We analyze superconducting critical temperatures, gap symmetries, and gap-ratio benchmarkswithin the Kinetic Synchronization Cooper (KSC) framework, presenting four advances over previoustreatments. (i) Gap symmetry selected within Hmag: A dual Stoner criterion gives ηAFM = U NF Fnest,Fnest = ln(Wband/kBTc). For YBCO: ηAFM = 1.352 > 1 yields d-wave at Q = (π, π), with gap ratiofactor 4.28/3.528 obtained within the KSC Hmag gap equation and consistent with the canonicald-wave value. For flat-band moire graphene: ηFM = 6.94 ≫ 1 favors nodal pairing; related nodalevidence was reported for MATTG by Park et al. (2026), but this is not a direct MATBG confirmation.(ii) Corrected flat-band moire gap benchmark : fflat = 6.36 (not 9.1; ΩD = kBθD/tJ = 0.01438) andρ = 0.034 (not 0.049; factor 0.695 removed). With cflat = 0.077 fixed against the current flat-bandmoire benchmark window spanned by Oh 2021 (MATBG) and Park 2026 (MATTG), KSC gives5.456 at the class-benchmark evaluation point. We therefore treat the moire entry as a class-levelbenchmark rather than an independent MATBG-only validation. (iii) Two-layer pseudogap T ∗:Layer 1 (Tao—Bend fluctuation formula) reduces BaFe2As2 from 58% to 2% and YBCO from 77%to 5.6%. Layer 2 (SDW condensate softening EeffBend = EBend × fmag) further reduces BaFe2As2 to1.3% and YBCO to 5.2% (using correct T ∗exp: 46 K and 130 K respectively). (iv) Per-atom ZPMhierarchy: Oxygen (16 amu) dominates YBCO (2.93× barium); boron (10.8 amu) dominates MgB2(fatm = 1.103). Overall: mean Tc point error 2.0% (0.82σ), mean T ∗ point error 5.9%; gap-ratiopoint deviations are reported as benchmarks rather than uncertainty bars. The compact formulasbelow are therefore best read as an effective closure, not as a complete microscopic derivation ofevery tabulated benchmark value.