The two machines are at different, honestly stated places. The breeder's physics is closed: it reaches Q 3.424 at 88.7 MW and breeds 4 kg of tritium a year, closing without a wall, and it reproduces from the deposited config. The burner has a reproducible closing point too — Q_E 1.31 at helium-3 fraction 0.30 — but that closure is REQUIREMENT-class: it rests on an end-plug density near 347 times what has been measured, specified rather than demonstrated.
Breeder H01-H05 (Q 3.424, closes_nowall) reproduces at config 22021. The burner's Q_E 1.31 / f_n 5.44% closing point (M-45) reproduces on the deposit's own solver, but only at plug density ratio n_p/n_c ~16; at the reference ratio 10 it does not close (Q_E 0.63, net -160 MWe). The plug density is the single largest open item (M-47, H53). The environmental items — economics, public dose, waste class — are engineering and procurement with known solutions.
Honesty about where each machine stands is the load-bearing claim. The breeder's physics is done; the burner has a reproducible net-positive point whose realization hinges on one hard, named confinement requirement. Neither is oversold, and the earlier non-reproducible burner gains (Q_E 1.002 / 1.191 / 1.825) are withdrawn rather than defended.
| Breeder physics | Q 3.424, 88.7 MW, closes no-wall (frozen, reproduces) |
| Burner closing point | Q_E 1.31, f_n 5.44% (reproducible) |
| Burner caveat | requirement-class: plug ~16 (347x GDT), not demonstrated |
| Reference n_p/n_c=10 | does NOT close (Q_E 0.63) |
| Withdrawn | burner Q_E 1.002 / 1.191 / 1.825 (non-reproducible) |