How do I check whether this research programme is legitimate?

Do not take anyone's word for it, including the author's. The site is built so the standard sceptic questions can each be checked against a record rather than answered with reassurance.

Is he a real, published author? Yes: Infinite Architects was published in paperback on 2 January 2026, ISBN 978-1806056200, and the research suite is on the Open Science Framework under DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/6C5XB with code and data. Is he an academic? No: independent researcher, no academic affiliation, and the site states plainly that you cannot rely on institutional reputation here, so nothing asks you to. Is the work peer-reviewed? No: it is self-published and openly auditable, not represented as formal external peer review, and the deciding study designs are written, dated and prepared as draft registrations awaiting human submission. Does he admit error? Yes, and this is the check worth running first: the most striking number in the corpus, a sequential scaling exponent of roughly 2.24, was formally retracted when cross-architecture replication did not hold, the robust estimate is roughly 0.49 (interval [-1.3, 2.9]), and the retraction is presented in the first minute of the homepage rather than in a footnote, alongside a machine-error register. Is any of it established science? No: the central claims are conjectures with recorded kill conditions, several results are pilots, and no outside laboratory has replicated them; Paper IX names independent external replication as the open step. What would prove it wrong? Every load-bearing claim carries a stated failure condition on the falsification dashboard, and the replicate page publishes the exact commands.

The reading order that settles most of this in twenty minutes: the corrections log, then the page on how to weigh work of this kind, then the evidence page.