# Reserved later text alternative

Assign one file after feedback and a delay. Keep roles separate.

# Reserved new files · later information

Release only the page matching a captured first response. Keep both versions. A supported KEEP is valid when the first claim was already careful; explain the decision.


## E1 later

**Source:** The first pouch had 0.12 mol/L impermeant neutral solute inside and 0.28 outside, water permeability, equal temperature and equal initial pressure. Now consider those same concentrations/permeability/equal temperature with pressure unknown and possibly different. No full water-potential values are supplied. The N/P file and membrane map are unchanged.

**Task:** State the first scenario's supported water conclusion, then qualify the new scenario's net water prediction through water potential. Name the needed pressure/full water-potential information and an unchanged transport or membrane result. Preserve the valid first equal-pressure reasoning.

# Reserved new files · later information

Release only the page matching a captured first response. Keep both versions. A supported KEEP is valid when the first claim was already careful; explain the decision.


## E2 later

**Source:** The first pouch had 0.22 mol/L impermeant neutral solute on both sides, water permeability and equal initial temperature/pressure. Now pressure is unknown and may differ; equal solute values, water/solute permeability and equal temperature remain. No full water-potential values are given. The J/K file and membrane map are unchanged.

**Task:** Explain what was supported in the first scenario. Decide whether no net water movement can still be asserted with certainty under unknown pressure. Explain using water potential, request the missing information and name an unchanged earlier result. Do not treat equal solute values as proof of equal full water potential.

# Reserved new files · later information

Release only the page matching a captured first response. Keep both versions. A supported KEEP is valid when the first claim was already careful; explain the decision.


## F1 later

**Source:** The first geometry remains: edges 4 mm and 8 mm, supplied layers 1 mm at 5 min. For this supplied interval, the layer starts at depth d_start = 0 mm when t_start = 0 min. Average front speed = Δdepth/Δtime = (d_end − d_start)/(t_end − t_start). This is the model's interval average, not a constant future speed, intrinsic diffusion coefficient or molecular flux. The separate endpoint lists remain C: 70, 74, 78 s; D: 130, 134, 138 s, with matching material/solution/endpoint rule. New model-plan notes state C was 18°C and D 28°C, with unstandardised stirring. No actual experiment occurred.

**Task:** Keep an already cautious endpoint claim or revise an overstatement, with reasons. Give the unchanged numerical comparison, identify temperature/stirring confounds and propose a controlled size comparison with a defined dependent measure and independent samples. Name one unchanged geometric result. Do not attribute a particular share of the difference to a confound without evidence.

# Reserved new files · later information

Release only the page matching a captured first response. Keep both versions. A supported KEEP is valid when the first claim was already careful; explain the decision.


## F2 later

**Source:** The first geometry remains: edges 2 mm and 4 mm, supplied layers 1 mm at 4 min. For this supplied interval, the layer starts at depth d_start = 0 mm when t_start = 0 min. Average front speed = Δdepth/Δtime = (d_end − d_start)/(t_end − t_start). This is the model's interval average, not a constant future speed, intrinsic diffusion coefficient or molecular flux. Separate endpoint lists remain G: 80, 90, 100 s; H: 90, 100, 110 s. Additional notes state common temperature and standardised stirring, but endpoint time was judged using resolution 10 s. The notes and numbers are authored conceptual material, not measurements.

**Task:** Keep or revise the endpoint claim with reasons. Explain what the newly common conditions resolve and why overlapping lists, three values and coarse resolution still limit confidence. Propose a better recorded endpoint measure or resolution and independent evidence. Give the unchanged number comparison and one unchanged geometric fact. Equal temperature/stirring does not remove every source of uncertainty or prove significance.