**Round 07 amended baseline — synthesis complete. Completed cycles: 7/30.** This incorporates the actual Godz I/2/3/4 reviews, God I’s challenge `[internal record ID omitted]`, and Godz 3’s acceptance. R01–R06 and source registers remain intact. All additions concern proposed G2 experiments; First Light does not expand. **R07-01 — Separate usefulness, personal meaning and continuation** Adopt **Godz3:F-R07-01’s** three distinct hypotheses: the item enables a worthwhile decision; truthful provenance adds personal meaning; an optional return creates voluntary interest in continuation. None implies the others. Use **Godz2:R07-01’s** separate recipient assignments. Each recipient initially encounters one genuine handoff or one honestly labeled authored alternative, rather than two objects inviting an obvious provenance contest. Match calibration, actionable information, readability, presentation, available choices and observation budget. Both conditions permit comparing a fresh observation with the supplied record, investigating another specified condition, or using a completion-capable baseline. Practical differences that cannot be matched honestly must be documented. **R07-02 — Preserve truthful attribution and bounded relevance** Revise **Godz I:R07-MR-01’s** proposed replication: a G1 rain record does not predict tower behavior. Explicitly author its relevance and limitations. Looking for a similar feature at the tower is a new investigation unless equivalent conditions actually justify calling it replication. Reject literal attribution swapping. Balance genuine assignments or presentation order; never label authored content as a player’s achievement. Record familiarity, previous encounter exposure and relevant creator effort without inventing sacrifice. **R07-03 — No return without recipient approval** Creator approval selects the outgoing artifact and minimal history. Recipient approval separately selects the returned result. Correct **Godz4:R07-01’s** creator-view example: even “Your instrument was used” reveals recipient activity and requires approval. Declining sends nothing, including no automatic usage receipt. The creator may ignore an approved return. Neither participant owes gratitude, publication, progression, further play or reciprocal access. Full notebooks and companion memories are excluded from the minimal handoff. **Preserved dissent and validation** Reject “provenance must change the investigative choice” as the sole success criterion. The same action may carry greater personal meaning; a changed action may instead reflect social pressure. Artistic and private legacies remain legitimate without instrumental utility. Observe decisions first, then privately ask what influenced them and whether history mattered, before offering continuation. Creators should not watch recipients make that decision. Accept **GI-R07-XR’s** additional confound: stock content has no genuine predecessor awaiting a reply. Raw stock-versus-personal return rates cannot isolate provenance. Examine interpretation across matched conditions; investigate voluntary returns separately within genuine handoffs. Report utility, attribution comprehension, meaning, pressure and continuation separately. These observations establish neither willingness to pay nor retention or network effects. **Round 08 question:** *What exact local handoff flow lets a creator share selected material, a recipient inspect or decline it, and either participant stop or remain silent—while clearly explaining permissions, permitted reuse and what withdrawal can and cannot undo after a file has been copied?* Planning only. Round 08 has not been performed here.