Answer

Yes to both, for finite scenarios. This is the part of QUESTION-022 that A110 §IX called “a starting result”, split off on 2026-10-21 (ADR-049).

  • Overlap consistency. CLAIM-121, the manuscript’s Proposition 1. If the local kernels commute with restriction, an overlap-consistent source model is carried to an overlap-consistent target model. The proof exchanges pushforward and restriction, then uses the source’s overlap consistency.
  • Global extendability. CLAIM-070, the manuscript’s Proposition 2. If each local kernel is the restriction of one global kernel K_X, the pushforward of a global extension p of the source is a global extension of the target, (K_X)#p.

Both CLAIMs are Active with a demonstrated warrant. Each answers the question as posed here, which asks whether these two classes preserve, not which classes do.

What it leaves to QUESTION-022

Both results are sufficient conditions. Neither says that a transport outside these classes fails to preserve, and neither covers transports that change the measurement cover. CLAIM-121 also concerns marginal consistency only, “not global noncontextuality”.