the output ledger
What zero funding built
No grant, no salary, no institution, no lab. External funding to date: £0. This page is simply a list of what got made anyway, in date order, with a check on every row. It makes no argument. It does not need to.
Rules of this page: every row is dated, every row links the place you can verify it, and nothing appears here that is not already on the public record. The corrections log applies to this page like every other.
221,236 words in aggregate, carrying the embedded-correction alignment thesis, the ARC Hypothesis by name, and the control-failure passage, nineteen months before the frontier labs’ containment-failure disclosures of July 2026 (logged in the register as context, not confirmation). Sent-side SHA-256 begins f0d1f38f.
The full draft of Infinite Architects crossed two providers into Gmail, collecting an independently signed authentication verdict on the way. The record verifies in a supplied raw-source run, with reproduction boundaries stated rather than smoothed.
468 pages. Thirty-seven named concepts, each with a dated record in the priority ledger. Written at night, between court deadlines.
the book · ISBN 978-1-80605-620-0, checkable in any catalogue
Fourteen in a numbered sequence, two outside it, two supporting. A principle, a test of it, what broke, and what survived the breaking. Every format that exists is served free; every paper states the condition that would kill it.
Built to measure alignment under recursion, then turned on itself. It found that unblinded scoring can flip a result's sign, and later that its own panel had scored measurement failure as success. Both findings were published, and the attack that caught the second one now runs as a permanent regression test.
The early sequential-scaling exponent of 2.24 failed replication. The corrected figure, 0.49 with a bootstrap interval reaching below zero, replaced it in public, and every document that carried the old number was corrected. This row is the reason to trust the others.
Eden Legal AI, a bounded prototype of a litigation operating system, and Eden Control, in private beta. Both are the architecture written down in the papers, running rather than described.
Self-taught, in the Chancery and King's Bench Divisions, while everything above was being written. The court record is its own kind of peer review: adversarial, on the record, and indifferent to how you feel about it.
A graded convergence register with no headline total. A priority ledger whose every entry states its own limits. A falsification dashboard where one condition has already fired. A corrections log that is append-only. A verify page whose checks run in your browser against systems I do not control. Most programmes describe their integrity; this one ships it as software.
Everything on this page was produced by one person with no institution behind him, between court deadlines, for the price of the electricity. That is the constraint the whole record was built under.
The papers say what the programme could measure next, and the kill-conditions say exactly how it could fail. The only thing this page will not tell you is what happens when the constraint is removed, because that experiment has not been run.
If you assess or fund research, the funders page states what you would and would not be funding, and the corrections log shows what I do when I am wrong. If you only came to check the claims, start here.