# Dated decisions: what each disconfirming result changes, in the author's words

**Type:** record (lab type), kept under amendment A2 · **Started:** 21 September 2026 · **Status:** the eight past events are listed by the editor and await the author's decision; rows are added by the editor as results arrive and filled only by the author · **Standard:** one dated sentence per row, naming what changes under which transfer rule, or why nothing changes · **Cost:** none

| # | date of result | result | claim it touches | recorded response at the time | author's dated decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | July 2026 | Blind reader round: three of four readers read the dynamic term as an engine (objection 11, condition 3) | M4, M5 | term renamed; "alters the conditions" withdrawn | _pending_ |
| 2 | July 2026 | Objection 11's first flip condition fired inside objection 13's reply | M4 | v1.5 reply withdrawn | _pending_ |
| 3 | July 2026 | Objection 13: the realizer slot admitted unfilled, the attack unanswered | S3 | status set to open at full strength | _pending_ |
| 4 | 15 July 2026 | Fold-side leak located (objection 6) | M1 | fourth flip condition added | _pending_ |
| 5 | August 2026 | Objection 16 filed: three candidate bearers of persistence | M1 | accepted; negative discipline imposed | _pending_ |
| 6 | September 2026 | Illusionism attribution shown to have no textual basis | S1 | attribution withdrawn; Study 5 re-scoped | _pending_ |
| 7 | September 2026 | Meta-problem null on the confirmatory primary; the anchor thesis loses its evidential core; no discriminator | S1 (weak reading) | line stopped; human study recommended; non-transfer rule applied | _pending_ |
| 8 | August 2026 | Objection 15: the count unproven, formally open | M1 | graded medium, held as characteristic | _pending_ |
| 9 | 20 September 2026 | Five outputs on three lineages find P1's falsifier as worded met by causal set theory | P1 | correction proposed (this week) | _pending_ |
| 11 | 21 September 2026 | Three blind readers (Opus, Astra, Jev) disagree on 40 to 64 percent of cells when applying the four criteria to eight described systems; by the pre-registered rule the criteria are not yet an instrument | M1 (its filter), objection 8 | recorded in floor cycle 4; correction to objection 8's status proposed | _pending_ |
| 10 | 20 September 2026 | Two audits find Part I's strong reading depends on P2 and the pending argument unsupplied | S1 (strong reading) | reconstruction proposed (cycle 4) | _pending_ |

## How a row is filled

The author writes one dated sentence in the last column, in his own words. Examples of sentences that satisfy the rule: "21 Sep 2026: nothing changes; the result concerns a term, and M4's confidence never priced that term." "21 Sep 2026: P1's falsifier is rewritten as proposed; confidence stays at 0.3 because the falsifier that fired was mis-aimed, not met in the sense intended; transfer rule: falsifier wording is the author's." A sentence that names no change and no reason does not satisfy it.

## What would count against this

- Rows filled by anyone but the author: the rule failed.
- Rows that stay pending for a quarter: the rule is a table, not a practice, and the record should say so.
- The list of past events being the editor's selection: it is the pre-mortem audit's list plus this week's two; the author may add or strike rows, dated.