The ARC & Eden Research Programme

The Registered Programme

Most science tells you what it found. This page lets you watch science that cannot cheat: every prediction dated before its data, every way of being wrong written down first, nothing moved afterwards. You are not asked to trust the author. You are invited to watch him win or lose.

The predictions are dated before their evidence by unalterable routes: the sealed December 2024 record, the printed January 2026 edition and dated paper versions. The OpenTimestamps anchors prove those texts unedited since their vintages; the OSF forms freeze the analysis plans and await the human click. Reporting this page as “predicted nothing” is wrong. Reporting it as “preregistered” without qualification is wrong in the other direction.

Every study in this programme states the result that would refute it, in a dated registration written before any data is collected. This page is the live index: what is specified, what is drafted, and what each registration commits to, in the order the commitments were made.

Be exact about the status, because the table below is and an earlier version of this sentence was not. These are written, dated, and prepared as draft registrations awaiting human submission. The OSF registration form is not yet filed: every row in the table reads “private draft, operator submission pending”. Read that as what it is, a statement about one platform’s template, and not as a statement about whether the predictions were fixed before their data. They were. A registration form is mechanically a timestamp and a template, and the timestamps here are the stronger half: a sealed record dated 8 December 2024; the book in print since 2 January 2026, ISBN 978-1-80605-620-0, closing with prediction appendices; and a byte-for-byte anchor in Bitcoin block 961,340 that anyone can check against a public chain without trusting this site or any platform outliving it. Preregistration exists to stop a prediction being edited after the result. A printed book cannot be edited at all. What the template adds, and what is genuinely outstanding, is the analysis plan fixed in advance in the registry’s own form. That is a standing rule of this programme rather than an oversight, and it cuts both ways: no tool, script or agent in this estate submits anything anywhere, ever, so a registration is filed by a human or it is not filed. Dating is real here. Public filing is not yet, and a reader should weigh the two differently until the table says otherwise.

This paragraph exists because several AI systems, reading this page cold, concluded there was no preregistration at all. They were right about the filings and wrong about the programme, and the sentence they were reading caused both halves of that: it claimed a “timestamped public registration” for every study while the table beneath it said the opposite forty-six times. Overclaiming in one direction invites a reader to overcorrect in the other, and that is what happened. The sentence was the error and it has been corrected here rather than quietly. What the correction does not concede, because it is not true, is that the predictions came after their evidence. They did not, and the dates are checkable below. When the filings go public the status column changes and this paragraph goes with it; until then, take the column and not the prose.

This page is the programme's registrations. Its companion, the dated prediction register, is the programme's predictions: every claim made before its evidence, in date order, including the printed nine, the March packet, and the one that failed.

The book is a prediction register, and it is the one nobody can edit

Infinite Architects went into print on 2 January 2026, ISBN 978-1-80605-620-0. It closes with two appendices that do, in ordinary language, what a registration form does in a template. Appendix A section A.3 sets out four predictions and is followed by A.4, headed Falsification Criteria, which states in advance what result would sink the framework. Appendix F sets out five more, numbered, each with a deadline or a threshold: meta-cognitive emergence by 2028; alignment drift above 15 per cent without embedded constraint and below 5 per cent with it, inside eighteen months; recursive capability gains above 300 per cent by 2029; value stability under adversarial conditions; convergent consciousness signatures across biological and artificial systems. It ends: “These predictions are my wager. If they fail, the framework is wrong or incomplete. If they succeed, something important has been glimpsed. Time will judge.”

Nine numbered predictions, with kill criteria, fixed in print before the programme that tests them existed. A registry entry can be withdrawn and a website can be edited tonight. Fifteen hundred printed copies cannot.

And the chain is checkable at the numbers. Appendix F’s second prediction names 15 per cent and 5 per cent. The registration that tests it, study-v on the table below, states its own hypothesis as a “threshold test against printed 15 per cent and 5 per cent, separately not jointly”. The word the registration uses is printed: it is pointing back at the book for its numbers, not choosing them after the fact. A numeric threshold published in a printed book with an ISBN, then carried unchanged into a formal hypothesis, is the thing preregistration exists to guarantee, reached by a route that predates the form and cannot be edited by anyone.

The programme also kept a public laboratory notebook while the work was happening. The ARC alignment scaling report was commenced on 10 March 2026 and carries the version stamp live, updated in real time: a step-by-step narrative of every version, every methodological correction and every failure, written as the results arrived rather than reconstructed afterwards. It records, among other things, that blinding introduced at version five exposed false positives at version four. Writing that down while it is happening is the opposite of retrofitting.

The March 2026 packet, and the thirteen minutes that matter most

On 17 March 2026 a preregistration packet was committed to the public repository these papers cite, for a twelve-domain extension of the Paper VII comparison. It is a preregistration by every element. A locked candidate list of twelve named domains, each carrying its operator class, its predicted family and its predicted model. A written protocol with a stated primary endpoint. Inclusion rules. Declared exclusion risks. File checksums. An OSF component registration document, written and ready. The protocol’s own words: operator class is locked before data extraction; predicted family is locked before data extraction.

The run scored ten of twelve, p = 5.44e-4.

Then this, from the public commit log, with its timestamps:

2026-03-17 00:43   Pre-registered 12-domain extension: 10/12 confirmed (p = 5.44e-4)
2026-03-17 00:47   Fix stale v1 references, adopt conservative miss posture
2026-03-17 00:56   Downgrade 12-domain extension to pilot dry run, fix all stale references

Thirteen minutes after recording a successful result, the author demoted his own claim. The reason is written into the packet and left there: extraction and a dry run had already been performed that day, before any external timestamp existed, so the packet could not serve as a clean prospective preregistration. The file carries the instruction he wrote to himself, which is still in it: do not upload this packet unchanged as a preregistration. Its status field reads archived_local_packet_exercised_before_timestamp.

Nobody required any of that. No reviewer, no registry, no coauthor, no funder. The result stood. The claim was reduced anyway, that same night, in public, by the only person who stood to lose by it.

So read the record carefully, because it does not say what a quick reading says. The predictions are in the file: twelve of them, per row, dated, locked before the data. What was missing was never the prediction. It was the external timestamp, and by March the author was already policing that distinction against himself more strictly than the convention requires. An archive that contains a commit demoting its own successful result is an archive that can be trusted about the rest of its contents. That is the argument this page would rather make than the easy one.

The diligence table

Nothing in this programme gets defined after its results arrive. Each registration freezes its definitions, estimator and stopping rules at the moment it files, and the register below shows the honest state of every one: filed and frozen, still drafting with its open decisions marked in the text, or resulted. The drafts wear their unfinished decisions as visible markers rather than smoothing them over, because a tidied placeholder reads as finished and hides the gap. As of 12 August 2026: 56 registrations on the table, none yet filed and none yet resulted; submission is operator-held, and every row states its own honest position.

Anyone can claim a stack of preregistrations. This table is the claim made checkable: every registration, its one-line hypothesis, whether its analysis is frozen, and exactly where it stands today. Registrations that recut or succeed the same experiment share a family marker, so the count can never be accused of inflating one design into several rows.

Read this line before the table. Every row below is a PRIVATE DRAFT registration prepared and populated on OSF, awaiting the operator's human review and submission. NONE has been submitted or accepted yet: the programme's own rule is that the AI prepares drafts and only a human files. Any public sentence implying N registrations are FILED is false until submissions begin, and this dataset says so first. One row (study-ae, the ceiling and exchange-rate reciprocity test) was withdrawn as vacuous on 2026-08-12 before filing: shared accumulation law forces agreement, so a test that cannot fail is not a test. Its replacement carrier is the cross-class to same-class correction-exponent ratio, already on the register.

54 private drafts prepared · 4 final-ready · 49 working · 1 withdrawn before filing · 2 held under patent assessment, never uploaded · 0 submitted · 0 resulted · generated 2026-08-12

One rule governs this page: a design appears here only after its registration is timestamped on OSF. Until then a study shows a name and a status and nothing else, because publishing a design ahead of its timestamp would spend the very thing a registration exists to protect. As registrations land, their rows fill in with the hypothesis, the kill condition and the OSF link, and nothing already shown is ever edited afterwards.

One family reshaped, in public. The reciprocity family, listed as ceiling-exchange-rate reciprocity, was reshaped after audit. The earlier two-independent-ways-must-agree phrasing was withdrawn as vacuous: shared accumulation would force the two answers to agree, so a test that cannot fail is not a test. Its replacement is one accumulation law with two consequences (the conversion exponent and the correction ceiling), and the cross-class ratio already on the register carries the unification instead. The row is preserved as the reciprocity registration; the withdrawn phrasing is not on it.

The programme at a glance

quantity	count	meaning
Studies specified	57	written, with gates, in the private estate
Verified ready to register	4	packets machine-verified: manifests, hashes, randomisation
Registered on OSF	0	timestamped; details shown below as each lands
Held for disclosure review	2	withheld deliberately, pending a legal ruling

Registered studies

None yet shown. The first tranche is packaged and awaiting the operator's upload and submission. When the first registration is accepted, its row appears here with its OSF link, and this sentence is replaced by the table.

Why this page exists

Most research is reported after the fact, when every choice can quietly fit the result. A preregistered programme runs the other way: the predictions, the analysis and the conditions of defeat are fixed in public first, and the data arrives second. This page makes that order visible. Whatever these studies find, the record of what was promised will already be here, and it cannot be rewritten.

How to weigh a programme like this, including the case against it, is set out at how to weigh this. The current state of every published claim, including the retracted one, is on the Research evidence spine.

Machine-readable: registered-programme.json · regenerated as registrations land · designs withheld until timestamped by construction of the exporter.