Test Ledger

Which predictions about the author’s ideas were written down, with a date, before the data could settle them?

How to read this ledger. A row is Committed only when a public record fixed the prediction with a date. A fit to existing data is not a successful prediction. A Zenodo deposit is provenance, not peer review.

Status values: Committed — awaiting data · Checked — survived so far · Checked — failed · Withdrawn · No public precommitted test · Proposed, not yet committed. Status reviewed 27 September–1 October 2026; each row shows the date it was last checked.

Field	Claim	Committed	Public record	What would be measured	Status	Last checked
Cosmic origins	Author’s hypothesis (October 2025 version of HD-Blast): future data pass all of the record’s “four public gates.” These are a model-choice score, a test on the Big Bang’s afterglow (“CMB parity”), the cross-team knee score (PCI) and a black-hole ringdown check. The record says it uses “Fixed rules” with “no goal‑post moves.” It says the idea needs future data to pass all the gates and other teams to repeat the results; “if not, the hypothesis is rejected cleanly.” A November 2025 version, called a “Preregistration Mini‑Kit,” repeats this. Of the four gates, their public descriptions give a pass rule only for the cross-team score (at least 0.80), which has its own row. They do not state the pass rules for the other three, so this Ledger does not show them.	2025-10-12	Listening Beyond Four Dimensions: Higher‑Dimensional Blast — GEN5 Last‑Mile Mini‑Kit (v5.8.1)	Future data checked by the gates’ fixed rules. When it fixed the rules, the record had already marked two gates “PASS”: the model-choice score and CMB parity. Results that were known when the rules were set are not successful predictions. The record does not say what ringdown result passes its gate; the book’s own ringdown check is a separate row. The 22 November and 12 December 2025 versions list a different set of gates, and no later public description mentions the CMB parity gate. No public record withdraws the four gates.	Committed — awaiting data	2026-09-30
Cosmic origins	Author’s hypothesis: the gravitational-wave hum measured by pulsar timing arrays bends (a smooth “knee”) as set by the frozen five-number benchmark: fk = 3.16 × 10⁻⁸ Hz, Ωk = 8.00 × 10⁻⁹, α₁ = +3, α₂ = −2, Δ = 2.	2025-12-17	Listening Beyond Four Dimensions: Higher-Dimensional Blast — vLASTMILE+ Canonical Snapshot & Tool-Kit	Later pulsar-timing data not used to set the curve, analyzed with the teams’ full likelihood and noise models, recover a bend consistent with the frozen curve. It weakens if the spectrum settles into a straight power law or the preference for curvature disappears. The record’s public description does not say how close the data must come to count as consistent.	Committed — awaiting data	2026-09-30
Cosmic origins	Author’s hypothesis: different pulsar-timing teams see the same knee (project overlap score PCI of at least 0.80).	2025-12-17	Listening Beyond Four Dimensions: Higher-Dimensional Blast — vLASTMILE+ Canonical Snapshot & Tool-Kit	Harmonized posteriors from independent teams overlap at PCI ≥ 0.80 (a threshold chosen by the project, not a collaboration standard). Earlier values: an October 2025 version (Zenodo 17335636) listed a “last locked value” of about 0.43, below the same 0.80 mark; its description does not say which inputs produced it. A November 2025 version said the official score still awaited matched knee estimates from three teams. The book says the later 0.87 “PASS” came from surrogate inputs, not team results.	Committed — awaiting data	2026-09-30
Cosmic origins	Author’s hypothesis: the frozen curve stays within early-universe energy limits (ΔNeff ≈ 7 × 10⁻⁴ under stated assumptions) and below ground-based detector limits at high frequency.	2025-12-17	Listening Beyond Four Dimensions: Higher-Dimensional Blast — vLASTMILE+ Canonical Snapshot & Tool-Kit	Future, stronger ΔNeff or LIGO–Virgo–KAGRA background limits do not exclude the frozen curve. The curve already sat below the limits known when it was frozen (“well below” and “far below,” in the record’s words). So staying below them is a conditional consistency check, not a successful prediction.	Committed — awaiting data	2026-09-30
Cosmic origins	Author’s hypothesis: a “LISA-band knee prediction,” linked through the project’s own “chain of constraints” to the knee it inferred from the NANOGrav 15-year signal. Zenodo lists the record as derived from a NANOGrav data product that NANOGrav corrected in August 2026; no public record reports redoing the chain with the corrected version. It is separate from the book’s frozen curve. The record says its files include a LISA knee “predictor script” and a “cross-band summary table.” Its public description does not state the predicted value, so this Ledger does not show a number yet. Later versions (22 January and 27 February 2026) list LISA-band knee predictions using a newer definition of the knee.	2026-01-13	HDBLAST + DBLAST: Kernel-free PTA robustness certificate + RS2 curvature killswitch, cross-band closure, and LISA-band knee prediction (NANOGrav 15yr HD)	LISA, the first planned space detector for gravitational waves, would search for a gravitational-wave background in its own frequency band. ESA plans to launch it around 2035. The Ledger will show the predicted value if a public record description states it.	Committed — awaiting data	2026-09-30
Cosmic origins	Author’s hypothesis (February 2026 version of HD-Blast): the hum that pulsar timing arrays measure has a specific curve shape, a “Bessel‑K fingerprint.” It bends at a knee that the record calls “f50.” The record says it includes “preregistration language, and explicit kill‑switch criteria.” These are conditions under which “the hypothesis should be rejected.” Its public description does not state those conditions or any predicted values. So this Ledger does not show them. The record’s LISA predictions are part of the LISA row above.	2026-02-27	Higher Dimensional BLAST Hypothesis (HDBLAST): NextLevel (Lastmile snapshot v7, 2026‑02‑27) — Bessel‑K fingerprint + knee scaling tests for low‑frequency stochastic GW background	Later pulsar-timing data not used to build the curve, judged by the record’s kill-switch criteria. The record lists “Tools to estimate the fingerprint parameters from spectra,” so a match to data already in hand would not be a successful prediction. The book says no official pulsar-timing analysis has passed this stricter test yet (Chapter 4). No public record withdraws it.	Committed — awaiting data	2026-09-30
Cosmic origins	Author’s hypothesis (minimal version): black-hole ringdowns follow ordinary Einstein gravity; the project’s diagnostic ε stays consistent with 0.	—	God Plays Dice, Volume One, Chapter 6	Real-event ringdown posteriors, after checks of noise, calibration and waveform modeling, do not push ε robustly away from zero.	Proposed, not yet committed	2026-09-30
Cosmic origins	Author’s hypothesis: the registered five-field linear-response model (v24) leads to an observable prediction.	—	HDBLAST Zenodo v24: Conditional Full-Domain Certification of the Registered Five-Field Linear Response	None stated. The record says its model settings do not establish how strong a real signal would be, how it would compare with detector noise, or whether it could be observed.	No public precommitted test	2026-09-30
Unification	Author’s hypothesis (13 December 2025 version of the ε-lattice work): a “preregistered” test plan. The record says its “invariants and target tolerances are frozen first, then tested against later input updates (PDG/Planck/PTA/ringdown).” These are later updates of particle data, Planck satellite data, pulsar-timing data and black-hole ringdown data. Its public description does not state the targets or their tolerances, so this Ledger does not show them.	2025-12-13	Maldonado ε‑Lattice Theory‑of‑Everything Program (NEXTLEVEL v36: Bridge Algebra + preregistered tests; v37 closure note + code bundle)	Later updates of those data sets, compared with the frozen targets and tolerances; the Ledger will show them if a public record description states them. No public description reports such a comparison. A 24 December 2025 version lists a “preregistered scoreboard” but does not say what it shows. These are updates of quantities that were already measured, not the rare-muon searches.	Committed — awaiting data	2026-09-30
Unification	Author’s hypothesis (a forecast from the ε-lattice number-pattern work): in aluminum, about 1.1 × 10⁻¹³ of the muons captured by the atoms’ nuclei turn into an electron, about one in nine trillion (90% range 2.0 × 10⁻¹⁴ to 2.2 × 10⁻¹³). Using rough (“back-of-envelope”) conversions, the record gives COMET Phase-I and Mu2e each about a 99.99% chance of seeing at least one such event (P(N≥1) ≈ 0.9999). It gives Mu3e’s first phase less than a 1% chance (P(N≥1) ≈ 0.008) of seeing a related decay into one electron and two positrons (the electron’s antimatter twins), written μ→3e.	2026-01-06	Q3 Criticality and a Near‑Term Forecast for μ→e Conversion and μ→3e from an ε‑Lattice Bridge (CGFP)	COMET Phase-I and Mu2e will look for muons turning into electrons in aluminum. If they reach their planned sensitivity and see none, that counts against the forecast. A clear μ→3e signal in Mu3e’s first phase would also count against it. Neither COMET nor Mu2e had reported a search result by 30 September 2026. Mu2e expects its first physics run in 2027. COMET Phase-I was still being built in July 2026.	Committed — awaiting data	2026-09-30
Unification	Author’s hypothesis (February 2026 version of the ε-lattice work): “explicit quantitative targets and falsifiers” for three rare muon processes (μ→e conversion, μ→eγ and μ→3e) and for gravitational-wave “knee/feature” checks. The record lists “a prediction card summarizing key constants and test points” among its files. Its public description does not list the values, so this Ledger does not show them yet. The 13 December 2025 version’s “preregistered” targets have their own row.	2026-02-06	UNIFIED ε‑Lattice Locks and Modular Closure: π² Lock, Macro‑Generator Lemma (L=22), and Near‑Term Falsifiers	Results from COMET, Mu2e, Mu3e and MEG II, and from pulsar-timing arrays and LISA for the gravitational-wave checks, compared with the targets if their values are made public. MEG II had already set a limit on μ→eγ (a muon turning into an electron and a flash of light) in 2025, before this record: fewer than 1.5 in ten trillion muon decays. Without the values, the Ledger cannot compare the targets with that limit. Neither COMET nor Mu2e had reported a search result by 30 September 2026.	Committed — awaiting data	2026-09-30
Unification	Author’s hypothesis: the current Type-I seesaw neutrino branch (TOE-N00AK-r1) leads to a testable prediction.	—	Unified Theory of Everything Research Program: TOE-N00AK-r1	None stated. The record says it does not demonstrate a new experimentally validated prediction, and that its connection to low-energy observables remains open.	No public precommitted test	2026-09-30
Black holes	Author’s hypothesis (24 December 2025 version of HRF): a black hole’s horizon sends back only a tiny part of an incoming wave, and that part can only take certain strengths, in steps: about 0.244 raised to an even power of 8 or more. The record calls this a “preregistered” band. It said GW250114’s measurements could not yet reach it. Versions from 30 December 2025 and 6 January 2026 restate the steps and list example prediction tables and search windows for GW250114; their public descriptions do not state those values.	2025-12-24	Quantized Horizon Response (HRF) Rungs, v3 (Zenodo 18050129, published 24 December 2025)	Ringdown and echo measurements precise enough to reach the strongest step, from one loud event or many events combined. The record ties the steps to small shifts in the ringing and to the timing of any echoes. If a response is ever measured, the 6 January 2026 version says the different signals should point to the same step; a response off the steps would count against the idea. The steps go on without end, each weaker than the last, so results that match Einstein’s theory can rule out only the steps they reach, not the whole ladder.	Committed — awaiting data	2026-09-30
Black holes	Author’s hypothesis: an extra horizon-response (HRF) component in GW250114 improves one detector’s prediction of the other.	—	Quantized Horizon Response (HRF) — v5.3, file NEXT_ANALYSIS_PROTOCOL_DRAFT.md (prepared 2026-09-05)	A detector-split, null-calibrated test as described in the draft protocol.	Proposed, not yet committed	2026-09-30
Dark matter & energy	Author’s hypothesis (May 2026 version of DMDE): the four frozen “sub-pion relay” scenarios slightly lower the N_eff value read from the Big Bang’s afterglow. (N_eff is “a number that counts the effective radiation content of the early universe.”) The target is “roughly around N_eff ≈ 2.99.” The scenarios also pass a real Big Bang nucleosynthesis calculation, of how the first light elements formed, for helium, deuterium and N_eff. The record called itself a “public preregistration checkpoint.” Its public description gives no helium or deuterium values and no pass or fail ranges. It says its pass/fail material is private. The September 2026 record calls this version “the historical preregistration checkpoint.” It does not say whether this target still stands, or how its own two scenarios relate to the four May ones. Earlier versions (January and February 2026) give numbers they call “order-of-magnitude” or “illustrative.” They say they include “falsifiable” checks and “kill tests,” but their public descriptions do not say what results would fail those checks. So they are not listed separately.	2026-05-14	DMDE Triplepoint + CosmoGate: sub-pion relay BBN execution kit and public preregistration checkpoint (v0.9.0)	A real Big Bang nucleosynthesis calculation of the four frozen scenarios returns helium, deuterium and N_eff values. The record asks whether they “pass,” but its pass or fail ranges are private. The target sits near values already measured (Planck 2018: 2.99 ± 0.17; a March 2026 study that the record cites: 2.990 ± 0.070). So a calculated value near 2.99 would not, by itself, be a successful prediction. No public record reports that calculation as of 30 September 2026. The September 2026 record says its own production calculations “remain pending external execution.”	Committed — awaiting data	2026-09-30
Dark matter & energy	Author’s hypothesis (current version of DMDE, September 2026): two frozen particle-injection scenarios change early light-element amounts (helium, deuterium) or N_eff in a measurable way.	—	DMDE Triplepoint + CosmoGate v0.9.20	None public. The scenarios are source-frozen (17 August 2026), but predicted values and scoring rules are not published; scoring and unblinding material is private.	No public precommitted test	2026-09-30
Causality & light	Author’s procedure: a frozen audit for proposed faster-than-light hidden sectors using pulsar-timing and ringdown posteriors.	—	Einstein Audit for Faster-Than-Light Hidden Sectors (FTL-only) v1.2.1	None. The procedure was frozen on 2026-05-15, but it states no predicted outcome, and the real-data path is locked until input files are available.	No public precommitted test	2026-09-30
Matter & antimatter	Author’s hypothesis: a Wilson-line field construction can produce the observed matter excess.	—	AntiMatter: Wilson-Line and Cosmology Audit v1.23.1	None stated. The record claims no successful derivation of the observed asymmetry. The public descriptions of the three earlier versions (January to May 2026) state no predicted value for a future measurement either.	No public precommitted test	2026-09-30
Evolution & mutation	Author’s hypothesis: mutation-route “winners” follow predictable patterns beyond mechanistic nulls.	—	Theory of Mutation by Natural Dominance (TMD) v2.6.5	None published. The records describe predictions only in general terms; none names a specific experiment, a target value or a test date. Some earlier versions say their toolkit is for running “preregistered tests (G1–G3),” and some include files named as forecasts or preregistration material. Their public descriptions give no forecast values or pass marks, and none says that a test was actually registered. Version 0.1.0 of a separate report (30 September 2026) says its files include “a prospective empirical test plan,” but its public description does not say what the plan predicts. Version 0.5.0 of the report is dated 30 September 2026 and was posted at 05:54 UTC on 1 October 2026. It says when, under its stated assumptions, its result would challenge the idea that routes compare the same way in every condition. It names no experiment, data set, expected value or test date. Version 2.6.5 says the next step is “to define predictions and comparison models before examining new data.”	No public precommitted test	2026-10-01

Every idea listed here is an Author’s hypothesis. Rows move to “Checked” only when a named data release is analyzed by the stated rule. Back to the Research Desk. See a mistake? Report a problem.