Jack Smith testimony creates significant constitutional concerns (A=29.18) through rule_of_law implications (4.0) of special counsel making public attribution statements, election integrity questions (3.5) regarding accountability for Jan 6, and separation of powers issues (3.5) around prosecutorial testimony. Judicial mechanism modifier 1.15x and federal scope 1.2x apply. However, distraction score is higher (B=31.29, D=-2.11) driven by extreme outrage_bait (8.5) and media_friendliness (9.0) of Trump-Jan6 narrative, strong Layer 2 strategic elements including narrative_pivot (8.0) reinforcing existing political divisions and timing (7.5) amid ongoing Trump legal battles. High intentionality (11/15) from political timing of testimony, partisan framing, and media coordination patterns. Qualifies as Mixed (both scores >25, |D|<10) but leans List B due to negative D-score, indicating hype slightly exceeds constitutional damage despite legitimate accountability concerns.