The 'concentrate the energy to higher density' half of the streaming idea runs into a limit that is currently a live, unresolved dispute in the literature — not settled physics in either direction. Alvarez-Dominguez, Garay, Martin-Martinez and Polo-Gomez prove, within their assumptions, that 'it is not possible to concentrate enough light to precipitate the formation of an event horizon': dissipative quantum effects of light self-interaction (vacuum polarization, Schwinger pair production) drain the buildup before a horizon forms, for kugelblitz radii up to 1e8 m. Loeb's published comment replies that 'black holes can be made of light by adding gravity to the discussion', citing the radiation-dominated early universe. Both cannot be right as stated, and the corpus records no resolution. For the streaming architecture the practical reading is: the density-concentration endpoint (kugelblitz-class energy packing) cannot be costed today because the field has not yet decided whether it is possible at all — while for any milder concentration the operative limits are the Schwinger field (4 orders above current lasers per the harvest) and diffraction, neither of which is yet priced in the corpus for our geometry.

Verified all three evidence quotes (E-0056/57/58) EXACT against corpus/S-0025/fulltext.md and corpus/S-0026/fulltext.md, and checked the claim text against surrounding context: S-0025's early-universe caveat sits only in the R>=1e9 m supermassive paragraph, so Loeb's 3-km solar-mass early-universe example lies inside AD's stated [1e-29, 1e8] m impossibility range — 'both cannot be right as stated' holds on the two ingested documents. Then ran the counter-source attack on 'currently a live, unresolved dispute... not settled in either direction': fetched live arXiv abs pages for 2405.02389 (journal ref: Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 041401 (2024)), 2408.06714 (Loeb Comment — comments field says 'submitted for publication as a comment to Physical Review Letters', no journal ref, i.e. NOT published), 2408.11097 (AD Reply, arXiv-only, concedes 'our study does not apply to the extreme conditions of the early universe' and says Loeb's present-day 300K example 'falls almost twenty orders of magnitude outside of the range of sizes that our study precludes'), and searched for post-2024 resolution: found Don N. Page, 'Light Black Holes from Light' (arXiv:2505.16202, May 2025; appears as a Phys. Rev. Lett. publication, DOI 10.1103/gtln-y185, per journals.aps.org search hits — APS page itself 403s to bots), which agrees kugelblitze are practically infeasible ('by any foreseeable human activity') but asserts idealized colliding plane-wave processes CAN form black holes of any size down to near-Planck purely from photons — contesting AD's in-principle impossibility inside their stated range. No retraction, concession, or third-party adjudication found; the dispute is four-deep and still open, which corroborates rather than refutes the claim's core. Also recomputed the parenthetical Schwinger figure (scratch script schwinger_check.py): E_S = 1.32e18 V/m from constants; record laser 1.1e23 W/cm^2 gives 9.1e14 V/m, ratio 10^3.16 in field, 10^6.3 in intensity — the claim's '4 orders above current lasers' matches no clean convention, and no 'harvest' record substantiating it exists in ledger/searches.ndjson (3 entries, none on this topic). None of these findings flips the truth value of the claim's core assertions (dispute live and unresolved, corpus records no resolution, concentration endpoint uncostable, milder-concentration limits unpriced), so the strongest attack failed. || FINDINGS: Core survived: (1) live arXiv confirms S-0025 published as PRL 133, 041401 (2024); (2) Loeb Comment 2408.06714 remains an unpublished preprint ('submitted for publication as a comment to Physical Review Letters'); (3) AD Reply 2408.11097 (arXiv-only) dismisses Loeb by scope separation, conceding 'our study does not apply to the extreme conditions of the early universe'; (4) Don N. Page 'Light Black Holes from Light' (arXiv:2505.16202, 2025, PRL DOI 10.1103/gtln-y185) agrees on practical infeasibility but asserts in-principle formation down to near-Planck scale — the dispute is four-deep and still unresolved, corroborating the claim. Non-refuting errors found: 'Loeb's published comment' is false in the refereed sense (claim's own note says 'comment preprint'); note propagates Loeb's wrong citation 'PRL 130, 041401' (actual: PRL 133); '4 orders above current lasers' — independent computation gives 10^3.16 (field, vs record 1.1e23 W/cm^2 laser) or 10^6.3 (intensity), and the cited 'harvest' record is not findable in the repo.