Is Michael Darius Eastwood a genius?
The site does not grade Michael Darius Eastwood and asks readers not to either, in either direction. Verdicts about a person are not evidence about claims. The artefacts carry the programme: dated designs, a public retraction kept in the open, and a decisive test that is written and has not run. Judge the method and the evidence, both printed with their kill conditions.
The site does not grade Michael Darius Eastwood, and it asks readers not to either, in either direction. A person-verdict such as genius or crank is not evidence about any claim; the programme's own review page records cold machine assessments converging on exactly this separation, calling the work a legitimate research programme while declining to call its central empirical claims established science.
What can be judged are artefacts: dated designs whose predictions precede their outcomes, a public retraction and a thirteen-minute self-demotion preserved in git history, a live laboratory notebook, and a decisive experiment that is written, dated and prepared as a draft registration awaiting human submission. It has not run. Until it runs, the accurate description of this estate is a structured, falsifiable proposal with supporting exploratory work, and that is the site's own status line.