The sharp \\(\\mathcal{S}^*_{3/4}\\)-radius of \\(\\mathcal S^*\\)
Theorem. Let \\(\\mathcal S^*=\\mathcal S^*((1+z)/(1-z))\\) and \\(\\mathcal S^*_{3/4}=\\mathcal S^*((1-z/2)/(1-z))\\), the order-3/4 Ma--Minda target. Its inverse is \\(\\varphi_{3/4}^{-1}(w)=(w-1)/(w-1/2)\\). The sharp radius is
$$ r^*=\\frac17\\approx0.14285714285714285714. $$
For \\(p(z)=\\varphi_S(\\omega(z))\\), Schwarz's lemma reduces the radius problem to \\(u=\\omega(z)\\) and \\(|u|\\le|z|\\). The target inverse is \\(\\varphi_{3/4}^{-1}(w)=(w-1)/(w-1/2)\\), hence
$$ \\psi(u)=\\frac{\\varphi_S(u)-1}{\\varphi_S(u)-1/2} =\\frac{4u}{1+3u}. $$
For \\(|u|=r<1/3\\), the reverse triangle inequality yields
$$ |\\psi(u)|=\\frac{4r}{|1+3u|} \\le\\frac{4r}{1-3r}=:G(r). $$
The majorant is strictly increasing, since \\(G'(r)=4/(1-3r)^2>0\\). At \\(r^*=1/7\\), \\(G(r^*)=1\\). Thus the entire disk of radius \\(1/7\\) is contained in the target preimage, and equality is attained at \\(u=-1/7\\), where the reverse triangle inequality is exact.
Sharpness / extremal function. The Koebe extremal $$ f_0(z)=\\frac{z}{(1-z)^2},\\qquad \\frac{zf_0'(z)}{f_0(z)}=\\frac{1+z}{1-z} $$ realizes \\(\\omega(z)=z\\). For every \\(1/7<R\\le1\\), the dilation \\(f_{0,R}(z)=f_0(Rz)/R\\) remains starlike. At \\(z=-1/(7R)\\), its logarithmic argument is \\(\\varphi_S(-1/7)=3/4\\), and the target inverse is \\(-1\\), a boundary point. Therefore no larger radius is possible.
Machine check. verify_global_max_axis_symbolic('starlike','order_0.75','1/7')
returns status: proven; it checks the rational composition and discharges the
reverse-triangle guard symbolically through
\\(|1+3re^{it}|^2-(1-3r)^2=6r(1+\\cos t)=12r\\cos^2(t/2)\\ge0\\),
then checks positivity of \\(G'\\) and \\(G(1/7)=1\\). Thus this executable
guard is an exact identity rather than a finite sample check.
Literature status. The local reconciliation snapshot labels this directed row
KNOWN_GENERAL as a standard order-\\(\\alpha\\) inclusion result, with citation
confirmation pending. This is a machine-verified exact result, not a novelty
claim; external literature audit and expert sign-off remain required.