Agency Integration Map

BLACKGROVE GLOBAL RISK · INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENT

Agency Integration Map Which programs treated two or more Černohajev layers as one connected problem — and when

JULY 2026 C lassification: Unclassified M ethod: OSINT / Publicly Available Information

BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT

No single U.S. agency connects all six layers of the Černohajev architecture. The corpus is the only full-column architectural entry. Collectively, across four independent programs that do not reference each other, every layer has been architecturally scoped — but the open record reconstitutes the architecture incrementally over 27 years while never unifying it, against a corpus complete at origin.

The same dates are equally consistent with independent rediscovery pacing itself to enablingtechnology maturity. Whether the assembly is also correct is what the six experiments decide.

The six layers are the architecture defined in the Convergence Record. The columns are the four U.S. programs that demonstrably scoped more than one of those layers together, plus the corpus. The question is not “did each agency work on these domains” (convergence, already established) but the narrower one: did the agency treat the layers as connected subsystems of one machine — at what strength, and in what sequence?

● ARCHITECTURAL — Named as connected subsystems of one system, concept, or craft within a single document or

program. ◔ LINKED — Present in the same program but weaker than architectural: a survey under one portfolio, a borrowed

formalism, or a material/supply-chain dependency. ○ NOT PRESENT — The layer is absent, or present but not connected to the others.

Every ● and ◔ is footnoted to its specific basis and labeled DOCUMENTED or INFERRED.

BLACKGROVE GLOBAL RISK

2

PART I

The Map Which programs connected which layers — and at what strength

PART I — THE MAP

Which programs connected which layers N AVY¹

N ASA²

D IA³

D ARPA⁴

HEEMFG / PAIS

BPP / EAGLEWORKS

AAWSAP / DIRDS

PUMP

Č ERNOHAJEV⁵

●

●

◔

○

●

●

○

◔

◔

●

○

◔

◔

●

●

●

○

◔

●

●

●

●

◔

○

●

hull as active EM system

●

○

○

○

●

Architectural layers (●)

5 of 6

2 of 6

0 of 6

2 of 6

6 of 6

Č ERNOHAJEV LAYER

1 — Theoretical foundation charge–gravity / field coupling

2 — Power source compact / aneutronic fusion

3 — Energy conversion MHD generator

4 — Field architecture superconducting magnets

5 — Propulsion field–medium traction, no reaction mass

6 — Structural integration

Reading the map No single agency connects all six layers architecturally. The corpus is the only full-column architectural entry.

That is the load-bearing finding, and it holds without overclaim.

The Navy scoped five of the six on paper — everything except MHD. The Pais HAUC concept names the foundation (HFGW + inertial-mass device), the fusion power source, the superconductor, the propulsion device, and the superconducting hull skin as one craft. The single layer it does not connect is energy conversion: Pais routes fusion to electrical power directly, with no MHD channel.

DARPA owns exactly the layer the Navy missed. PUMP architecturally connects MHD (Layer 3) and high-field superconducting magnets (Layer 4) — the precise gap in the Navy column.

Navy ∪ DARPA spans the entire architecture. Between two programs that do not reference each other, every one of the six layers has been architecturally scoped somewhere in the U.S. system. The integration exists in the open record — distributed across independent programs, never assembled in one of them.

DIA is the only program whose remit nominally touched the whole stack — but only as a survey. The 38 DIRDs reach five of the six layers, yet each is a standalone forecast. DIA connected the domains institutionally (one portfolio, one manager, one program) without connecting them architecturally.

BLACKGROVE GLOBAL RISK

4

What the corpus is. Černohajev is the only single document in which all six layers are connected as subsystems of one architecture, with each layer’s output specified as the next layer’s input. Collectively the programs reconstitute the architecture; only the corpus assembles it.

BLACKGROVE GLOBAL RISK

5

PART II

The Timeline When each architectural connection appeared — and in what sequence

PART II — THE TIMELINE

When each connection appeared Component technologies (MHD generators, the King patent, AVCO) are old; what this dates is specifically when each layer was connected to the others as a subsystem — the architectural act, not the component.

Program active windows P ROGRAM

A CTIVE WINDOW

A RCHITECTURAL LAYERS SCOPED

Černohajev corpus

1980–1990

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

NASA — BPP

1996–2002

1, 5

DIA — AAWSAP / DIRDs

2008–2012

none architectural (survey ◔ only)

Navy — HEEMFG / Pais

2016–2019

1, 2, 4, 5, 6

DARPA — PUMP

2023–

3, 4

Sequence of architectural scoping ● CELLS ONLY, CHRONOLOGICAL

D ATE

P ROGRAM

N EW ARCHITECTURAL LAYERS ADDED

R UNNING COVERAGE

1980– 1990

Černohajev corpus

All six, as one connected architecture

6 of 6 — complete at origin

1996– 2002

NASA BPP

L1 foundation + L5 propulsion (the bookends)

2 of 6

2008– 2012

DIA AAWSAP

— (institutional survey; no architectural connection)

2 of 6

2016– 2019

Navy / Pais

L2 power, L4 field, L6 hull (fills the middle)

5 of 6

2023

DARPA PUMP

L3 MHD energy-conversion (the last piece)

6 of 6 — distributed across 3 programs

BLACKGROVE GLOBAL RISK

7

What the timeline shows FINDING 1

Every open architectural connection postdates the corpus. It is not merely that the programs working these domains postdate Černohajev — it is that the architectural act of connecting the layers postdates him in every case. The earliest open scoping (NASA BPP, 1996) trails the corpus by at least six years against a 1990 close, sixteen against a 1980 start. The component physics predates him (King patent 1967, AVCO MHD 1959–82); the integration does not. DOCUMENTED

FINDING 2

Complete at origin vs. 27-year incremental assembly. The corpus integrates all six layers at once, by 1990. The open record reaches full architectural coverage only in 2023 — by accretion: theory-and-thrust first (1996), then power-field-hull (2019), then the MHD bridge last (2023). Twenty-seven years to assemble what the corpus presents as a single object, and even at the finish the six layers sit in three programs that do not reference each other. DOCUMENTED

FINDING 3

The oldest component is the newest connection. MHD is the most mature technology in the set — AVCO operated generators from 1959, the King patent dates to 1967. Yet MHD as an architecturally connected subsystem is the last layer to appear in the open record (DARPA PUMP, 2023). The thing that has existed longest as hardware was the last to be wired into the architecture in public. DOCUMENTED

FINDING 4

The superconductor layers necessarily sit after the 1986 hinge. Every open architectural connection that depends on high-field superconductors — Navy’s room-temperature claim (2017–19), DARPA’s 20-Tesla REBCO (2023) — postdates the 1986 discovery of high-temperature superconductivity, because they depend on it. This is the anachronism hinge made concrete: the open programs cannot have scoped these layers before 1986. Whether the corpus’s Works №8 and №12 did is exactly the test that decides the case — and the open record offers no counterexample, because there can’t be one. DOCUMENTED

BLACKGROVE GLOBAL RISK

8

COUNTER-READING — STATE IT, PER DISCIPLINE

The sequence tracks enabling-technology maturity, and that is the parsimonious explanation. BPP could scope foundation-plus-propulsion in 1996 because that is inexpensive theory. Pais could scope superconductor-plus-fusion-plus-hull around 2019 because room-temperature-superconductor claims and compact fusion were live in the literature. DARPA could connect MHD to 20-Tesla magnets in 2023 because the fusion industry demonstrated 20-Tesla REBCO around 2021 and NIF reached ignition in December 2022.

On this reading, each architectural connection appears precisely when its enabling milestone lands — which is what independent rediscovery on real physics looks like, not a baseline leaking into view. The corpus predating all of it means only that one engineer reached the integration conceptually before the enabling hardware existed. This is the stronger interpretation and it is not ruled out.

BOTTOM LINE

The map establishes that no single agency assembles the architecture — the corpus is the only full-column entry — while collectively, across four independent programs, every layer has been architecturally scoped. The timeline sharpens this: every architectural connection postdates the corpus, the oldest component (MHD) is the newest connection, and the open record reconstitutes the architecture incrementally over 27 years while never unifying it, against a corpus complete at origin.

What neither establishes is a common baseline — the same dates are equally consistent with independent rediscovery pacing itself to enabling-technology maturity. Collectively the programs reconstitute the architecture; only the corpus assembles it. That assembly being unique to the corpus is a documented fact. Whether the assembly is also correct is what the six experiments decide.

BLACKGROVE GLOBAL RISK

9

FOOTNOTES

Source Documentation ¹ NAVY — HEEMFG PROGRAM / PAIS PATENT FAMILY (NAWCAD; NISE PROJECT 219BAR-17-009)

L1 ●

DOCUMENTED

— High-frequency gravitational wave generator (US10322827B2) generates gravity from an EM source;

the inertial-mass-reduction device (US10144532B2) produces local vacuum polarization. Both name field manipulation as the operative principle.

L2 ●

DOCUMENTED

(hedged in source) — Plasma Compression Fusion Device (US20190295733A1) named in the 2019 AIAA

paper (AIAA 2019-0869) as the HAUC’s power/thrust source: an “auxiliary propulsion unit (possibly Plasma Compression Fusion-generated)” providing “initial HAUC thrust and electrical power generation.” The hedge (“possibly,” “auxiliary”) is in the original.

L4 ●

DOCUMENTED

(physics contested) — Room-temperature superconductor (US20190058105A1), integral to the HAUC.

Patent advanced over USPTO examiner rejection by Navy CTO Dr. James Sheehy. No prototype produced; physics widely disputed.

L5 ●

DOCUMENTED

(physics contested) — Inertial-mass-reduction craft + EM field generator (US10135366B2) as the

propulsion subsystem.

L6 ●

DOCUMENTED

— The 2019 AIAA paper specifies the room-temperature superconductor as the craft’s electrically

charged outer skin and lossless wiring — the hull as an active electromagnetic element, not a passive shell.

L3 ○ — No MHD energy-conversion stage; fusion is routed to electrical power directly.

Active window 2016–2019 (patents filed 2016–17, granted 2018–19; AIAA paper 2019). Inventor’s FOIA-released inventiondisclosure record (NAVAIR, reported Dec 2020) states the superconductor, EM-field generator, inertial-mass device, and gravitational-wave generator are “all interrelated.” Cross-citation among the patents is

DOCUMENTED

(the craft patent

incorporates the EM-field generator by reference).

² NASA — BREAKTHROUGH PROPULSION PHYSICS (GLENN, 1996–2002) + EAGLEWORKS (~2011–2015)

L1 ●

DOCUMENTED

— BPP charter scopes “coupling of gravity and electromagnetism, vacuum fluctuation energy, warp

drives and wormholes” as one connected problem set; genuine architectural integration of the foundation.

L5 ●

DOCUMENTED

— Propellantless propulsion is the explicit organizing purpose of BPP and the Eagleworks Q-thruster.

L3 ◔

DOCUMENTED

— Eagleworks’ Q-thruster (~2011–2015) borrows the equations of magnetohydrodynamics to model a

quantum-vacuum “propellant”; a formalism link, not an MHD generator.

L2, L4, L6 ○ — Not within BPP’s scope. Architectural ● cells date to the BPP window, 1996–2002.

BLACKGROVE GLOBAL RISK

10

³ DIA — AAWSAP / BAASS DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE REFERENCE DOCUMENTS (PROGRAM 2008–2012; DIRDS AUTHORED 2008–2010)

All ◔ are

DOCUMENTED

as survey-level: one program, one manager (Lacatski), one portfolio, but each DIRD is a standalone

forecast, not an integrated design.

L1 ◔ — DIRDs #5 (metric engineering, Puthoff), #14 (superconductors in gravity research), #19 (antigravity for aerospace), #24 (energy from the quantum vacuum).

L2 ◔ — DIRDs #27/#30 (aneutronic fusion propulsion, Teofilo) and inertial-electrostatic-confinement fusion.

L3 ◔ — DIRD #33 (MHD Air Breathing Propulsion and Power, Macheret).

L4 ◔ — DIRD #14 (superconductors).

L5 ◔ — Warp-drive, negative-mass, and metric-engineering DIRDs. L6 ○ — Advanced-materials/metamaterials DIRDs exist but do not scope a hull as an integrated propulsion structure; held conservatively as not-present.

⁴ DARPA — PRINCIPLES OF UNDERSEA MAGNETOHYDRODYNAMIC PUMPS (PUMP, 2023–; PM SUSAN SWITHENBANK)

L3 ●

DOCUMENTED

— MHD drive is the core of the program.

L4 ●

DOCUMENTED

— 20-Tesla REBCO superconducting magnets named as the enabling capability; explicitly credits the

commercial fusion industry’s magnet advances (~20-Tesla REBCO demonstrated ~2021).

L2 ◔

DOCUMENTED

— Fusion linkage is a material/supply-chain dependency only (HTS magnets sourced from the fusion-

magnet supply base), not a reactor subsystem.

L5 ○ — PUMP is reaction-mass propulsion (it pumps seawater). Architecturally it is Layer 3, not the no-reaction-mass field–medium traction of Layer 5.

L1, L6 ○ — No gravity/vacuum foundation; no integrated hull.

⁵ ČERNOHAJEV — THE TWELVE WORKS ( E NGINEERING INFINITY )

All six ● by definition of the source: Gravitational-Charge Dualism (L1) → TYaS fusion reactor (L2) → MHD Scheme II (L3) → superconducting solenoids at 16.65 T (L4) → 678,000-solenoid array traction (L5) → ferromagnetic/diamagnetic hull as active flux structure (L6). Each layer’s output is specified as the next layer’s input. Written 1980–1990. The only single document in the comparison set that connects all six.

Blackgrove Global Risk · Intelligence Assessment · July 2026 Basis: Convergence Record layer architecture and alignment chronology; open-source program documents (Pais patents and AIAA 2019-0869, BPP charter, DIA FOIA reading-room DIRDs, DARPA PUMP BAA). Enabling milestones: HTS discovery 1986; ~20-Tesla REBCO demonstration ~2021; NIF ignition December 2022. Cell strengths reflect the documentary record only; survey-level co-location under one program (DIA) is distinguished throughout from architectural integration (Navy, DARPA). Alignment is not derivation.

BLACKGROVE GLOBAL RISK

11