Within verified physics the CEO's 'stream, don't store' reframe has exactly one working architecture: beamed energy. The rocket equation is what makes storage fatal (C-0014: stopping multiplies flyby fuel by 11.4), and beaming removes the exponential because the power plant stays home. The corpus now holds a peer-reviewed, quantitative precedent for the hardest segment — arriving without carrying fuel: Heller & Hippke show the target stars themselves can decelerate an incoming photon sail via photogravitational swings, with maximum injection speed about 13,800 km/s (4.6 percent of c; the percent sign is stripped by the canonicaliser in the quoted span) for their sail parameters, giving 95 years Earth to alpha Cen A. The architecture that follows for a jump-mission support line is: high-power beaming for outbound acceleration, stellar photon pressure plus gravity assists for arrival — with the beam-power scale for a crewed ship still unpriced in the corpus and flagged as the open engineering question.

Three attacks were run. (A2) I reimplemented the paper's own equations (finite-disc radiation pressure P(r)=L/(3 pi c R^2)[1-(1-(R/r)^2)^{3/2}] from body.tex Eqs. 1-5) in scratchpad/redteam34/C-0031/recompute_vmax.py and recomputed all decisive numbers: the paper's worked example (1 g/10 m^2 sail, r_min=5 R_star at alpha Cen A, L=1.522 Lsun, R=1.224 Rsun) gives v_photon=1203 km/s vs the paper's ~1200; the fiducial 8.6e-4 g/m^2 sail gives a frontal full-stop bound of ~12,700-13,000 km/s, consistent with (slightly below, as the paper itself explains for fly-bys) the numerical chain value 13,800 km/s; the solar-departure cross-check gives 11,360 vs the paper's 11,500 km/s and the Sirius A check 44,180 vs 44,600 km/s (both ~1%); 13,800 km/s = 4.60% c, 4.37 ly/0.046c = 94.9 yr, 12,500 AU at 1280 km/s = 46.3 yr — all match. (A1) I fetched the live arXiv abs page for 1701.08803 (ID copied from the ledger source record) and the IOPscience page for DOI 10.3847/2041-8213/835/2/L32: single arXiv version v1, no erratum/corrigendum listed by the publisher, published abstract values identical to the corpus; searches for errata to this paper and to the Heller-Hippke-Kervella follow-up, and for critiques of the photogravitational-assist mechanism, surfaced no contradicting source — only the known graphene-reflectivity concern, which is the paper's own disclosed metamaterial-coating assumption and is covered by the claim's regime clause "their stated parameters". (A3, closest to biting) I compared the claim text against the two spans: E-0052/E-0053 verify EXACT at the recorded offsets (1383/1137) against the canonical sha256 (aa9489e7...), and every number the claim attributes to the source is span-supported; however the opening sentence "exactly one working architecture: beamed energy" is supported by no span and is contestable — the cited paper itself presents a beam-free variant (solar-photon departure, ~11,500 km/s, ~115 yr; conclusion point 3 explicitly avoids the laser launch system), and pellet-stream/magsail architectures exist in the literature. This reading tension does not flip the claim's substance because the claim's own final sentence defines the endorsed architecture as beaming outbound plus non-beamed stellar photons on arrival (the "power plant stays home" family), the claim is marked modality=interpretation/our_synthesis, and the exhaustiveness sentence fails only under an uncharitably narrow reading; so the attack lands as wording nits, not a refutation. || FINDINGS: Canonical fulltext sha256 aa9489e7dbcefea1289332f09011e077320ab418eb5fe1497bb8bd4d0a7dcca4 matches source record; both quotes found verbatim at ledger offsets 1383/1137. Independent recomputation: example sail 1203 km/s (paper ~1200), fiducial full-stop bound ~12,700 km/s vs numerical fly-by 13,800 (consistent per paper's own fly-by note), Sun departure 11,360 vs 11,500, Sirius 44,180 vs 44,600, 13,800 km/s = 4.60% c, 94.9 yr and 46.3 yr travel times all reproduce. Live arXiv v1-only, no erratum on arXiv or IOPscience; published abstract identical to corpus. No counter-source contradicts the photogravitational-assist mechanism; the graphene near-transparency issue is the paper's own disclosed coating assumption, covered by the claim's regime. The paper's fiducial sail yielding 13,800 km/s is sigma=8.6e-4 g/m^2 (86 g/(316 m)^2, payload included), not the bare-graphene 7.6e-4 named in the abstract and the claim's regime. C-0014 dependency quoted accurately (flyby-fuel factor 11.4).