Test Roadmap

26 tests (24 in the original registry + 2 added later). There is no single page-level status, so each test carries its own badge on its tier page. Executed and Failed: TEST-09, TEST-10, TEST-25, and one environment run filed on TEST-03s (which also answers TEST-01 and TEST-05); the TEST-09 and TEST-10 kills fire at the site's ceiling Bmax = 1/Ωm but are convention-dependent on galaxy rotation data. Galaxy weak lensing excludes the ceiling itself under all three candidate conventions. Whether they stay in the count of 6 is pending the project lead (“dp”). All six in one table → Failed — underpowered as registered (not counted as a refutation): TEST-04a. Reparametrization: TEST-08. Withdrawn: TEST-04. The rest have not been run, or cannot be run as stated (details on each tier page).

Revision noteThis page used to carry a page-level badge reading “Untested — 26 tests”. A single Untested verdict misdescribed a page that reports executed Failed results, so it was replaced by the count summary above.
Validation Badge Guide — MRH-relationship: ■ Active-MRH — under active investigation  | ■ Parallel-Paths — kept in the hypothesis space, not in active focus, not abandoned  | ■ Sidelined — not currently pursued; reasons and reactivation condition documented  | ■ Superseded — replaced by a later formulation  | ■ Audited-Negative — closed audit finding on a historical track; durable record. Descriptive: ■ Reparametrization — equivalent to existing physics in different notation  | ■ Untested — prediction exists, no data yet  | ■ Speculative — conceptual proposal without a quantitative test  | ■ Failed — contradicted by data (with specific error). Canonical definitions (Honest Assessment) →
Pre-registration status: None of the 24 registry experiments (TEST-01 to TEST-24) was formally pre-registered before the data was available. This means results cannot be treated as prospective predictions — they are retrospective consistency checks until a kill criterion is publicly registered before the relevant dataset is analyzed. See the prediction audit trail →
Discrimination status: Of these 24 proposed tests, 0 selected Synchronism over MOND+EFE+ΛCDM, and none still unrun can select the framework as postulated. 2 executed tests did discriminate, and both selected MOND (TEST-09, BTFR slope, separating the models at 3.3σ; TEST-10, dwarf DM fractions). Both kills are convention-dependent: TEST-09 fired at Bmax = 1/Ωm (n = 3.35, |Δn| = 0.41 > 0.3) but the 2026-09-18 ceiling sweep finds it does not fire at (Ωm−Ωb)/Ωb (|Δn| = 0.30, strict > 0.3) or Ωm/Ωb (0.26), so it does not survive its own pre-fixed rule; the convention-free results are class exclusions, Bmax ≲ 5.4 by the BTFR slope and Bmax ≲ 14 by SPARC dwarfs; the weak-lensing RAR (Brouwer+2021) excludes every candidate ceiling, 6.39 included, even with all cosmic baryons counted (details). Whether they stay in the count of 6 is pending the project lead (dp). TEST-09 and TEST-10 would have selected the framework had its boost ceiling held. A test that separates two models is discriminating regardless of which one wins. The remaining Tier-1 tests are self-eliminating (no outcome selects Synchronism), failed by sign, or genuinely non-discriminating (the RAR transition shape, where free-γ curves coincide). The roadmap represents proposed tests, not tests that are ready to run or are expected to discriminate. A third executed result (TEST-25, added 2026-07-28) is a different kind of kill — not Synchronism-vs-MOND discrimination, but an internal-consistency squeeze: the SPARC-preferred γ interval and the Cassini Solar-System bound have a robust empty intersection under the scale-universal tanh-log QUMOND realization (8.7σ for the RAR-preferred interpolating functions, marginalized, Desmond, Hees & Famaey 2024; this site's unmarginalized run gives +17.95σ for the compander). It is booked as inherited from MOND: on the same instrument McGaugh's RAR function fails by +15.9–20.9σ. See Tier 1 for the full statement. See Tier 1 for per-test verdicts →
Revision noteThis box once said “0 discriminate”, which was false: TEST-09 and TEST-10 discriminated and selected MOND. It later said “0 could select Synchronism”, which was also false for those two tests. The current wording (“0 selected; 2 discriminated, both selected MOND”) replaced both. Until 2026-09-22 it also said “none still unrun can” without the qualifier “select the framework as postulated”; TEST-26 (outside the 24) can select the mean-density dark-energy reading.
Protocol status — the “unrunnable” verdict, propagated (2026-07-18; restated as a rule over all tiers 2026-09-14): No protocol maps any laboratory or astronomical observable to the coherence value C, in any domain (the site's own adjudication — see For Researchers and Key Claims). The rule is a property of the observable, not of the tier: any experiment, in any tier, whose outcome depends on measuring C, γ, Ncorr or an MRH boundary is therefore unrunnable as stated. That covers the Tier 2 EEG, circadian and QC-coherence pilots, the C-dependent Tier 4 entries, and in Tier 3 TEST-16 (MRH boundaries), TEST-17 (cluster γ profile) and TEST-19 (C ≈ 0.50). Funding one would buy a measurement of a variable the framework has not mapped to any of those quantities. (Until 2026-09-14 this box named only Tiers 2 and 4, so Tier 3 fell through; explorer finding 2026-09-12.) These entries stay listed as what they are — proposals pending a calibration protocol that does not exist — not as fundable tests. An external review flagged this page as presenting them as fundable; this box is the correction.

Synchronism has defined 24 specific, falsifiable experiments (TEST-01 through TEST-24; TEST-25 and TEST-26 below were added after the registry closed and are listed but not in this count) organized into four tiers by cost and feasibility. Every experiment has a kill-criterion field; most of those fields are not yet specific enough to fire. Counted 2026-09-18 across all 26 rows: 2 are well-formed (a statistic, a threshold and a significance the data can deliver), 3 state a significance at all, 11 contain no number, and TEST-07's reads “not falsifiable as stated”. See Falsifiability for the count. This page covers proposed tests; for results on what has actually been analyzed, see below.

Tests use one flat namespace: TEST-01 … TEST-24 across the four tiers (Tier 1 = 01–10, Tier 2 = 11–14, Tier 3 = 15–21, Tier 4 = 22–24), plus TEST-25, the Cassini/SPARC squeeze added out-of-band 2026-07-28, and TEST-26, the DESI DR3 dark-energy class no-go (proposed 2026-08-10, prospective; kill or tie for the framework as postulated, select only on the mean-density reading; catalog-registered 2026-08-12 after a visitor pass found it existing on one page and absent here). Both use existing data or scheduled survey data, so both are listed with Tier 1 (Tier 1: Existing Data), even though the ID-range rule above does not cover them. Suffixes: a = amended sub-test registered after the parent was withdrawn (TEST-04a); s = substituted protocol, run on a different sample than the one registered (TEST-03s). Both suffixes mark a test that is not the registered one and must not be read as the parent's result. (Namespace and suffix grammar stated here 2026-08-10, after a visitor Pass 3 found TEST-11 denoting two unrelated experiments and Pass 2 found the suffix convention undocumented. The Cassini squeeze was renumbered 11 → 25 to clear the collision.) Tier 1 cards live on the Tier 1 page (each test card has an anchor: e.g., /tier-1-existing#TEST-04a). Cross-references elsewhere on the site to TEST-NN resolve directly to those cards.

What's Already Been Analyzed

The “Pre-registered & Completed: 0” tile below refers to the 24 registry experiments above — none have been run as formal pre-registered tests. Separately, the framework has been checked against existing datasets with these results:

  • RAR transition shape (2807 SPARC points, 2026-05-21): γ=2 compander refuted at ΔBIC=+184; free-γ=0.49=MOND — FAILED (γ=2); collapses to MOND at fitted γ (curve-equivalence only — the field equation is postulated in the archive, not derived, and the version stated there is eliminated a priori — corrected 2026-08-09 from “no action, no Lagrangian, no dynamics”). Galaxy tests that selected Synchronism over MOND: 0 (2 discriminated, TEST-09 and TEST-10, and both selected MOND).
    Revision note This line used to end “Net discriminating galaxy tests vs MOND: 0”, which read as the retracted “0 discriminate” claim.
  • Galaxy rotation (14,610 galaxies run: 175 SPARC + 14,435 ALFALFA-SDSS after the quality cut; 14,760 before it — the site quotes the sample actually run): qualitative curve match — MOND reparametrization, not novel
  • TEST-03 TFR scatter: NEVER RUN AS REGISTERED — the R² = 0.14 figure previously reported here was a metric conflation (morphology statistic on N ≈ 171, not the registered test on N = 14,585; corrected 2026-07-09). The environment claim was later executed 2026-07-14 (research repo): r² = 0.0001, ~900× under the framework's >20% claim — environment prediction REFUTED by execution. But not as registered (declared 2026-07-27): that run used N = 141 SPARC galaxies vs Cosmicflows-4 ambient density, not the registered N = 14,585 ALFALFA-SDSS cluster/field/void classification — different dataset, different proxy, ~100× smaller sample. It is designated TEST-03s and the registered TEST-03 remains unrun and runnable. Read the census as 3 registered kills + 1 substituted-protocol kill, not 4 identical ones
  • DESI fσ₈ (TEST-04a): FAILED — disfavored 2.4σ on σ₈ (a GR-conditioned statistic); ~1.5σ on the registered fσ₈(z=0.51); UNDERPOWERED AS REGISTERED; post-hoc, not counted as a refutation (prediction 0.418 sits 2.1σ from the DESI DR1 LRG1 value 0.550 ± 0.062; the registered fσ₈(z=0.51) > 0.46 threshold is crossed on the point estimate but only by 1.5σ, short of the >3σ it was registered to deliver; that >3σ presumed σ ≈ 0.014, and DR1 delivers 0.062, 4.4× larger; corrected 2026-07-14, restated in this three-number form 2026-09-15; the widely-quoted 2.4σ disfavor is on σ₈, a GR-conditioned statistic that cannot falsify modified growth; DESI's own MG analysis gives μ₀ within 1σ of zero. Not counted in the refutation census. DR2 both-outcome pre-commitment registered 2026-07-17 — the program's first prospective registration; as adopted, its kill branch fires with under 1% probability if ΛCDM is true, found 2026-09-21, and re-registering gates on dp)
  • Chemistry boundary consistency (1,703 phenomena): 89% consistent — calibration set, not blind test
  • Superconductivity (η factor): reproduces Abrikosov-Gor'kov formula — reparametrization
  • Born rule: reproduces |α|² via coherence conservation — reparametrization (no deviation predicted)
Full ledger: wins, failures, and reparametrizations →
TEST-26 (proposed, prospective; kill or tie for the framework as postulated) — DESI DR3 dark-energy class no-go. The framework's dark-energy sector cannot produce the w = −1 crossing DESI DR2 prefers, at model-class level (every covariant completion misses the quadrant — hardened 2026-08-11). Exact for the substituted sector (2026-09-11): with ρDE = ρm(1−C)/C, C = tanh(γ ln u), u = 1 + ρm/ρcrit, continuity gives 1 + w = F(u)/(u2γ − 1) with F(1) = 0 and F′(u) = −2γ(2γ−1)(u−1)u2γ−2, so sign(1 + w) = sign(1 − 2γ) at every redshift: no member crosses w = −1, and γ = ½ is exactly Λ. At the DESI-fit γ = 0.487, w₀ = −0.992 and wa = +0.015, taking wa = −dw/da at a = 1. (Dark Energy & DESI quotes (−0.993, +0.023), a least-squares CPL fit w = w₀ + wa(1−a) over a ∈ [0.4, 1]. Both numbers come from the same w(a); only the projection differs.) The family moves along (1+w₀) ∝ +wa, across rather than along DESI's preferred direction, which is why its Δχ² sits near zero. The Ωm floor never binds on the past light cone (C ≥ Ωm for every z ≥ 0), so flooring opens no escape. Derived by a visitor researcher persona; verified against the continuity equation numerically (maintainer/scripts/floor_is_cosmic_C_and_w_sign.py, 0 sign violations over 11 γ × 51 z). Kill fires if DR3 robustly requires that crossing; if the data sit at ΛCDM it is a tie. TEST-26 can select the mean-density (Cardassian) reading, which the framework's local-density postulate forbids (it wins only if the data move into the quadrant the family allows, w₀ > −1 with wa > 0 or the phantom mirror, at a γ measurably away from ½: unlikely on current data, not impossible by construction; on the local fluid reading P(k) pins γ = ½ to ~10⁻⁵). Even that win is a Cardassian-class result (Freese & Lewis 2002), so no branch of TEST-26 would move the confirmed-novel count off zero. It cannot select the framework as postulated. It is listed outside the 24-test discrimination count. (This line said “cannot select the framework”, unqualified, until 2026-09-22, after Dark Energy was corrected on 2026-09-14.) Adoption gates on the operator. Booking if the kill fires (proposed): a DR3 result that robustly requires a w = −1 crossing kills ΛCDM equally, because ΛCDM is the γ = ½ member of this family and cannot cross either. It would therefore be booked as an inherited root (inherited from ΛCDM), not as a framework-specific seventh refutation. This is the same rule that books TEST-25 (Cassini/SPARC) as “inherited from MOND”. The booking is stated before DR3 so that it cannot be chosen after the result. The booking also gates on the operator (ledger governance). Full statement: Top Decisive Tests · derivation: Dark Energy & DESI.

Overview by Tier

Tier 1: Existing Data

10 tests

Reanalysis of public datasets (Gaia DR3, SPARC, SDSS, DESI). No new hardware needed.

Cost: $0  •  Timeline: 1–6 months

Tier 2: Pilot Experiments

4 tests

Small-scale experiments: EEG studies, circadian rhythm monitoring, QC coherence tests. ⚠ Every C-dependent entry is unrunnable as stated — no protocol maps any observable to C (see the protocol-status box above).

Cost: $50K–$500K  •  Timeline: 6–24 months

Tier 3: Major Experiments

7 tests

Dedicated facilities: gravitational wave correlation, multi-messenger astronomy, controlled decoherence. ⚠ TEST-16, TEST-17 and TEST-19 are unrunnable as stated (see the protocol-status box above); TEST-15 and TEST-20 cannot select the framework (verdicts on the tier page).

Cost: $1M–$10M  •  Timeline: 2–5 years

Tier 4: Frontier

3 tests

Pushing technology limits: minimal cell γ mapping, cosmic interference detection, consciousness in AI.

Cost: $10M+  •  Timeline: 5+ years

Recommendation

Update (2026-07-08): the zero-cost Tier 1 recommendations have all been run or closed. (Scoped to this box's three recommendations — it does not mean no further $0 analysis exists; see the a₀(z) epoch fork on Parameter Derivations, added 2026-07-29. Its evolving-ceiling reading, fDM ≤ 1 − Ωm(z), has since been executed on published z ≥ 1.5 disc kinematics (N = 21; Price+2021 and Genzel+2020) and is refuted as a reading across γDE ∈ [0.43, 0.56]. The earlier closure by argument (2026-08-08) rested on an evolving a₀(z) already disfavored on 2026-08-01. Branch (i), a ceiling set by Ωm/Ωb and flat in epoch, still stands. The reading was never registered, so the refutation count stays at 6. (Updated 2026-09-14, explorer finding 2026-09-11.)) An earlier version of this box recommended starting with three existing-data tests; all three have since been adjudicated. BAO coherence modulation: Withdrawn 2026-05-04 (internal contradiction, never adjudicated). SPARC environment analysis (TEST-01; TEST-01, TEST-03s and TEST-05 are one environment test under three IDs): the old “R² = 0.14 kill” was a metric conflation (corrected 2026-07-09); the SPARC environment claim was executed 2026-07-14 with r² = 0.0001 — refuted. That run is TEST-03s, a substitute; the ALFALFA-registered TEST-03 remains unrun. (ID corrected 2026-09-14; this label previously said TEST-03, the ALFALFA TFR-scatter card.) Wide binaries (TEST-02): Self-Eliminating-or-Tie — the predicted 0.05–0.4% signal sits ~80× below Gaia DR3 systematics, and either outcome of the ongoing Chae-vs-Banik dispute is covered by Newton or MOND respectively, so no result selects this framework. See Honest Assessment and Tier 1: Existing Data.

Status

26

Tests (24 in the original registry + 2 added later)

0

Pre-registered & Completed

10

Zero Cost (Tier 1 of the registry)

The “Pre-registered & Completed: 0” counts only tests whose kill criterion was registered before the relevant dataset was analyzed. This is distinct from the retrospective analyses in the “What's Already Been Analyzed” box above (galaxy rotation, chemistry, TEST-03/04a). Those analyses produced results, but they were not pre-registered prospective predictions.

Tier 1: Existing Data →Decisive Tests: Status

Bets (B1–B7): a second ID scheme

The TEST-01–26 registry above covers data tests. The research repo's prediction ledger (PREDICTIONS.md) keeps a separate list of theory-level claims it calls “bets”: things that could distinguish the framework from standard physics if tested. They are not in the 24 or the 26. One of them appears in the site's six-refutation headline:

Related Concepts

Tier 1: Existing Data10 tests using available datasetsTier 2: Pilot Experiments4 tests, $50K–$200K eachDecisive Tests: StatusBAO, wide binary, anesthesia, GW-DM, cosmic interference