For the lay reader: this page is an honest inventory of what EEML derives and what it does not. Each claim has a status. Green means: mathematically rigorous, no doubt. Yellow means: strongly motivated but with gaps. Orange means: the structure is right but the number is missing. Red means: earlier claims that did not hold up.
Formal: each item below is a separate claim with its own derivation status. Coherence exists (via the chain), but each can be evaluated independently. Falsification on one point does not automatically mean failure on others — although the overall structure must remain consistent.
— P = e−S via Cauchy-Ostrowski from A2 + A4 + codomain (A3 proven redundant, August 2026: the system compresses from three axioms to two); machine-verified in Lean 4 (13 August)
— δS = 0 as consequence of P = e−S
— Born rule P = |ψ|² as third output of the same machine (composition + branching consistency; conditions named explicitly)
— Path integral Z = ∫Dx·e−S as quantum extension
— Equivalence with Boltzmann, Feynman, Jaynes (structural)
— χ ∈ 24ℤ via Rokhlin's theorem
— χ = 24 via modular invariance (η(τ)²⁴ unique)
— K3 uniqueness via Kodaira-Enriques classification
— Betti numbers K3: (1,0,22,0,1), χ=24 confirmed
— N ≥ 3 via CKM + Jarlskog (CP-violation required)
— N = 3 as K-minimum under CP lower bound (retracted 2026: the K-minimum gives N = 1; the number 3 is address, 10 bits — see testing)
— Higgs stability breaks at N ≥ 4 (I-penalty)
— SM + νR unique within the explored universe of finite geometries, under gates frozen in advance and the measurements as referee
— Hypercharges from the consistency requirements themselves
— Theorem S′: the first-order condition forces module maps, embedded leptons force yd = ye: Pati-Salam and SU(5) eliminated by the measured bottom-tau ratio
— Seesaw window checks out: MR from the measured neutrino mass falls mid-window, independently predicted
— E = S + K + I decomposition lemma (orthogonality proven and machine-verified, 13 August; the identification of the terms remains motivated)
— α_K = ln 2 and α_I = ½ forced (Levin maximality resp. Laplace integral; conditions named, 12 August): zero free weight parameters
— Self-consistency f(EE) = EE operational (Einstein-Hilbert + MDL + Hessian are unique choices in their own domain)
— Radiative stability of Λ via 4-form sequestering (structural argument, no numerical meV⁴)
— χ/8 = 3 topological suggestion for N_gen (suggestive, formal closure via ∫c₃ open)
— Observer gates reduced to one core G* (stable rewritable self-representation), self-validating; neutron-star backdoor triple-locked
— Arrow of time as measure preference for compressible initial conditions
— Anarchy reading of the neutrino sector (ordering, mass sum, mββ, δ_CP with frozen numbers)
— Local/a-local distinction: the measure weighs a-locally over structures, the law works locally per step; our four misses shared precisely this level confusion
Settled in 2026. The number: not derivable; three pre-registered attempts (unification matching 11% off; selection route wrong gauge group; weight-function route factor 9 off), derivation retracted; α is an address coordinate, typical within the observer window. The structure: stronger than expected; observer-conditioned K-minimisation uniquely selects SM + νR, with Majorana neutrinos as the guillotine prediction. Status: number retracted, structure derived; see testing, section 2. Addition (12 August, night): the delegation stake bounds the window from below via local fixed-point consistency (α⁻¹ ≳ 75-90); see the verification page.
Pattern follows from K3 topology: ≤ 42 modes, Casimir ratios, tensor polarization, spectral gap. Absolute frequency depends on stabilization mechanism (KKLT/LVS/uplift), which itself is not a unique EEML prediction. Status: pattern falsifiable, scale scenario-dependent.
— Strict proof of orthogonality in decomposition lemma (completed 13 August: three theorems plus corollary in Lean, Orthogonaliteit.lean; see mathematics, Theorem 4.2)
— Formal dynamics W=0 → W>0 (dissolved August 2026: open problem 11.2 resolved via timelessness + measure preference; see mathematics)
— Exact numerical values α_K, α_I (forced 12 August: ln 2 and ½; see mathematics)
— Machine verification of the core theorem in Lean (completed 13 August: Kern.lean, zero errors; monotonicity derived rather than assumed)
— Explicit calculation of a₆ on Fermat K3 (measured July 2026: a₆ = −0.71 ± 0.02, three seeds, validated curvature engine)
— Yukawa hierarchy: the law-address analysis is done (13 August: ~95 bits as bare address against 39-49 bits for a texture mechanism: the framework bets on structure; see verification page). The concrete texture within K3 stays open: it requires a generation-bundle choice that is not fixed
Earlier claims that did not hold under examination have been retracted. The details below are included for transparency.
1. 3.2 mHz LISA prediction
Earlier claim: "LISA detects gravitational waves at exactly 3.2000 ± 0.0003 mHz via K3 breathing mode."
Problem: the formula f = √(c³/(2πG))·√(χ/24R²)·βtopo was dimensionally inconsistent. βtopo ≈ 0.84 was freely chosen to produce the desired number. Implicit K3 radius came to ~108 km — astronomical, not internal compactification scale.
Current position: the signature pattern (multi-peak, Casimir ratios, tensor polarization) remains falsifiably predicted. Absolute frequency is scenario-dependent. No specific number claimed.
2. ΩDM = 0.264 "derived"
Earlier claim: dark matter fraction exactly 0.264 via moduli freeze-out with χ/24 scaling.
Problem: specific numerical value was retrofit — linear χ-scaling in one file, √χ-scaling in another, internally inconsistent. Link to measured ΩDM·h² = 0.120 not rigorous.
Current position: if moduli are a relevant DM component, certain band scales follow; no exact fraction claim.
3. α⁻¹ = 9.086 + (1/π²)ΣNQ²S formula
Earlier claim: explicit master formula with "9.086" as topological contribution.
Problem: the number 9.086 could not be traced to a specific topological invariant without retrofit. The structural form (a₂, a₄, a₆ via spectral action) remains correct; the specific coefficients do not.
Current position (2026): the order-of-magnitude target has fallen too (measured ζ' = +1.0, three orders away), and after it the derivation itself (F2′, 11%). The structural form remains; the number is address. See testing, section 2.
The living register lives on the verification page: over twenty frozen stakes with failure conditions, including the guillotine (Majorana), the anarchy series (ordering, mass sum, mββ, δ_CP with numbers), three structure stakes (no proton decay, no light steriles, no Lorentz violation), the quantum and cosmology stakes, and one meta-stake that makes the law-address boundary itself falsifiable: an accepted first-principles derivation of α would break the address reading. In addition the delegation stake: local fixed-point consistency (asymptotic safety) bounds address coordinates rather than fixing them; for α: α⁻¹ ≳ 75-90, a gain of 0.15-0.27 bits. The two stakes cover each other's flanks.
It comes with an expectation calendar 2026-2030 (per experiment: what EEML says and what the other outcome means) and external verifiability: SHA-256 fingerprints in the changelog plus snapshots at the Internet Archive. The track record counts the misses too: three α falsifications and one Zipf miss stand documented.
Mathematical basis (K3-theory): 9/10 (solid existing work) Physical principle (EEML): 7/10 (decomposition lemma strong, exact weights open) Constant derivations: 1/10 (F2′ triggered 2026: retracted) Structure selection (SM + ν_R): 7/10 (unique within explored universe) Experimental predictions: 7/10 (pattern strong, frequency honestly open) Prediction discipline: 9/10 (frozen in advance, failure conditions, externally timestamped) Overall: 7/10
The score is higher than several years ago would have given — not because less is claimed, but because what is claimed is better supported. More honest labelling = stronger position.