The original technical record remains available here. For explanations, reviewed conclusions and the history of research questions, start with the knowledge atlas.
Research snapshot 2026-11-02 · 783 active ledger claims · 706 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 All 788 ledger rows, including superseded rows, remain in the download.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 707 findings; 1 administrative record is excluded from public scientific content, with the omission recorded in the coverage file.
The scientific findings include 515 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 4d8fcdb3587f8e4cc0898e5c · snapshot SHA256 7c23438352ba021cef5aa0999c31e5c242fbc6ed12b172e4d35fb6a68f65dbb4
2 matching records · page 1 of 1
Original ledger status
CAS.01
cascade D_n=60-2n: endpoints; exponent rungs -> 240; IR tail 46080; variance 6552
Recorded status: Lattice
Canonical status: Lattice
Dependencies: -
Scripts: v5_e8_cascade.py
Location: tfpt_3
Original CSV, line 38Original ledger status
QGEO.ORBCAS.01
The orbifold Casimir round (one module, 5 checks, ~1 s; discovery probe orbifold_casimir_probe.py 5/5, verdict ORBIFOLD-CASIMIR-EXACT). The covered seam's three deck-mode classes {1/6, 1/2, 5/6} carry EXACTLY the Z3-twist Casimir data: exact closed form E0(nu, N) = -cos(pi(2nu-1)/(2N))/(2 sin(pi/(2N))); finite-size coefficient exactly pi(6nu^2 - 6nu + 1)/12; sector table (1/72, -1/24, 1/72); degenerate twisted pair; ratio -1/3; twist gap 1/18. [2026-08-02 XLI: the named interacting residue executed -- v639: twist-field weights from three exact routes (h_sigma = 1/36), lattice two-point 2 Delta = 2/9 at < 0.11%, crossing exactly symmetry-protected, closed four-point form, OPE data (c1 = 2/9 model-bound); RP validated in the real Z2 class, the complex Z3 pairing (parafermionic Klein twist) typed open; GATE.QGEO does not move; see QGEO.TWISTOPE.01.]
Recorded status: Exact [E] closed forms and expansions (sympy exact; Python-only per GATE.WOLFRAM.02).
Canonical status: ORBIFOLD-CASIMIR-EXACT: the kinematic half of the Z3 orbifold statement is exact; the interacting statement (twist-field OPE, crossing, RP) stays the named residue; GATE.QGEO does not move.
Dependencies: QGEO.COVERSEAM.01; QGEO.SEAMID.01; v622; v623
Scripts: v628_orbifold_casimir.py
Location: tfpt_3
Original CSV, line 642Each 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?
Which additional joint response actually follows from original source equations, and which entire finite process family remains undecided without it?