Why it is a question
THEORY-014 holds three proved results, from LIT-016, LIT-003 and LIT-777. In each formalism a real-linear representation always exists, and classicality is the existence of a nonnegative one. Its title states them together. Its “What this does not say” denies that the sheaf section and the GPT representation are the same object, and that a sheaf-noncontextual model yields a diagram-preserving ontological model of the corresponding GPT fragment, or the reverse. Until 2026-10-19, its promote_when asked for exactly that bridge, which the title does not claim. At the owner’s direction, from the promotion audit’s batch 010 (ADR-047), the THEORY was promoted on its proved halves, and the condition moved here unchanged.
It is open because NOTE-017 records that LIT-003 attempts no formal comparison with LIT-016, and no other source the record holds makes one. QUESTION-067 asks the related question of which noncontextuality assumption a test of pragmatic judgements would refute.
What would answer it
The condition formerly on THEORY-014, unchanged: a published result mapping an empirical model’s signed global sections onto a quasiprobability or frame representation of the corresponding GPT fragment, or proving that no such map preserves positivity. A further example of negativity in either formalism alone cannot settle it.