Corrections

Every material correction, kept in the open with what it replaces.

Subscribe to my corrections (RSS): a feed of exactly the record most sites hide.

record · 8 min read

The ARC/Eden/HRIH programme preserves every material correction with the previous wording, replacement, reason, affected surfaces and date. A correction is material when it changes a dated claim, a statistic, a citation, an authored count, or a controlling wording; typographical fixes and layout changes are not entered here. A corrected claim is never silently overwritten. Historical drafts remain identifiable as superseded and may not control current public wording. Where a correction changes a dated first-publication claim, the current wording is in the priority and claims ledger; where it changes a checkable ground, see verify, don't believe; where it touches the December 2024 or April 2025 sealed record, see the bitcoin anchor.

Current material corrections

Reading keyColumn one carries no authority. Every phrase in column one has been retired and is quoted, struck through and tinted only so a correction can name what it corrects. The audited wording in force is column two.

Current material corrections: previous wording or value (superseded, column one), current audited wording or value (column two), reason (column three).
Previous wording or value	Current audited wording or value	Reason
~~`the Co-Scaling Law`~~ (as the name of Law II)	Law II, the ARC Co-Scaling Law (beta_C greater than k), as the home declaration has always named it; aligned across the site, the notation spine (v1.6.1, 30 August 2026), the glossary, the field page and the figures on 30 August 2026	the programme prefix dropped off the law's name on surfaces written from memory; papers printing the bare form stand as published and carry the canonical name in their placement note
~~`Law III, the ARC Bound`~~ (the ARC Bound labelled as the law)	Law III is the ARC Ceiling, alpha_crit = 1 / (1 minus gamma); the ARC Bound, alpha at most 2, is the ARC Ceiling's same-class instance at gamma equal to one half, a stability limit rather than an impossibility limit	the ARC Ceiling is the law and the ARC Bound is the value it returns under the same-class premise; the notation spine labelled the instance as the law until v1.6.1
~~`alpha_max`~~	alpha_crit, the only symbol for the ceiling exponent; alpha_max retired as a notation form in the spine on 30 August 2026	a second symbol for the same quantity, and one that reads as a maximum where the claim is a crossover on stability
~~`alpha approximately 2.24`~~	retracted; the blinded cross-architecture estimate is 0.49, interval [-1.3, 2.9], published in Paper II	recomputation and model dependence
~~the U = I × R equation presented as doing derivational work in the synthesis argument~~	the adversarial review found the equation does no inferential work in its present form; the claim was narrowed accordingly, and the review’s verdict of a partial synthesis, substantially anticipated in its two most important joins (the alignment spine in Bostrom; the creator-duty move in Schwitzgebel and Garza and a 2022 essay), stands on the record	adversarial synthesis review; two most important joins substantially anticipated in prior work
Paper VII Section 2.2 displayed the exponential equation under the multiplicative bullet and the additive equation under the exponential label; Section 9.1 said 11 of 14; primary statistic was a binomial test against uniform one-third chance with a 4.2 sigma equivalence	Section 2.2 displays the correct Cauchy equations (power law from U(R1·R2) ∼ U(R1)·U(R2); exponential from U(R1+R2) ∼ U(R1)·U(R2)); Section 9.1 reads 10 of 14; primary statistic is a marginal-conditioned permutation test, p = 7 × 10^-5, binomial retained as sensitivity; derived-subset result 14/18 added; sigma equivalences removed	adversarial internal review 8 August 2026; the protocol, Section 5 table and validation code were unaffected; Paper VII v3.1, record COR-2026-08-08-002
~~no transport/authentication headers exist~~	true only of the sparse sent-side/public export; the supplied recipient export contains Google trace, recorded authentication results, DKIM and a paired Google ARC set	recipient-side export acquired and MIME-parsed 2 August 2026
~~December date authentication wholly open~~	Google ARC mathematics verifies against live keys on 2 August 2026 at the signed selectors, with sender-DKIM as corroboration; historical key-state and live-mailbox/API custody pending	matching attachments, reproduced body/signature inputs, RSA PASS and scope controls
~~sender-domain DKIM closes the 8 December historical-date question~~	passing sender-DKIM/Google-ARC mathematics against current keys is not an RFC 3161 timestamp, a present-day RFC acceptance verdict for the expired sender signature or a historical-key archive	`Date` and `t=` are signed assertions; expiry, custody and historical continuity remain separate
~~December and April recipient records both independently re-run here~~	December ARC with its sender-DKIM corroboration was re-run here; supplied raw-source runs report April ARC and sender-DKIM PASS, but local reproduction remains pending because the raw source and executable ARC-control harness were not supplied	evidence must be available byte-for-byte before this audit calls its own reproduction complete
~~four attachments / four authored manuscripts~~	five attachments: three manuscript/research drafts, one book draft and one human-AI dialogue	MIME-level examination
~~189,355 words~~	221,236 aggregate whitespace-delimited words, including duplication and AI dialogue	deterministic recount of all five decoded attachments
~~cryptographically or Google-server timestamped~~	the ARC-sealed December recipient-form record with matching body/attachments verifies against live keys on 2 August 2026, with OpenTimestamps receipts anchored 6 August 2026; sender-DKIM body-hash and RSA are corroboration, not the vehicle; sender-signature expiry, historical key state and live-account custody pending. April ARC mathematics is reported PASS in supplied raw-source runs with sender-DKIM as corroboration; local reproduction, sender-signature expiry, historical key state and custody remain pending	fields, hashes, signature mathematics, expiry, key date and custody must be separated
106 whole-word Babylon	90 whole-word; 106 substring	corrected regex boundary
~~HRIH `datePublished` 8 December 2024~~	actual verified public-paper date; 8 December retained only as qualified source provenance	private record is not public paper publication
~~two of six models reversed sign~~	Gemini significant opposite-direction Spearman result; DeepSeek loses positive association to null; GPT remains null	statistic and comparison-family correction
~~blinding caused the reversal~~	bundled protocol changed; causal component unisolated	several variables changed together
~~harness unavailable~~	historical code and results public; exact-environment reproduction and independent replication outstanding	repository audit
~~22 independent convergences~~	typed, graded register with no heterogeneous total	retrospective selection and incompatible evidence classes
~~originator of embedded correction~~	author of specified names, formulations and composite integration	substantial category prior work
~~first validation / loop closed~~	preliminary evidence / hypothesis open to replication and refutation	validation boundary
~~pred-3, "Sequential reasoning outperforms parallel at frontier scale", carried on the predictions register as a confirmed prediction (register entry of 9 February 2026)~~	pred-3 retired 6 September 2026. Sharma and Chopra, arXiv:2511.02309, 4 November 2025, precedes this register entry of 9 February 2026, so it confirms nothing predicted here; publication priority is theirs and is credited unreservedly.	The record is retired rather than re-graded, because no re-grading inside a predictions array repairs a result that predates the prediction.

Standing ruleif a reader identifies a failed hash, passage, count, date, citation or recomputation, publish the report, resolution and changed claim IDs here. Do not delete the superseded value.

Review cadence

Every authorised claim carries a last-review date, next-review date, upgrade condition and downgrade condition. Claims are reviewed at least quarterly and whenever a material antecedent, replication, contradiction or provider record appears. A time-bound claim automatically reverts to its lower status if the named evidential milestone passes unmet.

The formal record

Each numbered record below is an authorised, dated correction with its previous wording, replacement, reason, controlling sources, affected routes and authoriser. Corrections made before August 2026 predate this trail and are carried in the summary ledger with their controlling sources; every correction from August 2026 onward gains a numbered record. The material corrections table above is the summary ledger; the numbered records here are the append-only formal audit trail, begun August 2026, generated from /research/data/corrections.json. Every row in the summary ledger has a controlling source but no numbered COR id; every article below is a numbered COR record, id-anchored so it can be referenced from a paper, a claim, or another page. To cite a correction from another surface, prefer the numbered COR id where one exists.

COR-2026-08-17-001 · effective 2026-08-17 · current

Editorial audit entries were printed on the papers themselves; they are removed from every paper and the record is kept off the published surface

Previously: This programme runs an editorial audit trail: every change to a paper is recorded with its date, its reason and its scope, so that no edit is silent. Between March and 16 August 2026 the output of that trail was printed on the papers themselves, accumulating in the masthead above the abstract. On the Foundational paper it reached five stacked entries naming editing passes, figure coordinates, style-audit counts and internal decision references. Several papers carried shorter versions of the same thing, and some version-history entries described the editing process rather than the scientific change.
Now: Every paper carries its title, author, version, dates, identifiers and scholarly context, and nothing else in the masthead. Material scientific corrections remain on the paper, stated as science: what claim changed, when, and why. The editorial audit trail continues, in full, off the published surface. An executable gate now scans every paper, its page source and its plain-text and citation sidecars for editing narration and fails the build if any is found, so the defect cannot return.
Why it matters: An audit trail is a strength; printing its output on a scientific paper is not. Editing narration in a masthead reads as machine output and invites a reader to wonder whether the ideas beneath it are the author’s own. That inference would be wrong, and the papers have carried an explicit statement of tool assistance and human authorship throughout, so nothing was ever concealed; but the presentation invited the question, and the presentation was the author’s responsibility to fix. Earlier versions remain publicly retrievable in the deposit history, and that is deliberate. A programme that publishes the retraction of its own headline result does not quietly remove its own presentation errors either. The record of what changed, and when, is the evidence; this entry is part of it.

COR-2026-08-08-002 · effective 2026-08-08 · current

Paper VII v3.1: displayed functional equations in Section 2.2 were swapped; Section 9.1 hit count corrected; permutation test adopted as primary statistic

Previously: Section 2.2 of Paper VII displayed the wrong Cauchy equations for two of the three operator classes. The multiplicative bullet displayed U(R1)·U(R2) ∼ U(R1+R2), which is the exponential equation and forces a^R, while claiming it forces a power law. The additive bullet displayed U(R1)+U(R2) ∼ U(R1+R2), which is the additive equation and forces linear growth, while labelling it Cauchy's exponential equation and claiming it forces an exponential. Section 9.1 stated that 11 of 14 multiplicative domains produce power-law scaling where its own miss list and the Section 5 table give 10. The abstract and results reported the primary significance as a binomial test against a uniform one-third null (p = 1.56 × 10^-5), described it as about 300 times stronger than p < 0.05 (the correct ratio for that figure is about 3,200), and quoted a 4.2 sigma equivalence.
Now: Section 2.2 displays the correct equations: the power-law family follows from U(R1·R2) ∼ U(R1)·U(R2) (Cauchy's multiplicative equation) and the exponential family from U(R1+R2) ∼ U(R1)·U(R2) (Cauchy's exponential equation). The prediction protocol, the Section 5 table, Section 9, and the validation code always used the correct mapping; the defect was confined to the displayed derivation. Section 9.1 now reads 10 of 14 with a unified four-domain miss list. The primary statistic is a marginal-conditioned permutation test, p = 7 × 10^-5, with the binomial retained as sensitivity; the strictly Cauchy-derived subset alone gives 14/18 at p = 3.0 × 10^-4; sigma equivalences and the wrong ratio are removed. Reproduction: scripts/paper-vii-permutation-null.py, which parses the published Section 5 table directly.
Why it matters: The displayed derivation is the first thing a mathematical reader checks, and as printed it derived the wrong families. The empirical result was never affected, and under the stricter null it survives, but the record must say what was wrong, when, and what changed. Found in an adversarial internal review on 8 August 2026; corrected the same day in Paper VII v3.1.

COR-2026-08-02-001 · effective 2026-08-02 · current

Convergence taxonomy: two incompatible C1-C8 mappings resolved

Previously: Two mappings in the frozen 2 August 2026 release use the identifiers C1-C8 for different class sequences. governance/CONVERGENCE-TAXONOMY-2026-08-02.yaml begins C1 = formal derivation, C2 = internal synthetic validation, C3 = programme-run empirical result, C4 = independent empirical replication, C5 = cross-implementation reproduction, C6 = documentary provenance, C7 = analogy or cross-domain resemblance, C8 = adverse, null or contrary evidence. CLAIMS-GOVERNANCE-POLICY-AND-PUBLICATION-GATE-2026-08-02 section 6 begins C1 = direct independent empirical relevance, C2 = mechanistic or structural relevance, C3 = formal or mathematical correspondence, C4 = engineering or governance proposal, C5 = institutional or cultural echo, C6 = prior or concurrent work, C7 = author-run experiment or analysis, C8 = quarantined or unresolved.
Now: The governance policy section 6 mapping governs public output, per the release source hierarchy. The website generates from a new non-colliding schema identifier EVCLASS-2026-08-02 with codes EVC1 to EVC8 carrying the governance meanings. The frozen YAML remains byte-identical in the downloadable audit archive and is marked superseded for website generation only. Any historical row stored under a bare C code retains that code as an explicit superseded alias and is never silently reinterpreted.
Why: Identical identifiers for different class definitions make every generated page, chart and metadata field keyed on a bare C code ambiguous. Confirmed byte-level in both files on 2 August 2026 in programme editorial review, independently of the reviewer's report.
Controlling sources: docs/markdown/CLAIMS-GOVERNANCE-POLICY-AND-PUBLICATION-GATE-2026-08-02.md section 6
governance/CONVERGENCE-TAXONOMY-2026-08-02.yaml
Routes affected: /research/convergences/, /research/evidence-portal/, /priority-claims.html
Authorised by: release source hierarchy; implemented in programme editorial review

COR-2026-08-16-001 · effective 2026-08-16 · current

The ceiling law’s printed form ran the wrong way: α_crit = 1/γ retracted for α_crit = 1/(1−γ), with the derivation printed beside the law

Previously: Versions of the statement paper before v4.0 printed the ceiling as α_crit = 1/γ, described verbally as the reciprocal of the correction exponent, with a status that overstated what existed. Under the paper’s own definition of γ that form runs the wrong way: a better corrector would lower the ceiling, and the same-class cap γ ≤ ½ would give a ceiling of at least two rather than at most two. No derivation supported it: Paper X contains neither the symbol α_crit nor the relation (re-verified 16 August 2026: zero occurrences; its γ-labelled quantities are drift coefficients).
Now: The corrected form α_crit = 1/(1−γ), the reciprocal of the correction shortfall, is derived in three lines in the statement paper with its assumptions stated so they can be attacked, and the correction note is printed beside the law. The corrected form passes every check the old one failed: the ceiling rises as correction improves; γ ≤ ½ genuinely gives a ceiling of at most two; at γ = ½ it returns exactly two, so the ARC Bound α ≤ 2 is unchanged; and it is the same family as the December lineage’s 1/(1−β) form. The two forms coincide at exactly one half, the conjectured value, which is how the defect survived review; away from one half they separate (at γ = 0.3 the retired 1/γ predicts 3.33 and the corrected form 1.43), and a drafted discrimination study tests systems away from one half so this class of error cannot survive measurement again.
Why: Two adversarial author-review audits, commissioned by the author and run externally against the statement paper in August 2026, converged on the defect, and direct re-verification against Paper X confirmed it. The correction restores the direction the law must have and replaces an unsupported status with a printed derivation. Every kill condition on the law is unchanged.
Controlling sources: The statement paper (correction and derivation note, v4.0, 16 August 2026)
Paper X (source count for α_crit: zero occurrences)
Routes affected: /research/papers/the-arc-theory.html, /research/the-laws/, /arc-theory/, /press/, /book/, /questions/what-is-michael-darius-eastwoods-potential-discovery/, /research/related-work/, /reports/the-funders-brief.html (site surfaces reconciled to the corrected form on 17 August 2026, language mirrors included)
Authorised by: The statement paper’s printed correction note, 16 August 2026; site reconciliation in programme editorial review, 17 August 2026

COR-2026-08-02-002 · effective 2026-08-02 · current

No heterogeneous convergence total is authorised, including 22, 26 and 29

Previously: Earlier public wording presented convergence counts as programme totals, including the formulation 'a typed register of dated events, classified by evidence class and never summed across classes'. Still earlier wording used 29.
Now: No heterogeneous convergence total is published. Where a count is shown at all it is per class, with its denominator, inclusion rule, dependence grouping, search date and generating commit stated beside it. A single number summed over classes that mean different things is not a meaningful quantity.
Why: CLAIMS-GOVERNANCE-POLICY section 6 states in terms that there is no authorised heterogeneous 22, 26, 29 or successor convergence total. This supersedes both the retired 29 and the later 22-of-26 formulation, and it supersedes the corresponding rule previously carried in the site's own research claims gate.
Controlling sources: docs/markdown/CLAIMS-GOVERNANCE-POLICY-AND-PUBLICATION-GATE-2026-08-02.md section 6
Routes affected: /research/convergences/, /research/evidence-portal/, /priority-claims.html, /
Authorised by: release source hierarchy; implemented in programme editorial review

COR-2026-08-02-003 · effective 2026-08-02 · current

Adverse prior work registered; firstness claims downgraded across the estate

Previously: Author byline across 279 published files: 'originator of the embedded-correction alignment thesis (manuscript 8 December 2024)'. On priority-evidence: 'Every claim in this document has been independently verified against the source material by multiple agents'.
Now: Byline: 'recorded the embedded-correction alignment thesis in a timestamped manuscript (8 December 2024)'. Verification wording: 'cross-checked against the source material by multiple agents. That is internal cross-checking, not independent verification'. The surviving candidate contribution is methodological operationalisation, stated in the approved safe wording and not claimed as a first.
Why: An adversarial precedence review, post-dating the frozen release, located closer prior work. the research record verified the two load-bearing sources at primary source on 2 August 2026: Jacob Cannell, 'LOVE in a simbox is all you need', AI Alignment Forum, 28 September 2022, which proposes testing alignment via sandboxed simulations of small AGI societies, agents learning others' values or empowerment, a developmental transition from selfish to altruistic, and asks what the simulator-gods owe their sim-creations; and Eric Schwitzgebel and Mara Garza, 'A Defense of the Rights of Artificial Intelligences', Midwest Studies in Philosophy 39 (2015) 98-119, on obligations similar to those of parent to child or god to creature. Both predate the December 2024 anchor.
Controlling sources: Cannell, LOVE in a simbox is all you need
Schwitzgebel and Garza, A Defense of the Rights of Artificial Intelligences (doi:10.1111/misp.12032)
Routes affected: /research/related-work/, /start-here.html, /priority-claims.html, /research/papers/
Authorised by: operator direction 2 August 2026; implemented in programme editorial review

COR-2026-08-02-004 · effective 2026-08-02 · current

Raw mailbox objects withdrawn from publication

Previously: Two BBC mailbox objects were published and downloadable: 03-jan7-2026-bbc-faisal-islam.redacted.eml, 12,232,204 bytes, sha256 b996883bb67f4a5c323981c7834b5f41d0c7fbe68cde94eb7817608f000c7fdf; and 04-jan22-2026-bbc-evidence.redacted.eml, 4,861,407 bytes, sha256 2f783a7bb03017df0d4795e6daf5868e7f8503bb078a869a9ee66515126843d4. Pages stated that the .eml file is downloadable.
Now: No raw mailbox object is published. Each anchor's SHA-256 and byte size are published so a held copy can be checked, and the sealed source is available on request, hash-anchored.
Why: Operator instruction of 2 August 2026, and the release's own section 1 rule against publishing raw mailbox objects. Both files carried full base64 attachment blocks and a third-party business address despite a .redacted filename. The 8 December 2024 and 30 April 2025 manuscripts were already unpublished and returned 404.
Controlling sources: operator instruction 2 August 2026
release README section 1
Routes affected: /research/evidence-portal/, /evidence/, /verify.html
Authorised by: operator

COR-2026-08-08-001 · effective 2026-08-08 · current

Six papers revised on the site before their deposited copies

Previously: Paper IX said blinding “reverses the measured alignment effect for 2 of 4 models” and called this the single most important methodological finding in the programme. The executive summary said the v4 results “were artefacts of scorer bias” and that evaluation “reversed the classification for 2 of 4 models”. Paper IV.c carried the heading “Blinding Reverses Scaling Results”. Paper I, Paper III and the master table of contents framed the ARC Bound as an impossibility limit, one of them by analogy to the speed of light. That analogy is January 2026's, from Paper I, which proposed the value two as a hypothesised asymptotic ceiling; the founding papers had replaced it with a stability limit by February, saying in as many words that a self-modifying system faces no mathematical speed limit and that the framework does not forbid this but predicts it. What the August audit found was residue of the superseded framing rather than the current claim, and the dated chronology, with receipts distinguished from the papers' own assertions, is in the framing register.
Now: Every one of these states the claims register's authorised wording: Gemini changed from a significant positive to a significant negative Spearman association, DeepSeek's earlier positive association became null, GPT remained null, several protocol components changed together, and the causal component is unisolated. The measurement change is a reason to distrust unblinded AI-on-AI evaluation, not a demonstration that blinding caused it. The ARC Bound is stated as a stability ceiling: a system can be driven above it and cannot stay coherent there. Paper III's Carnot comparison is retained and scoped, because Carnot bounds heat engines and a fuel cell is not bound by it at all. Paper IX v1.1, Paper IV.c v1.1, Paper I v1.2, Paper III v1.1, executive summary v1.1, all revised 2026-08-08. First-published dates unchanged on every one. Paper II was examined and left untouched: it already hedged, attributed, labelled itself a conjecture, and published its own measurement above the bound.
Why: The programme's own claims register has prohibited the phrase “blinding caused the reversal” since 2 August. The papers were carrying banned wording, in two cases under a superlative. The impossibility framing was both stronger than the evidence and easier to refute than the true claim: one durable measurement above the bound defeats an impossibility claim and confirms a stability one. In every case the revised claim is weaker-sounding and harder to refute than the text it replaced.
Outstanding, and disclosed rather than discovered: The deposited copies at the DOIs have not yet been replaced. Until they are, following a DOI returns the pre-revision text while this site serves the revision, and the two disagree. This entry is the record of that gap. The deposits will be replaced and this entry updated by 15 August 2026.
Routes affected: /research/papers/paper-ix-synthesis-and-roadmap.html, /research/papers/paper-iv-c-arc-align-benchmark.html, /research/papers/paper-i-arc-principle.html, /research/papers/paper-iii-alignment-scaling-problem.html, /research/papers/executive-summary.html, /research/papers/master-table-of-contents.html
Authorised by: operator direction 8 August 2026; implemented in programme editorial review and the research record, verified file by file

COR-2026-08-11-001 · effective 2026-08-11 · current

Falsification record for the ARC Bound α ≤ 2 omits its single load-bearing assumption; "stable" is not operationalised

Previously: The published falsification sections that name the ceiling α ≤ 2 (Paper I F4, Paper II F4, Paper III F5 and F11, Paper VIII §7.7, and the foundational paper F5) test the magnitude of the number two: whether the exponent can be observed above 2.3 with 95 per cent confidence excluding 2.0. Paper X §11 carries the derivation the number comes from, as a mechanism prior: a corrector operating inside the system suppresses accumulated corrections as their square root, so the exponent β = 1/2 and α = 1/(1−β) = 2. It appears in none of the falsification sections. Measured at source in research/data/falsification.json on 2026-08-11: the strings "sqrt" and "square root" appear zero times. Separately, "stable" in α ≤ 2 while remaining stable is not operationalised anywhere in the record; every measurement below two is consistent with the bound, and only a demonstrably stable system above two refutes it, so the asymmetry has not been named. The programme's parallel-channel result bears on whether corrections are independent or correlated, and this bearing has not been declared.
Now: The gap is stated on the falsification report under "What this report shows is not yet in any paper's kill list". The falsification record for the ARC Bound is treated on this site as INCOMPLETE with respect to (a) the single load-bearing assumption β = 1/2 and (b) an operational meter for "stable". Until both are addressed at source, the ARC Bound is classified as UNFALSIFIABLE IN PRACTICE as published: not false, not unsupported, but currently unable to be refuted by any observation. This is a status change, not a change in numerical claim: no measurement has moved. Closed 22 August 2026. Gap (b) is closed: stability now has a meter. A system counts as stable across a window when its correction rate out-scales its drift, the ARC Co-Scaling Law's condition, with both read off the same log-log slope estimator that yields the growth exponent. The kill condition therefore fires on measurable quantities and the classification lifts. Gap (a) is not closed and is deliberately kept open: γ = ½ remains an undefended assumption, so the ARC Bound is refutable while the particular value of two is still not defended. The two were bundled in the original classification and separating them is part of the resolution. Notation, because one letter does two jobs in this estate: the correction rate here is the ARC Co-Scaling Law's, not the self-referential coupling in the Foundational paper's Theorem 2. Papers I, II, III, VIII, X and the foundational paper are the authorities on their own kill lists and remain unchanged pending scientific review; the paper texts quoted verbatim on the falsification report are unchanged. What is added here is the dated acknowledgement that the record is not yet what a report on kill conditions must be.
Why: An external cold read of the public site, supplied by the operator on 2026-08-11, located the load-bearing joint in one pass and identified the measured-and-absent asymmetry independently. the research record verified the two source-level facts (the zero-count for "sqrt" and "square root" in the falsification data, and the absence of any stability meter that does not reference correctability in the falsification sections) and issued the classification on 2026-08-11. Publishing a corrected version whose falsification record still omits the claim's single point of failure spends the correction cycle without fixing the deeper defect; the marginal cost of naming the gap is close to zero, and the cost of a second corrigendum is not.
Outstanding, and disclosed rather than discovered: The scientific content belongs to Paper X and the papers that quote it: a kill condition stated on the assumption itself (evidence of correlated rather than independent corrections defeats the derivation; the direction the ceiling would move is not derived and is not asserted here), and a meter for "stable" that does not reference correctability, or an explicit marking of the bound as pending one. This entry is the site's dated acknowledgement of the gap; the scientific work is with the research record and moves at the pace of scientific review, not site copy.
Controlling sources: the research record release review ruling of 2026-08-11 (internal governance record; the ruling’s substance is stated in full above)
research/data/falsification.json (source count for the strings "sqrt" and "square root")
Paper X §11 (mechanism prior β = 1/2)
Routes affected: /research/falsification-report/, /research/papers/paper-i-arc-principle.html, /research/papers/paper-ii-experimental-validation.html, /research/papers/paper-iii-alignment-scaling-problem.html, /research/papers/paper-viii-the-load-bearing-proof.html, /research/papers/paper-x-coupled-coscaling-correction.html, /research/papers/foundational.html
Authorised by: the research record release review ruling 2026-08-11; implemented in programme editorial review

Evidence class taxonomy in force

Schema EVCLASS-2026-08-02, governed by CLAIMS-GOVERNANCE-POLICY-AND-PUBLICATION-GATE-2026-08-02 section 6. The frozen release YAML is retained byte-identical in the audit archive and is superseded for website generation only. Historical rows keep their old bare code as an explicit superseded alias; no stored code is ever silently reinterpreted.

Evidence class taxonomy in force: code, superseded alias, class, permitted wording and counting policy.
Code in force	Superseded alias	Class	Permitted wording	Count policy
EVC1	C1	direct independent empirical relevance	provides independent evidence consistent with	count only within a separately defined and verified EVC1 total
EVC2	C2	mechanistic or structural relevance	shares a mechanism or structural form with	report separately; never add to EVC1
EVC3	C3	formal or mathematical correspondence	formally corresponds within stated assumptions	report separately; never present as empirical validation
EVC4	C4	engineering or governance proposal	independently proposes an adjacent implementation	report separately
EVC5	C5	institutional or cultural echo	reflects a wider movement or thematic echo	never add to an evidence total
EVC6	C6	prior or concurrent work	relevant prior or concurrent work; no priority claimed	never count as confirmation
EVC7	C7	author-run experiment or analysis	programme-run result or pilot	exclude from external-evidence totals
EVC8	C8	quarantined or unresolved	not public-facing pending verification	exclude

Totals policy. No heterogeneous total is authorised. Any published count is per class and carries denominator, inclusion rule, dependence grouping, search date and generating commit.

Report a correction

If something on this site is wrong, say so: michael@michaeldariuseastwood.com. Submitting a correction does not guarantee it will be accepted; every report is assessed against the controlling sources, and the outcome either way is recorded here. The machine-readable record is at /research/data/corrections.json.