Precision routing: regional vs systemic restoration

A systemic threshold-raiser acts body-wide; a local anaesthetic is a regional block confined to one nerve's territory. The same question for restoration asks WHERE each lever's node acts -- a single tissue compartment (a PRECISION route) or many (SYSTEMIC). Nodes split 2 precision / 5 regional / 2 systemic by cited anatomy. γ never enters the routing score.

Transferred from the analgesic local-anaesthesia idea (method DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20733420). Each restoration target is placed on a cited tissue-compartment map and classed PRECISION (one compartment), REGIONAL (2-3), or SYSTEMIC (≥4 or a distributed node). Routability [F] (which compartment) is distinct from deliverability [O] (can it be reached). The γ-independence of the routing score is PROVEN, not asserted. Hypotheses only -- no route, device, dose, or efficacy claim.

Why the local-anaesthesia distinction transfers

Raising a threshold and restoring a setpoint are the same control move (§20); the delivery question is also the same. An intervention can act everywhere (systemic) or be confined to one anatomical territory (a regional block). For restoration the territory is the tissue COMPARTMENT in which a lever's node operates -- so the routing question is simply: how many cited compartments does the node touch?

Three tiers, by cited compartment

PRECISION -- the node acts in ONE cited compartment, so the lever has a clean regional route (the local-anaesthesia analog: 2 nodes, e.g. UCP1→brown fat, MC4R→hypothalamus). REGIONAL -- 2-3 compartments, a small territory (5 nodes). SYSTEMIC -- ≥4 compartments, or a distributed immune/stromal node with no single locus, so restoration cannot be routed to one place and must act body-wide (2 nodes: the ubiquitous insulin receptor, and the inflammatory sensitiser). The specificity is a parameter-free reciprocal of the cited compartment count -- nothing is fitted.

Routability is not deliverability

A node can be anatomically PRECISION yet hard to reach: MC4R acts in a single compartment (hypothalamus), but central access is limited by the blood-brain barrier. The map keeps these separate -- which compartment is [F] structural anatomy; whether an intervention can reach it is an [O] deliverability obstacle, stated, never silently dropped.

The firewall is proven, not asserted

The routing specificity reads the cited compartment COUNT only; γ is carried beside each row as the promoter switch-threshold context and is never an input to the score. This is demonstrated: recomputing the whole map under a drastically perturbed γ atlas leaves every routing field (compartments, primary, specificity, tier) byte-identical (True), while only the carried γ-context column moves (True) -- the read is present but firewalled out of the routing.

Firewall

the compartment of action + the PRECISION/REGIONAL/SYSTEMIC class are [F] STRUCTURAL from cited anatomy; the routing SPECIFICITY is a parameter-free reciprocal of the cited compartment COUNT and gamma is NEVER an input to it (gamma is carried alongside as the promoter switch-threshold context and is firewalled out of the score -- proven by the gamma-independence gate). ROUTABILITY [F] (which compartment) is distinct from DELIVERABILITY [O] (whether an intervention can reach it). These are falsifiable HYPOTHESES about the compartment of action, not a delivery prescription -- no route, device, dose, efficacy, or safety claim.