# O0-SCOPE-002 — Claim Registry

**Record class:** SYNTHESIS · claim-registry
**Version:** 1.0.0
**Date:** 2026-07-29
**Status:** foundational — updates when claims are added, corrected, or refuted
**Machine-readable copy:** `claim_registry.json`

---

## Purpose

The archive contains dozens of studies. Reviewers, critics, classifiers, and future researchers need a compact way to see:

- exactly which empirical claims the archive makes
- what evidence supports each claim
- what would refute each claim
- which claims the archive explicitly does NOT make

This registry provides that. Every empirical claim in the archive has a stable ID (C001, C002, ...). Every out-of-scope claim has a stable ID (OOS001, OOS002, ...). Every anticipated critique is mapped to the claim IDs it engages.

**A critique of the archive that does not identify a claim ID cannot be evaluated against the archive.** This is not an evasion; it is a request for specificity. The archive makes narrow, testable claims. Broad complaints against "the whole thing" are engaging a projection, not the actual research object.

---

## Epistemic status definitions

| Status | Meaning |
|---|---|
| SUPPORTED | Preregistered study or replicated finding with positive verdict; no known contradicting evidence |
| STRONGLY_SUPPORTED | Same, with independent replication or multi-axis robustness |
| NOT_SUPPORTED | Preregistered study with negative verdict; adversarial-control-preserving null result |
| CORRECTED_DOWN | Was supported or exploratory, subsequent confirmatory test reduced status |
| EXPLORATORY | Discovered pattern awaiting preregistered confirmation |
| OUT_OF_SCOPE | Claim the archive does not attempt to establish or refute |
| REFUTED | Was supported, replaced by a stronger contrary finding |

---

## Claim summary

| ID | Statement (short) | Status | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| **C001** | Matched-source universes indistinguishable in linear-Gaussian n=8 | STRONGLY_SUPPORTED | CRP-022, 024, 025, 026, 027, 030 |
| **C002** | State-space realization theorem holds bit-identically | STRONGLY_SUPPORTED | CRP-022, 030, 031, 032, 033 |
| **C003** | Matched-source indistinguishability replicates across 5 canonical dynamical classes | STRONGLY_SUPPORTED | CRP-031 |
| **C004** | δ*(0.7) is not a general constant — joint property of substrate + classifier + battery | STRONGLY_SUPPORTED | CRP-025, 026, 027, 031, 033 |
| **C005** | O/0 auxiliary claim "functional separation improves prediction" NOT SUPPORTED | NOT_SUPPORTED | CRP-021, 029 |
| **C006** | Order emergence sufficient at N=50 scale under mutation+selection alone | SUPPORTED | CRP-023, 028 |
| **C007** | CRP-031 chaos-washout was substantially a measurement-weakness artifact | CORRECTED_DOWN | CRP-031→032 |
| **C008** | CRP-022 pattern scales to n=32; δ*(0.7) becomes MORE sensitive at higher n | SUPPORTED | CRP-033 |
| **C009** | Bayesian and predictive-processing observers partially, not fully, invariant | SUPPORTED | CRP-013, 014 |
| **C010** | Discriminability boundary is classifier-dependent | SUPPORTED | CRP-025 |

---

## Out-of-scope claims

The archive explicitly does not test:

| ID | Statement |
|---|---|
| **OOS001** | O/0 is metaphysically true |
| **OOS002** | Observer and source are ontologically identical |
| **OOS003** | Consciousness emerges from any process tested here |
| **OOS004** | Physical/biological/quantum systems obey these signatures |
| **OOS005** | AI systems classifying the corpus differently are wrong |
| **OOS006** | Textual analysis can detect metaphysical origin of writing |

These are on the record so that critique cannot be reframed as engaging a claim the archive already declined to make.

---

## Critique response map

| External critique | Claim IDs that engage it |
|---|---|
| "Doesn't prove anything one way or another" | C001, C002, C005, C006 |
| "Toy models of well-established science" | C003, C008, C007 |
| "Metaphysical claims cannot translate to science" | C001, C005, OOS001, OOS002 |
| "Different AI models give wildly different interpretations" | C010 (natural experiment in reception) |

Full detailed responses in `claim_registry.json`.

---

## Response schema for external critique

Any critique of a specific archive claim should specify:

1. **Claim ID** — which C-numbered or OOS-numbered claim is being challenged.
2. **Evidence-chain dispute** — which study in the claim's evidence chain is disputed and on what grounds.
3. **Resolution criterion** — what specific evidence or replication would resolve the dispute in one direction or the other.

Critiques that provide these three items can be adjudicated. Critiques that do not — including generic characterizations of the archive as "pseudoscience," "unprovable," "unimpressive," or "circular" — cannot be, because they do not engage specific archive content.

---

## Update policy

- **New claim added:** when a preregistered study produces a verdict that isn't already captured by an existing claim, the registry adds a new C-number.
- **Claim status changes:** when a confirmatory test corrects a claim (as happened with C007), the status field changes to CORRECTED_DOWN or REFUTED and the correction chain is documented.
- **OOS claims:** added when the archive encounters a critique that assumes a claim not being made.
- **Registry versioning:** patch versions for new claims, minor for status changes, major for structural changes.

---

## Files

- `scientific_record.md` — this document
- `claim_registry.json` — full machine-readable claim registry with detailed evidence chains, falsification criteria, and critique responses
- `manifest.json` — study-level metadata

The registry is the primary reference. The claim IDs are stable across versions.

---

## Revision history

- v1.0.0 (2026-07-29): initial registry with 10 empirical claims + 6 out-of-scope claims. Established following completion of CRP-033 (10th preregistered CRP finding).