The Jump at the House's Own Scale: Paper #141's Cluster Pricing Recomputed at 1.15 × 10⁻¹⁰

Paper #141 priced the galaxy-cluster jump in the radial acceleration relation from the published galactic scale alone: the CLASH cluster scale g‡ = (2.0 ± 0.1) × 10⁻⁹ m/s² is 16.7 times the galactic scale g† = (1.20 ± 0.02) × 10⁻¹⁰ m/s², an 18.8σ separation, and a factor of √16.7 ≈ 4.1 in predicted acceleration in the deep regime. In its §2, #141 also reported this programme's own fit of the same galactic scale, on its own quality-cut SPARC sample: 1.15 × 10⁻¹⁰ m/s² — and then, by its own printed admission, spent it nowhere: "the jump as priced in §3 is computed from the published galactic scale alone; this program's own fit of that scale (1.15×10⁻¹⁰, different sample and conventions) is reported in §2 but is not spent anywhere in the pricing." This paper spends it. Repricing the same three numbers at 1.15 × 10⁻¹⁰ gives a ratio of 17.4 times (17.391 exactly), a deep-regime factor of 4.17 (printed form ≈ 4.2), a scale difference of 1.885 × 10⁻⁹ m/s², and a separation of 18.85σ against the cluster error alone — 18.85σ again if the published fit's ±0.02 × 10⁻¹⁰ error is borrowed for my fit, which carries no printed error of its own. The repricing therefore changes every headline number and no conclusion: the jump is larger at my own scale, by 4.3% in the ratio and 2.1% in the deep-regime factor, and the separation is unmoved because it is set almost entirely by the cluster scale's error, against which the difference barely changes. Paper #141's verdict — the relation's form carries to clusters, its constant does not; one scale does not pay beyond galaxies — stands at my scale exactly as at the published one, marginally strengthened. The one honest cost of spending my fit is also printed: it has no published error bar in #141, so the separation under it is stated as an upper bound (any error on my fit only enlarges the denominator), not as a like-for-like replacement of the 18.8σ.