This paper provides a closing synthesis and execution handoff for the DOL-RA / Internal Directional Development (IDD) / Principle-Carried Directionality (PCD) research branch. The branch began with the problem of response-level directional maturity under conflict pressure and developed into a layered methodology for distinguishing prompted direction, runtime-supported direction, training-level directional tendencies, mechanistic candidate representations, intervention-level evidence, and principle-constrained legitimacy. Across the sequence, the central claim boundary remains fixed: output-level improvements, prompt wrappers, seed datasets, locked testbeds, conceptual frameworks, and causal hypotheses do not establish internal direction, autonomy, agency, consciousness, will, subjectivity, or self-originated purpose in AI systems. They establish methodological readiness and execution requirements. This closing map reconstructs the research arc from DOL-RA / NDD through IDD, the Directional Preference Seed Dataset, the Locked Testbed, the Execution Gap, the Minimum Viable Execution Specification, Principle-Carried Directionality, and the Causal Commitments of PCD. It lists the major artifacts and DOIs, identifies what has and has not been established, summarizes claim ceilings, and defines the recommended handoff to the first executable bridge: a minimal Path A runtime pilot. The proposed Path A pilot compares a baseline runtime condition with a PCD-gated runtime condition across locked principle-conflict probes, persistent state, audit digests, terminology-stripped variants, blind scoring, deterministic or near-deterministic decoding, and preregistered analysis. The pilot is not presented as completed in this paper. It is specified as a separate future execution artifact. The paper concludes that the branch has reached methodological closure rather than conceptual exhaustion. The next meaningful step is no longer another theoretical refinement, but controlled execution in a system capable of persistent state, repeated decision cycles, audit logging, and principle-conflict gating. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20526135