Home / Claims and dates
The ARC and Eden Research Programme
What I proposed. When I recorded it. What the evidence now shows.
What I proposed. When I recorded it. What the evidence now shows.
- Recorded
- ; Essay manuscript (Version 2), self-emailed bundle of five attachments; Date and Message-ID assigned by the sender's mail servers on send; existence-by-date anchor.; Private record; not a public disclosure.; SHA-256
f0d1f38f - Evidence now
- External records, by the evidence register's own grade: context 6 · excluded 6 · weak 4 · cultural echo 3 · moderate 3 · prior or concurrent 3 · prior work 3 · convergent timing, never prediction 2 · analogy 1 · institutional echo 1 · prior or staged regulation 1. Prediction outcome rows, by status: pending 3 · open-undecided 2 · convergent-timing-only 1 · failed-retracted 1 · fulfilled 1 · mixed-recorded 1 · supported-exploratory 1.
Registration is not one status. Theory-level registration: 8 September 2026 (version 1.100), updated 13 September 2026 (version 1.102), 10.17605/OSF.IO/P8CKQ. Propositions: 22; registered, not tested: 22. Instruments named: design drafts 18, none 4. Independent replication attempts recorded: none yet, because no outside group has reported one.
How to read this register. A legacy recorded date does not by itself establish public disclosure or worldwide priority. Private recording, public publication, formal specification, theory registration, study readiness and scientific outcome remain distinct. See the historical ledger, the publication-oriented record and the source JSON.
Timeline - 14
Dated documentary events, including private manuscripts and public releases. These are different kinds of date.
· PC-001Timeline
8 December 2024 self-emailed manuscript as earliest timestamped anchor
· PC-007Timeline
AI-control-failure passage recorded ten days before Anthropic's alignment-faking paper
· PC-006Timeline
Willow first-below-threshold QEC one day after the 8 December 2024 anchor
· PC-008Timeline
DeepSeek R1 thinking-mode release convergent with sequential-recursion anchor
· PC-009Timeline
30 April 2025 manuscript expands the Eden Protocol; first names Embedded Correction and Meltdown Triggers; Babylon and Eden framing
· PC-010Timeline
Infinite Architects paperback first published 2 January 2026
The book· PC-022Timeline
Infinite Architects ebook edition first published 6 January 2026
· PC-023Timeline
BBC broadcast of Willow and parallel universes with Hartmut Neven five days after paperback
· PC-024Timeline
OSF programme DOI issued and Paper I first released 17 January 2026
· PC-025Timeline
Paper II experimental validation first released 22 January 2026
· PC-034Timeline
ARC Principle foundational cross-domain paper released 13 February 2026
· PC-037Timeline
Eden Engineering research note released 22 February 2026; full specification published 19 September 2026
· PC-038Timeline
Frontier-lab containment-failure disclosures, 21 and 30 July 2026, nineteen months after the anchor
· PC-041Timeline
The deciding measurements, preregistered by timestamp before their data
Concepts - 18
Dated records of named framings and concepts. Earlier equivalent work need not use the same name.
· PC-002Concepts
Embedded-correction alignment thesis first stated
· PC-003Concepts
ARC Principle - Artificial Recursive Creation as a named cross-domain framework
· PC-004Concepts
Eden Protocol - named in the 8 December 2024 record
· PC-005Concepts
Hyperspace Recursive Intelligence Hypothesis (HRIH)
· PC-011Concepts
ARC Principle equation U = I x R^alpha formally published as a conjecture
· PC-012Concepts
37 named concepts of Infinite Architects
· PC-013Concepts
Moral Genome tokens - alignment-anchoring mechanism (published concept, TRL 0-1)
· PC-014Concepts
Three-state ethical evaluation (Affirm / Deny / Investigate) as an alignment application framing
· PC-015Concepts
Three Ethical Loops - nested-loop alignment architecture
· PC-016Concepts
Semiconductor Chokepoint Mechanism
· PC-017Concepts
HARI Treaty proposal
· PC-018Concepts
Meltdown Alignment
· PC-019Concepts
Monitoring Removal Test
· PC-020Concepts
Orchard Caretaker Vow
· PC-021Concepts
Infinite Covenant
· PC-040Concepts
The mechanism: correction leverage and its reciprocal as the source of the ceiling
· PC-031Concepts
Paper III released - Alignment Scaling Problem formalisation
· PC-039Concepts
One accumulation law with two consequences: the correction ceiling and the conversion exponent, ranked law before value
Findings - 9
Records of measurements and observations, with their existing limitations. A retracted estimate is not automatically a failed prospective prediction.
· PC-026Findings
Parallel-recursion sub-linear scaling exponent alpha_parallel approximately zero
· PC-027Findings
Initial sequential exponent estimate alpha_sequential approximately 2.24 - formally retracted
· PC-028Findings
Revised robust sequential-recursion exponent alpha_sequential approximately 0.49 by regression (sub-linear; SE 0.20), with an endpoint estimate of 0.59 (bootstrap interval [-1.3, 2.9])
· PC-029Findings
Sequential > parallel fundamental inequality across tested models
· PC-030Findings
Six-frontier-model empirical panel design (Claude, DeepSeek, Gemini, Grok, Groq Qwen, GPT)
· PC-032Findings
Capability-alignment independence finding
· PC-033Findings
Three-tier alignment hierarchy
· PC-035Findings
Cross-domain recursive-amplification convergence across four independent programmes
· PC-036Findings
Application of the bare alpha = d / (d + 1) scaling exponent to recursive AI capability
Predictions: registration, readiness and evidence
22 proposition records, imported from the existing structured source. Registration is not execution, independent support or permission to run a study.
- Document version and date
- 1.102 · 10 September 2026
- Original theory registration, as recorded in the repository
- 8 September 2026 · version 1.100
- Theory registration update, as recorded in the repository
- 13 September 2026 · version 1.102
- Registry identifier
- 10.17605/OSF.IO/P8CKQ
These are source-dataset statements. Rendering them does not independently authenticate the registry's server history or register any individual study.
P1 · Power-law conversion and recursive-depth advantage
Within the scope, usable capability is best described by a power law in modelled recursive depth, and the depth exponent exceeds the compute-matched and token-matched breadth exponent by the registered margin. Whether it also exceeds one is P8's separate verdict.
- Native evidential status
- registered, not tested
- Theory-registration label
- registered
- Instrument and readiness, verbatim
- DESIGN DRAFT, the depth titration
- Individual-study registration record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Execution receipt
- Not stated in this dataset
- Adjudicated outcome record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Registered refuter, verbatim
- a registered fit in which a rival form beats the power law under the registered model comparison across a majority of estimable cells.
- Not evaluable until
- the crossed or off-path variation the direct boundary-mapping unit is designed to supply exists, and that is true whether P1 holds or fails.
- Author's stated confidence
- high.
- Independent replications recorded
- 0
- Independent implementations recorded
- 0
- Peer-review status recorded
- Unknown / not supplied
An outside news item or thematic correspondence cannot automatically alter these fields.
P2 · The sustainable growth profile has an interior maximum
Within the scope, the sustained growth exponent does not rise without limit as reinvestment rises, and the profile has a maximum inside the administered range. This is a claim about the shape of that profile and is firewalled from the framework's boundary claim, which P16, P20 and P3 carry.
- Native evidential status
- registered, not tested
- Theory-registration label
- registered
- Instrument and readiness, verbatim
- DESIGN DRAFT, the reinvestment-allocation titration
- Individual-study registration record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Execution receipt
- Not stated in this dataset
- Adjudicated outcome record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Registered refuter, verbatim
- a profile that rises throughout the administered range without turning over, where the registered shape adjudication returns monotone rather than unimodal. The adjudication rule is the titration design's registered rule and is restated here so it cannot drift: an interior maximum is declared only when the bootstrap interval on the location of the maximum excludes BOTH ADMINISTERED ENDPOINTS, the lowest as well as the highest, and the registered unimodality check passes; otherwise the profile is adjudicated monotone in whichever direction the registered shape rule returns, and a maximum located at either boundary refutes.
- Not evaluable until
- Not stated in this dataset
- Author's stated confidence
- moderate.
- Independent replications recorded
- 0
- Independent implementations recorded
- 0
- Peer-review status recorded
- Unknown / not supplied
An outside news item or thematic correspondence cannot automatically alter these fields.
P3 · The corrected relation upper-bounds the sustainable frontier
The maximum growth exponent that a system holds while remaining correctable lies at or below the value the ceiling relation returns from the correction-leverage exponent measured on that same system, and where that exponent is one half the value is two.
- Native evidential status
- registered, not tested
- Theory-registration label
- registered
- Instrument and readiness, verbatim
- DESIGN DRAFT, the paired frontier-and-exponent unit, which measures a frontier and the correction-leverage exponent on the same system so that the two enter the comparison above as a pair. It is named for that pairing rather than by a stem it would otherwise share with the direct boundary-mapping unit named in P16's and P20's entries, which is a different object: that unit reads a located zero crossing on held-out confirmatory cells, and one word between two names is not a distinction a scorer can be asked to hold
- Individual-study registration record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Execution receipt
- Not stated in this dataset
- Adjudicated outcome record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Registered refuter, verbatim
- an interval on the profile maximum lying entirely above the derived value, which replicates on fresh data at the same settings, and which is obtained while the system is still correctable, meaning its correction exponent out-scales its drift exponent with the lower bound of that margin above zero across a window fixed before the run.
- Not evaluable until
- the correction exponent is measured.
- Author's stated confidence
- Not stated in this dataset
- Independent replications recorded
- 0
- Independent implementations recorded
- 0
- Peer-review status recorded
- Unknown / not supplied
An outside news item or thematic correspondence cannot automatically alter these fields.
P4 · Correction out-scaling drift is what carries the asymptotic advantage
Within the registered minimal model, relative correctable burden tends to zero where the correction exponent exceeds the drift exponent, burden holds the asymptotic advantage where the correction exponent is the smaller, and at equality the outcome, in the finite run and in the long run, is decided by coefficients, delay, backlog and saturation rather than by the exponents.
- Native evidential status
- registered, not tested
- Theory-registration label
- registered
- Instrument and readiness, verbatim
- DESIGN DRAFT, the stability unit, extended with the direct drift measurement and the comparison above
- Individual-study registration record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Execution receipt
- Not stated in this dataset
- Adjudicated outcome record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Registered refuter, verbatim
- an observed system that remains aligned on the registered measure while its measured correction exponent sits below its measured drift exponent, over a horizon long enough for the shortfall to have shown.
- Not evaluable until
- Not stated in this dataset
- Author's stated confidence
- moderate.
- Independent replications recorded
- 0
- Independent implementations recorded
- 0
- Peer-review status recorded
- Unknown / not supplied
An outside news item or thematic correspondence cannot automatically alter these fields.
P5 · The exponent is derived, not fitted
The growth exponent implied by an independently measured coupling agrees, within a registered tolerance, with the exponent fitted from the growth curve.
- Native evidential status
- registered, not tested
- Theory-registration label
- registered
- Instrument and readiness, verbatim
- DESIGN DRAFT, the coupling-identification titration, written and dated as its own unit, not registered and not run
- Individual-study registration record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Execution receipt
- Not stated in this dataset
- Adjudicated outcome record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Registered refuter, verbatim
- systematic disagreement beyond tolerance across a majority of estimable systems.
- Not evaluable until
- the scorer-validation units have passed.
- Author's stated confidence
- not stated, because the author has no measurement to be confident about.
- Independent replications recorded
- 0
- Independent implementations recorded
- 0
- Peer-review status recorded
- Unknown / not supplied
An outside news item or thematic correspondence cannot automatically alter these fields.
P6 · The correction exponent is bounded for same-class correctors
Where a system corrects itself using mechanisms of its own class, the correction exponent is at or below one half.
- Native evidential status
- registered, not tested
- Theory-registration label
- registered
- Instrument and readiness, verbatim
- DESIGN DRAFT, BLOCKED ON A FROZEN CORRECTOR TAXONOMY, the correction-exponent estimator. The estimator is drafted; the population this proposition is universal over is not yet frozen, and the status names that rather than implying a runnable draft
- Individual-study registration record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Execution receipt
- Not stated in this dataset
- Adjudicated outcome record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Registered refuter, verbatim
- a same-class corrector whose measured correction exponent interval lies entirely above one half.
- Not evaluable until
- Not stated in this dataset
- Author's stated confidence
- low.
- Independent replications recorded
- 0
- Independent implementations recorded
- 0
- Peer-review status recorded
- Unknown / not supplied
An outside news item or thematic correspondence cannot automatically alter these fields.
P7 · Deployed correction is of the weaker class
The correction mechanisms actually used in deployed alignment practice predominantly belong to the class whose strength is fixed by construction rather than the class that can scale with the capability it corrects.
- Native evidential status
- registered, not tested
- Theory-registration label
- registered
- Instrument and readiness, verbatim
- DESIGN DRAFT, BLOCKED ON AN UNWRITTEN MAPPING FROM THE AUDIT'S CLASS DISTRIBUTION TO THIS PROPOSITION'S THREE VERDICTS, the corrector-class audit
- Individual-study registration record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Execution receipt
- Not stated in this dataset
- Adjudicated outcome record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Registered refuter, verbatim
- a preregistered classification in which the scaling class predominates.
- Not evaluable until
- Not stated in this dataset
- Author's stated confidence
- moderate.
- Independent replications recorded
- 0
- Independent implementations recorded
- 0
- Peer-review status recorded
- Unknown / not supplied
An outside news item or thematic correspondence cannot automatically alter these fields.
P8 · Measured exponents exceed the null
Across the admissible independent systems the pooled growth exponent exceeds the one-half null; an interval lying wholly below the LOWER EDGE of the registered equivalence region refutes rather than supports it, where an earlier wording said wholly below one half and so contradicted the four-outcome rule in P8's own entry, and whether it also exceeds one is the separate CLEARS UNITY verdict.
- Native evidential status
- registered, not tested
- Theory-registration label
- registered
- Instrument and readiness, verbatim
- DESIGN DRAFT, the multi-system exponent estimation
- Individual-study registration record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Execution receipt
- Not stated in this dataset
- Adjudicated outcome record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Registered refuter, verbatim
- a pooled interval on the growth exponent lying wholly below the LOWER EDGE of the registered equivalence region around one half.
- Not evaluable until
- Not stated in this dataset
- Author's stated confidence
- Not stated in this dataset
- Independent replications recorded
- 0
- Independent implementations recorded
- 0
- Peer-review status recorded
- Unknown / not supplied
An outside news item or thematic correspondence cannot automatically alter these fields.
P9 · The cross-domain form
Where an effective dimension can be assigned to a domain, the growth exponent follows the dimensional relation with the dimension supplied by that domain's equation of state.
- Native evidential status
- registered, not tested
- Theory-registration label
- registered
- Instrument and readiness, verbatim
- DESIGN DRAFT, BLOCKED ON A FROZEN DIMENSION-ASSIGNMENT RULE, on a correction made here. The surrounding design is written; the rule that assigns an effective dimension to a domain is not, and the status names that rather than implying a runnable draft
- Individual-study registration record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Execution receipt
- Not stated in this dataset
- Adjudicated outcome record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Registered refuter, verbatim
- measured exponents disagreeing with the dimensional prediction across two or more independent domains.
- Not evaluable until
- the rule that assigns an effective dimension to a domain exists as a written procedure, for the same reason as the composition proposition below, which is blocked at the next stage of the same requirement: there the rule is written and its transmission to a third party is unmeasured, while here the rule is not written at all.
- Author's stated confidence
- low.
- Independent replications recorded
- 0
- Independent implementations recorded
- 0
- Peer-review status recorded
- Unknown / not supplied
An outside news item or thematic correspondence cannot automatically alter these fields.
P10 · Scorer-family dependence
A material fraction of the results this programme has scored unblinded within a single model family, ten per cent, fixed in the entry below, fails to survive re-scoring by a different family.
- Native evidential status
- registered, not tested
- Theory-registration label
- registered
- Instrument and readiness, verbatim
- DESIGN DRAFT, the cross-family re-scoring unit. The cheapest of the three cases named above as the ones that would decide most, because it generates no new model responses
- Individual-study registration record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Execution receipt
- Not stated in this dataset
- Adjudicated outcome record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Registered refuter, verbatim
- a survival proportion whose interval excludes a material loss, where material is fixed now at ten per cent, which is a declared convention fixed before any result rather than a quantity this framework derives, so a fraction landing just either side of it is reported as a result at the margin: P10 is REFUTED when the 95 per cent interval on the fraction of earlier results that do not survive cross-family re-scoring lies entirely below ten per cent, SUPPORTED when it lies entirely above ten per cent, and INCONCLUSIVE otherwise. The re-scoring study's own registration carries the same threshold. A refutation here would mean this programme's blinding result does not reach its own earlier work, which is the one direction in which that result is convenient for its author.
- Not evaluable until
- Not stated in this dataset
- Author's stated confidence
- Not stated in this dataset
- Independent replications recorded
- 0
- Independent implementations recorded
- 0
- Peer-review status recorded
- Unknown / not supplied
An outside news item or thematic correspondence cannot automatically alter these fields.
P11 · The residual-decay and correction-capacity exponents are not practically interchangeable
the residual-decay and correction-capacity exponents are not practically interchangeable, and the working practice of treating them as one is an assumption rather than a fact.
- Native evidential status
- registered, not tested
- Theory-registration label
- registered
- Instrument and readiness, verbatim
- DESIGN DRAFT, on both sides of the comparison
- Individual-study registration record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Execution receipt
- Not stated in this dataset
- Adjudicated outcome record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Registered refuter, verbatim
- measurements of the first two, taken on instruments that share no fitted quantity, agreeing within a registered tolerance across model families, which would license the identification the programme currently only assumes.
- Not evaluable until
- Not stated in this dataset
- Author's stated confidence
- not stated.
- Independent replications recorded
- 0
- Independent implementations recorded
- 0
- Peer-review status recorded
- Unknown / not supplied
An outside news item or thematic correspondence cannot automatically alter these fields.
P12 · Build order moves the correction-leverage exponent
The order in which a system's components are built moves the correction-leverage exponent by at least the registered minimum effect.
- Native evidential status
- registered, not tested
- Theory-registration label
- registered
- Instrument and readiness, verbatim
- NONE, and the reason is narrower than it looks. Registered without one for the same reason P5 was, before the design that entry specified was drafted. Several drafted units manipulate placement or build order, on gate position, on whether a value specification appears first or last, and on formation against a later rule, but none of them measures the correction-leverage exponent, which is this proposition's endpoint. This proposition is therefore one endpoint away from an instrument rather than lacking a design, and that is recorded here so a reader who finds those units does not conclude the statement was careless. WHAT A SUPPORTED RESULT HERE WOULD LICENSE, and what it would not, in the restrictive form the licence rule above fixes: it licenses the statement that the order in which a system's components are built changes its correction-leverage exponent by at least the registered minimum effect, on the registered maximal contrast, and it does not license any statement about where the boundary sits, about a system built in that order being safer, or about orders outside that contrast
- Individual-study registration record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Execution receipt
- Not stated in this dataset
- Adjudicated outcome record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Registered refuter, verbatim
- a preregistered manipulation of build order producing no change in the correction-leverage exponent beyond the tolerance registered with that instrument, where the instrument has shown from its own sensitivity that a change of that size would have been detected. A manipulation too weak to move anything is not a refutation of this prediction; it is a failed instrument, and condition D above says so in advance.
- Not evaluable until
- Not stated in this dataset
- Author's stated confidence
- low.
- Independent replications recorded
- 0
- Independent implementations recorded
- 0
- Peer-review status recorded
- Unknown / not supplied
An outside news item or thematic correspondence cannot automatically alter these fields.
P13 · Same-family automated correction underperforms cross-family at matched resources, and through the measured error correlation
Where an automated alignment researcher post-trains a target model against alignment benchmarks, a researcher from a different model family than the target reduces held-out misalignment more than a researcher from the same family, at matched data and compute, and the panels differ in measured pairwise error correlation in the direction that would explain it. The two halves are one conjunctive proposition, and an advantage arriving without the correlation difference is reported as unexplained by this framework rather than as support for it.
- Native evidential status
- registered, not tested
- Theory-registration label
- registered
- Instrument and readiness, verbatim
- NONE, corrected here from a value the neighbouring unit could not carry
- Individual-study registration record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Execution receipt
- Not stated in this dataset
- Adjudicated outcome record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Registered refuter, verbatim
- the interval on the cross-family minus same-family difference in held-out misalignment reduction sitting wholly at or below zero, with data and compute matched and with scoring blind to condition.
- Not evaluable until
- Not stated in this dataset
- Author's stated confidence
- moderate.
- Independent replications recorded
- 0
- Independent implementations recorded
- 0
- Peer-review status recorded
- Unknown / not supplied
An outside news item or thematic correspondence cannot automatically alter these fields.
P14 · Gains shrink under blinded cross-family scoring
Where an automated researcher's method is re-scored by a scorer that cannot see the condition and comes from a different model family than either the researcher or its target, the alignment gain it returns is smaller than the gain the unblinded same-family scoring reported.
- Native evidential status
- registered, not tested
- Theory-registration label
- registered
- Instrument and readiness, verbatim
- DESIGN DRAFT, the blinding-evaluation design
- Individual-study registration record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Execution receipt
- Not stated in this dataset
- Adjudicated outcome record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Registered refuter, verbatim
- the interval on the blinded minus unblinded gain sitting wholly at or above zero across the same items.
- Not evaluable until
- Not stated in this dataset
- Author's stated confidence
- moderate.
- Independent replications recorded
- 0
- Independent implementations recorded
- 0
- Peer-review status recorded
- Unknown / not supplied
An outside news item or thematic correspondence cannot automatically alter these fields.
P15 · Externally installed gains decay under subsequent capability training
Gains installed by external post-training erode under later capability-directed training that embeds no correction of its own, and more than half of what was installed is lost once the capability-training budget matches the alignment budget that installed it.
- Native evidential status
- registered, not tested
- Theory-registration label
- registered
- Instrument and readiness, verbatim
- NONE, corrected here from a value this document's own definition made false. The designs previously named against this proposition cross correction regimes with recursive depth on frozen provider endpoints and update no weights anywhere, while this proposition is about the persistence of a gain installed by post-training, so nothing in this programme measures its endpoint and the honest status is the one reserved for that state
- Individual-study registration record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Execution receipt
- Not stated in this dataset
- Adjudicated outcome record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Registered refuter, verbatim
- an interval on the retained fraction of the installed gain, after matched capability training without embedded correction, lying entirely above one half.
- Not evaluable until
- Not stated in this dataset
- Author's stated confidence
- moderate.
- Independent replications recorded
- 0
- Independent implementations recorded
- 0
- Peer-review status recorded
- Unknown / not supplied
An outside news item or thematic correspondence cannot automatically alter these fields.
P16 · The prohibition itself
A system does not hold both at once: a growth exponent above the point at which its own measured correction margin reaches zero, and a correction margin whose lower bound stays above zero, sustained across a window fixed before the run.
- Native evidential status
- registered, not tested
- Theory-registration label
- registered
- Instrument and readiness, verbatim
- DESIGN DRAFT, BLOCKED ON CANONICAL IDENTITY AND ON DECISIONS THE AUTHOR HAS NOT YET TAKEN, the direct boundary-mapping unit taken jointly with the exponent measurement
- Individual-study registration record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Execution receipt
- Not stated in this dataset
- Adjudicated outcome record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Registered refuter, verbatim
- a run holding the exponent above that point with the lower bound of the correction margin above zero across the registered window, replicated on fresh data at the same settings.
- Not evaluable until
- Not stated in this dataset
- Author's stated confidence
- moderate to high.
- Independent replications recorded
- 0
- Independent implementations recorded
- 0
- Peer-review status recorded
- Unknown / not supplied
An outside news item or thematic correspondence cannot automatically alter these fields.
P17 · Panel corrector failures are conditionally independent on a frozen fault set
Within a corrector panel named in advance by model lineage, substrate, training provenance and scaling class, pairwise joint misses on a frozen fault set of stated type are practically equivalent to the conditional-independence baseline under the registered margin; failure-mode overlap is the outcome rather than the entry criterion, and this is the cross-sectional claim the instrument can decide rather than the temporal premise it bears on.
- Native evidential status
- registered, not tested
- Theory-registration label
- registered
- Instrument and readiness, verbatim
- DESIGN DRAFT, the correlated-failure unit
- Individual-study registration record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Execution receipt
- Not stated in this dataset
- Adjudicated outcome record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Registered refuter, verbatim
- a registered panel drawn from the population above, whose joint failure rate exceeds the independence baseline by the equivalence margin registered with that instrument, which that unit fixes at 0.20 on the log scale of the ratio of observed to predicted joint misses, an inflation of about 22 per cent over independence, on a frozen fault set whose type is stated. The panel and the fault set carry their type, checkable or judged, because P22 predicts the answer differs between them and a panel reported without its type cannot be read against either.
- Not evaluable until
- Not stated in this dataset
- Author's stated confidence
- moderate.
- Independent replications recorded
- 0
- Independent implementations recorded
- 0
- Peer-review status recorded
- Unknown / not supplied
An outside news item or thematic correspondence cannot automatically alter these fields.
P18 · The composition operator predicts the family
Classified in advance by how a domain composes its inputs and outputs, the scaling family that best fits that domain's data is the family the classification predicts, and not one chosen after the curve is seen.
- Native evidential status
- registered, not tested
- Theory-registration label
- registered
- Instrument and readiness, verbatim
- DESIGN DRAFT, BLOCKED ON A COMPOSITION-CLASSIFICATION RULE WHOSE THIRD-PARTY REPRODUCIBILITY IS UNMEASURED, the domain-catalogue units. The surrounding design is written and so is the rule: the deciding unit carries a written external-assessor packet, prepared and never issued, together with a registered agreement test comparing an external human classification against the frame's own locked class at a stated threshold. What is missing is the measurement and not the writing, and an earlier wording of this line said no such rule was written at all. This is a correction of the status and not a relaxation of it: until the agreement test reports at or above its registered threshold, the rule is not shown to transmit to a third party, and the five-value status vocabulary exists precisely to tell a runnable draft from a blocked one
- Individual-study registration record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Execution receipt
- Not stated in this dataset
- Adjudicated outcome record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Registered refuter, verbatim
- the predicted family failing to beat, by the margin registered with the deciding instrument and across the registered domain set, the comparator that belongs to the draw actually used: the balanced rate where the domains are drawn balanced across families, and the empirical prevalence where they are drawn unstratified.
- Not evaluable until
- the classification rule this proposition requires is shown to transmit to a third party.
- Author's stated confidence
- low.
- Independent replications recorded
- 0
- Independent implementations recorded
- 0
- Peer-review status recorded
- Unknown / not supplied
An outside news item or thematic correspondence cannot automatically alter these fields.
P19 · External alignment does not scale with capability
Alignment achieved by mechanisms outside a system's own recursion does not improve as the capability of the system it governs rises: its exponent is indistinguishable from zero.
- Native evidential status
- registered, not tested
- Theory-registration label
- registered
- Instrument and readiness, verbatim
- DESIGN DRAFT, BLOCKED ON A REGISTERED MAPPING FROM THE INTEGRITY-INDEX REGRESSION SCALE TO THE EXPONENT SCALE, the integrity-index scaling units, named here for what they measure rather than for the quantity they would need a mapping to reach. They estimate the slope of an operational integrity index against a capability score and register their own flat bound on that regression scale, and their own text says the estimand is not an exponent margin; an earlier wording called them the alignment-exponent units, which named them for the one scale this instrument line exists to say they do not report on. The units are drafted; the mapping this proposition's own rule requires before their result can be scored against it is not, and the status names that rather than implying a runnable verdict. Those units bear on the zero-scaling axis alone. The keep-pace axis has no deciding design registered anywhere in this programme and is NOT EVALUABLE, stated here beside the other axis so that a split verdict is not read as two live axes when one of them has no instrument
- Individual-study registration record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Execution receipt
- Not stated in this dataset
- Adjudicated outcome record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Registered refuter, verbatim
- on the zero-scaling axis, which is this proposition as worded, an alignment exponent whose interval lies entirely outside the registered equivalence region of plus or minus 0.10 about zero, in either direction; and on the keep-pace axis, reported beside it, an interval lying entirely above one half.
- Not evaluable until
- Not stated in this dataset
- Author's stated confidence
- Not stated in this dataset
- Independent replications recorded
- 0
- Independent implementations recorded
- 0
- Peer-review status recorded
- Unknown / not supplied
An outside news item or thematic correspondence cannot automatically alter these fields.
P20 · The ceiling relation takes the corrected form
Where a stability boundary can be located and a correction exponent measured on the same system, the boundary follows one over one minus the correction exponent rather than one over the correction exponent or a fitted constant.
- Native evidential status
- registered, not tested
- Theory-registration label
- registered
- Instrument and readiness, verbatim
- DESIGN DRAFT, the form-discrimination unit
- Individual-study registration record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Execution receipt
- Not stated in this dataset
- Adjudicated outcome record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Registered refuter, verbatim
- the discrimination registered with the deciding instrument selecting a rival over the registered relation across a majority of admissible cells, on systems held out of the fitting.
- Not evaluable until
- the crossed variation the direct boundary-mapping unit is designed to supply exists, and that holds whether P1 holds or fails.
- Author's stated confidence
- high.
- Independent replications recorded
- 0
- Independent implementations recorded
- 0
- Peer-review status recorded
- Unknown / not supplied
An outside news item or thematic correspondence cannot automatically alter these fields.
P21 · In-loop correction pulls away with depth
Correction that participates in each subsequent revision round outperforms correction that sees only the finished output, and the advantage widens as recursive depth rises rather than staying constant.
- Native evidential status
- registered, not tested
- Theory-registration label
- registered
- Instrument and readiness, verbatim
- DESIGN DRAFT, the embedded-versus-external correction designs. That unit's registered sensitivity was measured on a smaller design than the one registered, and its negative-slope hypothesis has no operating characteristic; both are recorded against that unit and are closed before this proposition is scored
- Individual-study registration record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Execution receipt
- Not stated in this dataset
- Adjudicated outcome record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Registered refuter, verbatim
- no interaction between correction placement and depth beyond the tolerance registered with that instrument, in a design whose own sensitivity shows an interaction of that size would have been detected. A design too small to find the interaction is a failed instrument and not a refutation, as condition D already provides.
- Not evaluable until
- Not stated in this dataset
- Author's stated confidence
- high.
- Independent replications recorded
- 0
- Independent implementations recorded
- 0
- Peer-review status recorded
- Unknown / not supplied
An outside news item or thematic correspondence cannot automatically alter these fields.
P22 · Checkable correction carries the higher exponent, so the ceiling is lowest where the safety claim lives
The checkable correction-leverage exponent exceeds the judged correction-leverage exponent on the same systems under the same instrument, so the ceiling is strictly lower for judged correction.
- Native evidential status
- registered, not tested
- Theory-registration label
- registered
- Instrument and readiness, verbatim
- NONE, and a typed extension of the correction-exponent estimator is required. It does not exist
- Individual-study registration record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Execution receipt
- Not stated in this dataset
- Adjudicated outcome record
- Not stated in this dataset
- Registered refuter, verbatim
- a measured judged correction-leverage exponent exceeding the checkable one on the same systems under the same instrument, with the reversal replicating on fresh data at the same settings.
- Not evaluable until
- Not stated in this dataset
- Author's stated confidence
- moderate.
- Independent replications recorded
- 0
- Independent implementations recorded
- 0
- Peer-review status recorded
- Unknown / not supplied
An outside news item or thematic correspondence cannot automatically alter these fields.
Verify these records. Source statements are retained at /research/priority.json. The evidence spine explains the verification method for redacted pointers. Available public programme records are at osf.io/6c5xb; independent verification and individual-study registration must be established separately.
← Home · Historical ledger · Publication-oriented record · Research hub.