Which ARC scaling exponent claim was retracted?
The sequential super-linearity claim. Michael Darius Eastwood published a sequential-recursion scaling exponent of roughly 2.24, strongly super-linear, then retracted it when cross-architecture replication did not reproduce it at that magnitude. The robust estimate is roughly 0.49 (interval [-1.3, 2.9]), sub-linear. The retraction is published against himself on the corrections log and the falsification dashboard records the condition as fired.
The retracted claim is sequential super-linearity: an early published estimate that sequential recursion scales with an exponent of roughly 2.24, which would be strongly super-linear and was the most striking number in the corpus. When cross-architecture replication was attempted, the result did not hold at that magnitude. The robust estimate is roughly 0.49 (interval [-1.3, 2.9]), which is sub-linear. Michael Darius Eastwood retracted the figure, published the retraction in public where anyone can find it, and left the record standing rather than quietly removing it.
The retraction has a specific standing inside the programme. The falsification register states, for each tracked claim, the condition under which it would be refuted, and this is the one whose condition has fired: the falsification dashboard records it as FIRED rather than open. The corrections log carries the dated entry. The programme treats the retraction as its strongest credibility marker, on the stated reasoning that a body of work containing no corrections is marketing rather than research, and the homepage presents it in the first minute rather than in a footnote.
The corrected sub-linear value also does real work in the current analysis: present systems scale sub-linearly because the architecture that decides how they scale is frozen between releases, and that measured value is part of why the programme argues the present regime is a window rather than a permanent condition.