Decisive Tests: Status

The framework's cosmic sector (Session 100: G_eff = G/C in the Friedmann equation, C₀ = Ω_m forced, γ the only parameter) cannot produce the w = −1 crossing DESI DR2 prefers (w₀ > −1 with wₐ < 0, all four data combinations) — and as of 2026-08-11 that statement holds for the model CLASS, not just the model as specified. The originally drafted criterion targeted the substituted model's literal sign lock, sign(w₀ + 1) = sign(wₐ); the covariant completions were then derived and the literal lock DIED (the Brans-Dicke completion populates mixed-sign pairs, and the Appendix-D equation as written has no dark-energy sector at all) while the no-go HARDENED: every consistent completion misses the DESI quadrant — 0/192 γ values at four Brans-Dicke ω; forced wₐ comes out +0.23…+0.60, wrong sign every time. The class statement to register: dark energy slaved to matter density reaches the DESI quadrant iff ρ_DE(x) has an interior maximum, and no completion of C = tanh(γ·ln(1+x)) produces one. Kill fires if DR3 (full published covariance, Ω_m and r_d·H₀ marginalised, one SNe compilation fixed in advance) robustly requires the crossing the class cannot produce — with a pre-committed projection-robustness check, since the CPL (w₀, wₐ) crossing preference is itself debated as a parameterization artifact (Shlivko & Steinhardt 2024; Cortês & Liddle 2024 — a debate that cuts in the framework's favor and is cited both ways). NOT discriminating in the confirming direction — though the tie is now conditional: the γ = 1/2 = ΛCDM identity is a property of the substitution (completion B has no ΛCDM member), so "kill-or-tie" is substitution-conditional. Timeline: DESI DR3 ~2027–2028. Full derivation and honest bounds: /dark-energy and /honest-assessment#dark-energy.

This page advertised TEST-02 as the #1 active discriminating test — "requires zero-cost Gaia DR3 analysis" — for weeks after /tier-1-existing had closed it. It has no outcome that favours the framework. If Gaia confirms a MOND-scale ~18% anomaly (Chae 2023–2025), C(ρ) is refuted, because C(ρ) predicts a Newtonian null of 0.05–0.4%. If Gaia confirms the null (Banik et al. 2024; Pittordis & Sutherland 2023), the framework merely reproduces Newton and is not selected over it. Both branches lose or tie. Worse, the confirmation branch is not reachable: the predicted 0.05–0.4% deviation sits ~80× below the Gaia DR3 wide-binary systematics floor, so the distinguishing measurement cannot be made at all with current data. Separately, Desmond, Hees & Famaey (2024) — the same paper TEST-25 inherits — pre-empts this test. Demoted here 2026-08-10 after a visitor Pass 3 found this page still selling it; the closure was on the Tier-1 ledger since 2026-06-07 and never propagated to the page a researcher opens to find live tests.

Ranked #2 among decisive tests at $150K while this same page conceded that D and S — the two parameters in the consciousness equation the experiment would measure — are "not yet operationally defined." A test whose observables have no definition cannot be ranked among the most discriminating; there is no calibration procedure mapping any EEG quantity onto the C axis, so no outcome could be scored against a prediction. The gap is upstream of the experiment and no amount of funding closes it. It stays in the catalog as Tier 2 (TEST-11 — the ID retained; the Cassini squeeze that had been colliding with it was renumbered TEST-25 on 2026-08-10) and returns to a ranking only if D and S acquire measurement protocols. Demoted after a visitor Pass 3 flagged the contradiction between the ranking and the page's own caveat.

Session 107 predicted fσ₈(z=0.51) ≈ 0.418 (suppression), kill criterion fσ₈ > 0.46 for >3σ. DESI DR1 full-shape (arXiv:2411.12021): LRG1 fσ₈/(fσ₈)_fid = 1.16 ± 0.13 → fσ₈ = 0.550 ± 0.062 — exceeds 0.46 by only ~1.5σ, short of the registered >3σ. Combined σ₈ = 0.841 ± 0.034 gives a 2.4σ tension, but σ₈ is a different, GR-conditioned statistic — using it to falsify a modified-growth model risks circularity. DESI's own modified-gravity analysis (Ishak et al. arXiv:2411.12026) gives a weaker verdict (μ₀ within 1σ of zero). Honest verdict: post-hoc either way; the test as registered lacked the power to discriminate this framework from GR. See /tier-1-existing and /honest-assessment for the full correction.

Framework's own Session 107 forecasts BAO matches ΛCDM at 0.0% — the sound horizon is set at z~1100 when C ≈ 1 everywhere. The 10⁻⁴ modulation number had no session-level derivation.