(Replying to the comment instead of the post to be sure you'll see this)

In "The Is-Ought Gap" you conclude

Either our intended meaning of 'ought' refers (eventually) to the world of math and physics (in which case the is-ought gap is bridged), or else it doesn't (in which case it fails to refer).

I have a lot to say about this particular issue but I'm not sure if you think you've exhausted the issue in this post or if you plan to come back to it. Just to begin with, though, I hope you're aware that the two reasonable camps that take the gap most seriously would both agree with this conclusion. The issue is exactly this: we don't think 'ought' refers.