The complete active claim ledger and the eligible source reviewed research findings, including conditional achievements and precise negative results. The original statement, premises and status remain attached.
Research snapshot 2026-11-02 · 783 active ledger claims · 696 scientific findings · 707 registered scripts. These are different inventories, not counts of independent physical confirmations.
Every one of the 783 active ledger IDs is included. All 788 ledger rows, including superseded rows, remain in the download. The reviewed research corpus contains 697 findings; 1 administrative record is excluded from public scientific content, with the omission recorded in the coverage file.
The scientific findings include 505 established scoped results, 63 conditional results and 128 scoped exclusions. These labels describe the recorded finding. They do not upgrade its parent physical goal or overwrite the original ledger.
Sources were matched to their recorded hashes and line ranges at this snapshot. Bounded text excerpts make sources available even when a source is not in the earlier public release. Any omitted administrative lines are explicitly marked. This is source coverage, not a new execution of Python, Lean or Wolfram proofs.
Atlas revision 3ddcc9643e499ce39900d9c5 · snapshot SHA256 7622b36de7ed79901ae75361b009fa423a6505076f388f4fbaf2d42e1ba7dcf5
4 matching records · page 1 of 1
Original ledger status
CAR.SM.01
N_fam=3; Omega_adm=48; b1=41/10; dim S+ = 16
Recorded status: Lattice
Canonical status: Lattice
Dependencies: CAR.PAS.01
Scripts: v2_carrier_pascal.py
Location: tfpt_1;tfpt_2
Original CSV, line 8Original ledger status
GATE.UWALL.17
LIE-LEVEL GROUNDING of the exterior leg (no special math): the carrier half-spinor is the even exterior algebra 16=Lambda^even(5)=C(5,0)+C(5,2)+C(5,4)=1+10+5 (already in CAR.SM.01). Under SU(5)<SO(10): u^c in 10=Lambda^2(5), d^c in 5bar=Lambda^4(5) => exterior degrees deg(u)=2, deg(d)=4; deg(u)+deg(d)=6=|R+(A3)| (hexagon), deg(d)-deg(u)=2=|Z2| (sheet); up Yukawa family-symmetric Sym^2 dim6, down general dim9=N_fam^2. So the 'Lambda^2 exterior leg' is the carrier's OWN Lambda^2 grading (up quark lives in Lambda^2(5)), NOT exotic Hodge data => discrete invariant re-typed to carrier exterior DEGREE [L]. HONEST: grounds the TYPE; Plucker number 55/117 stays family Pl(K) [I]; carrier-L2<->family-L2F link (family x carrier=15) + normalisation remain [P]
Recorded status: Lattice/Lie [L] (typing) + [P] (normalisation)
Canonical status: Lattice/Lie [L] (typing) + [P] (normalisation)
Dependencies: GATE.UWALL.15; CAR.SM.01; SU(5)<SO(10)
Scripts: v44_carrier_exterior.py
Location: tfpt_research_contracts;tfpt_2
Original CSV, line 115Original ledger status
EM.BUDGET.02
PYRATE GAUGE CROSS-CHECK (independent third-party confirmation of EM.BUDGET.01/CAR.SM.01 and an F_transfer gauge-input check): the carrier/SM field content gives, by the textbook one-loop formula in GUT normalisation, (b1,b2,b3)=(41/10,-19/6,-7) [I]; (1) THREE INDEPENDENT PATHS to b1=41/10 - carrier algebra 10 b1 = g_car 2^{g_car-2}+1 = 41 (CAR.SM.01), the SM U(1) hypercharge index sum (3/5)Y^2 over the content, and the RGE generator PyR@TE 3 (arXiv:2007.12700) which writes beta_g1 = (41/10) g1^3 verbatim - all agree; (2) the M=41 decomposition 10 b1 = 40 (fermion U(1) index = sum_{f,j} L_{f,j}) + 1 (one Higgs doublet N_Phi) reproduces tfpt_2 Gate 1 exactly [I]; (3) PyR@TE also writes beta_g2 = -19/6 g2^3, beta_g3 = -7 g3^3 and the full standard 2-loop SM gauge matrix (evidence verification/pyrate/sm_gauge_betas.txt, regenerated by verification/pyrate/reproduce.sh) [I]. SCOPE [P]: confirms the gauge sector of the F_transfer functor (its running inputs are not free knobs but follow from the carrier content); PyR@TE is the right external tool for the transfer/RGE gates (gauge running, and - with a seesaw model - the neutrino-Yukawa running behind eta_B), NOT for premise (A) (a 2d boundary-CFT question)
Recorded status: Identity [I] (one-loop coefficients exact) + [P] (F_transfer gauge inputs)
Canonical status: Identity [I]: carrier content -> (41/10,-19/6,-7); PyR@TE 3 (external) reproduces them verbatim; F_transfer gauge inputs confirmed
Dependencies: EM.BUDGET.01; CAR.SM.01; v2_carrier_pascal.py; v13_open_gates.py
Scripts: v159_pyrate_gauge_crosscheck.py
Location: tfpt_2
Original CSV, line 248Original ledger status
QFT4D.SPERT.03
EG ONE-LOOP GAUGE SELF-ENERGY -> (b1,b2,b3) = (41/10,-19/6,-7) (2026-06-18): takes v271's quartic mechanism to the gauge sector. [E] the one-loop gauge 2-point function is the order-2 EG product of two currents, scaling degree sd=4=d so omega=sd-d=0 -> exactly one local counterterm per gauge coupling (wavefunction/coupling renormalization), the SAME marginal mechanism and loop factor 1/(16 pi^2) as the quartic. [E] the one-loop coefficients from the explicit carrier/SM content (b_i = -(11/3)C2(G) + (2/3) sum_f T(R) + (1/3) sum_s T(R)): b3 = -(11/3)(3)+(2/3)(6) = -7; b2 = -(11/3)(2)+(2/3)(6)+(1/3)(1/2) = -19/6; b1 (GUT norm) = (3/5)[(2/3)(10)+(1/3)(1/2)] = 41/10 -- the same 41 as the carrier algebra 10 b1 = g_car 2^{g_car-2}+1 (v159/CAR.SM.01). [C] the physical RG directions (b3<0 QCD asymptotic freedom, b2<0, b1>0 U(1) Landau) are EG-derived and feed the unification cross-check (v246/v249). [O] order-2/one-loop; the two-loop gauge matrix (v159, PyR@TE) and the all-order EG construction stay open. Exact b_i mirrored in Wolfram.
Recorded status: Identity [E] (EG one-loop b_i, exact) + [C] (RG directions) + [O] (all-order)
Canonical status: [E] the EG gauge self-energy scaling-degree mechanism + the exact one-loop b_i=(41/10,-19/6,-7) from the content (Wolfram-mirrored); [C] the physical RG directions; [O] two-loop + all-order. The gauge analogue of v271's quartic.
Dependencies: QFT4D.SPERT.02; QFT4D.SPERT.01; EM.BUDGET.02; CAR.SM.01
Scripts: v273_eg_gauge_running.py
Location: tfpt_research_contracts
Original CSV, line 366Each research problem has its own scope. A resolved task does not close its whole physical parent. Historical tasks remain explicitly historical in the source record.
What is determined by complete future behavior, and what additional positive word-kernel source is needed to reconstruct a cyclic operator realization?
Outside the active mathematical research program since the user's23Oct2026 decision. Historical question: Do the original principles derive a common physical source together with its state, dynamical events, and physically observed fields?
Does the joint discrete theorem determine a concrete connection and a family coupling compatible with the determinant seam action?
Do the original reflection/projector structures determine the full physical time generator and required field transfer?
Which flavor quantity is fixed on the derived discrete stratum, and which requires the continuous holonomy anchor?
Which closure equation follows for a fixed seam projector, and which inputs still need justification?
Do common matter-only observations derive geometric horizon flow and the area response from the original gravity source?
Which complete quadratic response can the actual clock images reconstruct?
How does the actual Gaussian J act on the complete marked source?
Which data separate sources with identical complete neutral vacuum response?
Can existing native charge fields produce the quarter-twist time response of the seam?
What does the complete phase search decide, and which additional state information prevents a false source solution?
Which charge, state type and time action belong to the root partner and original sheet pairing?
Which tools generate operator maps, learn counterexamples, and can search for the full positive source?
What does reverse selection of P1/P2 give for concrete local fields and multi-field responses, and which identification with the original P1 kernel has actually been proved?
Which operational conditions are independently required, which inequivalent models satisfy them, and which observable distinctions remain for selection?
Which carrier and glue statements are already present in the papers and Lean sources, and which physical selection does not follow?
Which marked seam/lattice transport geometries, lift classes and local-coefficient invariants arise from existing clock/reflection/quartic data? First complete case: sign lifts of fourJ representation on CP1 minusμ4.
Which previously separate data of the original TFPT core follow from a common clock and representation geometry, and which complete finite measurement classification follows without asserting physical source selection?