CHICAGO — Measurement Quantization identifies a numerical goal for a purpose-built comparison of free gravitational deflection and electrostatic servo on the same apparatus. If its proposed +34.9284 parts-per-million mode gap is correct, a total standard uncertainty of 6.9857 parts per million would place the expected result five standard uncertainties above zero under a specified Gaussian model.

The uncertainty belongs to the difference between the modes, normalized to the servo result. It is not the uncertainty of either mode alone or a claimed performance already achieved by an instrument. Figure 1 separates the target, sensitivity requirement and experimental status.

The corresponding three-standard-uncertainty requirement is 11.6428 ppm. At a rounded 7 ppm uncertainty, the expected separation is 4.990 standard uncertainties. These calculations assume that the target is the true mean, the uncertainty model is valid and unresolved mode-dependent bias has been controlled.

The same source geometry allows some common effects to cancel, but switching from mechanical response to active electrostatic compensation changes calibration and response conditions. Angular-scale calibration, electrical torque transfer, suspension behavior, pressure, temperature and drift need explicit evaluation. Shared apparatus does not automatically remove systematic error.

The mode-to-theory assignment, denominator, data selection, covariance model and rejection criteria should be fixed before unblinding new results. The existing NIST experiment supplies measurement context; its association with MQ realization regimes was retrospective. A new test must distinguish a controlled numerical prediction from a later choice of interpretation.

A measurement near zero with sufficient validated uncertainty would challenge this proposed assignment. A stable nonzero gap far from the target would also require revision. Agreement with the target would be informative, but a positive offset could still arise from instrumental effects or another physical mechanism.

A future 5 ppm result could distinguish two stipulated exact gaps near 34.93 and 61 ppm. The historical common-gap estimate near 61 ppm, however, has about 27 ppm standard uncertainty. That uncertainty must be retained when comparing the estimates; a smaller future error bar does not make the historical center exact.

The technical Brief provides the target equations, sensitivity and power calculations, covariance examples and experimental controls. The numerical goals are prospective. This release announces no partner laboratory, awarded funding, measurement schedule or institutional endorsement.

# # #