Participant Relationship Protocol

Back to matrix

G05-RT: Yes

Rationale

Yes is an editorial architectural-plausibility inference under the same complementary-evidence standard used for PRP, not a measured global deployment. Native Reticulum 1.5.5 fixtures establish scoped regional catalogs, recursive lookup stopping at catalog gateways, exact replies and reusable learned core paths. The new shared-catalog fixture passed 24 lookup/delivery cases: two independent origin cores use the same catalog shards without cross-bank request leakage or a complete catalog replica per origin bank. Unknown queries fan out across catalog gateways, not all endpoints; known core paths avoid that fanout. Combined with origin working-set sizing and explicit shard/refresh/load sensitivities, this supplies a credible distributed-state scaling route. Additional service paths or replicas are charged as capacity needs rather than assumed free. A native target-directed regional index is not required when bounded gateway fanout can be provisioned. The selected serial/IFAC composition is retained; no IP backbone, application DHT or Bloom extension is added.

Assessment method

Editorial synthesis of native shared catalogs and conditional resource sizing

Source context

Reticulum 1.5.5 native fixtures and explicit resource model

Outstanding qualification

This is an editorial inference, not certification or a claim that the native fixture authors measured global capacity. The analytical example assumes small recurring relationships and 0.2 additional unresolved interests/device/day; 1000 daily accesses are not converted automatically into that miss rate. The intensive workload remains an unresolved sensitivity. The faster UART hardware specification does not establish driver compatibility, long-haul links or end-to-end RNS throughput. Service-path counts are optimistic inverse-budget estimates, not executed hardware inventories. Catalog placement, physical regional embedding, intermediate learned state, expiry, announcements, retries, crypto CPU, congestion and burst demand remain engineering qualifications. A small graph is mechanism evidence only. No full shared-topology simulation, global resource bound or guarantee of discovery latency/coverage is claimed. Keep the earlier adverse and intensive cases; reassess if a concrete common-setting obstruction is established.

Public sources

Editorial evidence references

The following identifiers refer to research records not included in this public package; they are not public links.