Theorem. Background symmetries form a presheaf of groupoids [fdip-009F]

Let a group \(G\) act on the left on a set \(X\). For each subgroup \(H\), the action groupoid \(H\ltimes X\) has the elements of \(X\) as objects, and an arrow \(h:x\to y\) for each \(h\in H\) with \(h\cdot x=y\). If \(H\) is contained in a subgroup \(K\), sending each arrow to itself is a functor \(H\ltimes X\to K\ltimes X\), identical on objects. These functors preserve identities and composition, and they compose with the inclusions of subgroups. The assignment is therefore a functor from the poset of subgroups of \(G\) to groupoids. Equivalently, it is a groupoid-valued presheaf on the opposite of that poset.

The isomorphism classes of \(H\ltimes X\) are the orbits of \(H\). Thus the objects modulo the symmetries in \(H\) are the isomorphism classes of that groupoid. The enriched four-cycle backgrounds carry an action of the dihedral group constructed there. The action groupoid in that note is the value of this presheaf at that whole group. That note is transcluded by enriched backgrounds. The reader guide places that comparison in Part V, with the Clifford algebras and the Dirac operators. The chapter on backgrounds and symmetry does not transclude the four-cycle note or the enriched-backgrounds note. It says that its examples prepare those comparisons. The arrow pattern is the action groupoid. This note does not claim that every background in that chapter arises from the four-cycle.

No stack is proved. A stack would require a topology and a descent equivalence for compatible families. No cover is defined here, and no descent map is shown to be an equivalence. The finite tests of where the topos layer begins record that the action-groupoid example does not require a quotient stack, and that those tests have supplied no site, descent theorem, or physical correspondence. Whether this presheaf organises a stack of backgrounds remains open.