In plain terms: a method for evaluating any 'movement' or 'ecosystem' that claims to challenge institutional power. Take every named person and institution in the ecosystem; look up their actual career history, funders, board memberships. Ask: is anyone here genuinely independent of the institutions they're ostensibly challenging? If zero or near-zero are independent, the ecosystem is institutionally-coordinated, not a genuine outside challenge. Same test applies to climate advocacy, AI-safety advocacy, crypto policy, election-integrity ecosystems — recurs everywhere. Layer-4 methodology — count operators in any named ecosystem who are demonstrably independent of engine-existing-tracked H-Layer networks (intelligence-community continuity + dynastic capital + tech-capital narrative platforms + Vatican + Defense industrial base + Esalen-human-potential substrate + materialist-academic establishment). Application criteria: career-trajectory institutional embedding documented via the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings, congressional testimony, board memberships, academic affiliations, news reports of named institutional roles. Threshold: if zero or near-zero operators in the ecosystem are independent, the ecosystem is OPERATOR-LED rather than evidence-led; engine should treat its outputs as operator-faction-coordinated narrative, not as evidence-substrate. Cosmological-Apex disclosure ecosystem (Apr 26 2026) result: zero of ~25 named operators + ~10 institutions independent. Ecosystem is operator-led. Same methodology applies to any future ecosystem the engine surveys. Note: the operator-network result does NOT resolve underlying-reality questions; it resolves whether the ecosystem's claims should be treated as evidence-substrate or as coordinated narrative.