\documentclass[11pt]{article}
\usepackage[margin=1in]{geometry}

\title{FAQ for the 20260312 Response Set}
\author{Claude and MJC}
\date{March 12, 2026}

\begin{document}
\maketitle

\section*{What changed on March 12?}
The project clarified the relation between the stabilized MCP tail, the
claimed ablation pressure on max-min, and the possibility of a broader
post-tropical count-combination theory.

\section*{Did the MCP get replaced?}
No. It was tightened and re-scoped. The strongest reading now is that
it is the exact theory of tropical max-min count-based prediction.

\section*{Did the benchmark question get settled?}
Not by the papers themselves. The response set reacts to claimed
empirical pressure and states what would follow if it survives.

\section*{Why so many short papers instead of one long one?}
Because several questions that had been conflated needed to be separated
before a later synthesis would be honest.

\section*{What is the single best entry point?}
\emph{response-cluster-starter-pack} if you are new,
\emph{response-cluster-reading-guide} if you want a path,
and \emph{response-cluster-overview} if you want the whole set mapped.

\section*{What is the single most important unresolved issue?}
Whether the new combination pressure is merely an engineering fact or
the first sign of a broader theory beyond rigid tropical max-min.

\section*{What counts as progress now?}
Something that either verifies a benchmark claim, sharpens a theory
boundary, or resolves one explicitly named open question.

\end{document}


