What would
make a difference?

1. Testing the meta-law and a model

The philosophical core alone is not yet an experimental model. If resistance can be adjusted after every outcome, nothing can count against the principle. An application must therefore state in advance which outcomes are less likely or impossible.

A counterexample can refute a mathematical theorem. A measurement can challenge a physical model. These are different kinds of testing; a valid algebraic derivation is not experimental confirmation of EEML.

2. A prediction record

A new commitment should contain at least:

1. The exact model version and all assumptions.
2. Previously known data and which are used as inputs.
3. A predicted value or distribution with uncertainties.
4. A reference model with a differing prediction.
5. The measurement method, sensitivity and decision rule fixed in advance.
6. The conclusion affected by a miss and the revision it would require.
7. A public dated version, source code and data.

3. The earlier register remains

The old site contained over thirty commitments concerning neutrinos, axions, gravitational waves and the absence of new physics, among other topics. That list is not being erased or rewritten as a success. It is archived in full, including its failure criteria, corrections and internal inconsistencies.

As of 16 September 2026 these commitments are not reaffirmed as consequences of the revised core. Their empirical outcomes should still be recorded against their original criteria; this editorial revision does not undo any miss. This page reports no new experimental results.

Complete historical prediction register →

4. Why “no new physics” is insufficient

A null result distinguishes models only when the model under study and a relevant competitor assign different expectations to it. The experiment must also be sensitive enough to exclude the effect. Absence of a signal is not the same as absence of a phenomenon.

“Our address then costs more bits” cannot be an unrestricted escape route. The measure and the probability of that outcome must be fixed in advance. A probabilistic prediction allowing rare exceptions needs statistical assessment, not a story selected afterwards.

5. Start with feasible checks

The next useful checks are a reproducible comparison of cost functions, a normalisation test on a bounded research domain and rebuilding the cited formal proofs. Negative results should be published too. Specific physical commitments can then rest on a checkable chain of reasoning.

v0.22 · 16 September 2026