We were asking
Is the candidate transferable field a directional operator or merely a perturbing texture?
Negating the candidate shared field reversed its developmental bias, while rotations and reflections changed the response, showing that the effect depended on sign and orientation rather than generic disorder.
Is the candidate transferable field a directional operator or merely a perturbing texture?
Its exact negative favored the reciprocal compactifying direction, and geometric transforms revealed anisotropy that became more visible later in development.
Which receiver geometry determines how this signed field is interpreted across new organisms?