritten: the architecture removes the
+  *storage* obstacle to indefinite accumulation; that is bookkeeping, not a demonstration of
+  unbounded capability growth, which our deliberately finite models do not test.
+- **Frozen base ≠ unchanged behaviour** — fixed (§3 now guarantees a recoverable core, not
+  unchanging conduct).
+- **Baldwin effect** — now an *echo*, with the mechanism difference stated (selection for genetic
+  assimilation vs direct distillation).
+- **Consolidation and the archive** — fixed: a digital system can and should keep every ancestor;
+  the irreversibility is *operational* (nothing in the production loop consults the archive by
+  default), and the safeguard now includes an audit that diffs against the archived ancestor.
+- **"Control theory" → "framework"** throughout, subtitle included.
+- **The claim–assumptions–evidence–limitation table** is in §13 ("The claims at a glance"), ten rows,
+  each labelled exact / empirical / hypothesis with known limits.
+
+## 5. The decisive experiment — run
+
+We implemented your six-step design as specified, at the 0.5B tier (39 parent pairs, 3 seeds, fixed
+held-out test sets, falsifiers pre-registered in the config before running):
+
+1. **Controlled interaction structure:** three axes decorrelated by construction — *conflict*
+   (contradictory conventions on shared ambiguous prompts, private budgets fixed), *compat* (the
+   same shared prompts learned under the **same** convention: overlap without conflict), and
+   *duration* (weight divergence with zero conflict, 1→12 epochs).
+2. **Functional divergence separated from duration and weight distance:** the duration and compat
+   axes span the same weight-divergence and data-volume ranges as the conflict axis, at ~zero merge
+   penalty.
+3. **Operational epistasis, pre-merge:** confidence-weighted bilateral disagreement on a probe mix
+   drawn blind to where the conflict lives — the theory's point being that raw disagreement counts
+   harmless *complementation* (one parent ignorant) as conflict, while the Dobzhansky–Muller
+   structure is *bilateral confident contradiction*.
+4. **Against existing predictors:** gradient alignment at the shared base, LoRA-delta cosine and L2
+   (computed exactly), and a performance-based (cross-family accuracy) baseline.
+5. **Operator choice under matched budgets:** partially — see honest riders.
+6. **Held-out tasks, multiple seeds:** yes (fixed tests, 3 training seeds).
+
+**Result.** Against the pre-registered primary outcome (merge penalty = parent potential − merged
+achieved, the hybrid-load analogue): functional measures predict (raw disagreement ρ = +0.46,
+operational epistasis ρ = +0.45, both p < 0.005); gradient alignment is weakly informative (−0.35);
+**both geometry predictors are uninformative** (delta-cosine +0.03, delta-L2 +0.17, n.s.);
+performance-based ~0. *Functional conflict, measured before merging, predicts merge failure; weight
+divergence does not.*
+
+Two things about how this result was reached that we want on the record:
+
+- **The control that broke our own experiment first.** In the initial two-axis grid, the *best*
+  predictor was delta-cosine (ρ = +0.60) — geometry appeared to win. We identified the confound
+  (every shared-data pair in that pool was a conflicted pair, so geometry could succeed as a mere
+  overlap/volume detector), added the compat control axis, and geometry's correlation collapsed to
+  +0.03 while the functional measures held. We report this sequence in the results README rather
+  than presenting only the final table.
+- **An internal prediction failed, and we say so.** We pre-registered that confidence-weighting
+  should beat raw disagreement as a rank predictor. It does not (they are statistically
+  indistinguishable at n = 39); the weighting does double the conflict-vs-compat contrast in levels
+  (2.0× vs 1.5×). The paper reports the functional-vs-geometric verdict, not a win for the
+  refinement.
+
+**Honest riders:** correlations are moderate (|ρ| ≈ 0.45), bounded by the large intrinsic seed
+variance of 0.5B weight-averaging (itself now a documented finding); your step 5 (operator choice
+under matched budgets) is only partially delivered — the soup-vs-route gap readout is
+noise-dominated at this scale; and the whole result is one model family at one scale. The 7B
+replication on the HPC cluster is the planned firm-up before we treat this as more than a
+small-model demonstration.
+
+## 6. Where we (mildly) push back
+
+Only two places, both narrow. First, on *"the impossibility does not require population genetics"* —
+agreed, and now stated; but we would defend the framework's role in the surrounding structure: it
+told us *which* pre-merge measurement to make (bilateral confident contradiction rather than raw
+disagreement or distance), *which* control to build (complementation ≠ conflict), and *which* null to
+pre-register (emergent isolation) — and those choices are what the decisive experiment's outcome
+vindicated against the geometry baselines. Second, on *"union preservation risks being built into the
+operator's definition"* — the conservation law's content is the exact *failure* of the mean operator
+(the 1/K cancellation), not the definitional success of the max operator; we have tried to make the
+text carry it that way, with the oracle requirement explicit.
+
+## 7. What we have not done
+
+The full grounded, diversity-preserving multigenerational LLM society (still the stated largest gap);
+7B replication of the decisive experiment; an entanglement measure for *real* task pairs (our
+epistasis knob is constructed); the operator-choice decision test at usable signal-to-noise; and
+ambiguous/overlapping task families where routing stops being trivially easy. These are listed in the
+manuscript's open-problems section in this form.
+
+## Changelog
+
+Manuscript revision: commit `58e6c74` (claim-narrowing; all §1–§4 and draft-level items above).
+New experiments: `ea051a5` (full-symmetry alignment + emergent null, MLP tier), `5a23dda` (LLM-tier
+speciation + multi-seed replication), `287d232` (the decisive experiment + its control axis). The
+revised manuscript is `paper/the-evolution-of-sex-for-ai.md`; per-experiment analyses are in
+`results/*/README.md`; every figure regenerates from committed artifacts.
+
+We would welcome another pass — in particular on whether the decisive experiment's design and its
+riders are stated at the right strength, and on whether the remaining hypothesis labels
+(epistasis-cliff and snowball at the neural tier; emergent DMIs) are placed where you would place
+them.
diff --git a/paper/the-evolution-of-sex-for-ai.md b/paper/the-evolution-of-sex-for-ai.md
index 8419b6e..1faf92c 100644
--- a/paper/the-evolution-of-sex-for-ai.md
+++ b/paper/the-evolution-of-sex-for-ai.md
@@ -667,9 +667,13 @@ Three honest riders, because re-minting is the most consequential step in the sc
   radiation*, and it is exactly what open weights make possible. The society grows not as one heavy
   trunk but as a branching tree of bases.
 
-So the answer to "can it grow forever?" is **yes — but only because it forgets and consolidates at
-every level, including the base.** Nothing is retained without bound anywhere; unbounded growth of
-*capability* is bought by *bounded* storage plus periodic consolidation.
+So the honest answer to "can it grow forever?" is: **the architecture removes the *storage* obstacle
+to indefinite accumulation** — nothing is retained without bound anywhere, and consolidation resets
+the soft budget each epoch — but that is a statement about bookkeeping, not a demonstration of
+unbounded capability growth, which no fixed-capacity system can promise and our finite models
+(deliberately scoped as "effectively open-ended relative to the sample size, not astronomically
+open-ended") do not test. What the design claims is the weaker, defensible thing: at no level does a
+full store force the lineage to stop learning.
 
 ## 12. One process, four timescales