Stocking's Order/Stocking's Reciprocation: Definitive Proof 8 ÷ 2(2 + 2) = 1

Reimagining the "Invert and Multiply" paradigm for solving division problems leads to an astounding refutation of the contention that juxtapositional binding implying multiplication should be treated the same as if it had an extant operational sign. Juxtapositional binding takes priority! Disclaimer: I've never encountered what I call "Stocking's Reciprocation" in all my mathematics studies. If there's another name for it, I'm ignorant of it.