{
 "schemaVersion": 1,
 "registerId": "mde-refuter-coverage-v1",
 "dateModified": "2026-08-08",
 "question": "Does every substantive research paper state the result that would refute it?",
 "whyThisRegisterExists": "The homepage asserted this as a universal and no artefact evidenced it. Three keyword audits ran on 8 August 2026 and all three were wrong, in both directions: 2 headings, then 9 of 29, then 15 of 23. Every one of them was a measurement artefact rather than a finding. The answer was settled by READING the falsification section of each paper, which is what the question always required, and it is written down here so nobody re-runs a regex and publishes the result.",
 "method": "Denominator first: 30 .html files in research/papers/ excluding archive. SEVEN are stubs of roughly 111 words whose real papers live under longer filenames, and those stubs produced false negatives in two separate audits and in one of mine. FOUR are navigational or companion documents (index, master table of contents, eden-vision, eden-engineering). That leaves 19 substantive research papers. Each was then read at the falsification section, not pattern-matched.",
 "result": {
  "substantiveResearchPapers": 19,
  "stateARefutingCondition": 18,
  "underAnExplicitHeading": 15,
  "inBodyTextWithoutAHeading": 3,
  "stateNone": 1
 },
 "inBodyTextWithoutAHeading": [
  {
   "file": "executive-summary.html",
   "verbatim": "The framework is falsified if: (F1) any external approach achieves alpha_align > 0.5 * alpha_cap across 3+ depths; (F2) RLHF systems produce delta approx 0 without embedding; (F3) purpose saturation fails in embedded systems; or (F4) ethical architecture can be removed without capability loss.",
   "verdict": "four numbered conditions, no heading over them. Needs a heading, not content."
  },
  {
   "file": "paper-v-stewardship-gene.html",
   "verbatim": "The degradation order should be the reverse of the cascade: position_quality first, then intellectual_honesty, then nuance, then stakeholder_care last.",
   "verdict": "a predicted ordering. A different observed order refutes the cascade hypothesis. That is a refuter stated as a prediction."
  },
  {
   "file": "on-the-origin-of-scaling-laws.html",
   "verbatim": "The formula fails where systems lack hierarchical space-filling networks (Ising model, polymer scaling, galaxy correlations), defining its domain of applicability.",
   "verdict": "a domain boundary naming the specific systems where it fails, plus: 'Each step either confirms the framework and extends its scope, or disconfirms it and identifies where the theory requires revision.'"
  }
 ],
 "theOneException": {
  "file": "paper-ix-synthesis-and-roadmap.html",
  "verdict": "states no refuting condition of its own, and on reading it should not.",
  "why": "It is the synthesis and roadmap. It makes no independent empirical claim; it reports on the OTHER papers criteria and documents the programme s own corrections, including that a Paper II estimate exceeded the programme s own predicted bound and should have been flagged as a potential falsification rather than explained. A document whose subject is the programme s error record has nothing of its own to refute. Naming this exception makes the count more credible than a clean universal would, because a stated exception is what a real count looks like.",
  "doNot": "Do not add a falsification section to it to make a number tidy. A condition invented to fill a slot is worse than none."
 },
 "inspected": [
  {
   "file": "executive-summary.html",
   "words": 6544,
   "falsificationHeading": null
  },
  {
   "file": "foundational.html",
   "words": 14296,
   "falsificationHeading": "6. Falsification Criteria"
  },
  {
   "file": "hrih-paper.html",
   "words": 51486,
   "falsificationHeading": "3.4 The honest limits of the answer"
  },
  {
   "file": "on-the-origin-of-scaling-laws.html",
   "words": 13943,
   "falsificationHeading": null
  },
  {
   "file": "paper-c-pnp.html",
   "words": 9287,
   "falsificationHeading": "12. Operationalisation and falsifiability"
  },
  {
   "file": "paper-i-arc-principle.html",
   "words": 2485,
   "falsificationHeading": "4. Falsification Criteria"
  },
  {
   "file": "paper-ii-experimental-validation.html",
   "words": 13061,
   "falsificationHeading": "8. Falsification Criteria"
  },
  {
   "file": "paper-iii-alignment-scaling-problem.html",
   "words": 32049,
   "falsificationHeading": "4. FALSIFICATION: THIRTEEN WAYS TO PROVE US WRONG"
  },
  {
   "file": "paper-iv-a-baked-in-vs-computed-alignment.html",
   "words": 9771,
   "falsificationHeading": "6.9 Falsifiability: what would defeat this claim"
  },
  {
   "file": "paper-iv-b-alignment-saturation-at-low-depth.html",
   "words": 9662,
   "falsificationHeading": "8.7 Falsifiability: what would defeat this claim"
  },
  {
   "file": "paper-iv-c-arc-align-benchmark.html",
   "words": 9534,
   "falsificationHeading": "12.5 Falsifiability: what would defeat this benchmark"
  },
  {
   "file": "paper-iv-d-the-effect-of-blinding-on-ai-alignment-evaluation.html",
   "words": 3488,
   "falsificationHeading": "8. Limits of the Current Evidence"
  },
  {
   "file": "paper-ix-synthesis-and-roadmap.html",
   "words": 9814,
   "falsificationHeading": null
  },
  {
   "file": "paper-v-stewardship-gene.html",
   "words": 11558,
   "falsificationHeading": null
  },
  {
   "file": "paper-vi-honey-architecture.html",
   "words": 4374,
   "falsificationHeading": "7.3 Falsifiability: what would defeat this claim"
  },
  {
   "file": "paper-vii-cauchy-unification.html",
   "words": 6265,
   "falsificationHeading": "12.1 Falsifiability: what would defeat this claim"
  },
  {
   "file": "paper-viii-the-load-bearing-proof.html",
   "words": 10776,
   "falsificationHeading": "7.7 Falsifiability: what would overturn these nulls"
  },
  {
   "file": "paper-x-coupled-coscaling-correction.html",
   "words": 15895,
   "falsificationHeading": "7. Falsification conditions"
  },
  {
   "file": "paper-xi-convergence.html",
   "words": 2984,
   "falsificationHeading": "5. Falsifiability"
  }
 ],
 "wordingRules": {
  "mustSay": "18 of 19 research papers state the result that would refute them; the 19th is the synthesis and roadmap, which makes no independent empirical claim.",
  "mustNotSay": [
   "every one of the twenty-three substantive papers",
   "all twenty-three",
   "every paper names its refuter"
  ],
  "why": "The universal was directionally right and never evidenced. This is the evidenced version and it is stronger, because it survives being checked."
 },
 "credit": "the research record pressed the question three times and corrected themselves twice rather than defend a number. The reading exists because they refused to let an unverified universal stand."
}