What the analysis says
Does steady spherical (Bondi) accretion realize the maximal transonic rate to order of magnitude? H-16 - Physical accretion realizes the maximal transonic rate, with an interpolation formula covering the moving-star case vs its complement H-38 - Steady accretion does not realize the maximal transonic rate. Prior [0.8501, 0.1499] = posterior — argument-only, 0 evidence blocks, prior = posterior by design. All weight comes from A-17 - Steady spherical adiabatic accretion admits solutions only up to a maximal rate 4πλc(GM)²ρ∞ c∞^-3 (scaling/bound a theorem) and A-18 - Energy comparison selects the maximal-rate transonic solution as the state actually realized (the λ = λc selection only Bondi’s “not quite assured” heuristic).
What the model may not capture
Structural fact: no empirical observation ever touches this cluster — its conclusion is pure no-observation argument. That matters because HC-4’s dangerous corner A-48 - For crossover radius above about 200 Angstrom Earth accretion could be fast, so Earth-internal calculation alone cannot close the safety case runs the same Bondi formalism to ~10⁴–10⁵ yr consumption times; a systematic error here propagates identically into innocuous and catastrophic estimates. Both members share a steady-continuum-fluid framing; a breakdown of that premise (non-fluid nanometre-scale growth) is a failure mode neither cleanly represents.
What would help
An independent, non-Bondi growth calculation at nanometre scale — does not exist (the corpus’s shared idealization). Direct accretion data at this scale — does not exist.
Confusions and contradictions
No evidential conflict — there is no evidence. The internal tension: A-18 does load-bearing selection work as a heuristic, yet feeds a 0.85 reading firmer than that warrants. Shipped unfixed, flagged by the discount factor.