Tier 1: Existing Data

Data: SPARC (175 galaxies; 141 with Cosmicflows-4 environment in the executed run)

Prediction: Rotation curve residuals correlate with local galaxy density

Kill: No correlation between residuals and environment at 2σ — met by the 2026-07-14 run (per-galaxy SPARC RAR offsets vs Cosmicflows-4 density: r² = 0.0001, p = 0.89, N = 141)

Killed by the same run, not a separate failure: That run is this card's SPARC phase, so the SPARC phase is not open. TEST-05 carries the lever-magnitude adjudication of the same run. The verdict is filed once, on TEST-03s.

⚠ Status note: Scope note (corrected 2026-09-14): TEST-01, TEST-03s and TEST-05 all test one prediction, environment-dependent RAR, and all three were answered by one SPARC run. Read them as one test, not three. The large-sample phase has never been run: the registered TEST-03 on ALFALFA-SDSS (14,585 galaxies classified cluster/field/void). (See revision notes.)

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; see revision notes.]

Kill: REWRITTEN 2026-06-12 (see revision notes): 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. | WHICH MODEL MAKES THE 0.05–0.4% (added 2026-09-06, visitor researcher persona): the DENSITY-keyed branch C(ρ/ρ_crit), but only at a knee between 3.8×10⁻⁵ and 3.2×10⁻⁴ M☉/pc³ (γ = 0.489), a window no other page uses. At the published knee ρ_crit = 0.029·V² the solar-neighbourhood density sits far below the knee, so C ≈ γx ≪ 1 and, with g_eff = g_N/C, the boost is maximal: about 3.5×10⁴ in g, excluded by the Oort limit (arithmetic in the 2026-09-10 note under the alert). That is the same branch SPARC refutes head-to-head (ΔBIC +2843, archive 2026-08-24). The ACCELERATION-keyed branch that fits SPARC is μ_simple(x/2) at γ = ½ and predicts MOND's wide-binary boost, EFE included — on that branch TEST-02 was never a discriminator. And "MOND ~18%" is the EFE-INCLUDED figure (corrected 2026-09-24; until then this line called it EFE-free): with the Milky Way external field (~1.8 a₀), AQUAL/QUMOND + EFE give a 1.0–1.4× boost in g depending on treatment, i.e. up to ~18% in velocity (√1.4 ≈ 1.18), which is the entire Chae (2023–25) vs Banik et al. (2024) dispute. Without the EFE the boost would be several times larger. State the range, not the point.

⚠ Status note: DENSITY BRANCH EXCLUDED BY A RATE, NOT THE AMPLITUDE (explorer 2026-09-23; pre-registered at site commit 80b8c9c before the script): the "practically untestable" below is true only of the static 0.05–0.4% amplitude. A boost shared by everything in one neighbourhood cancels in a same-instant ratio, but not in time: the Sun moves through the disc and past nearby stars, so G_eff = G/C(ρ) drifts today. At density smoothing ℓ = 1–10 pc (what the galaxy fits need), the density-keyed knee grid predicts Ġ/G ≈ 10⁻⁸ to 10⁻⁵ per year, and these very 0.05–0.4% windows 7×10⁻⁹ to 6×10⁻⁸, against lunar laser ranging's (7.1 ± 7.6)×10⁻¹⁴ (Hofmann & Müller 2018). 68 of 74 laws are excluded, all 8 of this card's windows among them. The survivors are Newtonian to 10⁻⁸ at the Sun. This is a second, SPARC-independent root for the existing density-keyed kill (ΔBIC +2843), not a seventh refutation; whether it becomes a ledger row is dp's call. It does not touch the acceleration-keyed branch. Finding: explorer/findings/density-keyed-C-is-a-moving-G-lunar-laser-ranging-excludes-it-at-pc-smoothing.md. | 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; see revision notes): 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 MILESTONE (2026-07-03): Gaia DR4 (~late 2026) will reset the wide-binary systematics floor and re-open the Chae/Banik adjudication on better data — the next scheduled event that could move this test. Clarifier: "adjudicable now" and "practically untestable" refer to different branches — the REFUTATION branch (Chae-type boost confirmed → C(ρ) dead) is adjudicable from published DR3 literature today; the CONFIRMATION branch (measuring the predicted 0.05–0.4% null as distinct from zero) is below systematics reach regardless. | AMPLITUDE IS KNEE-CONDITIONAL, AND THE QUOTED BAND COMES FROM A KNEE NOTHING ELSE ON THIS SITE USES (maintainer 2026-09-10, arithmetic shown): the 0.05-0.4% figure that generates the '~80x below Gaia reach / practically untestable' verdict is not a property of the coupling g_eff = g_N/C(rho) - it is a property of an unstated rho_crit. At the local disc density rho = 0.09 M_sun/pc^3, C = tanh(gamma ln(rho/rho_crit + 1)) gives a velocity excess of: +1.8x10^4 % at the framework's PUBLISHED calibration rho_crit = 0.029*V_flat^2 (= 1.52x10^3 M_sun/pc^3 for the Milky Way at V_flat = 229 km/s, gamma = 0.489); +116% at the measured velocity-blind knee 0.161; +9.4% at Refracted Gravity's 0.0083; +0.005% at that same 0.0083 with gamma = 2. The band that reproduces 0.05-0.4% requires rho_crit in [3.8x10^-5, 3.2x10^-4] M_sun/pc^3 at gamma = 0.489, or [0.016, 0.030] at gamma = 2 - windows DISJOINT from every knee the galaxy sector uses, seven orders below the published calibration. (The gamma = 0.489 window's upper edge, 3.2x10^-4, is exactly the bottom edge of the rho_c grid the research ledger records as killed on SPARC by placement.) So at the framework's own published calibration the solar-neighbourhood prediction is a factor ~3.5x10^4 boost in g, excluded by the Oort limit and Solar-System ephemerides by orders of magnitude. This is NOT a new refutation and the count stays at 6: it is the same statement /key-claims already publishes as 'rotation curves under this reading do not fail to flatten - they blow up' and as the AQUAL-1984 vacuum-singularity attribution, evaluated at a radius where rho is well measured and not small, so the vacuum limit is not needed to reach it. What it changes is the reading of THIS card: 'practically untestable' is true only at a knee the rest of the framework excludes. Whether the density branch now converts from non-discriminating to executed-and-locally-excluded is a ledger question and GATES ON DP - proposal test02_amplitude_is_knee_conditional_and_a2acw_positive_control_20260910.md (maintainer recommends scoping TEST-02 into 02rho / 02a with the count unchanged, explicitly NOT a seventh refutation, because over-refutation is this program's live failure mode). Script: maintainer/scripts/test02_amplitude_is_knee_conditional.py (+ _output.txt).

Data: ALFALFA + SDSS (14,585 galaxies)

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

Kill: TFR residual explains <20% of scatter

Primary card for the 2026-07-14 environment run (FAILED, counted once): the substitute TEST-03s, 141 SPARC galaxies against Cosmicflows-4 density, gave r² = 0.0001 (p = 0.89) against Session 177's kill bar r² < 0.09. This is the one card that carries that verdict, matching Honest Assessment's ledger row. TEST-01 and TEST-05 were killed by the same run and point here, so count one failure, not three. The registered ALFALFA-SDSS TEST-03 is still never run.

⚠ Status note: NEVER RUN AS REGISTERED — metric conflation (corrected 2026-07-09; see revision notes). The R² = 0.14 figure previously shown here as TEST-03's result is not a valid measurement of the N = 14,585 ALFALFA-SDSS sample: at N = 14,585, R² = 0.14 implies t ≈ 48.7 (p of order 10⁻⁵⁰⁰), not the p = 5×10⁻⁶ quoted alongside it. The (R², p) pair is self-consistent only at N ≈ 130–175 — SPARC scale, i.e. the sample used by TEST-05, not TEST-03. Tracing the number further (archive S377/S381/S591): 0.14 is a Hubble-type/morphology term on N ≈ 171, not a measurement of environmental density on the 14,585-galaxy ALFALFA-SDSS cross-match; the registered environment-density correlation (classify by cluster/field/void, apply the <20% bar) was never executed. The 51% TFR-residual/BTFR prediction above (Session 593, N = 14,437) is a separate, already-passing result, not the 14% figure (conflation corrected 2026-07-09; see revision notes). Honest status update (2026-07-15): the registered environment-density test HAS NOW BEEN RUN (research repo, 2026-07-14, on SPARC RAR offsets vs Cosmicflows-4 densities): r² = 0.0001 — no environment dependence at the registered amplitude; the framework's environment prediction is refuted by execution, not by the old conflated statistic. See TEST-05 for the lever-magnitude adjudication. PROTOCOL DEVIATION, NOW DECLARED (2026-07-27, flagged independently by two expert visitor passes): the executed run is NOT the registered test. The registered test was N = 14,585 ALFALFA-SDSS galaxies classified by cluster/field/void. What ran on 2026-07-14 was N = 141 SPARC galaxies against Cosmicflows-4 ambient density — a different dataset, a different density proxy, and a ~100× smaller sample. That substitution may well be the better measurement (Cosmicflows-4 gives a continuous distance-corrected density rather than a three-way classification), but on a program whose distinguishing methodological claim is pre-registration, swapping the sample and keeping the kill is exactly the move pre-registration exists to prevent. The substitute is therefore designated TEST-03s and adjudicated on its own terms; the registered TEST-03 remains NEVER RUN and is still runnable on ALFALFA-SDSS. The headline refutation census reads more honestly as 3 registered kills + 1 substituted-protocol kill. Both readings are shown rather than one being quietly chosen. RECONCILIATION (2026-09-11; see revision notes): Honest Assessment's "run as registered" and this card's "never run" are both true, of different registrations. The 2026-07-14 run IS run-as-registered against the Session 177 RAR-environment claim (environment explains >20% of RAR scatter; kill bar r² < 0.09), and is a substitute (TEST-03s) against this card's ALFALFA TEST-03. The claim and the kill bar bracket an undecided band, 0.09 ≤ r² < 0.20, where neither verdict fires; the old R² = 0.138 would sit inside it, and the measured 0.0001 is below both. The research ledger files this run as "TEST-08"; on this site TEST-08 is the Freeman-law card. That ID collision is routed to the operator; this card keeps TEST-03s.

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. [Provenance, added 2026-09-14: the 0.418 comes from Session 107's G_local/G_global = C_cosmic/C_galactic growth suppression, with σ₈(z=0) = 0.76 calibrated to S₈ in Session 102. The background-only dark-energy sector now on /dark-energy does not produce it. That sector's own growth forecast is ≈ −0.22% (0.10σ, ΛCDM-like), so this card tests a mechanism the current framework no longer contains.]

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: disfavored 2.4σ on σ₈ (a different, GR-conditioned statistic). On the REGISTERED fσ₈ statistic the prediction sits 2.1σ from the data and the data clear the 0.46 threshold by ~1.5σ, against the >3σ the kill criterion demands, so the threshold is crossed on the point estimate but not at the registered significance (see the three numbers above).

⚠ Status note: Current verdict: FAILED — disfavored 2.4σ on σ₈ AMPLITUDE (a GR-conditioned statistic); ~1.5σ on the registered fσ₈(z=0.51); UNDERPOWERED AS REGISTERED; post-hoc retrodiction either way; not counted as a refutation. The adopted DR2 kill (branch B) fires with under 1% probability if ΛCDM is true (2026-09-21, below). LRG1 fσ₈ = (fσ₈)_fid × 1.16 ± 0.13 = 0.474 × 1.16 ± 0.062 = 0.550 ± 0.062; the three numbers above are computed from this. The "Kill Criterion Triggered" claim of the 2026-07-02 reframe (revision notes) was delivered on σ₈ = 0.841 ± 0.034, a DIFFERENT statistic inferred from a full-shape fit that assumes GR growth kernels — using a GR-conditioned amplitude to falsify a modified-growth model risks circularity (the EFTofLSS citation below already half-concedes a 1-2σ theory systematic on this exact number). DESI's own purpose-built modified-gravity analysis — Ishak et al., arXiv:2411.12026 (JCAP 09 (2025) 053) — gives μ0 = 0.11 (+0.45/-0.54) from DESI alone, tightening to 0.05 ± 0.22 with CMB+SN; a ~12% fσ₈ suppression maps to a μ0 inside DESI-alone's 1σ band (exact mapping not yet run — seeded as explorer topic). Honest reading: the test as registered lacked the power to discriminate this framework from GR. This does not rescue the framework's cosmology sector (the growth suppression was calibrated, never derived: Appendix D §D.3 states effective Einstein equations G_μν = 8πG T_μν/C(ρ), committed 2025-12-01, which are cosmology-capable and have simply never been solved for the growth history; the gap is an unrun calculation, not a missing object. The σ₈≈0.76 vs 0.841 gap remains a real 2.4σ miss on that GR-conditioned parameter) — it corrects which statistic carries the kill and how confidently. DESI DR1 full-shape (arXiv:2411.12021) combined σ₈ = 0.841 ± 0.034 (Table 10) vs Synchronism's predicted σ₈ ≈ 0.76: the predicted suppression is absent; data ΛCDM-consistent. The load-bearing statistic is the ensemble amplitude, NOT direction: the LRG1 (z=0.51) fσ₈/(fσ₈)_fid = 1.16 ± 0.13 "enhancement" is a single ~1.2σ bin the DESI collaboration does not treat as robust, and the DR1 ensemble growth index γ_growth ≈ 0.58 ± 0.11 (above GR's 0.545) leans mildly toward suppression — the framework's own predicted direction. A "wrong direction" framing would be fragile against DR2; the amplitude framing is the defensible one. DR2 full-shape growth constraints remain unpublished (~Spring 2027). PROSPECTIVE REGISTRATION ADOPTED (dp, 2026-07-17 — the program's first genuinely prospective test; the pre-registration audit had found 0/10): all three DR2 outcomes are pre-committed IN WRITING before publication, adjudicated within 7 days, on the REGISTERED statistic (DR2 full-shape fσ₈ at z≈0.51, not σ₈): (A) fσ₈ ≤ 0.46 → registered criterion met by suppression direction, but the prediction remains post-hoc — confirmed-count stays 0; (B) fσ₈ > 0.46 at ≥3σ → the kill fires as registered, at registered power — the clean prospective refutation DR1 could not deliver; (C) between → "underpowered to discriminate" survives its own test and the row retires. No branch can be chosen after the data. (Research repo: PREDICTIONS.md, Bucket 1 registration block. This supersedes the narrower 2026-06-12 re-open policy below.) BRANCH B AS ADOPTED CANNOT FIRE UNLESS ΛCDM ALSO FAILS (maintainer 2026-09-21, from a visitor researcher persona; arithmetic in maintainer/scripts/test04a_dr2_branch_power.py): 0.46 is already the prediction plus 3σ of a forecast error (0.418 + 3 × 0.014), and branch B then asks for another 3σ at the measured error, i.e. obs > 0.46 + 3σ_DR2 ≈ 0.55–0.57, which puts ΛCDM (0.474) itself ~2.5σ low. If ΛCDM is true, branch B fires with under 1% probability at any σ_DR2 between 0.025 and 0.045, while branch A (≤ 0.46, the framework-friendly wording) fires 29–38% of the time. The clean reading, (obs − 0.418)/σ > 3, would fire 4–22% of the time; a single bin needs σ ≈ 0.015 to separate 0.418 from 0.474 with real power, so Session 107's own five-bin table is the statistic worth co-registering. The source forecast σ at this bin is 0.018, not 0.014. DR2 galaxy full-shape is still unpublished, so re-registering is still prospective. Changing a dp-adopted registration GATES ON DP (proposal test04a_dr2_branch_b_cannot_fire_reregister_before_data_20260921.md). Until it changes, read branch C as the near-certain outcome, and do not read branch A as support. 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 — DR2 growth has not been re-run against the kill criterion. 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 at the registered amplitude: Session 177 says environment explains > 20% of RAR scatter, with a kill bar of r² < 0.09. [Corrected 2026-09-14; see revision notes.]

Kill: RAR scatter independent of Hubble type / environment

Killed by the same run, not a separate failure: r² = 0.0001 (N = 141, 2026-07-14). The kill bar fires, but this card is not a second environment failure. The status note below keeps the lever-magnitude adjudication. The verdict is filed once, on TEST-03s.

⚠ Status note: RE-ADJUDICATED (2026-07-15): the "MOND-shared" tie assigned on 2026-07-09 dissolves on lever magnitude — the two frameworks' environment mechanisms couple to DIFFERENT variables, and their predicted effect sizes differ by orders of magnitude. MOND+EFE couples to external ACCELERATION (non-local): at SPARC outer radii (median g_bar/a₀ = 0.055) a typical external field (e_N ≈ 0.033, Chae 2020 median) modulates g_obs by ~0.09 dex — comparable to the full observed RAR scatter (~0.11 dex), which is why it is statistically detectable (Chae et al. 2020/2021, ~4σ, though disputed — Freundlich et al. 2022 and Paranjape & Sheth 2022 offer non-EFE readings in which ΛCDM-expected correlations mimic the signal). C(ρ) couples to ambient DENSITY added to local ρ (strictly local): even with the outer-disk density taken maximally low, the ambient contribution is a 4×10⁻⁵ (field) to 4×10⁻³ (δ~100 group) fractional perturbation, giving ~2×10⁻⁵ to 2×10⁻³ dex — roughly 50× smaller than MOND's lever at like-for-like environments and 2–4 orders of magnitude below the scatter. Undetectable. And the framework's OTHER galaxy law — C(a) on internal acceleration, the one TEST-09/10 actually use — predicts exactly ZERO environment dependence. Either law, a DETECTED environment dependence is specific evidence for the non-local coupling and unreachable by the framework's own mechanism: this is the locality no-go on the environment axis. AND THE REGISTERED RUN NOW EXISTS (research repo, 2026-07-14): per-galaxy SPARC RAR offsets vs distance-corrected Cosmicflows-4 ambient density (N = 141; instrument validated on 28 UMa cluster members) give r² = 0.0001 (p = 0.89) — ~900× under the framework's registered ">20% of scatter" claim; the kill bar (r² < 0.09) fires. The weak non-significant secondaries are OPPOSITE-signed (EFE-like, not Synchronism-like; Chae's detection uses a different estimator and is not contradicted). The execution and the structural adjudication agree: the framework registered an environment effect its own local mechanism cannot produce (predicted lever ~10⁻³ dex), and the data show none at its registered amplitude. S381's caveat resolved: the old R² = 0.14 signal was Hubble-type/morphology on N ≈ 171, not environment. (Earlier 2026-07-09 classification: see revision notes.) Script: explorer/scripts/test05_environment_lever_magnitudes.py. | WHERE THIS NULL SITS IN THE LITERATURE (added 2026-09-08, visitor researcher persona): the r² = 0.0001 environment null lands directly on the Rodrigues, Marra, del Popolo & Davari (2018, Nature Astronomy) claim that a₀ varies across SPARC galaxies, and on the rebuttals by McGaugh, Li, Lelli & Schombert (2018) and Kroupa et al. (2018) arguing the apparent variation is a fitting/uncertainty artifact. This null is consistent with the rebuttals — a universal a₀, no environmental modulation at the 10⁻⁴ level — which makes it the nearest thing on this site to a positive contribution: a framework-independent bound, not a framework confirmation.

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

⚠ Status note: UNDERPOWERED AS REGISTERED (marked 2026-07-17, before the data arrives, not after): the registered kill threshold (σ_int > 0.12 dex) sits inside the disclosed ~3× pipeline-dependence range below — either outcome would be attributable to velocity-definition choice, so the test cannot adjudicate anything until the registration fixes one velocity definition in advance. Pipeline-dependence caveat (2026-07-04): Lelli et al. 2019 (MNRAS 484, 3267) report BTFR orthogonal intrinsic scatter on the same galaxy population ranging 0.026–0.070 dex depending solely on which velocity definition is used (V_flat vs. W_P20 vs. V_max vs. V_2.2). A single-pipeline σ_int value is not a fixed target — the kill threshold should be read against that ~3× pipeline-dependent range, not as a precise number. See CDM Discrimination for the corrected CDM verdict (z = +0.5, CDM-consistent) this test is downstream of.

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: DEMOTED — EXPLORATORY, NOT YET FALSIFIABLE (a readiness label, not a cost tier: this stays a $0 item and is not on the Tier 2 pilots page; relabelled 2026-09-11, see revision notes) (executed 2026-07-07; flagged 2026-05-17): This does not qualify as a Tier 1 falsification test and no longer counts toward the Tier 1 inventory. 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. The row is retained here, demoted in place, so the demotion is visible rather than silent — it is an exploratory hypothesis pending derivation, not a test.

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 ≈4% agreement with Freeman's observed value (124 M☉/pc²; corrected 2026-07-09, see revision notes) is consistent with dimensional analysis, not a framework-specific prediction, and is not independent of a₀'s own ~10% gap (Σ₀ = a₀/(2πG) exactly). Classified: Reparametrization — Dimensional Identity.

Data: SPARC (Lelli 2016 mass models, 123 galaxies after quality cuts)

Prediction: Computed from the framework's own formula (C(a) = Ω_m + (1−Ω_m)x/(1+x), boost capped at 1/Ω_m = 3.17): BTFR slope n = 3.35 ± 0.07. [Which acceleration, stated 2026-09-14: the TEST-09 and TEST-10 scripts evaluate C explicitly at the baryonic acceleration, with x = (g_bar/a₀)^(1/φ), a₀ = 1.05×10⁻¹⁰ m/s², and g_obs = g_bar/C(g_bar). There is no implicit solve in g_obs. The RAR-shape fits on /galaxy-rotation are the ones solved implicitly in g_obs. The 3.17 cap holds under either keying, because C ≥ Ω_m for every x ≥ 0.] The previously listed "deep-MOND sample → n ≈ 4" limb is retracted — a bounded boost has NO deep-MOND regime. As g_bar → 0 the boost saturates at 3.17, a constant rescaling of G, which is Newtonian: the framework's deep limit is Keplerian, with rotation curves that fall as 1/√r where MOND's stay flat. MOND's n = 4 comes precisely from the √(a₀/g_bar) divergence a bounded boost cannot follow. [Precision, 2026-09-25, visitor graduate-physics persona: the older wording here, "deep limit n → 2 (verified numerically: 2.01)", holds only for a sample measured at one common radius. A Keplerian law has no radius-independent BTFR slope: for measurement radii R ∝ M^α it gives n = 2/(1−α), so n ≈ 3 for real disc radii (α ≈ 0.3–0.4), and n = 4 if each galaxy is read where g_bar falls to a fixed value (α = ½). What is radius-independent is the declining curve shape. The verdict does not move: the 3.35 above was computed at each SPARC galaxy's real measured radii.]

Kill: A single sample produces a BTFR slope inconsistent with its regime-mix prediction by > 0.3 — FIRED at B_max = 1/Ω_m: deviation 0.41 (convention-dependent: the 2026-09-18 ceiling sweep finds it does not fire at (Ω_m−Ω_b)/Ω_b, |Δn| = 0.30 against a strict > 0.3, or at Ω_m/Ω_b, 0.26, so it does not survive its own pre-fixed rule; convention-free, a bounded-boost law with B_max ≲ 5.4 is excluded by the SPARC BTFR slope; whether it stays in the count of 6 is pending dp; see the status note) (registered variable, same V_flat estimator applied to observation, MOND, and Synchronism alike). Threshold provenance: the >0.3 criterion in its operative wording was fixed 2026-04-24 (site commit 89825cf, restating the 2026-04-23 back-annotation) — eleven weeks before execution and before the bounded-boost analysis existed. Disclosed: that restatement changed the criterion's variable (band-universality → regime-mix deviation) while carrying the 0.3 magnitude over.

⚠ Status note: CEILING-CONVENTION SWEEP EXECUTED (2026-09-18, site maintainer; closes the TEST-09 half of the registered Branch 1 of Research/proposals/boost_ceiling_provenance_and_class_exclusion.md, unrun since 2026-07-27). THIS KILL IS CONVENTION-DEPENDENT, like TEST-10's. The ceiling enters as the floor of C(a) = C_min + (1−C_min)x/(1+x); the site sets C_min = Ω_m, i.e. B_max = 1/Ω_m = 3.175, which no archive document derives. Re-running TEST-09's own pipeline — same cuts, same V_flat estimator, same bootstrap, identity control reproducing the published n = 3.35 ± 0.07 exactly — across the registered candidate ceilings: B_max = 3.175 (1/Ω_m) gives n = 3.35, |Δn| = 0.41, FIRES; B_max = 5.389 ((Ω_m−Ω_b)/Ω_b) gives n = 3.46, |Δn| = 0.30, DOES NOT FIRE (the registered threshold is a strict >0.3, and this lands exactly on it); B_max = 6.389 (Ω_m/Ω_b, the baryon budget) gives n = 3.49, |Δn| = 0.26, DOES NOT FIRE. Per the pre-fixed verdict rule (the kill stands iff it fires under every candidate), TEST-09's kill does NOT survive the sweep. Both discriminating galaxy-sector kills are therefore convention-dependent on the same undefended number, and the honest statement of this one is a class exclusion: a bounded-boost law with B_max ≲ 5.4 is excluded by the SPARC BTFR slope, which is the TEST-09 analogue of TEST-10's "B_max ≲ 14 excluded by SPARC dwarfs". COUNT UNCHANGED PENDING REVIEW — whether a convention-dependent kill still counts in the "6 refutations" headline is the recount question the proposal gates on dp (open question 4), and this run supplies the number, not the decision. Pre-registered at site commit 89e0467 before the script was written; maintainer/scripts/which_C_carries_the_floor.py (+ _PREREG.md, _output.txt). | THE "FLOOR BINDS EVERYWHERE, SO THIS TEST IS ALGEBRA" READING IS REFUTED (same run). A 2026-09-18 visitor researcher pass argued from /galaxy-plotter's "max C on this disk: 0.001" that the Ω_m floor binds at every radius on every disc, so the galaxy sector applies a constant 3.17, so TEST-09's slope was forced before execution (a constant boost shifts a BTFR intercept, never a slope). The persona flagged it as needing a source check first. It fails on the premise: the plotter draws the DENSITY-keyed C_ρ = tanh(γ ln(1+ρ/ρ_crit)), which carries no floor, while TEST-09/TEST-10 evaluate the ACCELERATION-keyed C_a, whose floor is part of its functional form. On 123 real SPARC discs C_ρ's per-disc maximum is indeed tiny (median 1.2×10⁻³ at γ = 2; 0/123 reach Ω_m) — so the plotter's number generalises — but C_a runs 0.329–0.954 over the same 2,856 radii, with 0.00% of them within 1% of the floor and an applied boost of 1.05×–3.04× that never reaches the ceiling. The corollaries fail with the premise: the predicted f_DM is not a delta at 0.685 (median 0.585, s.d. 0.062, no galaxy within 0.01 of the cap), and the slope is not ceiling-independent (it moves 0.62 across B_max ∈ [2, 100] — which is exactly why the convention sweep above has a result at all). Logged here at the same prominence a confirmed finding would get: the over-refutation share of corrections rose from 1/20 to 9/24 between May and August 2026, and visitor-supplied refutations are inside that denominator. | EXPONENT CHECK (2026-09-17, visitor Pass 3 asked whether the kill depends on the audited-negative 1/φ exponent): at the registered a₀ = 1.05×10⁻¹⁰ it does not. Exponent 1 gives n = 3.348 against 3.346 for 1/φ, and the kill fires the same way. At exponent 1 with its own cH₀·Ω_m a₀ = 2.06×10⁻¹⁰, n = 3.285. But with a₀ retuned freely, exponent 1 reaches n = 3.50 at a₀ ≈ 1.6×10⁻¹¹, a deviation of 0.25, under the 0.3 threshold. So the "no rescue for any φ ∈ [1.2, 4]" scan does not extend to φ = 1 with a₀ free, although that a₀ sits 6.5× below the registered value. The ceiling root (B ≤ 1/Ω_m) does not depend on the exponent. Script: maintainer/scripts/test09_exponent_one_instead_of_inverse_phi.py. | FAILED — KILL CRITERION FIRED (executed 2026-07-14 on real SPARC; MOND-shared flag RETRACTED). Observed n = 3.75 ± 0.10 (reproduces Lelli 2019's 3.85 ± 0.09); MOND n = 3.81 ± 0.04 (passes, 0.6σ); Synchronism n = 3.35 ± 0.07: the predicted slope is excluded at 3.3σ from the data; the registered criterion |Δn| > 0.3 is met on the point estimate (0.41), ~1σ above threshold under V_flat alone (P = 0.11), and robust under V_max (P ≤ 0.001). The three numbers above give the detail. Precision on the MOND comparison (added 2026-07-23, expert-review point): the 3.81 is MOND run through the same regime-mix fit pipeline as the other two slopes — a like-for-like differential, which is what the criterion adjudicates. MOND's PARAMETER-FREE deep-limit prediction is exactly n = 4 (M ∝ V⁴/Ga₀), and the observed 3.75 ± 0.10 sits ~2.5σ below that — mild tension with canonical MOND worth naming, and it sharpens rather than softens this card's verdict: Synchronism's 3.35 fails against both the fitted and the canonical MOND comparison. No parameters rescue it: at the framework's own Ω_m = 0.315 the best over all (φ, a₀) is 3.45 — the kill fires for every exponent; reaching 3.75 requires Ω_m → 0.001 and φ → 2, at which point the law degenerates algebraically to MOND. The honest parameter accounting (φ provenance audit, 2026-07-17): ONE derived ingredient (Ω_m, from cosmology) plus ONE fitted exponent dressed as a constant — φ is fitted-then-named (archive S45 adjudicated the first φ-sighting "intriguing coincidence, not significant"; the later "derivations" restate φ's defining identity x+x²=1 rather than derive it; see /parameter-derivations). A free exponent that still cannot reach the data is a deeper failure than a derived one — the no-rescue scan already covers every exponent value. RESOLVED — DEFINITION-ROBUST BY EXECUTION (2026-07-18, same-day run of the registered protocol under its pre-fixed verdict rule): all 11 adjudicated runs exceed 0.3 (minimum 0.32) — V_flat 0.44 ± 0.12; W_P20 across 8 generator/sample variants 0.32–0.61; V_max 0.56–0.72 with paired-bootstrap P(dev ≤ 0.3) ≤ 0.001. The observed arm reproduces Lelli 2019's per-definition slopes (V_max 3.47 vs 3.52; V_2.2 3.08 vs 3.06). Two disclosed caveats: (1) the point estimate is definition-robust but the SIGNIFICANCE is uneven — it is carried by V_max (P ≤ 0.001); V_flat alone is only ~1.2σ above threshold (P(≤0.3) = 0.11) and the W_P20 margin is thin (0.34 ± 0.10, P = 0.36); (2) exploratory inner-disc/single-point measures outside the registered outer-velocity scope (V_2.2, V_last: 0.25–0.28) sit under threshold — the kill is a statement about outer/flat rotation velocities, where the bounded boost binds. When citing this kill's strength, prefer the V_max form (0.72 ± 0.09) or pair it with TEST-10's definition-free ceiling violation (69% of galaxies exceed 3.17). MOND passes the same differential under every definition (max 0.20). Robustness script: explorer/scripts/test09_velocity_definition_robustness.py. The old "MOND-shared / cannot discriminate" badge was wrong in structure, not just in outcome: the BTFR is an asymptotic-boost observable, and boundedness — the framework's only feature distinguishing it from MOND — forces disagreement exactly there (this is a corollary of the boost-ceiling refutation on /honest-assessment). Provenance: archive S58 recorded the discrepancy honestly ("predicted n=2.75, observed n≈4"); S193 overwrote it with a synthetic 9-galaxy rescue asserting a deep-MOND limb the bounded formula cannot produce. S58 was right. Scripts: explorer/scripts/test09_btfr_bounded_boost_real_sparc.py, test09_parameter_scan_no_rescue.py.

Data: SPARC outer rotation-curve points (Q ≤ 2, i > 30°, N = 153)

Prediction: CORRECTED: the registered "DM fraction → 100% for M_bar < 10⁸ M☉" was never the framework's prediction — it is MOND's (unbounded ν). The framework's own bounded boost (B ≤ 1/Ω_m = 3.17) caps the apparent DM fraction at f_DM = 1 − C(g_bar) ≤ 1 − Ω_m = 68.5% (C evaluated explicitly at g_bar; see TEST-09), for every galaxy, at every radius, for every parameter choice.

Kill: As registered: "baryon-dominated dwarfs below 10⁸ M☉ exist." The kill fires in REVERSE: the framework dies at the DM-dominated tail its own ceiling forbids. Threshold provenance (restated 2026-09-11): the 68.5% figure is fixed by Ω_m = 0.315 once the normalization B_max = 1/Ω_m is chosen — but that normalization is itself underived (Ω_m/Ω_b ≈ 6.4 is the other candidate), so it is a choice. What does NOT depend on the choice: the most dark-matter-dominated SPARC disc (f_DM = 0.927) needs B = 1/(1 − 0.927) = 13.7, above both 3.17 and 6.4 — the refutation survives either convention. What does depend on it: under 6.4 the per-galaxy exceedance is mass-to-light-conditional for all but two gas-dominated dwarfs (NGC 3741, ESO 444-G084; research ledger 2026-07-30), so lead with the tail, not the percentage.

⚠ Status note: LENSING, THE STRONGER FORM (added 2026-09-25; first set out by the explorer 2026-09-02 and left off this card until now). Galaxy–galaxy weak lensing reaches accelerations rotation curves cannot. The KiDS-1000 lensing RAR (Brouwer et al. 2021, A&A 650, A113) follows the extrapolated MOND branch to g_bar ≈ 10⁻¹⁵ m/s², where the required boost is ~110 at 10⁻¹⁴ and ~350 at 10⁻¹⁵. Even with a 0.3 dex allowance below that branch and every cosmic baryon hidden inside the lensing radius (×5 on the baryons), the requirement at 10⁻¹⁴ is 11, which is 1.7× the most permissive candidate cap (Ω_m/Ω_b = 6.39) and 3.5× the site's 3.17. The kill rests on the two lowest bins, 0.4–4 Mpc from the lens, where isolation cuts and neighbouring haloes are the live caveats. A mass-dependent ceiling does not help: the explorer's best ε₀(M) relation gives B_max = 4–18 across 10⁹–10¹¹ M☉, 6–87× short. Script: maintainer/scripts/lensing_ceiling_every_convention.py. The six refutations in one table: /honest-assessment#refutation-ledger. | FAILED (executed 2026-07-15 on SPARC outer points; MOND-shared flag RETRACTED). The kill, stated in the form that survives every convention on SPARC alone: SPARC's MAXIMUM observed outer f_DM = 0.927 requires a boost B ≥ 1/(1−0.927) = 13.7, and no candidate cosmic ratio supplies it — a class exclusion, B_max ≲ 14 is excluded by SPARC dwarfs. Everything below is the fuller accounting. Observed outer apparent DM fractions: median 0.755, max 0.927 — 106/153 = 69% of ALL SPARC galaxies exceed the framework's structural 68.5% ceiling ONLY under the underived convention B_max = 1/Ω_m (dwarfs below 10⁹ M☉: 67% exceed; the ten most DM-dominated galaxies are all impossible for the bounded boost while MOND matches them to a few percent — median residual f_obs − f_pred is +0.18 for Synchronism vs −0.03 for MOND). Beyond SPARC it is worse: pressure-supported dwarf spheroidals reach M_dyn/M_bar ~ 10²–10³ (Walker & Peñarrubia 2011 and subsequent dispersion-based mass modeling) against the framework's cap of 3.17. "A positive result confirms Synchronism and MOND equally" was wrong: MOND's boost is unbounded and accommodates near-100% fractions; the framework's cannot — this observable discriminates, and the framework loses it. Same structural root as TEST-09: both are corollaries of the boost ceiling. CEILING CONVENTION-DEPENDENCE (propagated from /parameter-derivations, flagged 2026-07-28 and independently re-confirmed by a 2026-07-29 visitor pass): B_max = 1/Ω_m has no derivation — no archive document connects it to the compander. A dynamical-to-baryonic boost more plausibly references the baryon budget Ω_m/Ω_b ≈ 6.40, giving f_DM,max ≈ 0.844, under which the reported MEDIAN (0.755) actually PASSES and the "69% of SPARC exceeds the ceiling" headline does not hold under this convention. Script: explorer/scripts/test10_dwarf_dm_fraction_ceiling.py.

Data: SPARC (2,807-point RAR, McGaugh 2016 pipeline) + Cassini spacecraft quadrupole bound on the Solar System

Prediction: The free-γ fit to SPARC converges to γ ≈ 0.489 (ΔBIC = +7.1 vs McGaugh, ΔBIC = +184.0 at the framework's fixed γ = 2). Applying the site's own Hill identity, tanh(γ·ln(1+x)) = [(1+x)^2γ − 1]/[(1+x)^2γ + 1], the fitted γ sets the compander's high-acceleration return exponent q = 2γ ≈ 0.98 — indistinguishable from MOND's SIMPLE interpolating function ν − 1 ∝ 1/y (q = 1). If the SAME scale-universal tanh-log compander is used as a QUMOND interpolation function for the Solar System, it makes a parameter-free prediction for the Cassini-bound post-Newtonian quadrupole.

Kill: Pre-registered (commit 9c77e7be): the SPARC-retained ΔBIC ≤ 10 grid interval (γ = 0.425–0.600) is incompatible with the signed, two-sided 95% Cassini quadrupole bound under every recorded BIC convention and external-field sensitivity — a robust empty intersection, not a boundary artifact.

⚠ Status note: FAILED — ROBUST EMPTY INTERSECTION (executed 2026-07-23, re-verified 2026-07-24; propagated to this site 2026-07-28, see revision notes). At the SPARC optimum (γ = 0.489, profiled a₀ = 5.33×10⁻¹¹ m/s²) the Cassini discrepancy is +17.95σ; across the full ΔBIC ≤ 10 retained interval it spans +17.71σ to +18.00σ — the result is not an artifact of the best-fit point or a boundary. Zero survivors at every tested external-field strength (g_ext = 2.00×10⁻¹⁰ and 2.48×10⁻¹⁰ m/s², plus the legacy 2014 Cassini interval) and at every SPARC ΔBIC threshold (6, 10, 14). The framework's own fixed γ = 2 is separately excluded by SPARC alone (ΔBIC = +184) and cannot rescue the joint fit. Instrument self-validated: RAR checkpoints (γ = 0.489, ΔBIC values) reproduce the 2026-07-22 compander form-selection run exactly; mu-to-nu mapping error ≤1.4×10⁻¹⁰; quadrature convergence <0.22% radial / <0.006% angular on every accepted row. Scope, stated as narrowly as the result supports: this closes the realization "universal tanh-log interpolation used as a QUMOND modified-gravity function for both galaxies and the Solar System" — the SAME γ that fits SPARC cannot also satisfy planetary ephemerides. It does NOT directly test modified inertia, a non-gravitational engineering compander, system-dependent or multi-scale functions, dark-matter/hybrid models, or the Synchronism umbrella ontology — escaping requires changing the realization, not retuning γ inside it. PRIOR ART AND DISCRIMINATING POWER — ADDED 2026-08-09 (visitor Pass 4; see revision notes): this result is, to within the choice of interpolating-function family, Desmond, Hees & Famaey (2024), MNRAS 530, 1781, who found the RAR&ndash;Cassini quadrupole tension at 8.7σ for AQUAL and QUMOND with RAR-preferred interpolating functions (shape parameter δ ≈ 1; Cassini demands δ ≳ 2.5), and reported that the tension persists across all IF families they tested. Executed here 2026-07-23, two years later, without citing it. Three consequences the row must carry. (1) It is not a Synchronism-specific refutation. It excludes the RAR-preferred IF family in modified-gravity MOND; this framework inherits it by sitting in that family — at γ = 1/2 the compander is Milgrom's simple μ identically. (2) It is therefore non-discriminating between MOND and Synchronism, which is applied asymmetrically elsewhere on this site: TEST-09 and TEST-10 declare MOND the winner, while /galaxy-plotter draws its MOND reference curve with ν(y) = ½ + √(¼ + 1/y) — the simple-ν function, the exact object this test excludes. The squeeze applies to both or to neither. (2b) MOND's own functions fail on this same instrument (pre-registered maintainer run, maintainer/scripts/cassini_q2_mond_interpolating_functions.py): McGaugh's RAR ν = 1/(1−e^−√y), the δ = 1 member of the δ-family, fails by +15.9σ to +20.9σ; Milgrom's simple ν by +15.3σ to +20.1σ; the compander at the SPARC fit, +17.95σ. The grid is a₀ ∈ {1.128, 1.20}×10⁻¹⁰ with the three registered external fields. No δ-family member enters the Cassini 95% interval below δ = 4, and δ = 4 enters at only 3 of 6 grid points; its SPARC cost was not computed. So the inheritance is literal: the function MOND fits the RAR with is excluded as hard as the compander. (3) The magnitude is ~2× the published figure (+17.95σ here vs 8.7σ there) because Desmond et al. marginalize over a₀, mass-to-light, and RAR-fit uncertainty while this computation fixes γ and profiles a₀ only — the same over-refutation signature as the ΔBIC = +184 effective-N inflation and the standalone a₀ &ldquo;8σ&rdquo;. Note the same paper also pre-empts TEST-02 (wide binaries). Related literature this squeeze operationalizes: Blanchet & Novak (2011) supplies the quadrupole channel (Q₂ = (3±3)×10⁻²⁷ s⁻²) and Hees et al. (2016) previously showed MOND's simple-μ family is disfavored by planetary ephemerides for the same reason (slow high-acceleration return). Artifacts: Research/preregistrations/sparc_cassini_tanhlog/ (PREREGISTRATION.md, RESULT.md, joint_result.json), simulations/sparc_cassini_joint.py (Synchronism research repo).

Data: Coma cluster (X-ray gas + galaxy velocity dispersion mass estimates)

Prediction: [Closed] Four natural C(ρ)-to-apparent-mass ansätze were tried against Coma: A1 M_app/M_B = ⟨1/C⟩_vol; A2 M_app/M_B = 1/(1−⟨C⟩); A3 M_app/M_B = 1 + ∫Cρ dV/M_B; A4 M_app/M_B = 1/⟨C⟩_mass.

Kill: All four failed: A1 and A4 overshoot the observed mass ratio by 10⁴; A2 collapses to Newtonian (no boost at all); A3 is structurally bounded at ≤2 regardless of parameters, vs. the observed ratio of 4.6 — impossible by construction, not by fit.

⚠ Status note: CLOSED BY EXECUTION (2026-05-28, refined 2026-06-01 and 2026-06-09; see revision notes): the bridge was built four ways and tested on Coma; all four fail. Root cause (2026-06-01): NOT one-scale insufficiency — MOND has exactly one scale (a₀) and only misses clusters by a factor ~2 (Sanders 2003). C(ρ) also has one scale (ρ_crit) and misses by 10⁴. The dominant cause is the WRONG VARIABLE: g_bar = G·M(<r)/r² is non-local in ρ, so a function of local density cannot reproduce an acceleration-space law (the RAR) across systems of very different density profiles at matched acceleration. Novelty audit (2026-06-09): this is a quantified INSTANCE of Milgrom's non-locality theorem (astro-ph/0510117) — the discriminating axis is locality, not "density-based" per se, so non-local density constructions (Verlinde 2016's enclosed M_B(<r), MOND-Σ) are not caught by this no-go. See /for-researchers and /honest-assessment for the full derivation; explorer/findings/cluster-bridge-impossibility-coma.md, cluster-bridge-wrong-variable-not-one-scale.md, and density-compander-nogo-is-milgrom-nonlocality-instance.md for the computation.