Editing Openai/6897769e-4ee4-800f-aba5-69cca34f701c (section)

=== Short answer: both approaches are useful. ===
* By introducing G early you pushed the work toward whether QAT can numerically account for gravity (ambitious but meaningful). The downside: G is a very constraining observable — so if your model's estimated ρQAT\rho_{\rm QAT}ρQAT is far off, the comparison can look discouraging.
* Staying on the mathematical / local-physics path (the direction we just scanned) is a good first step: establish whether the aggregate of photon/electron events can plausibly give energy densities in any interesting range under realistic parameters. If the numbers can match, then coupling in G and curvature is the natural next step.

So the strategy I recommend:
# Continue local parametrized studies (like we just did), scanning scales and plasma densities and coherent amplification possibilities.
# If you find parameter regimes where ρQAT\rho_{\rm QAT}ρQAT approaches cosmic or astrophysical density, then bring in G and attempt a QAT-to-GR mapping (e.g., plug ρQAT\rho_{\rm QAT}ρQAT into stress-energy in Einstein equations or into the QAT-inspired field equation you proposed).