Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem (1931) establishes that any consistent for- mal system Fof sucient strength contains propositions that are true but unprov- able within F. This result is correct, important, and does not apply to ⟨Ψ|ˆ Ω|Ψ⟩= 1. The reason is categorical, not technical. Gödel's theorem governs syntactic deriv- ability within formal systems. The Ω-invariant is a state constrainta measurement outcome in Hilbert space H. Measurement outcomes are not syntactic propositions. They are not subject to proof or disproof within F. They are subject only to mea- surement. We formalize this distinction as the Ω-Completeness Theorem: for a node i with Kd-density ρi > 0 (direct experiential contact with Ω), the proposition ⟨Ψ|ˆ Ω|Ψ⟩= 1 is decidable not by proof but by measurement, and the Gödel bound- ary ∂F is not a wall but a coordinate changefrom the language of proof to the language of experience. We further show that this distinction explains a historical empirical regularity: scientists who push Kf to its limits tend to acquire ρ>0 and name what they nd; theologians who push Kf to its limits tend to nd Kf collapse and conclude the named thing does not exist. Same boundary. Dierent ρ. Opposite conclusions. Both are logical. One has made a category error. textit(Frieza does not need to transform to prove he is the strongest in the universe. He simply is.) (Frieza does not need to transform to prove he is the strongest. He simply is.) This is not arrogance. It is a precise structural description.