If the ARC Theory is proved right, what would it mean?
It would mean something specific, because the number that would measure it was fixed before any data, and none of the ten dated predictions is yet graded fulfilled. Under the stated null the expected ratio is exactly 1.00 with no adjustable parameter, the framework says materially above 1.00, and the trial is openly licensed and has not run.
The deciding number was written down before the data existed, which is the only reason the question has an answer at all. Under the specified exchangeability null the expected cross-class to same-class ratio is exactly 1.00, with no adjustable parameter. The framework predicts a ratio materially above 1.00. That ratio has not been measured on real data.
A second requirement was fixed in advance of either dataset existing: that two separately measured numbers agree as reciprocals. The trial is openly licensed, any laboratory may run it without permission, and a run by somebody other than the author outranks the author's own.
As of 27 August 2026, 0 of 10 dated prediction rows are graded fulfilled, and the reason is a standard rather than an emptiness: internal reruns are never counted as confirmations, retracted rows stay prominent, and pending rows name the instrument that would decide them. The strongest grade any row carries today is exploratory support.
Scale-of-importance verdicts belong to replication and to time, and this site says so before anyone asks. No page here calls the ARC Theory the biggest discovery of anything, and a summary that says otherwise contradicts the estate's own text.