A-score 39.44: Rule_of_law (4×0.18=0.72) reflects executive branch using funding as enforcement mechanism outside established Title VI processes. Separation (4×0.16=0.64) captures executive leveraging appropriated funds to compel institutional policy changes on protected speech issues. Civil_rights (3×0.14=0.42) reflects tension between antisemitism concerns and academic freedom/First Amendment. Capture (2×0.14=0.28) for using federal funding dependency as control lever. Corruption (1×0.10=0.10) minimal. Severity: durability 1.1 (can be reversed but creates chilling effect), reversibility 0.95 (funding restorable but institutional damage), precedent 1.2 (establishes funding-as-cudgel model for campus speech). Mechanism modifier 1.25 for resource_reallocation with constitutional implications. Scope 1.15 for federal action affecting major research institution. B-score 27.58: Layer1 (14.3/26): outrage_bait 7 (antisemitism + Ivy League + $400M), meme_ability 5, novelty 6 (unprecedented scale), media_friendliness 8 (clear narrative, big numbers). Layer2 (13.28/24 at 0.55 intent): mismatch 6 (constitutional concerns vs culture war framing), timing 5, narrative_pivot 7 (shifts from governance to campus politics), pattern_match 6 (fits administration's university targeting). Intentionality 9/15 (clear political signaling, symbolic target selection, narrative alignment). D-score: 39.44-27.58=+11.86. Mixed classification: both scores exceed 25, but D-score marginally above +10 threshold. Real constitutional mechanism (funding coercion on speech) with significant hype amplification.