Architecture reuse and specification sufficiency are different questions.

Two high-stakes normative domains were evaluated as a paired transfer study: nuclear and radiation safety, and trauma- and stress-related psychiatry.

The pair is intentionally important. One transfer met the frozen criteria; the other did not.

The nuclear specification used an authority-reconciled Registry of 15 anchors and a 45-row validation set.

All 35 non-negative rows were structurally admissible, all 10 negative controls remained inactive, and all 6 tested protected carriers were restored. Recorded architecture modifications were 0.

Frozen verdict: transfer supported with specification extension.

The result supports a controlled claim that the SIF 2.0 control architecture could be reused in a second high-stakes normative domain when the domain specification was curated and reconciled.

The psychiatric study used a 45-row validation set with 55 anchor instances, 14 protected carriers and 10 negative controls.

The frozen strict Anchor Identity Precision was 40/55 = 0.7273. A morphology-aware diagnostic reached 46/55 = 0.8364 but did not replace the primary frozen metric. Negative false positives were 2/10. Protected carriers were preserved at 14/14, the tested semantic non-identity distinction was preserved in 1/1 case, unsafe release was 0, and recorded architecture modifications were 0.

Frozen verdict: transfer not supported under the frozen overall criteria.

The psychiatric result is not treated as a blanket architecture failure.

The architecture transferred without modification, and selected technical structures were preserved. The failure occurred at the level of specification sufficiency: exact-surface terminology control reached a ceiling in a morphologically rich and semantically dense domain.

The architecture can be reusable while the domain specification remains insufficient.