Energy-Flow Cosmology (EFC) — Framework Atlas

Pitch Ledger White Paper Roadmap Gaps External Predictions Atlas Changelog

Morten Magnusson · Symbiose Research, Sandnes, Norway · ORCID: 0009-0002-4860-5095 · 2026-04-22 · CC-BY-4.0

The Atlas joins two data sources: the immutable sealed Validation Ledger (EFC's own predictions with DOI, hash, freeze-timestamp) and the Framework Atlas (42 rival cosmology/gravity frameworks with their RCMP regime participation, ontological lens, and mechanism-level predictions across 32 phenomena). Together they make cross-framework discrimination explicit: for every phenomenon the Atlas records which frameworks address it, with what mechanism, and with what role.

Sealed predictions

10 preregistered EFC predictions with sealed DOIs, grouped by RCMP layer. Each card shows EFC's prediction, the full rival list from the atlas (every framework that addresses the same phenomenon with its own mechanism), a Stage-III empirical sandwich that brackets the prediction with already-observed survey data, and the arbiter instrument scheduled to resolve it.

Badge mix: CANDIDATE: 2 · DAMAGE: 2 · FALSIFIED: 1 · KILL: 3 · PROVEN: 1 · STRUCTURAL: 1

L0 — Background (1 prediction)

PROVEN L0 — Background P6 · phenomenon: Background expansion sign lemma (ΔE²(z) ≤ 0) background_expansion_sign_structure

Background sign lemma: ΔE²(z) ≤ 0 for all z > 0

The background sign lemma is the only L0-level proven statement in the sealed set: it establishes that EFC's background Hubble function never exceeds ΛCDM's at late times. This is not a numerical fit but an action-level theorem, verified to sub-percent precision by CLASS. It is the scaffold that L1 growth enhancement lives on — without it, fsσ₈ suppression would be incoherent.

EFCΔE²(z) ≤ 0 ∀ z > 0
ΛCDMNeutral (baseline)
Arbiterreproduce_efc.py (analytical + numerical)

Claim: ΔE²(z) ≤ 0 for all z > 0, i.e. H_EFC(z) ≤ H_ΛCDM(z). Reduced Hubble friction enhances growth; analytically proven (Lemma 1) and numerically verified at A ∈ {0.01, 0.1, 1.0, 5.0}.

Falsifier — F?

If observed: A counterexample at any z > 0 with A in the tested range. Analytical proof currently closed.

Rival frameworks — 1 EFC + 0 rival frameworks tracked for this phenomenon

FrameworkRoleMechanism
EFCproves_structuralaction_level_sign_lemma_with_numerical_verification

Stage-III empirical sandwich

L1 — Linear perturbations (5 predictions)

DAMAGE L1 — Linear perturbations P2 · phenomenon: fσ₈(z) Linear Growth sigma8_growth

fσ₈(z = 0.7) = 0.430 vs ΛCDM 0.449

EFC predicts fσ₈ systematically lower than ΛCDM in the z=0.3–1.0 window because regime-transition dynamics damp linear growth in L1. The cross-survey pattern (BOSS + eBOSS + DESI DR1) already traces the lower trajectory. DESI DR2 at z ≈ 0.7 is the decisive arbiter — if it returns 0.45+ at >3σ, this prediction is damaged (point-value, not structural).

EFC0.430
ΛCDM0.449
ArbiterDESI DR2 full-shape RSD

Claim: The regime-transition growth model predicts fσ₈(z=0.7) = 0.430 vs ΛCDM 0.449. Joint BAO distance prediction: D_H/r_d(z=0.7) = 19.797 vs 20.719; D_H/r_d(z=1.0) = 16.527 vs 17.466.

Falsifier — F?

If observed: Measured fσ₈(z=0.7) > 0.449 at > 3σ — consistent with ΛCDM at high significance.

Rival frameworks — 1 EFC + 6 rival frameworks tracked for this phenomenon

FrameworkRoleMechanism
EFCpredictslinear_growth_with_entropy_damping
DGPenhances_nDGPbrane_localized_gravity
GalileonenhancesG_X_braiding
IEGmodifiesholographic_bound
KGBenhanceskinetic_braiding
RMOND_Skordismatchesrelativistic_MOND_growth
fR_Starobinskyenhancesmu_greater_than_1

Stage-III empirical sandwich

KILL L1 — Linear perturbations KT-4 · phenomenon: fσ₈(z) Linear Growth sigma8_growth

fσ₈ crossover at z_cross = 2.04 ± 0.07

KT-4 is the L1-growth companion to P1's L2-lensing crossover. A shared primitive-chain is hypothesized to produce both Σ_eff sign-change (L2) and fσ₈ crossover (L1) as projections of the same underlying regime transition; the atlas treats this as a hypothesis consistent with both sector implementations, not a proven derivation. Cross-survey BAO transfer (BOSS ↔ DESI) already passes without refit, which is consistent with primitive rigidity under tested surveys.

EFCz_cross = 2.04 ± 0.07; D_H/r_d(1.0) = 16.527; D_H/r_d(0.7) = 19.797; fσ₈(0.7) = 0.430
ΛCDMno crossover; D_H/r_d(1.0) = 17.466; D_H/r_d(0.7) = 20.719; fσ₈(0.7) = 0.449
Hash7a850cfa58477701
Frozen at2026-02-18T05:07:13Z
ArbiterDESI DR2+ (z > 1.5) full-shape RSD + BAO

Claim: GRC Triad Contract v2 kill-test. fσ₈ trajectory crosses ΛCDM at z ≈ 2.04 with 3.1σ BAO distance separation at z=1.0 and 2.3σ at z=0.7. Sealed blind prediction with hash.

Falsifier — F?

If observed: No crossover observed in fσ₈(z) up to z=2.5 at >2σ, OR DESI DR2 BAO at z>1.5 consistent with ΛCDM at >3σ

Rival frameworks — 1 EFC + 6 rival frameworks tracked for this phenomenon

FrameworkRoleMechanism
EFCpredictslinear_growth_with_entropy_damping
DGPenhances_nDGPbrane_localized_gravity
GalileonenhancesG_X_braiding
IEGmodifiesholographic_bound
KGBenhanceskinetic_braiding
RMOND_Skordismatchesrelativistic_MOND_growth
fR_Starobinskyenhancesmu_greater_than_1

Exclusion lemma

KT-4 and P1 are hypothesized to share a dynamical root via the closed primitive-chain {α, K, T, ξ, S_flow, S_latent}. Their empirical co-motion across surveys is consistent with — but does not yet prove — a shared mechanism. Independent falsification at either anchor (DESI DR2 at z≈2.04 or Euclid DR1 at z≈0.44) would constrain the hypothesis.

Stage-III empirical sandwich

CANDIDATE L1 — Linear perturbations P8 · phenomenon: Disk Evolutionary State (SPARC + xGASS) disk_evolutionary_state

Π_EFC vs stellar surface density: log Σ_disk correlation

Pivot from the falsified bar-instability prediction (EFC-BIC v0.1, AUC=0.217). The same Π_EFC quantity does not predict global m=2 bar formation but does anti-correlate with stellar surface density on rotation-supported disks, identifying Π_min as a candidate disk-state proxy. Candidate status pending external IFU validation.

EFCρ ≈ −0.71
ΛCDMNo predicted correlation
ArbiterSpearman ρ on (Π_min, log Σ_disk) tuple; pipeline disk_state_analysis.py
FalsifierEFC_disk_state_logSigma_correlation_v0.1

Claim: Π_min ≡ min_R∈[R_d,3R_d] Π_EFC(R), with σ_R from Jeans isotropic and ζ≈1, monotonically anti-correlates with stellar surface density log Σ_disk. Same-sign correlation across SPARC (Spitzer-3.6μm, V-decomp, N=112) and xGASS (SDSS Petrosian + Arecibo HI). Independent samples, observables, pipelines.

Falsifier — EFC_disk_state_logSigma_correlation_v0.1

If observed: If MaNGA Pipe3D (or comparable independent IFU/HI sample) with N≥30 yields ρ(Π_min, log Σ_disk) > 0 or |ρ| < 0.3, the candidate is falsified.

Rival frameworks — 1 EFC + 0 rival frameworks tracked for this phenomenon

FrameworkRoleMechanism

Stage-III empirical sandwich

CANDIDATE L1 — Linear perturbations P9 · phenomenon: Disk Evolutionary State (SPARC + xGASS) disk_evolutionary_state

Π_EFC vs gas-richness: f_gas correlation

Companion candidate to P8: the same Π_EFC parameter that anti-correlates with stellar surface density positively correlates with gas-richness — consistent with the interpretation that high-Σ, gas-poor (mature) disks have lower Π_min than low-Σ, gas-rich (latent) disks.

EFCρ ≈ +0.65
ΛCDMNo predicted correlation
ArbiterSpearman ρ on (Π_min, f_gas); pipeline disk_state_analysis.py
FalsifierEFC_disk_state_fgas_correlation_v0.1

Claim: Π_min positively correlates with disk gas richness f_gas = V_gas² / (V_gas² + V_disk² + V_bulge²) median in disk window. Sign holds when internal V_gas-decomposition f_gas is replaced with external M_HI/(M_HI + Υ·L[3.6]) (ρ=+0.530, 82% of internal strength).

Falsifier — EFC_disk_state_fgas_correlation_v0.1

If observed: If MaNGA Pipe3D + HI sample with N≥30 yields ρ(Π_min, f_gas) < 0 or |ρ| < 0.3, the candidate is falsified.

Rival frameworks — 1 EFC + 0 rival frameworks tracked for this phenomenon

FrameworkRoleMechanism

Stage-III empirical sandwich

FALSIFIED L1 — Linear perturbations P10 · phenomenon: Disk Evolutionary State (SPARC + xGASS) disk_evolutionary_state

EFC-BIC v0.1 as bar-morphology predictor

The first published EFC falsification at the L1 disk-galaxy level. Local Toomre-style criteria — even with EFC's shear correction — cannot predict global m=2 bar formation. The mechanism is structural: bar formation is a resonant instability requiring inter-annulus coupling that local Q-criteria do not encode. The Π_EFC parameter survives this falsification as a candidate disk-state proxy (P8, P9), establishing the v0.1 → v0.2 falsification chain as a model of disciplined research-track closure under EBE.

EFCPredicted: AUC > 0.5 (model ranks bars below threshold)
ΛCDMNull (always-no-bar): 65.1%
Arbiterscripts: classify_fit.py, efc_bic_v02_resonance.py
FalsifierEFC_BIC_bar_prediction_v0.1

Claim: Π_EFC < 1.0 was hypothesised to indicate bar-prone disks. Test on N=43 SIMBAD-cleaned SPARC galaxies (15 SB + 28 SA) at ζ ∈ [1.0, 3.0] gave AUC=0.217 at ζ=1 (anti-correlated with bar truth). ζ_max-physical (κ²_eff ≥ 0) = 1.52, below the regime where Π_min crosses 1.0.

Falsifier — EFC_BIC_bar_prediction_v0.1

If observed: Met: AUC=0.217 < 0.5 (anti-correlated, in physical ζ regime).

Rival frameworks — 1 EFC + 0 rival frameworks tracked for this phenomenon

FrameworkRoleMechanism

Stage-III empirical sandwich

L2 — LSS / lensing (4 predictions)

KILL L2 — LSS / lensing P1 · phenomenon: Φ/Ψ Slip (Lensing vs Dynamical Potential) phi_psi_slip

Φ/Ψ slip: non-monotonic Σ_eff(z) with sign change near z ≈ 0.44

Energy-Flow Cosmology predicts a non-monotonic gravitational slip: Σ_eff(z) enhanced below z ≈ 0.4, suppressed above z ≈ 0.5, with a sealed crossover near z ≈ 0.44. All 13 rival frameworks in the atlas predict monotonic behaviour with relative divergence = 1.0. GW-speed constraints structurally forbid the crossover for the entire QS Horndeski class — so a sign-change observation by Euclid DR1 would not just favour EFC, it would exclude the QS class as a whole.

EFCSign change at z ≈ 0.44 (η = 0.9993 at reference)
ΛCDMMonotonic (no crossover)
Hash7a850cfa58477701
Frozen at2026-02-18T05:07:13Z
ArbiterEuclid DR1 cosmic shear tomography (October 2026)
FalsifierF9

Claim: The effective lensing amplitude Σ_eff(z) is non-monotonic with a sign change at z ≈ 0.44. EFC predicts enhanced lensing at z < 0.4 and suppressed lensing at z > 0.5. This profile is absent in ΛCDM and in standard QS Horndeski models with α_T = 0.

Falsifier — F9

If observed: Monotonic Σ_eff(z) across all bins with no sign change inside z ∈ [0.3, 0.6]

Rival frameworks — 1 EFC + 12 rival frameworks tracked for this phenomenon

FrameworkRoleMechanism
EFCpredicts_sealedpreregistered_eta_eq_0.9993
DGPpredicts_monotonicbraneworld_Vainshtein_no_crossover
EDEpredicts_monotonicbackground_only_no_slip_mechanism
Galileonpredicts_monotonicVainshtein_screening_no_slip_sign_change
Horndeskipredicts_monotonicQS_alpha_T_zero_forces_Sigma_le_mu
LCDMpredicts_monotonicGR_baseline_no_slip
MONDpredicts_monotonicmodified_inertia_no_relativistic_slip
Multi_Field_EDEpredicts_monotonicbackground_only_no_slip_mechanism
Quintessencepredicts_monotonicminimally_coupled_scalar_no_slip
Thawing_Quintessencepredicts_monotonicslow_roll_thawing_no_slip
Verlinde_2016predicts_monotonicemergent_gravity_no_derived_slip_profile
fR_Starobinskypredicts_monotonicchameleon_mu_gt_1_no_crossover
w0waCDMpredicts_monotonicCPL_parametrization_background_only

Exclusion lemma

GW-speed constraint (c_T = c) forces α_T = 0 in Horndeski/QS class, which forces Σ ≤ μ pointwise; therefore no sign-change of Σ_eff is possible in that class. P1 does not just discriminate EFC vs ΛCDM — it falsifies the entire QS class simultaneously.

Stage-III empirical sandwich

KILL L2 — LSS / lensing P3 · phenomenon: E_G Gravitational Slip Statistic EG_statistic

E_G enhancement: E_G^EFC / E_G^GR = 1.086 ± 0.012

The E_G statistic is skala-uavhengig by construction — it isolates the gravitational slip Σ/μ at a reference point. EFC predicts an 8.6% enhancement over GR because regime-transition dynamics produces μ < 1 while S-flow coupling drives Σ > 1. No QS Horndeski model can match this signature. SO × Euclid DR2 will measure E_G directly — a flat (GR) result falsifies the slip prediction.

EFC1.086 ± 0.012
ΛCDM1.000 ± 0.01
Frozen at2026-04-15
ArbiterSO × Euclid DR2
FalsifierF7
PASS window[1.03, 1.14]

Claim: Galaxy–CMB-lensing cross-correlation combined with RSD produces the gravitational slip estimator E_G. EFC predicts E_G^EFC / E_G^GR = 1.086 ± 0.012 at k_c ≈ 0.05 h/Mpc and z_eff ≈ 0.5, driven by the combination μ < 1 with Σ > 1.

Falsifier — F7

If observed: Measurement = 1.00 ± 0.01 at > 3σ (GR recovery)

Rival frameworks — 1 EFC + 0 rival frameworks tracked for this phenomenon

FrameworkRoleMechanism
EFCpredictsscale_independent_slip

Stage-III empirical sandwich

DAMAGE L2 — LSS / lensing P4 · phenomenon: S₈ = σ₈√(Ω_m/0.3) Tension S8_tension

Rubin DP2 cosmic shear S₈ = 0.847 ± 0.015

EFC predicts a specific S₈ position that is higher than Planck but lower than naive μ>1 modifications of gravity like f(R). The Stage-III triple (KiDS ↔ DES ↔ Planck) already brackets the EFC value from below and above via survey-dependent kernel integrals. Rubin DP2 is the first Stage-IV arbiter with precision to test the 0.847 point directly.

EFC0.847 ± 0.015
ΛCDM0.811 ± 0.006 (Planck)
ArbiterRubin LSST DP2
FalsifierF4

Claim: Large-scale cosmic shear ξ_+ enhancement of ~8% at angular scales 20′–300′, producing S₈ = 0.847 ± 0.015. Discriminates EFC from f(R) (which predicts μ > 1) and from background-only entropic gravity models.

Falsifier — F4

If observed: DP2 + Euclid DR1 combined return S₈ consistent with Planck ΛCDM (0.811 ± 0.006) at < 1σ

Rival frameworks — 1 EFC + 1 rival framework tracked for this phenomenon

FrameworkRoleMechanism
EFCpredicts_suppressionmu_lt_1_in_L2
LCDMconflictsno_resolution_native

Stage-III empirical sandwich

STRUCTURAL L2 — LSS / lensing P5 · phenomenon: μ(k,a) and Σ(k,a) Phenomenological MG Parameters mu_sigma_plane

Horndeski no-go: μ < 1 ∧ Σ > 1 forbidden with α_T = 0

P5 is the meta-prediction that makes P1 and P3 into exclusion lemmas. It says: no quasi-static Horndeski theory can occupy the quadrant EFC predicts. The proof is parameter-scan + GW170817 anchor. If P1 or P3 passes, the entire QS class is falsified simultaneously — not just ΛCDM.

EFCμ < 1 ∧ Σ > 1 achievable via flow-constraint
ΛCDMμ = Σ = 1 (GR)
ArbiterParameter scan (completed)
FalsifierF8

Claim: Standard quasi-static Horndeski with α_T = 0 and c_s² > 0 cannot produce μ < 1 and Σ > 1 simultaneously — the action forces Σ ≤ μ universally. EFC breaks this via the Lagrange-multiplier flow constraint.

Falsifier — F8

If observed: If P1+P3 (lensing enhancement with growth suppression) is confirmed, standard Horndeski is excluded; EFC or an equivalent slip-extension is required.

Rival frameworks — 1 EFC + 3 rival frameworks tracked for this phenomenon

FrameworkRoleMechanism
EFCpredicts_quadrantmu_lt_1_Sigma_gt_1_forbidden_Horndeski
DGPmodifiesVainshtein_transition
Horndeskiparameterizesalpha_M_alpha_B
fR_Starobinskymodifieschameleon_scalar

Stage-III empirical sandwich

All validation tests

Sourced from the sealed Validation Ledger. 127 public tests across 5 categories. Filter by category, result or regime.

Result Category Name Prediction Data source
MARGINALphysics_test2D mu-Sigma Planck constraint: degeneracy stripe at Sigma~1.05mu=0.94 Sigma=1.05 achieves dchi2(full)=+2.49 with 6.4% sigma8 suppression. Degeneracy stripe exists at Sigma~1.05. Perturbation sector CAN carry EFC signal.Planck 2018 TTTEEE_lite + lowl + lensing, MGCAMB v1.5.2 MG_flag=6
MARGINALphysics_test2D μ-Σ degeneracy valley: perturbation sector viability with gravitational slipIf EFC entropy gradients modify Ψ (matter potential) more than Φ+Ψ (lensing potential), the framework naturally produces μ<1 with Σ≈1.05 — exactly the viable region found in this scan.MGCAMB v1.5.2, 25-point (μ,Σ) grid, Planck 2018 TTTEEE+lowl+lensing
Plannedphysics_testAQUAL void leakage: falsification test for L0/L1 regime screeningEFC regime framework predicts AQUAL remains screened in voids because even void interiors have |∇Φ_background|/a₀ >> 1 from the total cosmological potential. If this fails (μ_eff > 1.01 in voids at r > 30 Mpc/h), then AQUAL leaks into linear cosmology and the ΛCDM-as-L0/L1-limit claim is falsified. Specific observable: ISW-void cross-correlation amplitude should match ΛCDM within 5%. Void lensing tangential shear profile should show no AQUAL enhancement at r > 10 Mpc/h.Void catalogs (BOSS/DESI void finder), ISW stacking on voids, weak lensing void profiles (DES Y6/KiDS), fσ₈ at k < 0.02 h/Mpc from DESI ELG
Plannedphysics_testAsig shock-front lensing asymmetry — JWST-era executionEFC predicts Asig ≠ 0: lensing convergence residuals aligned with the Chandra shock front direction, produced by entropy-gradient coupling (Σ > 1 anisotropy from the flow-constraint mechanism in the Relativistic Action). ΛCDM predicts Asig = 0 (isotropic residuals after mass model subtraction). Detection threshold: percent-level δκ/κ in the shock-front region.Cha et al. 2025 (ApJ 987 L15, arXiv:2503.21870) κ-map; Rihtaršič et al. 2026 (arXiv:2601.22245) Lenstool parametric model; Cho et al. 2025 (arXiv:2512.03150) virial masses; Chandra 500 ks ACIS-I (Markevitch 2006); ACCEPT entropy profiles (Cavagnolo et al. 2009)
Plannedphysics_testB0 Bridge Test: fσ₈ sign constraint — μ must be less than 1If EFC can produce μ(a,k) < 1 at z<1 and k≈0.05-0.1 h/Mpc with ~6% effective weakening, it will improve fσ₈ by Δχ²≈−5 without significantly affecting σ₈ (<1% change). Next test (B1): physical gate parametrization. Next test (B2): joint Planck + fσ₈ with consistent μ-Σ.fσ₈ compilation (7 datapoints, z=0.38-0.85) tested against ΛCDM + modified screening filters (F0-F3) with α_eff=0.06
COLLAPSEDphysics_testCMB Planck constraint on EFC background gate αEFC predicts that α≠0 modifies H(z) via the gate function, shifting θ* and DA(z*). With fixed Planck params, α=-0.7 is killed (Δχ²=+2624). With free params, Planck absorbs α via H0 shift (Δχ²≈0 for all α). Joint Planck+BAO collapses α from -0.7 to -0.05, because BAO breaks the α-H0 degeneracy.Planck 2018 plik_lite TTTEEE + lowl TT + lowl EE + lensing (via cobaya 3.6.1), DESI 2024 BAO, Pantheon+ SN, modified CLASS 3.3.4 with EFC gate in background.c
COLLAPSEDphysics_testCMB+BAO Joint Fit: Background α-gate null resultIf α≈−0.7 is real background physics, joint fit should find α significantly negative with improved total χ². Instead: α→−0.045, confirming background gate is proxy, not fundamental.Planck 2018 (plik_lite + lowl_TT + lowl_EE + lensing) + DESI 2024 BAO + Pantheon+ SN via EFCLASS/cobaya
Plannedphysics_testCT-01: Entropy Gradient-Consciousness Correlationr(|∇(δS/δρ)|_cortex, C_measured) > 0.5 at p < 0.01 across >= 4 consciousness statesHigh-density EEG (>=64 ch) or source-reconstructed MEG; propofol/sevoflurane sedation datasets (Chennu et al. 2016), sleep polysomnography, psilocybin/LSD open datasets
Plannedphysics_testCT-03: Parietal Dominance Replicationd_parietal > d_global with d_parietal > 1.0 in an independent datasetIndependent propofol or sevoflurane sedation EEG dataset (N >= 20, >= 64 channels). Current baseline: Chennu Overlap-12 d_parietal = 2.10 vs d_global = 0.63
Plannedphysics_testCluster TNG mass-only regime model: NOT SUPPORTEDEFC predicts mass-driven regime transition producing sign flip in rho(ne_slope, K0). RESULT: Not observed within TNG mass bins [14.0-15.3 log M_sun]. All bins show rho ≈ -0.87 (constant). Regime variable must include core-state (cooling time, SCC/NCC) not mass alone.TNG-Cluster 352 halos z=0, 4 mass bins. Grid: A_M [0.2-5.0], Xi_eff [-2.0-4.0], Delta_Xi [0.05-2.0]. Null models: constant, linear, step.
Plannedphysics_testDESI DR2 BAO α-constraint (post-prediction)EFC BAO-only: α consistent with 0. Strong α (|α| > 0.4) excluded by DESI DR2 precision at z > 0.9. EFC signal, if present, must live in growth/regime sector, not background expansion.DESI DR2 BAO (arXiv:2503.14738), 13 measurements, 7 z-bins, full covariance
Plannedphysics_testEEG scalp entropy gradient dissipation test (Chennu propofol)EFC-C predicts corr(|∇S|², dS/dt) < 0 in cortex during consciousness transitions. Under the mapping S → Ω̂ (spectral entropy of scalp EEG PSD, 0.5-45 Hz), with spatial gradient computed on parietal ROI (P3,P4,Pz,O1,O2,Oz), the prediction is r < 0 with p < 0.01 at group level.Chennu et al. (2016) propofol sedation EEG dataset, DOI: 10.17863/CAM.690. N=20 subjects, 91-channel EGI HydroCel GSN, 250 Hz, 4 conditions per subject (baseline, mild sedation, moderate sedation, recovery). 80 recordings total.
Plannedphysics_testEFC Bar Instability Criterion (EFC-BIC) v0.2 — κ² modification with operational definitionsP1 (binary, hard threshold): Bar onset iff min{Π_EFC(R)} < 1 over R ∈ [R_d, 3·R_d]. All SPARC barred/disturbed galaxies satisfy this; all FLOW non-barred satisfy min{Π_EFC(R)} ≥ 1 over the same range. No soft threshold — falsified if mismatch rate on validation sample exceeds observational misclassification bound. P2 (continuous, growth coupling): Bar growth rate Γ_bar ∝ (1 − Π_EFC) at the radius of minimum Π_EFC, VALID ONLY for Π_EFC < 1. For Π_EFC ≥ 1, Γ_bar = 0 (mode is stable, NOT anti-growing). Predicts bar fraction f_bar(M_disk, z) and bar amplitude as continuous functions, testable against N-body simulations and observed bar amplitudes. P3 (morphological): L_bar/R_d anticorrelates with the depth of (1 − Π_EFC) at minimum, valid for Π_EFC < 1. P4 (cross-survey, sealed): After ζ-lock on SPARC pilot, predicted f_bar(M, z) from Galaxy Zoo / S4G must match within 2σ without further parameter adjustment. Falsification criteria: (a) Any FLOW galaxy with min{Π_EFC(R)} ≥ 1 hosting a strong bar, OR (b) Any LATENT/barred galaxy with min{Π_EFC(R)} < 1 absent, OR (c) No single value of ζ reproduces both SPARC internal dynamics and external bar fractions (Galaxy Zoo, S4G) simultaneously. ζ-universality is structural, not adjustable — failure here rejects the criterion outright.Primary anchor: SPARC (175-galaxy sample, N=20 pilot for ζ calibration, N≥100 for sealed test). Cross-validation: Galaxy Zoo bar fractions, S4G bar morphology catalog. Required derived quantities per galaxy: σ_R(R), Σ(R), V_circ(R) → κ(R), entropy gradient ∇S(R) from existing EFC SPARC fits (sparc_regime.json field 'entropy_gradient'), α from regime classification, R_d from disk decomposition.
Plannedphysics_testEFC Baseline α-signalα < 0 at ≥2σ significance with ΔAIC < -2 (moderate evidence)emcee MCMC, 69 data points, emcee sampler
Plannedphysics_testEFC P1/P2 cross-probe test against DES-Y6 vs KiDS-Legacy S8 bifurcationEFC's K0 scan (from figshare 32080059) predicts that Σeff crossover at z≈0.44 with K0 in the optimal range [1.5, 2.5] produces an effective lensing amplitude consistent with KiDS-Legacy-like values, while DES-Y6's lower S8 reflects IA-modeling choices EFC's RCMP framework treats as regime-breaking. Quantitative expectation: EFC lensing-engine output at K0=2.0 should reproduce S8-equivalent within ±0.015 of KiDS Legacy central, and significantly offset from DES Y6 (≥1.5σ). Falsification: if EFC's sealed P1/P2 output forces S8 into DES Y6 territory, the RCMP bifurcation argument weakens.DES Year 6 3x2pt (arXiv:2601.14559, S8 = 0.782 +0.021/-0.020 in wCDM); KiDS Legacy (Wright et al 2025, arXiv:2503.19441); S8 2026 review (arXiv:2602.12238). EFC sealed predictions: P1 Σeff(z) crossover at z≈0.44 (figshare 32037990), P2 fσ8(z=0.7)=0.430 (figshare 32013156). EFC regime-transition paper (figshare 32080059) provides K0 scan.
Plannedphysics_testEFC-C-001: ∇S Correlation with Conscious State TransitionsThe entropy gradient Ω = ||∇S|| is significantly higher during conscious states (wakefulness, REM) than unconscious states (NREM3, general anesthesia), with effect size Cohen's d > 0.8 across subjects. KILL if d < 0.5 on test partition (n ≥ 20 subjects).Casarotto et al. (2016) PCI dataset (original Lempel-Ziv PCI, n=150+). NOTE: PCI_ST variant requires Comolatti et al. 2019 (J Neurosci Methods).
COLLAPSEDphysics_testEFCLASS sign test: ΔH² negative for additive gateAdditive background gate with closure normalisation always gives ΔH<0 at z>0, increasing fσ₈. Only μ(k,z)<1 or inverted gate can suppress growth.EFCLASS v0.1 CLASS background output, BOSS DR12 fσ₈ comparison
MARGINALphysics_testEFC×Graph-AQUAL regime bridge (growth sector)LCDM baseline survives; screening at k < 0.01 h/Mpc keeps σ₈ and γ within 5% of ΛCDMG_eff gate × linear growth ODE, 4 screening scales, C from KT2
Plannedphysics_testEuclid DR1 frozen benchmark (B0=0.02, M0=0.06) — Boltzmann-calibratedAt B0=0.02, M0=0.06: sigma8 shift +1.21% vs LCDM, P(k=0.05,z=0.5) shift +2.09%, Cl^phiphi(ell=66) shift -6.01%, E_G(ell=66) shift -3.98%, Cl^TT(ell=30) ISW shift +1.88%. SHA-256: dbc737979d8a773f56c620759ddded38139157fd9a2dbb321a8ffdb6e68135d2. Kill: if Euclid DR1 shows |E_G shift| < 1% at ell~66 with 2sigma precision, EFC perturbation sector falsified at this benchmark.Euclid DR1 (21 October 2026): ~2100 deg² wide survey. Benchmark computed via hi_class efc_logistic (B0=0.02, M0=0.06, a_t=0.3, Delta=0.3, alpha_K=1.0). 36-config parameter scan + Boltzmann-calibrated output.
Plannedphysics_testFreeze v2: fσ₈(z=1.5) blind prediction for DESI DR2 ELGEFC with α=-0.689 predicts fσ₈(z=1.5) will be lower than ΛCDM value, with separation growing compared to z=0.7. The exact numerical value will be sealed with hash.Growth ODE solver with frozen parameters from freeze_20260218_050713
MARGINALphysics_testFreeze v3: E_G(z=0.7) gravitational slip predictionEFC predicts E_G(z=0.7) differs from ΛCDM due to μ≠Σ. If μ<1 and Σ≈1, E_G should be systematically higher than ΛCDM. Exact value sealed with hash.β=f/b from growth ODE + linear bias model, frozen α=-0.689
Plannedphysics_testFreeze v4: Planck-independent H₀ from EFC BAO+SNIaEFC with α=-0.689 predicts H₀ from BAO+SNIa in range 69-71 km/s/Mpc (between Planck and SH0ES). If H₀ ≈ 67-68, no tension relief. If H₀ > 71, strong tension relief claim.cobaya minimize with BAO (BOSS+DESI) + Pantheon+ SNIa, no CMB prior
Plannedphysics_testGravitational slip η(a,k,ρ) from grid tension ansatzη≠1 in L2 regime should: (1) resolve S₈ tension via differential Φ/Ψ coupling, (2) maintain strong lens time delay within observational bounds, (3) give specific η(z) profile derivable from χ control parameter. Expected η ≈ 0.95-0.99 in L2, η→1 in L0.EFCLASS perturbation code + DES Y6 / KiDS Legacy weak lensing + H0LiCOW/TDCOSMO strong lens time delays
MOND outer slope = -1.050 (target: -1.0), Newton outer slope = -2.029 (target: -2.0)physics_testGrid-AQUAL Newton/MOND limits (KT1)Inner slope → -2 (Newton) as a0→0; Outer slope → -1 (MOND) as a0→∞Grid-AQUAL solver, spherical point mass, N=41 grid
β = 0.3047 (target: 0.5 for √(GM/a₀))physics_testGrid-AQUAL mass-scaling exponent (KT3)β = 0.50 ± 0.15 for isolated spherical sourcesGrid-AQUAL solver, M ∈ {10, 25, 50, 100, 200}, N=41, a₀=2.0
C_vw = 2.2895 (converged)physics_testGrid-AQUAL prefactor convergence (KT2)C converges to a finite value; residual between N-steps < 0.1Grid-AQUAL solver, N ∈ {21, 31, 41}, spherical point mass M=50
Completed (Quantitative Consistency Test — No Full Likelihood) — 𝒞 = 0.59–0.96 (monotonic); AISW = 0.29–0.56; all published data within 1.6σphysics_testISW cancellation prediction (𝒞 metric)Planck × DESI DR1 tracer windows (LRGz0, LRGz1, LRG+ELG, ELG)Planck × DESI DR1 tracer windows (LRGz0, LRGz1, LRG+ELG, ELG)
Plannedphysics_testKT-1: Ψ-dominance test (strong-lens time delay + weak-lensing shear)GRC predicts: Φ ≈ Φ_GR (ε < 0.01) while Ψ = Ψ_GR(1+μ(S)) in L2 regime. Time delays should be consistent with GR within measurement uncertainty. Weak-lensing shear should show enhancement consistent with μ₀ = 0.415. Gravitational slip η = Φ/Ψ ≠ 1 in L2, with η → 1 in L0 and L3.TDCOSMO/H0LiCOW 7-lens sample (public: imaging + kinematics + time delays). Secondary: eROSITA cluster sample for L2→L3 transition.
Plannedphysics_testKT-2: η-bound (strong-lens Φ consistency with GR)GRC predicts: |ΔΦ/Φ_GR| < 10⁻³ (sample mean) in strong-lens systems. Time delay residuals Δt_predicted/Δt_observed = 1.0 ± measurement error. No systematic offset. ε (temporal suppression parameter) must be < 0.01. If ε > 0.1 is required to fit any system, the model fails.TDCOSMO/H0LiCOW sample (≥5 lenses with mass-sheet degeneracy broken via stellar kinematics). Requires published time delays, lens models, and velocity dispersion measurements.
Plannedphysics_testKT-3: Locked transfer universality (SPARC → clusters → fσ8 → Bullet Cluster)GRC predicts: frozen μ₀ = 0.415 produces Δχ² < 4 relative to best-fit in each independent channel. No systematic trend of increasing Δχ² with scale (kpc → Mpc). Cluster lensing profiles should show enhancement consistent with SPARC-derived μ₀. fσ8(z) should track the sealed crossover trajectory without parameter adjustment.SPARC (source) → DESI/BOSS BAO (passing), Abell cluster lensing profiles, fσ8 at ≥3 z-bins (DESI DR2 LRG/ELG/QSO), Bullet Cluster offset geometry. All with frozen μ₀ = 0.415.
Plannedphysics_testKT-4: Sealed fσ8 crossover prediction (z_cross = 2.04)fσ8 crossover at z_cross = 2.04 ± 0.07. DH_rd(z=1.0): EFC = 16.527 vs ΛCDM = 17.466 (3.1σ separation). DH_rd(z=0.7): EFC = 19.797 vs ΛCDM = 20.719 (2.3σ). fσ8(z=0.7): EFC = 0.430 vs ΛCDM = 0.449 (2.0σ). Hash: 7a850cfa58477701.Future fσ8 measurements at z > 1.5 (DESI DR2+ ELG/QSO, Euclid, Roman). Sealed prediction hash: 7a850cfa58477701. Freeze timestamp: 2026-02-18T05:07:13.
Plannedphysics_testKT3b: Environmental mass-scaling test β(ρ_env)At fixed baryonic mass, void galaxies (ρ_env ≪ ρ_crit) show systematically weaker gravitational enhancement (lower g_obs/g_bar at g_bar ~ a₀) than galaxies in filaments/groups (ρ_env ~ ρ_crit). Estimated effect size: D_eff ratio between void (ρ/ρ_crit ~ 0.01) and filament (ρ/ρ_crit ~ 1) is √0.01 ≈ 0.1 vs 0.5, giving ~5× fewer active modes. This translates to ~15-30% suppression in enhancement for void galaxies. MOND predicts zero suppression. ΛCDM predicts uncorrelated scatter.SPARC 175 galaxies (Lelli+ 2017) cross-matched with environment catalogs: Tully (2015) galaxy group catalog for nearest-neighbor density, or Eridanus/Fornax void catalogs. Key observables: V_flat, g_obs/g_bar at r where g_bar ~ a₀, and ρ_env from N-th nearest neighbor density estimator.
MARGINALphysics_testMGCAMB mu-Sigma perturbation scan (constant mu, Sigma=1)EFC predicts mu less than 1 (weaker late-time gravity) to suppress sigma8. The test finds that mu=0.93 gives the right suppression (-7.3%) but at unacceptable Planck cost (Dchi2=+19). Only mu=0.99 is viable (Dchi2=+1.4) but gives insufficient suppression (1.1%). Lensing is NOT blind to mu unlike propto_omega — Sigma=1 does not decouple lensing from growth. CONCLUSION: constant mu with Sigma=1 cannot carry the EFC signal in the perturbation sector.MGCAMB v1.5.2 + cobaya 3.6.1 + Planck 2018 (TTTEEE_lite + lowl TT + lowl EE + lensing)
PASSphysics_testMVP-G1 fσ₈ Leave-One-Out Robustness (N2a mode)EFC predicts late-time growth suppression (α<0) in Hubble friction channel. Signal should be distributed across redshift range, not concentrated in any single measurement. LOO robustness score should be ≥6/7 for the hint to qualify as non-artefactual.fσ₈ extended compilation (7 points, z=0.02-0.85): 6dFGS, SDSS MGS, BOSS DR12 (3 bins), eBOSS, Vipers. BAO compilation (14 points). Pipeline: MVP-G1 Hubble Friction Channel with N2a nuisance controls.
Plannedphysics_testPhi/Psi Shadow-Mode v1.0: C=2.32, k_lambda=0.0014
Plannedphysics_testPlanck x_m scan: propto_omega cannot deliver S8 reliefpropto_omega with positive x_m gives enhanced growth (sigma8 UP) due to friction reduction dominating over Poisson weakening. Negative x_m triggers gradient instability. The CMB constraint is Δχ² = +5.3 at x_m=0.3, driven entirely by low-l TT (ISW effect). Lensing adds no constraint.Planck 2018 TTTEEE_lite + lowl TT/EE + lensing via cobaya 3.6.1 + hi_class v3.0
Plannedphysics_testScale-dependent μ(k,z): first constraint on EFC characteristic scale k*If EFC modifies gravity via a grid mechanism with characteristic scale, k* should be finite and related to the grid/entropy scale. If k* → ∞ (no scale), EFC operates as effective field theory without fundamental scale. Expected range: k* ~ 0.01-0.3 h/Mpc.Modified growth ODE with k-dependent source μ(k,z)=1-B·g(a)·h(k/k*), existing RSD data
Plannedphysics_testShadow-mode v2: TDCOSMO PEMD+NFW time-delay consistencyEFC predicts temporal potential deviation < 0.1% from GR for all TDCOSMO lenses, with ε ~ 0.005 and η > 0.95. The prediction is independent of lens profile choice (PL vs composite) because temporal saturation operates at the ontological level, not the profile level.TDCOSMO-2025 (Shajib+2025, arXiv:2506.03023): 8 quadruply-lensed quasars with published γ', θ_E, σ_v, time delays, and NFW halo parameters.
Plannedphysics_testT_CMB(z) deviation from (1+z) scaling — SZ-cluster testSZ-effect-derived T_CMB measurements in the redshift range z=0.5–2 should show monotonic deviation from T_0(1+z) at the ~0.5–2% level by z=1, of the form T(z) = T_0(1+z)·f(S(z)) with f monotonic and bounded, f(0)=1. Null hypothesis: f≡1 (ΛCDM). Statistical test: χ² fit of the EFC f-form vs the ΛCDM null against compiled Hurier+2014 / Luzzi+2015 / Saro+2014 cluster data. EFC succeeds if Δχ² > 9 in favour of f-form (≥3σ preference); EFC is falsified if data is consistent with f≡1 within 1σ across the full z-range.Hurier+2014 SZ T(z) compilation, Luzzi+2015 cluster sample, Saro+2014, de Martino+2015 high-z absorber excitation temperatures
Plannedphysics_testVerlinde relation a₀~cH₀ emergent from bulk entropyEFC predicts Verlinde relation a₀ = c²√Λ emerges from graph functional with bulk entropy reservoir, without free parameters beyond Λ itself.Bulk entropy reservoir term F_bulk with μ=β²Λ, tested over 7 Λ-values
Plannedphysics_testWhitening WP4 komponent w5 — hardest-constrained direction hitEFC forutsier at Δχ²_w5 skal være stor og negativ fordi den mest begrensede kovariansretningen i BOSS-data korresponderer med den skalaavhengige vekstmodifikasjonen μ(k,z) som EFC beskriver. Verdien Δχ²_w5 = −11.39 (fra 15.30 til 3.91) er konsistent med denne prediksjonen. En falsifisering ville vært at EFC primært forbedrer svakt begrensede retninger (w1-w3) mens w5 forblir uendret eller forverres.BOSS DR12 full-shape power spectrum, whitening-dekomposisjon WP4 (se figshare 31304980)
Plannedphysics_testχ-monotonicity in galaxy cluster radial profilesχ(r) is monotonically increasing (Spearman ρ < -0.8 between r and χ) from 1.0 R₅₀₀ to 0.05 R₅₀₀ in both cool-core and non-cool-core clusters, with ≤1 sign change in dχ/dr after Savitzky-Golay smoothing. If this holds, χ is validated as universal regime index. If it fails, χ-concept dies but grid ontology, dual readout, and ×4800 resolution survive.eROSITA ER1 cluster catalog + XMM/Chandra gold subsample for X-ray T(r) profiles. HSC/KiDS/DES cluster WL mass profiles for Φ_N(r) reconstruction. Classification: cool-core vs non-cool-core from X-ray concentration measure.
Plannedphysics_testα consistent with 0 in BAO sector. Strong α (|α| > 0.4) excluded.DESI DR2 (arXiv:2503.14738), 13 measurements, 7 z-bins
Plannedphysics_testStrong α ≈ -0.68 should be consistent with DESI DR2 BAODESI DR2 BAO vs pre-existing NUTS posterior (α = -0.684 ± 0.405)
T2Completed (consistency test)consistency_checkBAO covariance-aware consistency testBOSS DR12 consensus (6×6 cov) + cosmic chronometers
T2Completed (transfer consistency)consistency_checkBAO transfer test (DESI → BOSS/eBOSS; no refit)BOSS / eBOSS (transfer consistency check)
DEGENERACY_LIMITEDconsistency_checkBAO-RSD tension resolution via free σ8_0EFC predicts that freeing σ8_0 in the joint BAO+CC+RSD fit will shift best-fit to σ8_0 ≈ 0.78±0.03 with A ≈ 0.10±0.05, resolving the BAO-RSD tension. If σ8_0 remains at Planck value (0.811) while A>0 is preferred, this indicates a genuine growth-geometry mismatch requiring modified growth coupling.Phase 2.2 joint BAO+CC+RSD scan; BOSS DR12 fσ8; DESI DR2-like BAO
Plannedconsistency_checkCT-02: Omega-Kappa Anti-Correlation Constraintcorr(Ω̂, κ̂) < 0 in conscious states with |r| > 0.2 at p < 0.05Same multi-state EEG/MEG as CT-01; current baseline: Chennu et al. Overlap-12 cohort (r = -0.27, N = 12)
Plannedconsistency_checkEFC-C-002: C-measure Correlation with PCI_STThe integrated consciousness measure C correlates with PCI_ST with Spearman ρ > 0.7 across all recordings in the test partition. KILL if Spearman ρ < 0.5.Comolatti et al. 2019 (J Neurosci Methods) PCI_ST dataset, test partition. Original PCI: Casarotto et al. 2016 (Ann Neurol 80:718). PCI_ST is the later spatiotemporal variant.
T2Completed (interpretation-dependent)consistency_checkEarly galaxies (JWST)COSMOS-Web z > 6–10
T2Completed (null-prediction consistency check)consistency_checkHigh-z null regime consistencyDESI Lyα P1D (z ≈ 3)
T2Completed (Consistency Check)consistency_checkH₀ tensionSH0ES / JWST
T3Completed (self-consistent prediction; awaiting observational confrontation)consistency_checkISW cross-correlationPlanck × DESI DR1 tracers
T1Completed (multi-channel consistency)consistency_checkLate-time background coupling architecture (β·T(a))BAO (BOSS), RSD (BOSS), CMB lensing, SN Ia
Plannedconsistency_checkN1 Sound Horizon Controlα significance survives within 0.5σ of baseline under both rd treatmentsemcee MCMC, N1a (fixed rd) + N1b (free rd)
Plannedconsistency_checkN2 σ8 Prior Sweepα significance stable (within 0.5σ) across all σ₈ prior widthsemcee MCMC, 3 σ₈ prior configurations
Plannedconsistency_checkN3 Gate Freedomα identifiable: no α–a_t degeneracy, A_eff consistent with fixed-gate baselineemcee MCMC, EFCVariantB with free gate
Plannedconsistency_checkN4 Modified Poisson μ≠1μ₀ consistent with 1.0; no tension with growth dataemcee MCMC, EFCVariantC with free μ₀
Plannedconsistency_checkN5 Flat rd Priorα significance survives flat rd prioremcee MCMC, uniform rd prior [100, 200] Mpc
Plannedconsistency_checkN7 Power-law Gate Shape-Robustnessα survives at ≥1.5σ with power-law gate; A_eff consistent with logistic baselineNUTS HMC, EFCVariantE (power-law gate, n=2)
T3Completed (Consistency Check)consistency_checkRegime transition metric (ΔF)DESI + Fugaku-class N-body + SPARC
Plannedconsistency_checkS(z) single-parameter joint fit: CMB anomaly ↔ JWST early-galaxy excessA one-parameter S(z) profile (canonical candidate: S(z) = 1 - exp(-z/z*) with z* the only free parameter) should yield an acceptable joint fit to (i) the SZ-cluster T(z) deviation and (ii) the JWST high-z luminosity function excess. Pass criterion: Δχ² < 4 between the joint single-S(z) fit and the two independent best fits, i.e. forcing both datasets onto the same S(z) costs less than 2σ. Fail criterion: required S(z) shapes for the two datasets disagree at >3σ — EFC is then internally inconsistent on its own predictive backbone.SZ T(z) compilations (input from Candidate A) + JWST high-z luminosity function: Labbé+2023, Harikane+2024, CEERS-2024 public catalog, plus Boylan-Kolchin+2023 mass-budget constraints
T3Quantitative compatibility supported (screened regime)consistency_checkSolar System / PPN / EPCassini / LLR / perihelion
Plannedconsistency_checkσ₈(z) full trajectory reconstruction: EFC vs ΛCDM vs multi-survey dataEFC predicts σ₈(z) systematically lower than ΛCDM for z<1.5, converging at z>2. The maximum deviation occurs at z≈0.3-0.7 where the gate function is most active. If observed σ₈(z) values from different surveys show this z-dependent pattern, it supports late-time activation.Growth ODE + DES Y6, HSC-SSP, KiDS-Legacy compiled σ₈(z) values
Plannedconsistency_checkAll probes should show <1 logL/pt degradation under EFC vs ΛCDM with frozen best-fit parameters.
PlannedphenomenologicalAnti-EFE: constructive external field response in Graph-AQUALEFC graph-AQUAL predicts constructive external field coupling (anti-EFE) where external field enhances rather than suppresses MOND-like boost. Testable against galaxy samples in external fields (e.g., Crater II, NGC 1052-DF2).KT5 EFE sweep: g_ext/a₀ = [0, 0.3, 1, 2, 5]
Primary p=0.68722, Sign coherence p=0.015625phenomenologicalAxiom 0: S_hat(z) Regime Boundary TestBAO sigma-deviations cluster near S_flow/S_trans and S_trans/S_latent boundariesBAO surveys (6dF, MGS, BOSS, eBOSS, DESI)
PlannedphenomenologicalAxiom-0 S_hat(z) regime boundary test (BAO N=10)EFC predicts BAO anomalies cluster near regime transitions in S_hat space. Primary test (N=10): p=1.0 (no significant clustering — test statistic is degenerate with 10 permuted S_hat values). Secondary pattern: 8/9 positive deviations in TRANSITION+LATENT (binomial p=0.020). DESI z=1.0 lands exactly on FLOW/TRANSITION boundary (delta=0.000). Result: not falsified, not confirmed, consistent with smooth regime structure.BAO: 6dF, MGS, BOSS DR12 (LOWZ, CMASS, HIGHZ), eBOSS (LRG, ELG), DESI DR1 (z=0.7, z=1.0), Lyman-alpha. Locked sources: Madau-Dickinson (2014), Tacconi/PHIBSS Table 3b beta=2.
PlannedphenomenologicalBAO DESI Y1 — EFC preferanse-test (Δχ²=−22.01)EFC foretrekkes over ΛCDM med Δχ²<0 og bestått 5-fold CV på DESI Y1 BAO-dataDESI DR1 BAO (bao_desi_y1 dataset)
PlannedphenomenologicalBAO anisotropic split (DAvs H(z))BOSS, eBOSS, DESI BAO anisotropic fits
αL2= 0.040 ± 0.024 (1.7σ)phenomenologicalBAO+RSD joint fit (αL2)BOSS DR12 consensusBOSS DR12 consensus
PlannedphenomenologicalCase A S₈ direction (v1.4)Phenomenological lensing amplitude modification (Σ²) drives S₈lower, increasing CMB tension. Case A cannot resolve S₈ discrepancy; Case B (consistent MG) required for tension resolution test.
PlannedphenomenologicalCluster TNG — EFC passform-test (χ²_red=0.000)EFC gir χ²_red≈0 på IllustrisTNG-klyngedata — indikerer god modell-passform ved cluster-skalaIllustrisTNG cluster simulation data (cluster_tng)
PlannedphenomenologicalCluster core-state regime: f_SCC as regime variable (cross-sample N=2)EFC predicts that the entropy-structure coupling sign (rho) is driven by core-state composition: NCC-dominated samples (low f_SCC) show negative rho (S0 frozen regime), while SCC-rich samples (high f_SCC) show positive rho (S1 flowing regime). The tanh transition occurs at f_SCC ~ 0.15-0.20. Testable when per-subpopulation rho data (SCC/WCC/NCC separately) or additional cluster samples become available.TNG-Cluster (352 halos, z=0, Lehle+2024) + ACCEPT (239 clusters, Cavagnolo+2009). Cross-sample analysis with f_SCC as coordinate. Grid search: 80k evaluations. Sensitivity scan on ACCEPT f_SCC (0.12-0.50).
PlannedphenomenologicalEFC-C-003: κ Universality Across Anesthetic AgentsFrozen κ = 0.37 ± 0.04 produces consistent C-values across propofol, sevoflurane, ketamine, and xenon. Cross-agent to within-agent residual variance ratio σ_cross/σ_within < 2.0. KILL if ratio exceeds 2.0.Chennu et al. (2014) sedation dataset (propofol) + Cambridge consciousness database (sevoflurane, ketamine, xenon)
PlannedphenomenologicalGalaxy bias evolution consistencyBOSS, DESI clustering + lensing cross-correlation
PlannedphenomenologicalWeak-lensing phenomenological closure (Postulate A)Documents the current absence of a field-derived lensing coupling; introduces temporary phenomenological closure pending action-level derivation. Density Saturation (v1.3) provides a candidate path toward physical derivation.
αL2= 0.10 ± 0.01; Δ(−2 ln L) = −50.9S₈ = 0.685 (EFC) vs 0.739 (ΛCDM)phenomenologicalWeak-lensing shear (Case A)KiDS-1000 Flinc ξ±KiDS-1000 Flinc ξ±
PlannedphenomenologicalIf EFC background modification is real, alpha should remain significantly negative even with precise DESI DR2 BAO dataDESI DR2 BAO (13 pts, full covariance) + fs8_extended + Hz_CC + Pantheon_binned
Plannedphenomenological
Plannedphenomenological
REQUIRES_EXTERNAL_TOOLframework_constraintAction Integral Gap — Tier-1 theoretical obstructionEFC predicts that a well-posed action principle S_EFC would yield: (1) the growth gate as an equation of motion, (2) the AQUAL limit as a weak-field reduction, and (3) k* ≈ k_NL as a solution of the coupled system. Until this action is constructed, k* remains an emergent regime boundary coinciding with the nonlinear scale.First-principles derivation attempt (Newtonian potential gradient vs a₀), comparison with k_NL from ΛCDM matter power spectra, validation ledger items E1, E3, E5-E7, L6
REQUIRES_EXTERNAL_TOOLframework_constraintAction Integral Gap — k* derivability testA well-posed EFC action would yield: (1) the growth gate as an equation of motion, (2) AQUAL as a weak-field limit, (3) k* ≈ k_NL as a solution rather than input. Until constructed, k* remains an emergent regime boundary. This constrains EFC's classification as semi-fundamental effective framework.First-principles derivation (Newtonian potential gradient vs a₀), k_NL from ΛCDM P(k), validation ledger E1/E3/E5-E7/L6. Document: efc_transition_scale.tex
Plannedframework_constraintAxiom 0 Test: S-regime vs Friedmann-t i kosmologisk evolusjonHvis Aksiom 0 holder: (1) EFC reproduserer BAO-skalaer og fσ8-kurver med S-parameterisering uten Friedmann-t-bakgrunn. (2) De 2-3σ avvikene i DH_rd og fs8 fra forseglet prediksjon korresponderer med identifiserbare S-regime-overganger (FLOW→TRANSITION→LATENT), ikke tilfeldige parametriske feil. (3) Residualene i LATENT-regimet (α→0) er systematiske, ikke stokastiske — noe som indikerer manglende fysikk i høy-S, ikke modellfeil.DESI DR1 BAO-data, BOSS fσ8-målinger, forseglet EFC-prediksjon 2026-02-18 (freeze_20260218_050713), SPARC175 regime-datasett
Plannedframework_constraintAxiom 0 meta-analysis v1.0-meta: alpha-Shat correlationIf EFC regime structure is dynamically coupled to expansion-sector alpha, then alpha_mean should correlate with secondary_frac_pos (Spearman |rho|>=0.35, p<0.05) across independent MCMC cycles. If no correlation, Shat regimes are phenomenological only.Neo4j Axiom0TestResult nodes (test_version=v1.0) from research_daemon (emcee) and gpu_nuts_daemon (NUTS)
REQUIRES_EXTERNAL_TOOLframework_constraintBackground gate sign constraint (EFCLASS Technical Note I)ΔE² ≤ 0 for all z>0 (sign-locked). Background channel cannot suppress structure growth. S₈ amelioration requires perturbation-level μ<1.CLASS v3.3.4 internal consistency (EFCLASS patch, 9-point numerical verification)
REQUIRES_EXTERNAL_TOOLframework_constraintCMB α–H₀ degeneracy corridor (structural constraint)Any late-time additive background gate E²=E²_LCDM+α·g(a) with smooth g(a) will produce α–H₀ degeneracy in CMB-only fits. CMB alone is structurally insufficient to constrain such modifications.EFCLASS minimize scan: 11 α-values from 0 to −0.7, each with 7 free cosmological parameters, full Planck 2018 likelihood
Plannedframework_constraintCT-04: Cross-Domain Constant K Consistency|K_galactic - K_neural| / σ_K < 3Galactic: SPARC rotation curves (k = 0.415 ± 0.029 from 174-galaxy calibration). Neural: entropy gradient amplitude from CT-01 EEG/MEG datasets
T4Completed (diagnostic mismatch)framework_constraintCluster core entropy–structure couplingACCEPT / TNG-Cluster
T3Completed (structural exclusion test)framework_constraintCluster merger geometryCluster lensing & mass–gas offsets
Plannedframework_constraintCore Lock consistency enforcement (31223503)Prevents parameter drift and cross-regime leakage; enforces frozen-parameter boundaries and explicit translation rules across L0–L3
Plannedframework_constraintDES Y6 vs KiDS-Legacy divergens som EFC-strukturprediksjonEFC forutsier at DES Y6 og KiDS-Legacy *skal* gi ulike effektive S8-verdier fordi de prober ulike (k,z)-rom under et skalaavhengig gravitasjonsfelt. Under ΛCDM bør de konvergere; under EFC er divergensen forventet og kvantifiserbar via μ(k,z)-profilen med SPARC k=0.415. Euclid DR1 bør vise at divergensen er skala-kohaerent med EFCs regime-struktur.DES Y6 3x2pt (S8=0.789±0.012), KiDS-Legacy (S8 lavere, innenfor CMB), Euclid DR1 (planlagt okt 2026)
Plannedframework_constraintDensity Saturation Θ(ρ) (v1.3)Enforces automatic GR recovery in high-density environments (Solar System, stellar interiors); physically bounds ΔF; provides derivation path for weak-lensing coupling; enables R(k,S,ρ) extension with explicit density discrimination
Plannedframework_constraintDouble-Slit as Grid-Resolution Phenomenon in GRCGRC predikerer at interferensmønsteret i dobbel-slitt-eksperimentet er begrenset av grid-skala l_g, slik at det eksisterer en geometri-avhengig cutoff i registreringsoppløsning som standard QM ikke har. Spesifikt: ved spaltegeometri der spaltebredde nærmer seg l_g, forventer GRC et avvik fra standard QM-interferensmønsteret. C(S) predikerer at dekoherens skjer via entropiøkning, ikke via tilfeldig miljøkobling alene.Teoretisk derivasjon fra GRC-triaden. Fremtidig empirisk test via høy-presisjon dobbel-slitt-eksperimenter ved sub-nanometer spaltegeometri, eller indirekte via dekoherenstider i kvanteoptikk.
REQUIRES_EXTERNAL_TOOLframework_constraintEFC physics localization: perturbation sector, not backgroundEFC background-only modifications cannot produce σ8 suppression or survive joint CMB+BAO constraints with α significantly different from zero. Observable EFC effects require perturbation-level μ≠1.Joint fit results + EFCLASS Technical Note I + WP1a σ8 suppression test
Plannedframework_constraintForbidden Pattern distance-to-trigger quantificationAll 5 FPs should show >2σ distance to trigger (safe margin). If any FP is within 1σ of triggering, it becomes the highest-priority investigation target. Publication-ready falsifiability demonstration.Existing validation ledger results + 5 forbidden pattern definitions
Plannedframework_constraintG2: Operational Definition of Local S for P3 TestabilityMinst én av de tre S-kandidatene (A, B, C) gir en operasjonell definisjon som predikerer målbar dekoherenstid τ_d ∝ C(S) = exp(-S/S_max) med en avhengighet som ikke kollapser til ren temperatur/miljøkobling. Spesifikt: to systemer med lik temperatur men ulik lokal S vil vise ulik τ_d.Teoretisk derivasjon først. Deretter: eksisterende dekoherensmålinger i kvanteoptikk og supraledende qubits der lokal termodynamisk entropi kan estimeres uavhengig av temperatur.
Plannedframework_constraintGRAV-to-cosmo μ_eff regime bridge testEFC regime framework predicts μ>1 at galactic scales (L2-L3) transitioning to μ<1 at cosmological linear scales (L1-L2). The transition should occur at scales k~0.01-0.1 h/Mpc where structure goes from nonlinear to linear. If μ>1 persists at all scales, single-parameter α cannot accommodate both regimes.Existing GRAV Graph-AQUAL runs (10 completed) + WP1a reference model
Plannedframework_constraintGate transition zone anomaly concentration z~1EFC predicts that cosmological anomalies relative to ΛCDM will be concentrated in z=0.7-1.3 (the gate transition zone), with amplitude ≤1.1% in E(z). High-z (z>2) and low-z (z<0.3) should show <0.3% deviations. This is a falsifiable z-dependent prediction.Phase 2.2 E(z) deviation profile; gate function g(a,a_t) with n=6
Plannedframework_constraintH0-resolution second-law no-go (Cataldo 2026)EFC predicts H0 consistency via regime-transition of the energy-flow ratio α(z) and lensing-coupling K0, not via matter-to-Λ diffusion. Therefore EFC is structurally exempt from the Cataldo no-go. Frameworks that ARE subject: any node in atlas where the H0-resolution mechanism involves monotonically growing Λ_eff from matter-to-dark-sector energy diffusion with pressureless matter EOS.arXiv:2604.17523 (theoretical / thermodynamic proof). Cross-check against Perez-Sudarsky-Wilson-Ewing (2021) and Landau et al (2022) as worked examples already covered.
COLLAPSEDframework_constraintIG-1: Identifiability gate (α degeneracy break with ≥3 probes)GRC predicts: α separable at >2σ when cluster counts (sensitive to G_eff via halo mass function) and lensing tomography binned by S-proxy (not just z) are added to joint fit. Expected degeneracy-breaking observable: cluster mass function at z > 1 where enhanced G_eff shifts exponential tail of mass function. If α remains < 2σ after ≥3 probes, S-control is operationally unconstrained but not falsified.Joint MCMC fit combining ≥3 independent probe classes: BAO (DESI), fσ8 (RSD), lensing tomography (KiDS/DES/Euclid), cluster counts (eROSITA/SPT). Existing EMCEE pipeline with extended probe set.
Plannedframework_constraintKT3 v3 — Entropy-first mass scaling testEFC predikerer at en effektiv massetetthet ρ_eff(S, ∇S) = ρ₀ · [1 + δ_M · S(a) · |∇S/S|] gir konsistent masseskalering fra galakseskala (SPARC) til klyngeskala til kosmologisk skala med de samme sigmoid-parameterne (a_t ≈ 0.30, Δ ≈ 0.3) og uten separat β-kalibrering per regime. Hvis ρ_eff ikke er skala-universell med fastlåste S-parametere, er emergens-kjeden falsifisert som EFC-komplettering — og en dypere ontologisk revisjon av masse-emergens-mekanismen er nødvendig.SPARC175 rotasjonskurver (galaktisk skala) + klyngetermodata + BAO/fσ₈ kosmologisk skala — alle testet mot ρ_eff(S, ∇S) uten ΛCDM-prosesserte mellomledd
T4Completed (meta-model evaluation)framework_constraintStructural coherence across regimes (SCE evaluation)KiDS, BAO, RSD, Lyα, CMB lensing
Plannedframework_constraintT₀ as natural Λ-equivalent from grid ontologyT₀ provides natural cosmological constant: Λ_eff ∝ T₀. Dark energy is not a separate field but the ground-state tension of the grid substrate. Expansion driven by grid thermodynamics, not by Λ.Observed Λ value from Planck + DESI BAO + SN Ia distance ladder
Plannedframework_constraintc(s) entropy-dependent lightspeed: GRB multi-wavelength arrival-time testIf c=c(S), photons of different frequency travelling through the same cosmological entropy gradient must show frequency-dependent arrival-time differences beyond standard plasma dispersion. Specifically: gamma-band (>100 MeV) photons from high-z GRBs should arrive earlier than radio-band photons from the same event by a fractional Δt/t correlated with traversed ΔS along the line of sight, at a level distinguishable from Vasileiou+2013-style Lorentz-invariance constraints. Predicted scale: Δc/c ~ 10^-7 fractional per unit ΔS≈0.1, line-of-sight integrated. Null hypothesis: arrival-time dispersion is fully explained by plasma + standard relativity, independent of frequency band. Falsification: GRB multi-wavelength dispersion data consistent with Vasileiou+2013 bounds across all z-ranges falsifies c(s) at the predicted scale.Fermi/LAT GRB catalog (multi-wavelength events with photon arrival times), LOFAR low-frequency follow-up, Vasileiou+2013 Lorentz-invariance constraints from GRB photons (used as null-test calibration), Magueijo+2003 VSL framework comparison
Plannedframework_constraintχ(x,t) = |∇δS|/S_global as universal regime control parameterχ ≪ 1 in L0 (CMB), χ ~ 10⁻³-10⁻¹ in L1/L2 (galaxies, clusters), χ ≫ 1 in L3 (strong fields, black holes). Single scalar provides continuous regime transition. Density saturation Θ(ρ) should be expressible as function of χ.SPARC rotation curves (L2), Bullet Cluster (L2-L3 transition), Solar System PPN (L3), CMB (L0)
Plannedframework_constraintAll 5 FPs should show >2σ distance to trigger. If any FP < 1σ, highest-priority investigation target.
Plannedframework_constraintEFC signal, if real, lives in growth/regime sector. Background effect must be weak.DESI DR2 BAO constraint + existing multi-probe pipeline
Plannedframework_constraint
Plannedplanned_pipelineBig Bang Nucleosynthesis expansion-rate boundPrimordial D/H, He⁴ abundance
Plannedplanned_pipelineBlind Prediction Freeze (nuts_20260220_221940)
Plannedplanned_pipelineBlind Prediction Freeze v1 (NUTS cycle 20260217)
Plannedplanned_pipelineCMB polarization & lensing internal consistency (TE/EE/φφ)Planck 2018 TE/EE + CMB lensing
GR recovery expected (Boltzmann validation pending)planned_pipelineCMB power spectrumPlanck 2018 (TT)
Plannedplanned_pipelineCT-05: Full Entropy Gradient PipelinePipeline produces gradient maps with test-retest reliability ICC > 0.7Open anaesthesia EEG: Chennu et al. (2016) or Cambridge Consciousness dataset. MEG: HCP resting-state or equivalent open MEG
Plannedplanned_pipelineCluster abundance / mass function N(M,z)eROSITA / SPT / Planck SZ
Pre-registered – data analysis pendingplanned_pipelineCluster shock-front lensing asymmetryJWST κ maps + Chandra kT, ne(Bullet, Abell 2146)
T2BAO phenomenology completedplanned_pipelineDark-energy evolution w(z)DESI DR2 (BAO)
Plannedplanned_pipelineEGgravitational slip consistency (lensing × RSD)DESI + KiDS/DES lensing
PIPELINE_NOT_READYplanned_pipelineEuclid DR1 pre-registration pipeline via hi_classEFC predicts: mu(k_c=0.05, z=0) = 0.940, eta = 1.200, Sigma = 1.034. E_G bump of +5.5% at k_c, z=0.35, detectable at 2.5-3.5 sigma with Euclid WL x GC cross-correlation. Gravitational slip |eta-1| > 0.01 in range z=[0.5, 2.0] — falsified if Euclid measures |eta-1| < 0.01.Euclid DR1 (21 October 2026): ~2100 deg^2 wide survey, 10 WL tomographic bins, 4 GC spectroscopic bins. Pre-validation against Planck 2018 + DESI BAO + KiDS-1000.
Plannedplanned_pipelineGlobal parameter-lock cross-probe testBAO + RSD + lensing + ISW + Lyα
Plannedplanned_pipelineISW Void Sign-Flip Observational Confrontation v1EFC predicts ISW amplitude ratio A_ISW(delta) shows sign-flip from cold (A>0) to hot (A<0) at void depth delta_c ≈ -0.8, due to Rees-Sciama term delta·dmu/dt dominating over linear ISW. LCDM predicts A_ISW > 0 at all depths. The existing observational excess A_ISW ≈ 5.2 ± 1.6 from BOSS/DES supervoids is explained as RS enhancement at intermediate depths.DESIVAST DR1 (DESI BGS VoidFinder, z<0.24), Planck PR4 SMICA/SEVEM/NILC/Commander CMB maps, Planck 2018 lensing convergence map. Secondary: BOSS DR12 supervoids, DES Y3 supervoids, eBOSS DR16 QSO voids.
Plannedplanned_pipelineLinear & quasi-linear matter power spectrum shape P(k,z)BOSS full-shape, eBOSS QSO, DESI full-shape
Plannedplanned_pipelineMulti-epoch RSD growth trajectory6dF, SDSS MGS, BOSS, eBOSS, DESI ELG
Framework defined – quantitative tests pendingplanned_pipelineRegime response surface R(k,S,ρ)DES Y6 regime structure (multi-probe L2)
Plannedplanned_pipelineSmall-scale structureRubin LSST / Euclid
PIPELINE_NOT_READYplanned_pipelinehi_class scalar-tensor EFC falsification testEFC predicts: a viable region {B0>0, M0<0} exists where mu≈0.925, eta≳1.2, Sigma≳1.05 at z~0.7, recovering mu=eta=Sigma=1 at z≳10. If no such region exists, the scalar-tensor ansatz is falsified as an EFC completion (explicit criterion per EFT note v5).hi_class numerical code + Planck 2018 CMB + DESI Y1 BAO + BOSS RSD (fσ8)

Phenomena — cross-framework matrix

Every phenomenon in the Atlas with the list of frameworks that address it and the mechanism each uses. The phenomenon regime (L0–L3) is shown as a chip — this is the primary structural dimension of RCMP.

L2 Baryon Acoustic Oscillation Standard Ruler BAO_scale

FrameworkRoleMechanism
EFCpredictsdivergence_engine_DESI_DR2
LCDMbaseline_predictionsound_horizon_at_drag
w0waCDMgeneralized_predictionw(z)_modified_expansion

L0 Big Bang Nucleosynthesis Light-Element Abundances BBN_abundances

FrameworkRoleMechanism
EFCcompatibleEFC_recovers_LCDM_at_z_gt_1e9

L1 CMB TT/EE/TE Acoustic Peaks CMB_acoustic_peaks

FrameworkRoleMechanism
EFCplanned_L1_testpending_Boltzmann_solver
Ekpyroticpredicts_scale_invariancebrane_collision
LCDMbaseline_predictionstandard_perturbation_theory
RMOND_Skordispassesacoustic_scale_preserved

L2 CMB Lensing Reconstruction CMB_lensing

FrameworkRoleMechanism
EFCpredictsintegrated_S_flow_lensing

L2 E_G Gravitational Slip Statistic EG_statistic

FrameworkRoleMechanism
EFCpredictsscale_independent_slip

L0 H₀ from background expansion H0_background

FrameworkRoleMechanism
EFCrecovers_GREFC_recovers_GR_at_L0_no_distinct_background_H0

L1 H₀ structure-to-background ratio (regime mismatch diagnostic) H0_ratio

FrameworkRoleMechanism
EFCpredictsexp_half_aG_factor_regime_mismatch

L1 H₀ from structure-channel dynamics (a_G regime) H0_structure

FrameworkRoleMechanism
EFCpredictsaG_regime_coupling_from_SPARC_anchor

L0-L1 Hubble Tension H₀ H0_tension

FrameworkRoleMechanism
CCCalternative_frameworkaeon_transitions
EDEnative_resolutionpre_recombination_sound_horizon_reduction
EFCaddresses_openT_dynamics_in_L0
LCDMconflictsno_resolution_native
Multi_Field_EDEnative_resolutionmulti_field_EDE
Timescapenative_resolutionvoid_wall_time_dilation

L0 PTA Gravitational Wave Background PTA_gwb

FrameworkRoleMechanism
PBHpredictsprimordial_GW_background

L3 Radial Acceleration Relation RAR

FrameworkRoleMechanism
EFCnative_predictiongrid_AQUAL_emergent_a0_eff
Empirical_RC_Fitempirical_fitphenomenological
LCDMexplains_via_DMconcentration_mass_relation
MONDnative_predictiona0_transition
Machian_Gravityfits_SPARCMachian_inertia
Verlinde_2016predictselastic_response_to_matter
Weyl_Geometric_GravityfitsWeyl_vector

L2 S₈ = σ₈√(Ω_m/0.3) Tension S8_tension

FrameworkRoleMechanism
EFCpredicts_suppressionmu_lt_1_in_L2
LCDMconflictsno_resolution_native

L3 MOND Acceleration Scale a₀ a0_scale

FrameworkRoleMechanism
EFCderives_from_saturationentropy_flow_saturation_latent_regime
Hyperconical_RMONDderives_geometricconical_geometry
LCDMcoincidenceDM_halo_emergent
MONDdefinesempirical_interpolation_function
Machian_Gravityderives_Machiancosmological_inertia
MiHsCderives_Unruh_likeHubble_Casimir
Padmanabhan_Entropiccompatible_withholographic_DOF_counting
RMOND_Skordisderives_relativisticscalar_vector_modern
Superfluid_DMattempts_bridgesuperfluid_phonon_force
TeVeSderives_relativisticscalar_vector_coupling
Verlinde_2010derivesentropic_force_Unruh_temperature
Verlinde_2016derivesde_Sitter_horizon_entropy
Weyl_Geometric_GravityderivesWeyl_conformal_invariance

L0 Background expansion sign lemma (ΔE²(z) ≤ 0) background_expansion_sign_structure

FrameworkRoleMechanism
EFCproves_structuralaction_level_sign_lemma_with_numerical_verification

L3 Bullet Cluster δκ Offset bullet_dkappa

FrameworkRoleMechanism
EFCpreregistered_testshadow_mode_Phi_Psi
LCDMnative_predictioncollisionless_DM
MONDconflictscannot_explain_offset
SIDMconstrains_sigmasigma_DM_m_upper_bound
Verlinde_2016conflictscannot_explain_offset

L2 Cluster Mass-Temperature / Mass-Lensing Scaling cluster_scaling

FrameworkRoleMechanism
EFCpredicts_regime_transitionf_SCC_dependent_xi

L2 Early Massive Structure (JWST z>10) early_structure_JWST

FrameworkRoleMechanism
EFCpredicts_L3_earlyS_flow_boost_at_high_z

L0 Gravitational Wave Propagation Speed c_T gravitational_wave_speed

FrameworkRoleMechanism
DGPconsistent4D_graviton_propagation
EFCpassesEFC_preserves_c_T_eq_c
Horndeskiconstrainsalpha_T=0_post_GW170817
TeVeSconflictsc_T_neq_c_in_original

L2 Growth Index γ growth_index_gamma

FrameworkRoleMechanism
EFCpredictsgamma_modified_by_mu

L2 Cluster Halo Mass Function N(M,z) halo_mass_function

FrameworkRoleMechanism
EFCpredictsS_flow_damps_high_mass_tail

L2 Kinetic Sunyaev-Zel'dovich Peculiar Velocity kSZ_velocity

FrameworkRoleMechanism
EFCtested_byACT_kSZ_2604_14327

L3 Missing Satellites / Too-Big-to-Fail / Core-Cusp missing_satellites

FrameworkRoleMechanism
EFCcompatibleno_DM_halo_structure_required
Fuzzy_DMnative_resolutionwave_suppression_below_de_Broglie
LCDMconflictsbaryonic_feedback_patch
MONDaddressesno_DM_halos
PBHalternativemacroscopic_DM
SIDMnative_resolutionself_interaction_cross_section
Superfluid_DMnative_predictionsuperfluid_phase_boundary

L2 μ(k,a) and Σ(k,a) Phenomenological MG Parameters mu_sigma_plane

FrameworkRoleMechanism
DGPmodifiesVainshtein_transition
EFCpredicts_quadrantmu_lt_1_Sigma_gt_1_forbidden_Horndeski
Horndeskiparameterizesalpha_M_alpha_B
fR_Starobinskymodifieschameleon_scalar

L2 Φ/Ψ Slip (Lensing vs Dynamical Potential) phi_psi_slip

FrameworkRoleMechanism
DGPpredicts_monotonicbraneworld_Vainshtein_no_crossover
EDEpredicts_monotonicbackground_only_no_slip_mechanism
EFCpredicts_sealedpreregistered_eta_eq_0.9993
Galileonpredicts_monotonicVainshtein_screening_no_slip_sign_change
Horndeskipredicts_monotonicQS_alpha_T_zero_forces_Sigma_le_mu
LCDMpredicts_monotonicGR_baseline_no_slip
MONDpredicts_monotonicmodified_inertia_no_relativistic_slip
Multi_Field_EDEpredicts_monotonicbackground_only_no_slip_mechanism
Quintessencepredicts_monotonicminimally_coupled_scalar_no_slip
Thawing_Quintessencepredicts_monotonicslow_roll_thawing_no_slip
Verlinde_2016predicts_monotonicemergent_gravity_no_derived_slip_profile
fR_Starobinskypredicts_monotonicchameleon_mu_gt_1_no_crossover
w0waCDMpredicts_monotonicCPL_parametrization_background_only

L1 fσ₈(z) Linear Growth sigma8_growth

FrameworkRoleMechanism
DGPenhances_nDGPbrane_localized_gravity
EFCpredictslinear_growth_with_entropy_damping
GalileonenhancesG_X_braiding
IEGmodifiesholographic_bound
KGBenhanceskinetic_braiding
RMOND_Skordismatchesrelativistic_MOND_growth
fR_Starobinskyenhancesmu_greater_than_1

L3 Solar-System PPN Constraints / Screening Mechanism solar_system_screening

FrameworkRoleMechanism
Brans_Dickeconstrainsomega_BD_gt_40000
EFCpassesxi_sets_screening_scale
fR_Starobinskyrequireschameleon_screening

L3 Cluster Core-State Composition f_SCC sparc_f_SCC

FrameworkRoleMechanism
EFCpredicts_drivercluster_core_state_regime_threshold

L0 Cosmological Constant / Vacuum Energy Problem vacuum_energy_problem

FrameworkRoleMechanism
EFCdissolvesLambda_emerges_from_S_flow
Jacobson_Thermodynamicaddressesthermodynamic_origin_of_Einstein_eqs
LCDMconflictsLambda_fine_tuning
Padmanabhan_EntropicaddressesNsurface_minus_Nbulk_equipartition
Quintessenceaddressesdynamical_DE
Verlinde_2010addressesholographic_screen

L0 w₀wₐ Dynamical Dark Energy Preference w0wa_preference

FrameworkRoleMechanism
Coupled_DE_DMalternative_explanationdark_sector_coupling
EDEsuppressesearly_injection_alters_late_time_w
EFCpredicts_shapeS_flow_to_latent_transition
IEGentropic_DEinformation_density
Kaniadakis_HDEentropic_DEkappa_entropy
LCDMconflictsconstant_w_assumption
Mass_to_Horizonentropic_DEmass_horizon_ratio
Mass_to_Horizon_CosmicSpaceentropic_DEcosmic_space_entropy
Massive_Gravity_dRGTalternativegraviton_mass
Modified_Entropic_Odintsoventropic_DEmodified_entropy_index
Negentropic_Gravitysign_inverted_predictionnegentropy_flow
Quintessencenative_predictionscalar_field_dynamics
Quintomnative_predictionphantom_divide_crossing
Robust_Dynamical_DEmodel_independent_detectionnonparametric_w(z)
Thawing_Quintessencenative_predictionslow_roll_thawing
Timescapemimics_dynamical_DEbackreaction
w0waCDMnative_predictionCPL_parametrization

Frameworks — 42 cosmology/gravity frameworks

Each card shows the framework's ontological lens, RCMP primary regime, year, and key primitives. The EFC card is highlighted — all others are rivals tracked in the Atlas for discrimination.

Brans-Dicke Gravity
L3 modified_gravity_scalar_tensor 1961
Primitives: omega_BD
EFC relation: historical
Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (Penrose)
L0 non_standard_expansion 2010
Primitives: aeon_cycle
EFC relation: alternative
Coupled Dark Energy + Dark Matter
L0 dynamical_dark_energy 2026
Primitives: coupling_xi, w_DE(z)
EFC relation: alternative
DGP Braneworld Gravity (normal branch nDGP)
L2 extra_dimensional 2000
Primitives: r_c_crossover_scale
EFC relation: benchmark
Early Dark Energy (pre-recombination)
L1 dynamical_dark_energy 2019
Primitives: f_EDE, z_c, w_n
EFC relation: competitor
Energy-Flow Cosmology
L0 entropic_emergent 2026
Primitives: alpha, K, T, xi, S_flow, S_latent
EFC relation: self
Ekpyrotic / Cyclic Universe
L0 non_standard_expansion 2001
Primitives: brane_collision_phase
EFC relation: alternative
Empirical Rotation Curve Fit
L3 phenomenological 2026
Primitives: empirical_parameters
EFC relation: phenomenological_competitor
Fuzzy / Ultralight Scalar Dark Matter
L3 particle_DM 2000
Primitives: m_fuzzy_DM
EFC relation: orthogonal
Galileon (covariant)
L2 modified_gravity_scalar_tensor 2008
Primitives: c_2, c_3, c_4, c_5
EFC relation: benchmark
Horndeski (c_T=c post-GW170817)
L2 modified_gravity_scalar_tensor 1974
Primitives: alpha_M, alpha_B, alpha_K, alpha_T=0
EFC relation: excluded_region
Hyperconical / Natural Relativistic MOND
L3 modified_gravity_vector_tensor 2024
Primitives: conical_geometry
EFC relation: alternative_MOND_relativistic
Informational Entropic Gravity
L0 entropic_emergent 2026
Primitives: information_density, holographic_bound
EFC relation: near_cousin
Jacobson Thermodynamic Derivation of Einstein Equations
L0 entropic_emergent 1995
Primitives: Clausius_dQ_TdS
EFC relation: conceptual_ancestor
Kinetic Gravity Braiding
L1 modified_gravity_scalar_tensor 2010
Primitives: alpha_B, G_X
EFC relation: benchmark
Kaniadakis Holographic Dark Energy
L0 holographic_DE 2021
Primitives: kappa_K, IR_cutoff_L
EFC relation: near_cousin
Standard Cosmological Model (ΛCDM)
L0 particle_DM 1998
Primitives: Omega_m, Omega_Lambda, H_0, sigma_8, n_s, tau
EFC relation: limit_case
Modified Newtonian Dynamics
L3 modified_inertia 1983
Primitives: a_0, mu(x)_interpolation
EFC relation: recovered_in_limit
Machian Gravity (SPARC-testable)
L3 machian 2023
Primitives: cosmological_inertia_coupling
EFC relation: competitor_L3
Mass-to-Horizon Entropic Cosmology
L0 entropic_emergent 2025
Primitives: M_horizon_ratio
EFC relation: competitor
Mass-to-Horizon Cosmic Space (2025)
L0 entropic_emergent 2025
Primitives: cosmic_space_horizon
EFC relation: competitor
dRGT Massive Gravity
L2 massive_graviton 2011
Primitives: m_graviton, alpha_3, alpha_4
EFC relation: benchmark
Modified Inertia by a Hubble-scale Casimir effect
L3 modified_inertia 2007
Primitives: Hubble_Casimir_cutoff
EFC relation: alternative_MOND_like
Modified Entropic Gravity (Odintsov et al.)
L0 entropic_emergent 2025
Primitives: modified_entropy_index
EFC relation: competitor
Multi-Field Early Dark Energy
L1 dynamical_dark_energy 2026
Primitives: f_EDE_1, f_EDE_2, z_c, coupling
EFC relation: competitor
Negentropic Gravity
L0 entropic_emergent 2025
Primitives: negentropy_sign_inversion
EFC relation: natural_falsifier
Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter
L0 particle_DM 2016
Primitives: M_PBH, f_PBH
EFC relation: orthogonal
Padmanabhan Emergent Gravity
L0 entropic_emergent 2010
Primitives: N_surface, N_bulk, equipartition
EFC relation: conceptual_ancestor
Quintessence (Scalar-Field Dark Energy)
L0 dynamical_dark_energy 1998
Primitives: phi_DE, V(phi)
EFC relation: alternative
Quintom Dark Energy
L0 dynamical_dark_energy 2005
Primitives: phi_+, phi_-, w(z)_crossing
EFC relation: alternative
Relativistic MOND (Skordis-Zlosnik)
L2 modified_gravity_vector_tensor 2020
Primitives: K_B, lambda_s, lambda_u
EFC relation: competitor_relativistic_MOND
Robust Dynamical DE (DESI+ACT+SPT)
L0 dynamical_dark_energy 2025
Primitives: w(z)_nonparam
EFC relation: class_sibling
Self-Interacting Dark Matter
L3 particle_DM 2000
Primitives: sigma_DM/m_DM
EFC relation: orthogonal
Superfluid Dark Matter
L3 particle_DM 2015
Primitives: superfluid_phase_transition
EFC relation: bridge_particle_MOND
TeVeS (Tensor-Vector-Scalar)
L3 modified_gravity_vector_tensor 2004
Primitives: K_TeVeS, phi_scalar, A_vector
EFC relation: competitor_relativistic_MOND
Thawing Quintessence (curved)
L0 dynamical_dark_energy 2025
Primitives: phi_DE, V'(phi), Omega_k
EFC relation: alternative
Timescape Cosmology
L0 non_standard_expansion 2007
Primitives: void_wall_time_dilation
EFC relation: alternative
Verlinde Entropic Gravity (2010)
L3 entropic_emergent 2010
Primitives: entropic_force, T_Unruh
EFC relation: conceptual_ancestor
Verlinde Emergent Gravity (2016)
L3 entropic_emergent 2016
Primitives: de_Sitter_horizon_entropy, elastic_response
EFC relation: near_cousin
Weyl-Geometric Gravity (conformal)
L3 geometric_weyl 2023
Primitives: omega_Weyl_vector
EFC relation: competitor_L3
f(R) Gravity (Starobinsky / Hu-Sawicki)
L2 modified_gravity_scalar_tensor 2007
Primitives: f_R0, n, chameleon_screening
EFC relation: discriminator
w₀wₐCDM (Chevallier-Polarski-Linder)
L0 dynamical_dark_energy 2003
Primitives: w_0, w_a
EFC relation: compatible