Coverage, Confirmation, and Identification: A Sequel to Where the Pressure Falls

How can a comparison of ultimate grounds use results about coverage, additional evidence, and the identity of a putative agent when those results answer different questions? This study applies a protocol that reports the three registers separately and specifies when it will certify a preference across coverage and confirmation. It fixes the formulations and evidential requirements in advance and records how each conclusion depends on the admitted evidence and sensitivity analyses. In the published coverage matrix, the mathematical universe and Spinozism are undominated and the four theistic conceptions are dominated. The rule variants retained the surviving pair. Repairing the seven registered gaps could only add entrants. In particular, raising the order assessment for process theism or the suffering assessment for personal theism would admit the corresponding conception. The published study classifies the frontier size as suggestive and uninformative. Two or fewer survive in 8.33% of permutations. Three diagnostic confirmation pairs and, conditional on ultimate personal agency, six identification pairs remain unordered under the formulations, auxiliaries, and corpus examined. The study distinguishes a pair with insufficient differential evidence from a pair that cannot be constituted under a strict source-eligibility rule. It specifies what would reopen each comparison. The neutrality of the evidence remains unestablished.