Should John Smith Ph. D. Jones read like John Smith PhD Jones, or is the split spelling's reading the better one? #827

S8 (the credential's trailing run) lets an unambiguous credential after the name core start a run to the end of its part, taking a name word behind it as a reported suffix. The split spelling Ph. D. chains a following credential like every other spelling, but in a main segment (no comma, or before a suffix comma) it starts no run over a name word.

Group merges Ph. D. into one flagged piece, and the trailing peel's walk never holds that piece. #603 (decisions/C13) made the merged piece start the run after a comma, but left the main segment as it was. The difference only shows when a name word follows the merged piece.

Proposal, in rule shape

When: the split Ph. D. stands after the name core in a main segment, with a name word behind it, as in "John Smith Ph. D. Jones".

Then, one of:

• (A) it starts the run as PhD does: the name word joins the suffix and is reported.
• (B) it stays outside the run, recorded as an Accepted bullet in rules/S8, since reading Jones as the family is at least as likely as reading it as a credential.
• (C) the other spellings move toward the split one instead, so a name word behind a credential in a main segment stays a name word. That would revisit Should a name word after a credential join the suffix? John Smith PhD Jones reads middle Smith PhD #602's decision.

Because: the three spellings are one credential, and S8's run start asks for an unambiguous credential, not a spelling. The two readings differ only in what they do with a name word, which is the part of #602 most open to doubt.

Boundaries that stay as they are: a known credential behind Ph. D. (John Smith Ph. D. M.D.) reads suffix, and John Smith Ph. D. reads suffix 'Ph. D.'.

Open questions

1. Does (A) need the peel's walk to hold merged pieces, and what else would that move?
2. Is (C) worth measuring over the corpora, to see how often a credential is followed by a real name word?