Defense-Substrate 2032 Question — Algorithmic-Warfare Layer Handoff or Stacking?

Open empirical question surfaced by Report #87 (May 8 2026). The Genesis-era defense substrate (post-2024) is exhibiting BOTH: (a) preservation of legacy heavy-metal Big Five primes (Lockheed Martin $67.6 billion 2023, Boeing, RTX $80.8 billion total 2024, Northrop Grumman $140.9 billion Sentinel sole-source, General Dynamics) AND (b) Tier-1 MDAP penetration by algorithmic-warfare entrants (Palantir $10 billion Army consolidated + TITAN $178 million, Anduril Lattice). The structural question: does the 2025-2032 trajectory resolve as substrate handoff (algorithmic-warfare layer fully displaces legacy heavy-metal primes — same as 1990s consolidation 51→5 but inverted to 5→algorithmic-displacement) OR substrate stacking (both layers operate simultaneously at full procurement scale, with the architecture absorbing new layers without releasing old ones)? Report #87 H6 money-flow-continuity confirmation predicts SUBSTRATE STACKING — the architecture is engineered to absorb capital irrespective of substrate transition; legacy primes retain MDAP status while algorithmic-warfare entrants gain new MDAP slots. Resolution criteria by 2032: if a legacy Big Five prime falls below Tier-1 MDAP status by 2032, partial substrate handoff confirmed. If all 5 retain Tier-1 status alongside Anduril + Palantir as Tier-1 entrants, substrate stacking confirmed and the architecture's absorptive-not-replacement pattern is empirically locked in. Engine connection: this divergence is the Defense-substrate analog to the existing engine substrate-handoff scorecard candidates (Maximus federal-services / TBC subterranean / Energy / etc.). 2032 is a primary discriminator window, with the Department of Defense (DoD) Zero Trust Advanced Level mandate (engine has dod_zero_trust_advanced_level_2032) operating as the structural compression mechanism that may force the discrimination.