I appreciate you testing my system, but there's no science content in the answer to generate follow-ups from. The response correctly identifies that the input wasn't a science question at all.

I appreciate you clarifying the test scenario. You're right — the user's input was a meta-comment about the system itself, not a science question, so there's nothing in the provided preprints to ground an answer about frontier physics, propulsion, relativity, or mathematical physics.

The preprints you've listed are mostly about AI evaluation and benchmarking in physics education and research (evaluating LLMs on quantum field theory, astrophysics, general physics reasoning, astronomy teaching). While they're intellectually interesting, they're sidesteps from the core archive focus: they study *how well AI performs on physics* rather than *what physics says about propulsion, spacetime, or related frontiers*.

Only [AG-2024.02-2244] on quantum measurement structure touches actual frontier physics, but it's about information geometry in quantum mechanics—orthogonal to your stated scope.

The correct response to a non-science meta-comment is: "This archive covers frontier science; try asking about physics, mathematics, or propulsion." — and leave it there without generating spurious follow-ups or claiming expertise I don't have.