SS-PIVOT: From Scale Geometry to Gravitational Dynamics: What the Configuration Manifold Determines—and What It Does Not

Promoting physical logarithmic scale to a coordinate produces a well-defined Riemannian Scale Space configuration manifold. The companion geometry paper derives its normalized hyperbolic metric, invariant measure, scalar Green function and finite-profile projection theorem. Those results are substantial, but they do not uniquely select a gravitational action, propagating field representation, universal matter coupling or experimental readout. This paper makes that logical boundary explicit and records the resulting architectural pivot. The central distinction is between three layers: configuration geometry, dynamical representation and source/readout law. The scalar Green function on the configuration manifold has a reciprocal local 1/d² singularity. Projection through overlapping finite scale profiles yields a leading 1/R term in the near-zone limit. At large fixed-midpoint separation, the exact hyperbolic scalar kernel instead gives an R⁻⁶ tail; the formal R⁻² limit of the local approximation lies outside that approximation's domain. The near-zone coefficient depends on the profiles and on whether midpoint physical separation or one fixed coordinate separation is compared; the two choices generally differ. Consequently the scalar theorem alone does not establish body-independent gravity. A complete-H⁴ massless spin-2 identification has five polarizations before extra constraints or coupling suppression; it cannot be equated to the two-polarization low-energy tensor channel by geometry alone. No observational exclusion of a fully specified complete-H⁴ model is claimed without its action and matter couplings. A leafwise finite-regulator representation supplies a conditional two-polarization zero-mode candidate, while its higher scale-fibre modes carry profile-sensitive information. The zero-mode-plus-gap example is a useful sufficient construction, not a unique mechanism of long-range gravity. This separation preserves the verified geometric results, withdraws the earlier claim that they automatically produce universal gravity, and assigns the remaining tasks cleanly. Dynamics selects the field content; matter theory constructs conserved source profiles and matched departures; phenomenology maps those sources and modes into apparatus-level observables. The paper thereby supplies the conceptual and technical bridge between Scale Space geometry and its leafwise dynamical successor without pre-empting the latter's detailed spectrum or open nonlinear completion questions.