The specific claim and its scope

The public MQ account proposes two regime-dependent evaluations of one gravitational coupling. The distinction concerns finite-count realization and its upper-count limit. It is not a claim that two separately established universal constants have replaced the conventional gravitational constant, or that all disagreement among historical experiments has this cause. [1] [10]

The Informativity differential is MQ’s proposed non-Lorentz length contraction associated with discrete count structure. The Internal Frame is the count-configuration domain; the System Frame is its observable relational realization, connected by the Frames mapping. In this application, a finite-count normalization enters the gravitational coupling. The normalization and the differential’s physical interpretation have related but distinct roles; the normalization factor is not itself a direct observation of contraction. [2] [10]

Exact count relations and the normalized target

Let ${\mathrm{𝜃}}_{\mathrm{𝑠}\mathrm{𝑖}}$ denote the dimensionless MQ invariant coefficient and ${\mathrm{𝑛}}_{\mathrm{𝐿}}$ the positive-real electromagnetic-demarcation length-count parameter. The calibrated continuation of the count parameter is distinct from primitive integer cardinality. Equation (1a) uses the current central coefficient 3.26239030504. The lettered equation labels belong to this Brief. [2]

Let ${\mathrm{𝑄}}_{\mathrm{𝐿}}$ be the dimensionless Diophantine realization residual. Equation (2b) defines it. For the numerical calculation, evaluating the reciprocal of the sum of the root and count gives the same result with better numerical stability than directly subtracting two nearly equal numbers. [2]

Upright $\mathrm{G}$ denotes the upper-count coupling, and italic $\mathrm{𝐺}$ the finite-count electromagnetic-demarcation evaluation. Both use units m³ kg⁻¹ s⁻². Their relationship is Equation (3c). The contrasting slant identifies the measurement regime; it does not identify two experimentally certified constants. [1] [10]

Dividing Equation (3c) by the finite coupling gives the exact dimensionless contrast in Equation (4d). Multiplication by one million expresses that contrast in parts per million. The denominator is the lower finite-count value. [1]

Table 1 reconstructs the target from the current central coefficient. No experimental mode difference is fitted in this computation. The absolute coupling scale cancels from the ratio, so uncertainty common to both absolute values cannot be treated as two independent errors on the target. The remaining dependency on the invariant coefficient and the model assumptions must still be retained. [1] [2] [10]

Absolute values and calibration versions

The current gravitational-constant preprint’s 2022-input summary gives the lower value 6.6738448317(10) × 10⁻¹¹ and upper value 6.6740779383(10) × 10⁻¹¹ m³ kg⁻¹ s⁻². Parentheses identify one standard uncertainty in the final displayed digits. Each written uncertainty is 0.0000000010 × 10⁻¹¹ in those units. These are input-propagated MQ results, conditional on the model; they do not include a general model-discrepancy allowance. [10]

Subtracting the displayed central values gives 2.331066 × 10⁻¹⁵ m³ kg⁻¹ s⁻². Forming their lower-normalized ratio gives 34.9283817 ppm, consistent with the count-derived 34.9283855 ppm at the reported four-decimal precision. The small difference reflects rounding of the printed absolute values. The extra arithmetic digits are reproducibility information, not independently established physical accuracy.

The public gravitational-constant explanation also retains the comparison pair 6.6738448362 and 6.6740779428, each multiplied by 10⁻¹¹ in the same units. Those belong to a different calibration presentation. Their displayed separation is also 2.331066 × 10⁻¹⁵. This Brief uses the current preprint pair above for absolute values and the explicit current count input for the ratio. It does not mix the versions into a new uncertainty estimate. [1] [10]

Why the ppm denominator matters

A separation in parts per million is incomplete without a reference value. Table 2 expresses the same count-derived contrast relative to the lower value, upper value and arithmetic mean. These are changes of normalization, not different physical predictions. In the proposed free/servo assignment, lower normalization becomes servo normalization. [1]

The upper-normalized 34.9271655 ppm differs slightly from the lower-normalized 34.9283855 ppm. At today’s quoted experimental uncertainties that difference may be small, but the convention must be fixed before a high-precision comparison. Reversing the order of the two measurements would also reverse the sign and change the ratio denominator; it must not be done after seeing the outcome.

Count dependence is a model property

For positive count, the residual is positive, and the finite-count normalization remains below unity. As the count increases, the finite coupling approaches the upper-count evaluation and the normalized separation tends to zero. Table 3 and Figure 1 evaluate Equations (2b)–(4d) at illustrative counts. The electromagnetic-demarcation entry is fixed by Equation (1a); the other rows are mathematical sensitivity examples. [2]

The curve does not mean a laboratory source-to-test-body distance can simply be set to a chosen value of this count parameter. Translating an apparatus configuration into an MQ realization condition requires a physical measurement model. Numerical continuity of the count expression does not supply that transfer model.

The additional apparatus-to-regime assignment

Free-deflection operation infers gravitational torque from the pendulum’s angular response and mechanical calibration. Electrostatic-servo operation holds a reference angle by applying a balancing electrical torque. Both retain the gravitational interaction between source and test bodies. Their distinction is an inference and calibration route, not gravity being present in only one mode. [3] [4]

MQ’s proposed apparatus assignment identifies free response with the upper-count evaluation and servo with the lower electromagnetic-demarcation evaluation. That identification is additional to Equations (1a)–(4d). The algebra does not prove that an electrical torque calibration realizes the demarcation, or that a mechanically read angle realizes the limiting regime. Figure 2 makes the extra hypothesis visible. [1] [9]

Chronology, covariance and a decisive comparison

MQ’s broad distinction between electromagnetic and macroscopic approaches predates the April 16, 2026 NIST/BIPM publication. The specific pairing of free deflection and servo with the two realization evaluations was made retrospectively. A numerical target established within a theory and a later apparatus-specific interpretation are different milestones. The available comparison is not a preregistered discovery test. [1] [3] [9]

Shared apparatus can cancel some geometry and calibration effects, but the two estimators also have mode-dependent response, electrical transfer and drift. A normalized contrast must propagate the covariance of the actual mode results. Its uncertainty cannot be inferred by adding two independently treated absolute uncertainties when important inputs are shared. The required correlations must come from the measurement model and supporting data. [4] [5]

Under an ideal unbiased Gaussian contrast model, dividing 34.9284 ppm by the desired expected standardized separation gives total differential standard uncertainty goals of 11.6428 ppm for three and 6.9857 ppm for five. These are planning requirements, not achieved precision, per-channel uncertainties or guaranteed detection thresholds. At an expected mean exactly on a positive five-standard-uncertainty threshold, an ideal Gaussian experiment has only a 50-percent chance of exceeding that threshold. [1] [6]

Table 4 sets out the records needed to transfer this numerical target into a discriminating test. The public proposed-experiment page supplies a research design rather than evidence that a fully qualified apparatus has achieved these requirements. [7]

A validated result near zero with uncertainty small enough to exclude the target would challenge this apparatus assignment. A stable gap far from the target would likewise require revision. Agreement would strengthen the specific comparison while leaving alternative mechanisms and systematic controls to be assessed. A positive offset alone does not identify the Informativity differential as its cause. [9]

The published NIST experiment and other paired determinations provide experimental context. Their combined-gap analysis is a separate MQ statistical synthesis with its own covariance and heterogeneity assumptions. Its fitted center is not substituted for the fixed count-derived target here. This Brief does not claim a new measurement, a unique mechanism, an institutional endorsement or a change in recommended constants. [3] [8]

September 27, 2026 is the release’s recorded source/audit snapshot. This Brief was prepared October 26, 2026 using the current public sources. The count ratio, denominator conversions, displayed-value difference and illustrative sensitivity arithmetic were reproduced. No original discovery date is inferred, and no independent apparatus qualification or physical validation was performed.