Tier 1: Existing Data

Data: SPARC (175 galaxies)

Prediction: Rotation curve residuals correlate with local galaxy density

Kill: No correlation between residuals and environment at 2σ

⚠ Status note: Scope note: TEST-01 (SPARC residuals vs. density) and TEST-05 (RAR scatter vs. environment) test the same underlying prediction — environment-dependent RAR — on different samples. SPARC is higher-quality resolved curves (175 galaxies); ALFALFA-SDSS is larger statistical power (14,585 galaxies). These should be read as two phases of one test, not as two independent tests.

Data: Gaia DR3

Prediction: Wide binary anomaly depends on local stellar density: systems in LOWER-density environments should show STRONGER coherence-driven deviation from Newtonian dynamics. Mechanism: g_eff = g_N/C(ρ); lower ρ → smaller C → larger boost above Newtonian. [Sign corrected 2026-06-06; previous "higher-density → stronger deviation" was backwards.]

Kill: REWRITTEN 2026-06-12 (previous criterion predated the C(a)→C(ρ) fork and was inverted — it would have killed the framework for its own prediction coming true): a Gaia-confirmed MOND-scale wide-binary anomaly (~18% velocity deviation; Chae-type ~1.4× boost at low internal acceleration) in the clean sample REFUTES C(ρ), which predicts a Newtonian null (0.05–0.4%). A confirmed Newtonian null is consistent with C(ρ) but equally consistent with GR — survival without points, non-discriminating.

⚠ Status note: KILL BRANCH ADJUDICABLE NOW (2026-06-12): the refutation branch does not wait on future Gaia data — it waits on the published Gaia DR3 adjudication already in the literature: Chae (2023–2025) claims a MOND-like ~1.4× boost at low internal accelerations; Banik et al. (2024) claims Newtonian behavior excludes that boost at high significance, from the same data with different cuts. If the Chae side prevails, C(ρ) is refuted with existing data; if Banik holds, C(ρ) survives degenerately with Newton. Adjudication queued to the explorer track (proposal: test02_kill_branch_adjudicable_now.md). | SELF-ELIMINATING-OR-TIE (2026-06-07): This test has no outcome that favors Synchronism. If Gaia confirms the null (Banik 2024 / Pittordis & Sutherland 2023): that confirms Newton — Synchronism merely reproduces Newton here. If Gaia confirms ~18% anomaly (Chae 2023): that confirms MOND and refutes Synchronism-C(ρ) — Newton and Synchronism are refuted together. No measurement selects Synchronism over the standard alternatives. Additionally, 0.05–0.4% (C(ρ) prediction) is below current Gaia DR3 wide-binary systematics — practically untestable, not just difficult. | SIGN CORRECTION (2026-06-06): The prediction direction was reversed on this page from 2026-05-05 to 2026-06-06. The correct direction is lower density → stronger deviation (g_eff = g_N/C(ρ) gives low ρ → low C → larger boost). Both MOND+EFE and C(ρ) agree on this direction — direction is not a discriminator. The amplitude IS structurally distinct: C(ρ)-density form predicts ~0.05–0.4% velocity deviation (Newtonian null level) vs MOND ~18%; Gaia DR3 reach is ~80× insufficient. Substrate contingency: the anomaly's existence is actively disputed (Chae 2023 detects it; Banik 2024, Pittordis & Sutherland 2023, Saurabh 2024 do not). This is the third C(a)→C(ρ) fork: C(a) predicts the anomaly but is MOND-degenerate (refuted by SPARC RAR at ΔBIC=+184); C(ρ) is structurally distinct but predicts the Newtonian null.

Data: ALFALFA + SDSS (14,585 galaxies)

Prediction: TFR residual captures all intrinsic scatter (51% improvement)

Kill: TFR residual explains <20% of scatter

⚠ Status note: Kill criterion TRIGGERED — literal reading: R² = 0.14 (environmental term explains 14% of total RAR scatter) is below the <20% threshold stated in the kill criterion. Under a literal reading, this test is FAILED. It remains listed here rather than on /honest-assessment only because the denominator may be mis-stated (kill criterion may have been intended against MOND-residual scatter, not total scatter) — a distinction that changes the verdict. Until the denominator is audited against the archive source, treat TEST-03 as presumptively failed. See research proposal test03_kill_criterion_self_trigger.md.

Data: DESI, SDSS DR17, Euclid

Prediction: [Withdrawn] BAO peak shifts ~10⁻⁴ between high/low-density regions

Kill: [Withdrawn] BAO identical everywhere to 10⁻⁵ precision

⚠ Status note: WITHDRAWN (2026-05-04) — Three converging failures: (1) The framework's own Session 107 (Dec 2025) explicitly forecasts BAO matches ΛCDM at 0.0% in all five DESI redshift bins — the sound horizon is set at z~1100 when C ≈ 1 everywhere, so no modification is possible. (2) The 10⁻⁴ number has no session-level derivation; it appeared only in compilation documents that drifted from the underlying sessions. (3) Standard nonlinear physics already produces ~6×10⁻² environment-dependent BAO shifts (600× larger); the kill criterion of 10⁻⁵ is 3000× below DESI Y3 precision. See /bao-coherence-modulation for full documentation. Replacement: TEST-04a (DESI RSD fσ8 suppression) — the test Session 107 actually predicts.

Derivation status →

Data: DESI DR1 (arXiv:2411.12021, Table 9 & 10)

Prediction: fσ₈(z=0.51) ≈ 0.418 — a ~12% suppression below ΛCDM (0.474). Mechanism: G_local/G_global = C_cosmic/C_galactic suppresses structure growth at late times. Session 107 forecasts 1.7σ–3.2σ discrimination per DESI LRG bin.

Kill: fσ₈(z=0.51) > 0.46 (rules out Synchronism at >3σ); fσ₈(z=0.51) > 0.45 disfavors at >2σ

Pre-registration status: Post-hoc retrodiction — σ₈ calibrated to lensing S₈ tension in Session 102; propagated to DESI fσ₈ in Session 107 (committed 2025-12-10); DESI DR1 published April 2024. Status (corrected 2026-05-26): disfavored ~2σ — kill criterion triggered.

⚠ Status note: CORRECTED 2026-05-26 (previous 2026-05-25 "correction" was itself an error). DESI DR1 full-shape (arXiv:2411.12021): LRG1 (z=0.51) fσ₈/(fσ₈)_fid = 1.16 ± 0.13 — above ΛCDM fiducial. LIKE-FOR-LIKE fσ₈ comparison: predicted fσ₈ ≈ 0.418; observed fσ₈ ≈ 1.16 × 0.474 ≈ 0.55 — enhancement, not suppression; gap ~2σ. SEPARATE σ₈ comparison: combined σ₈ = 0.841 ± 0.034 (Table 10); Synchronism predicted σ₈ ≈ 0.76 → 2.4σ tension. These are two different observables measured separately — do not compare the 0.418 fσ₈ prediction to the 0.841 σ₈ observation directly. Kill criterion (fσ₈ > 0.46) triggered: observed fσ₈ ≈ 0.55 ≫ 0.46. Verdict: post-hoc retrodiction — disfavored ~2σ; suppression not observed; data itself ΛCDM-consistent. The 0.4497 ± 0.0548 figure cited in the 2026-05-25 edit belongs to arXiv:2512.03230 (DESI Peculiar Velocity Survey, z≈0.07) — a different survey misattributed to the z=0.51 full-shape slot. Note: the "mechanism-class sign reversal / transferable contribution" characterization is NOT restored — that was an overstatement; this is a post-hoc test. CONTEXT (2026-05-23): EFTofLSS analyses (Cabass, Simonović, Zaldarriaga et al. 2024-2025) explain DESI DR1 fσ₈ within ΛCDM at 1-2σ. CURRENCY (2026-06-11): this verdict is frozen at DR1 — DESI DR2 full-shape growth constraints have not been re-run against the kill criterion; engagement would likely tighten the disfavor, so the DR1-only verdict is the charitable one. RE-OPEN POLICY (2026-06-12): the verdict would unfreeze only if DR2 full-shape reported fσ₈(z≈0.5) ≤ 0.46 (back under the kill threshold) — i.e., a suppression signal where DR1 saw enhancement. A DR2 value at or above DR1's would not change the verdict, only deepen it; no DR2 outcome can convert a post-hoc retrodiction into a prospective success. FRAMING: predicting σ₈ ≈ 0.76 in late 2025 was a bet that the S8 lensing tension (KiDS/DES) was physical; KiDS-Legacy and DESI full-shape have since moved against that camp. The failure is a documented bet on a tension that dissolved — which is what makes the mechanism-class reading (any coherence-damped growth-suppression framework sits in the same disfavored box) a statement about a real corner of the literature, not just this framework.

Data: SPARC + density catalogs

Prediction: RAR scatter shows NP2 environment dependence (p = 5×10⁻⁶)

Kill: RAR scatter independent of Hubble type / environment

⚠ Status note: Same verdict as TEST-03: p=5×10⁻⁶ and R²=0.14 (TEST-03 result) are from the same underlying regression. The p-value indicates the effect is real; the R² indicates it is below the kill criterion. A significant-but-small effect (R²=0.14) that fails the pre-registered kill threshold (<20%) is a failure by effect size, not a discovery. TEST-05 should not be read as "open" or "Untested" — the environment-RAR dependence exists but is sub-threshold. Verdict: same as TEST-03 — presumptively failed by kill criterion.

Data: Future resolved rotation curves

Prediction: σ_int remains at 0.086 dex with larger sample

Kill: σ_int > 0.12 dex with N > 1000

Data: SDSS, DES, DESI surveys

Prediction: [Exploratory] Galaxy cluster separations may show oscillatory modulation at λ ~ 500 Mpc

Kill: N/A — no amplitude derivation exists; no mechanism is specified; not falsifiable as stated

⚠ Status note: SHOULD BE DEMOTED TO TIER-2 (2026-05-17): This does not qualify as a Tier 1 falsification test. The /cosmic-interference page itself states "Without a derivation, this is not a prediction in the scientific sense — it is an exploratory hypothesis." No amplitude has been derived from γ or ρ_crit. No mechanism is specified (sound-horizon shift? phase rotation? coherence interference?). No engagement with DESI 2024-2025 BAO results. No kill criterion is physically meaningful without an amplitude. Including it in Tier 1 inflates the discriminating-test count. Retained here for continuity — recommended: promote to Tier 2 (exploratory hypothesis) pending derivation.

Derivation status →

Data: SPARC surface brightness data

Prediction: Σ₀ emerges from first principles with <5% error

Kill: Derived Σ₀ differs from observed by >15%

⚠ Status note: RECLASSIFIED (see /honest-assessment): Σ₀ = cH₀/(4π²G) is the unique surface-density scale buildable from the cosmological constants c, H₀, G — the same dimensional identity class as a₀ = cH₀/(2π). Any framework that imports these constants recovers the same relation. The 12% agreement with Freeman's observed value (124 M☉/pc²) is consistent with dimensional analysis, not a framework-specific prediction. Classified: Reparametrization — Dimensional Identity.

Data: Multi-band TFR datasets split by regime

Prediction: BTFR slope reflects regime mix: deep-MOND sample → n ≈ 4; transition-dominated sample → n ≈ 2.75 (Session 193 full-sample fit); near-Newtonian → n → 2. Lelli 2019 n = 3.85 ± 0.09 confirms the MOND-shared slope for a SPARC-like deep-MOND-dominated sample. Note: 3.85 ± 0.09 is ~1.7σ from asymptotic MOND's n=4, so it confirms the direction but not the exact MOND prediction either — regime-dependence adds no discriminating content.

Kill: A single sample produces a BTFR slope inconsistent with its regime-mix prediction by > 0.3

⚠ Status note: Restated 2026-04-24: the earlier prediction "n ≈ 2.2 universal across bands" had no archive source — it was a site→archive transcription error (Session 193 actually predicts n = 2.75 for transition-heavy samples, or regime-dependent: n → 4 deep-MOND, n → 2 near-Newton). Lelli 2019's n = 3.85 is consistent with the archive's per-regime prediction for a SPARC-like deep-MOND-dominated sample, not a refutation. MOND-shared flag: the regime-dependent BTFR slope (n → 4 in deep-MOND, n → 2 near-Newtonian) is a textbook MOND signature (Milgrom 1983, McGaugh 2012). A positive result is consistent with Synchronism AND standard MOND — it cannot discriminate between them.

Data: LITTLE THINGS + SPARC dwarfs

Prediction: DM fraction → 100% for M_bar < 10⁸ M☉

Kill: Baryon-dominated dwarfs below 10⁸ M☉ exist

⚠ Status note: MOND-shared flag: dwarfs below 10⁸ M☉ are deep-MOND systems where standard MOND already predicts the rotation is dominated by the Milgrom term — equivalent to near-100% apparent DM fraction in Newtonian terms. A positive result confirms Synchronism and MOND equally; only a null (baryon-dominated dwarfs below 10⁸ M☉) discriminates. The kill criterion is sharp; the confirm criterion is not.

Data: N/A — no prediction exists

Prediction: [None] C(ρ) returns a unitless coherence value in [0,1] and requires per-galaxy V_flat calibration to become a velocity prediction. No dimensional bridge maps C(ρ(r)) on a cluster baryonic profile to an apparent mass or lensing convergence.

Kill: N/A — no prediction to kill

⚠ Status note: STRUCTURAL GAP (2026-05-24): C(ρ) is silent at cluster scale by construction, not by choice. Unlike Verlinde (2016), which gives M_D² = (a₀·r·M_B)/(6G) — dimensionally complete and testable at clusters — C(ρ) produces only a unitless [0,1] value. There is no archive prescription for mapping C(ρ(r)) on a cluster NFW or baryonic profile to apparent mass. This means the framework cannot address the Bullet Cluster mass discrepancy, weak lensing offset, or MOND's known ~3× cluster mass deficit (Sanders 2003, Angus et al. 2008). The "one equation across 80 orders of magnitude" claim is structurally blocked at cluster scale. This gap is not a prediction that failed — it is a domain where no prediction exists. Listed here as an honest accounting of scope. The cluster-scale bridge (if it exists in the archive) is the last open door for the physics program. See explorer/topics/c-rho-cluster-prediction-bridge.md.