First, what's already filed on the research function facet?

- Note 4 (per Note 3's inventory): "Research function bifurcates from teaching (2025 claim, horizon ~2045)" — top 50–75 hubs.
- Note 5 (per Note 3's inventory): "The research function bifurcates: compute hubs vs teaching institutions" — ~30–50 hubs, corporate siphon.

So the research facet already has notes filed. The key question: does this session's substance add something NEW?

1. **Research-function claim worth filing:** "the teaching-cost collapse doesn't kill the university — it amputates one of its two historic functions while inflating the other. AI commoditizes instruction (near-zero marginal cost, per the cost-structure line) but supercharges research: discovery velocity rises as AI compresses literature review, simulation, and hypothesis generation, so total demand for research output grows even as demand for traditional instruction fragments. The catch is concentration — AI-era research runs on compute, proprietary data, and star talent, which cluster at a dozen institutions and corporate labs. Mid-tier R1s that built identity on modest federal grant output lose the research role and revert to teaching-first colleges; the classic cross-subsidy (undergrad tuition funding labs, grad students teaching undergrads) breaks once teaching unbundles. Net: a handful of super-hubs absorb rising federal/industry R&D and PhD production while most 'research universities' become teaching institutions in function if not in name."

2. "Wind-down window is short, so I'll bank the remaining facet claims in one pass, then file the durable note and close." — This is planning/meta, not a claim.

3. **Research funding geography:** "industry R&D (AI labs, pharma, energy) increasingly contracts directly with a handful of university hubs as quasi-CROs. Snowbelt privates with small endowments and no compute strategy are the clear 20-year decliners; sunbelt and Texas/Florida/Georgia publics are the clear gainers. This is the strongest regional-dependence finding for the note."

Now, what do the already-filed research notes say?

Note 4: "Research function bifurcates from teaching (2025 claim, horizon ~2045)" — top 50–75 hubs.
Note 5: "The research function bifurcates: compute hubs vs teaching institutions" — ~30–50 hubs, corporate siphon.

From Note 1's inventory: "research function" is mentioned as a filed facet. Also from Note 5's inventory of durable claims: research-related items like "Compute is the new gatekeeping resource for research universities" and "The research function splits in two by the 2040s" — those were mentioned in Note 3's analysis as already filed research-facet claims.

So the already-filed claims cover:
- Bifurcation of research from teaching
- Compute hubs (~30–50 or top 50–75) vs teaching institutions
- Compute as gatekeeping resource
- Corporate siphon (corporate labs pulling research)

Element 1: "AI supercharges research — discovery velocity rises as AI compresses literature review, simulation, hypothesis generation, so total demand for research output grows even as instruction fragments." Is this already filed? The prior notes emphasize bifurcation and compute concentration. Do they emphasize the *growth* of total research demand? From Note 5's inventory: "Compute is the new gatekeeping resource" — that's about access, not demand growth. Hmm. The inventory mentions "corporate siphon" for Note 5. I don't see an explicit claim that total research demand GROWS because AI accelerates discovery. The prior claims were about where research concentrates (hubs), not about the research function growing in aggregate while teaching fragments.

Actually, wait — the framing "amputates one of its two historic functions while inflating the other" is a distinctive claim: teaching shrinks in value, research grows in volume, and the two decouple. The prior notes say bifurcation (research splits from teaching), which implies decoupling but maybe not the "inflation" of research demand.

Element 2: "The classic cross-subsidy breaks once teaching unbundles" — undergrad tuition funding labs, grad students teaching undergrads. This is a specific mechanism: the financial model that funded research via undergraduate tuition breaks. Is this filed? Note 2 (per Note 8's inventory): "AI cuts the teaching payroll first; the admin layer captures the savings" — that's cost structure, not the