Mandatory scope disclaimer. This document does not aim to replace the consensus view. Its purpose is to formalize a specific mechanism in a falsifiable way. Accordingly, the paper explicitly separates (1) Claims, (2) Observable signatures, (3) Tests, and (4) Falsifiers. If a pre-registered criterion is not met, the corresponding conclusion is treated as HOLD (insufficient evidence) or STOP (physics No-Go).

Neutrality statement. This white paper does not draw religious or philosophical conclusions. Interpretation of “events / chronology / literature” must be independently validated elsewhere; this paper focuses only on the geodynamic feasibility and testable signatures of the proposed mechanism.

Translation note (EN). This English edition is a full translation of the r16 Korean final (TGU-ATL-A-v1.34). It preserves all module IDs, file paths, pre-registered thresholds, and PASS/HOLD/FAIL semantics. The authoritative decision logic is in the bundled YAML pre-registration files (e.g., pre_registration/*.yaml); if any discrepancy exists between TeX prose and YAML, YAML overrides TeX (reproducibility rule).

1 One-page Overview

1.1 Core claims

• C1 (CLAIM): The Atlantic is not only a slow ridge-driven “gap”; it may contain an episodic component where an antipodal tensile rupture and a transient void/pressure deficit actively “open” the basin.

• C2 (CLAIM): The dominant acceleration term in plate motion may be pulling from the front (void suction) rather than “pushing from behind.”

• C3 (CLAIM): Crustal hydroplaning can sharply reduce the effective friction coefficient \(\mu_{\mathrm{eff}}\), allowing suction-driven acceleration to transition into runaway sliding.

1.2 PASS-lock rule for predictions

This white paper pre-registers predictions as modules P1–P35 and locks their outcomes as PASS/HOLD/FAIL (see the Pre-registration section in the Korean source and the authoritative matrix file). In this one-page overview we do not list all modules; we only summarize the layers that directly connect to the core causal chain.

• ARE-side independent signatures (cause axis). P1 (boundary / plate-structure geometry), P4 (low-effective-stress and lubrication signatures), P31 (quantitative linkage between stress/deformation proxies), and (optional) P13 (friction threshold: whether continuous drift alone is plausible).

• Downstream response signatures (response axis). P16 (freshwater and circulation proxies covarying within the same window), P19 (sea-level budget vs basin-volume buffering), P20 (misfit rivers + mega-delta clustering), P24 (endorheic low-stand onset “over-concentration” near the 4.2 ka window).

• Event-window coherence and procedure. P29 (joint event-window coherence statistics), P30 (negative controls/confounder registry; a procedural gate).

• Falsifiers (examples). If the Atlantic margins are dominantly subduction-controlled (P1 FAIL), or lubrication/fluid signatures are absent (P4 FAIL), the core narrative is weakened or rejected. The global mean plate-deceleration “tail” scenario (P21) is FAIL in r16 and is excluded from the core.

• Not yet locked (central controversy). Modules that directly constrain the “rapid/event-like” nature of ARE (e.g., P8/P14) are HOLD (not executed). Therefore, strong statements such as “unique cause” or “decisively proven” are not allowed under the project rules.

1.3 Gating semantics: UNLOCK / HOLD / STOP

• UNLOCK (= PASS): Only claims supported by modules that pass their pre-registered thresholds are treated as evidence-eligible.

• HOLD: If data are missing or uncertainty is too large, the conclusion is withheld (not evidence).

• STOP: If physically unrealistic parameters are required (e.g., extreme \(\Delta P\), unrealistically thin lubrication film \(h\)), the claim is rejected as a physics No-Go.

1.4 Bundle verdict summary (2025-12-27; r16)

In this document, “evidence” refers only to modules that are PASS in verdict_matrix.yaml. HOLD is no-evidence, and FAIL is rejected (must not be used in the core narrative). A “non-significant” result (e.g., 95% CI includes 0) is treated as HOLD, not FAIL.

Within r16, the narrative “ARE \(\rightarrow\) Ice Melt” is presented as a directional coherence: (i) independent PASS on the ARE side (P1, P4), plus (ii) PASS downstream responses (P16, P19, P20, P24), plus (iii) event-window coherence PASS (P29). This does not mechanically prove causation by itself; the detailed linkage mechanism must be PASS-locked by additional modules in future stages.

1.5 Reader contract: how to read this paper

This is not a persuasive narrative; read it in the following order: (1) Claims (C1–C3) \(\rightarrow\) (2) Observable signatures \(\rightarrow\) (3) Tests and thresholds (pre-registered gates) \(\rightarrow\) (4) If a gate FAILs, that claim/branch is automatically downgraded or deactivated.

2 Scope and contribution

2.1 What this white paper does

• It formalizes a chained mechanism: void (pressure deficit) \(\rightarrow\) suction (pull) \(\rightarrow\) lubrication/hydroplaning \(\rightarrow\) sliding, using explicit notation and testable gates.

• It adopts the causal direction ARE \(\rightarrow\) Ice Melt as the core narrative only within PASS-locked evidence; it forbids the inverse causality (Ice Melt \(\rightarrow\) Atlantic opening) as a core argument.

• It decomposes controversies into falsifiable questions: not “true/false,” but “which observation kills which claim.”

• It prioritizes non-resource downstream records (sea level, hydrology, sedimentology) as validation channels; resource-related modules (oil/coal) are treated as bias-aware auxiliary frames, not as core evidence.

• It provides a reproducibility bundle concept (data/code/checksums/pre-registration/automated tests) so that third parties can reproduce the same PASS/HOLD/FAIL outcomes.

2.2 What this white paper does not do

• It does not conclude the truth of a specific absolute-dated event (e.g., “4.3 ka”).

• It forbids using “ice melt caused Atlantic opening” as evidence or as the core causal direction.

• It does not attempt to overturn all of plate tectonics; it tests an alternative mechanism specifically for the accelerated opening interval(s) and their signatures.

3 Glossary and notation

3.1 Key terms

• Void: not necessarily a vacuum; a transient state sufficiently lower in pressure/density than its surroundings (a pressure deficit boundary condition).

• Void suction: an attractive (pulling) component acting on plates due to the void pressure deficit.

• Hydroplaning: (i) effective-stress reduction that partially decouples contact, and (ii) residual resistance dominated by viscous shear \(\eta v/h\) rather than solid friction.

• Effective stress: \(\sigma'=\sigma_n-\alpha P_f\) (Terzaghi/Biot). Coulomb-like friction scales roughly as \(\tau\sim\mu\,\sigma'\).

• Hydraulic jacking: \(P_f\) approaches \(\sigma_n\), driving \(\sigma'\rightarrow 0\) and mechanically lifting/decoupling the interface.

• Passive margin: margins dominated by extension/subsidence/sedimentation rather than subduction/collision.

• Nucleation point: the hypothesized initiation location of long-range rupture propagation (to be inferred from data).

• Spatiotemporal mapping: a procedure linking a rupture-time model to geographic coordinates along a path parameter \(s\).

• Cavitation: a possible breakdown of continuous lubrication when pressure drops induce vapor/bubble formation.

3.2 Symbols and units

4 Registers: assumptions, competing hypotheses, variants, and evidence readiness

4.1 Assumption register (AR)

This register does not hide ambiguity. It elevates core uncertainties into explicit assumptions so that risks can be managed and progressively tightened by tests and data.

4.2 Competing hypotheses register (Hx)

Rather than deleting ambiguity, this register isolates key uncertainties as explicit competing hypotheses. Each hypothesis must have a testable/falsifiable decision rule, and PASS/FAIL thresholds must be pinned in pre-registration (e.g., pre_registration/*.yaml) or an equivalent registry file.

4.3 Variant registry — locking “additional claims” as options

The core of this white paper (C1–C3) does not conclude an absolute chronology. However, if a reader wishes to make additional claims (e.g., “very young opening” or “global pulses”), those claims must be locked by mandatory gates, not by narrative plausibility. Since v1.20, time-scale/scope variants are separated as an explicit registry.

Operating rules (important).

• A Variant may FAIL without automatically failing C1–C3. Only the additional claim fails (e.g., “very young opening”).

• If a reader asserts a Variant while disabling its mandatory gates (P10/P11/P12, etc.), that Variant is immediately treated as HOLD/FAIL.

• The Variant choice and its mandatory gates are pre-registered via using .

4.4 Evidence Readiness Level (ERL) — not “listing cases,” but “prereg + reproducibility + falsification”

In this document, “evidence grade” does not mean simply collecting many examples. ERL increases only when pre-registration + negative controls + a reproducibility bundle are satisfied.

V-EVID targets at least ERL-2. Its key strictness devices are P29 (event-window coherence) and P30 (negative controls/confounder controls). If P29 or P30 FAILs, “cross-evidence” is treated as parallel anecdotal listing and is downgraded to ERL-0/1.

4.4.0.1 ERL scoreboard (bundle basis; v1.31).

The table below summarizes whether each module is ready to be used as evidence in the current bundle. (Actual ERL-2/3 achievement is decided only after data are filled and PASS/FAIL is locked.)

4.4.0.2 Minimum sample-size checklist for ERL-2 promotion (recommended).

ERL-2 means the presence of pre-registered definitions, negative controls, and sample-size adequacy, not merely “interesting observations.” The table below provides recommended minimum sample sizes per module (internal project guideline; editable before release if needed).

5 PASS-locked core: causal chain ARE \(\rightarrow\) Ice Melt

This section fixes the core causal map used in this white paper. Narrative is minimized. Only PASS-locked links are treated as evidence. HOLD is no-evidence; FAIL is rejected.

5.1 Causal direction (fixed) and forbidden inversion

Direction. This paper treats Atlantic Separation / episodic opening (ARE) as the cause-axis, and large-scale ice melt as a downstream response. Therefore, “ice melt caused Atlantic opening” (ice \(\rightarrow\) opening) is forbidden as a core argument.

Inversion guard. Sea-level, hydrology, and climate records cannot by themselves infer the cause (ARE). An observed melt event is not evidence of ARE. To write “ARE \(\rightarrow\) Ice Melt” in the core, independent PASS evidence on the ARE side (e.g., P1, P4) must be locked first.

5.2 Core causal map (concept)

5.3 PASS-only link map (r16)

Table 1 maps which segments of the causal chain are locked in r16 using only PASS modules.

5.4 Downstream-record layer (non-resource first)

The terminal step (ice-sheet destabilization \(\rightarrow\) melt/retreat) can be recorded in sea level, hydrology, sediments, geomorphology, and other media. This white paper prioritizes non-resource records (sea level, hydrology, sedimentology) as validation channels; resource modules are used only as bias-aware auxiliary frames.

5.4.0.1 Three-layer observability model.

For a proxy \(S\), \[S_{\mathrm{obs}} \approx S_{\mathrm{true}} \times P_{\mathrm{pres}} \times P_{\mathrm{samp}}, \label{eq:observability_general}\] where \(S_{\mathrm{true}}\) is the true process magnitude, \(P_{\mathrm{pres}}\) is preservation/reworking probability, and \(P_{\mathrm{samp}}\) is sampling/coverage/chronology probability. Oil-style observability (discoverability) is a special case with a strong bias term, hence it is not used as the core evidence axis.

5.5 No-evidence or rejected links (do not use in the core)

• HOLD: P32–P35 (oil budget/thermal context/chronometers/discoverability) are not evidence-eligible in r16.

• HOLD (not executed): P8, P9, P10, P12, P14, P17, P22–P23, P25–P28 have prereg stubs but were not executed in r16; do not cite as evidence.

• FAIL: P21 (global mean deceleration tail) is rejected and excluded from the core.

6 Evidence dossier (r16 bundle)

This section consolidates r16 verdicts in one place to prevent narrative overreach. The goal is to state (i) which quantitative keys locked PASS, (ii) where each module is used in the causal chain, and (iii) what each module does not prove.

6.0.0.1 Source of truth.

The authoritative verdict file is . This English edition reports the same module statuses as the Korean final.

6.1 PASS modules in r16 (summary)

6.2 HOLD/FAIL modules (handling rule)

• HOLD modules are not evidence. They may motivate future data collection but must not be cited as support.

• FAIL modules are treated as rejected/counter-evidence within the project rules and must be excluded from the core narrative.

7 Atlantic opening engine: model formalization

7.1 Overview: “cause \(\rightarrow\) void \(\rightarrow\) suction \(\rightarrow\) lubrication \(\rightarrow\) sliding”

The core of this model is not “make the driving force arbitrarily large.” Rather, it introduces a pulling term (suction) and lowers resistance (friction) so that continental plates can undergo a “falling-into-the-open-space” type dynamics.

7.2 Trigger: Pacific-side uplift (Push) \(\rightarrow\) antipodal tensile rupture

7.2.1 Intuition

Because Earth is a closed sphere, a rapid expansion/uplift on one side forces tension on the opposite side. An everyday analogy is a rubber ball: if you inflate one side abruptly, the opposite surface may tear first. Instead of assuming “the Atlantic must be slow spreading,” this white paper elevates antipodal rupture as a falsifiable hypothesis.

7.2.2 Order-of-magnitude: hoop strain and a failure condition

Assume a Pacific-side uplift/expansion tries to increase the effective radius by \(\Delta R\). The corresponding hoop strain is \[\epsilon_{\theta} = \frac{\Delta L}{L} = \frac{2\pi(R+\Delta R)-2\pi R}{2\pi R} = \frac{\Delta R}{R}.\] With an effective elastic modulus \(E\), the antipodal tensile stress scale is \[\sigma_{\mathrm{tension}} \approx E \epsilon_{\theta} \approx E\frac{\Delta R}{R}.\] A tensile failure condition is \[\sigma_{\mathrm{tension}} \gtrsim \sigma_{\mathrm{fail}} \quad \Rightarrow \quad \Delta R \gtrsim R \frac{\sigma_{\mathrm{fail}}}{E}.\]

Interpretation. This expression makes “how large must \(\Delta R\) be to allow Atlantic opening?” a pre-registrable threshold relation. If \(\Delta R\) must be unrealistically large, the model must STOP under \(\Omega\)-NoGo.

7.3 Rupture propagation: zipper effect and void formation

7.3.1 Intuition

Even if rupture begins at a point, stress concentration at a crack tip can allow rapid lengthening. This model proposes a north–south propagation of rupture that creates a long opening “slot” (a zipper-like opening).

7.3.2 Order-of-magnitude: rupture speed and a time window

Let the rupture propagation speed be a fraction of the shear-wave speed \(c_s\) (e.g., \(v_{\mathrm{rupture}}\approx 0.9c_s\)). With a representative \(c_s \sim 3\,\mathrm{km/s}\), \[v_{\mathrm{rupture}} \sim 3\,\mathrm{km/s}.\] Let the along-strike length scale be \(L_{\mathrm{Atl}}\sim 1.5\times 10^4\,\mathrm{km}\). Then the propagation time is \[T_{\mathrm{zip}} \sim \frac{L_{\mathrm{Atl}}}{v_{\mathrm{rupture}}} \approx \frac{1.5\times 10^4}{3}\,\mathrm{s} \approx 5\times 10^3\,\mathrm{s} \sim 1.4\,\mathrm{hour}.\]

Interpretation. “Hours” is not a claimed exact value. It is an order-of-magnitude argument that the rupture propagation can, in principle, be short. If realistic physics forces rupture to be much slower, the credibility of the event-like rupture component (C1/AR-3) is reduced and should remain HOLD.

7.3.3 Definition of a void: not a perfect vacuum, but a “pressure deficit”

Immediately after rupture, if seawater/magma/sediment cannot fill the opening instantly, a transient “empty” or “low-density” region can appear. In this white paper, a Void does not have to be a perfect vacuum (\(P\rightarrow 0\)). It suffices to be a sufficiently lower pressure/density state than its surroundings. Accordingly, the key quantities are an effective pressure deficit \(\Delta P\) and its duration and/or repetition timescale \(\tau\).

7.3.4 Physical realizations of a void: deficit, dilatancy, and unjamming (not a long-lived cavern)

A first objection is: “How can a vacuum cavity be maintained at depth? Wouldn’t surrounding rock collapse immediately?” The answer in this framework is straightforward: a Void is not a large, long-lived vacuum cavern. It is a transient pressure-deficit state that can be realized by one (or a combination) of:

• (V0) Geometric opening. Immediately after rupture, the crack/opening itself provides an effective low-pressure boundary for a short time.

• (V1) Dilatancy-driven “low pressure” in a granular shear zone. If comminuted material (powder/gouge) transitions from a jammed to an unjammed state, porosity increases. Under undrained conditions, porosity increase can manifest as a pore-pressure drop, producing a suction component (\(\Delta P<0\)) even without a literal cavern (qualitative).

Conceptual consistency with the VP frame. In the VP theory (IR-4) “full-packing” view, “empty space” is not treated as an independent degree of freedom; deficits/gaps/throats are structural quantities defined by arrangement and adjacency. A geological Void can be interpreted similarly: the claim is not “a vacuum exists,” but that contact and pore networks change abruptly, creating a deficit (low-pressure) state.

Verification point. If (V1) is correct, near Void edges (P2) one expects, together, (1) strong comminution/gouge formation, (2) microstructures consistent with fluidization, and (3) signatures of fluid transport (injection veins/hydrothermal alteration). If such co-signatures are systematically absent, the “Void as deficit” interpretation is weakened.

7.4 Spatiotemporal mapping: making the mechanism testable on a map

So far we only checked plausible orders for rupture speed and time window. However, “time” alone leaves the model weakly falsifiable unless it specifies where rupture starts and how it propagates on the map. This subsection pre-registers a minimal model that ties rupture to geography.

7.4.1 Candidate nucleation points

This stage does not assert a single nucleation point. Instead it defines a candidate set based on weaknesses such as (i) sutures, (ii) triple junctions/transform faults, and (iii) strong rigidity contrasts, and then uses P5 (opening-onset clustering) data to select among them. Table [tab:nucleation] shows representative seeds; coordinates are initial hypotheses to be updated by data.

7.4.2 One-dimensional parameterization: arc-length \(s\) and arrival time \(t(s)\)

Define an along-rupture coordinate \(s\) (with \(s=0\) at nucleation), and allow a location-dependent propagation speed \(v(s)\). Then the arrival time is \[t(s)=\int_{0}^{s}\frac{ds'}{v(s')}.\] This is a simplified 1D mapping of a geographic path, but it provides a testable ordering (e.g., “which latitudes open first”).

7.4.3 Variable speed model: \(v(s)\) from rigidity and damage

Rupture speed need not be uniform; it can depend on rigidity, fracture toughness, and the presence of pre-existing fault zones. We use a minimal parameterization \[v(s)=v_0\,\phi(s), \qquad 0<\phi(s)\le 1,\] where \(\phi(s)\) (i) decreases in stiffer segments, (ii) increases in weak/damaged zones, and (iii) approaches \(\phi\!\approx\!0\) in “stall” segments. We do not require \(\phi(s)\) to be continuous; a piecewise-constant model is sufficient.

Pre-registered test idea. If “opening-onset signals” (stratigraphic transition points, extensional fault assemblages, early oceanic-crust indicators, etc.) are organized by latitude/longitude, one can invert for the best nucleation candidate (S1/S2/N1, etc.) and a piecewise \(\phi(s)\). If propagation ordering cannot be inferred at all or candidates are indistinguishable, the zipper-propagation element (AR-3) should be downgraded to HOLD.

7.5 Driving term: void suction and acceleration

7.5.1 Intuition

The standard picture is “mantle convection pushes plates from behind.” This model makes a different emphasis:

Continents may be pulled into an opening more than they are pushed.

That is, a front-pulling suction can be a dominant term.

7.5.2 Force decomposition: a net-force equation

Write the net force on a plate as \[F_{\mathrm{net}} = F_{\mathrm{push}} + F_{\mathrm{suction}} - F_{\mathrm{friction}}.\] The suction scale is \[F_{\mathrm{suction}} \approx A_{\mathrm{cross}} \Delta P = A_{\mathrm{cross}}(P_{\mathrm{crust}}-P_{\mathrm{void}}).\]

Interpretation. The core test variables are plausible ranges of \(\Delta P\) and \(A_{\mathrm{cross}}\). If the mechanism requires extreme \(\Delta P\) values, it must STOP under \(\Omega\)-NoGo.

7.5.3 Observable signature (example): “why are there few major subduction margins around the Atlantic?”

This mechanism treats the Atlantic not as a long-lived “plate-consuming” boundary, but as a space-filling outcome produced as plates are pulled apart into an opening. Therefore, it predicts:

• along Atlantic margins, signatures of passive margins + ridges dominate over sustained subduction, and

• deformation concentrates near rupture/opening edges.

These map to P1 and P2.

7.6 Resistance collapse: upgrading “hydroplaning” into effective-stress physics

7.6.1 The strongest critique (scale): “water immediately squeezes out”

A natural critique is:

“Under enormous normal stress beneath a continent-scale load, a thin water layer will simply squeeze out sideways. Tire hydroplaning (cm-scale films) is not comparable.”

Accordingly, this white paper does not rely on a purely qualitative “water is slippery” claim. Instead it upgrades the narrative by (i) collapsing solid friction via effective-stress reduction (hydraulic jacking), and then (ii) modeling the residual resistance by a viscous-shear (hydroplaning) term.

7.6.2 Core equations: Terzaghi/Biot effective stress and friction collapse

In rock/soil mechanics, friction is governed primarily by effective normal stress. Terzaghi/Biot effective stress is \[\sigma' = \sigma_n - \alpha P_f \label{eq:effective_stress}\] where \(\sigma_n\) is total normal stress, \(P_f\) is pore-fluid pressure, and \(\alpha\sim 1\) is the Biot coefficient. If solid–solid contact dominates (dry friction regime), a Coulomb-like shear scale is \[\tau_{\mathrm{coul}} \approx \mu_{\mathrm{dry}}\,\sigma' \label{eq:coulomb_shear}\] so if \(P_f\rightarrow \sigma_n/\alpha\) and \(\sigma'\rightarrow 0\), then \(\tau_{\mathrm{coul}}\rightarrow 0\) even if \(\mu_{\mathrm{dry}}\) is large. This is hydraulic jacking: friction collapses not because water is a good lubricant, but because overpressure effectively lifts/decouples the interface and removes solid friction.

7.6.3 Rebutting squeeze-out: drainage timescale and undrained loading

For overpressure to matter, \(P_f\) must persist over the event window. A simplest criterion is a drainage timescale. With hydraulic diffusivity \(D_h\), a characteristic equilibration time over length \(\ell\) is \[\tau_{\mathrm{drain}} \sim \frac{\ell^2}{D_h} \qquad (D_h = k/(\eta_f S_s)) \label{eq:drain_timescale}\] where \(k\) is permeability, \(\eta_f\) fluid viscosity, and \(S_s\) specific storage. The key requirement is \[\tau \ll \tau_{\mathrm{drain}} \label{eq:undrained_condition}\] i.e., the event window \(\tau\) is shorter than the drainage time so that an undrained regime exists (AR-10). If this holds, “water immediately escapes” is weakened automatically. If instead \(\tau\gtrsim\tau_{\mathrm{drain}}\), maintaining overpressure is difficult and hydroplaning assumptions should be downgraded to HOLD/FAIL.

Geologic reinforcements (qualitative). Event-like shear can induce (i) comminution/gouge that reduces permeability via self-sealing, (ii) localized trapped pockets created by hydrofracturing, and (iii) low-permeability films via fine particles/clay formation. These mechanisms must be testable via P4.

7.6.4 Residual resistance: viscous shear and “combined resistance”

If hydraulic jacking reduces \(\sigma'\), solid friction drops sharply but does not necessarily become zero. Residual shear resistance can be modeled by viscous shear. Under a Newtonian approximation, \[\tau_{\mathrm{visc}} \approx \eta \frac{v}{h}. \label{eq:visc_shear}\] A conservative combined shear resistance is \[\tau_{\mathrm{res}} \;\approx\; \mu_{\mathrm{dry}}\,(\sigma_n-\alpha P_f) + \eta\frac{v}{h}. \label{eq:combined_resistance}\] The total resisting force is \(F_{\mathrm{friction}}\approx \tau_{\mathrm{res}}A_{\mathrm{base}}\), and the effective friction coefficient (normalized by total normal stress) is \[\mu_{\mathrm{eff}} := \frac{\tau_{\mathrm{res}}}{\sigma_n}. \label{eq:mu_eff_total}\]

Interpretation. (1) As \(P_f\) grows and \(\sigma'\) shrinks, the first (solid-friction) term collapses, (2) the bottleneck becomes the second (viscous-shear) term, and (3) the feasibility question becomes whether plausible \((\eta,v,h)\) keep \(\mu_{\mathrm{eff}}\) within \(\Omega\)-NoGo limits.

7.6.5 Geological signatures of lubrication/overpressure (P4): “hydrofracturing” may matter more than “melting”

A common attack is: “If it slid that fast, frictional heat must have melted everything.” But this mechanism aims to reduce resistance rather than increase it. Therefore it is more honest to pre-register two branches of expected signatures:

• (P4-a) Overpressure/hydrofracturing dominated (recommended default). Widespread melting (vitrification) is not mandatory. Instead, signatures of fluid overpressure should appear near shear zones: hydrofracturing, injection veins, brecciation, and gouge fluidization.

• (P4-b) Local melting dominated (alternative branch). If some segments failed to achieve low friction, localized melting/vitrification (e.g., pseudotachylyte) may appear. In that case the model must explain why those segments are exceptions (local differences in permeability/drainage/fluid supply).

7.6.6 Multiphase fluid details: what is the “lubrication film”?

Fluid composition strongly affects viscosity \(\eta\) and state behavior. We therefore register candidate fluid classes (AR-8):

• (F1) seawater/brine (low viscosity),

• (F2) supercritical fluid / high-T steam mixture (variable viscosity; strong pressure sensitivity),

• (F3) melt involvement (high viscosity; strong thermal signatures),

• (F4) particle–fluid mixture (granular fluidization; nonlinear effective viscosity/yield stress).

Important note. These viscosity ranges are not definitive; they are order examples to be updated by references/datasheets in a release. The role of this table is to lock sensitivity-analysis inputs for “which candidate can create the \(\mu_{\mathrm{eff}}\) bottleneck.”

7.6.6.1 Viscosity sensitivity (summary).

In Eq. [eq:combined_resistance], \(\eta\) controls the residual resistance. Therefore for each candidate, \((\eta,h,v)\) ranges must be pre-registered and judged by whether \(\mu_{\mathrm{eff}}\) stays within \(\Omega\)-NoGo constraints.

7.6.6.2 Phase change and cavitation.

Strong suction can rapidly drop pressure along contacts/crack networks. If fluid vaporizes or cavitates, (1) the pathway for transmitting suction changes, and (2) the lubrication film can become discontinuous, raising friction. Conversely, if shear/heating raises \(P_f\), hydraulic jacking can strengthen, while phase transitions may absorb energy as latent heat (see the energy budget subsection). Accordingly, P4 should include not only “hydrothermal” signatures but also microstructures that can indicate rapid pressure fluctuations/hydrofracturing/phase change (porosity/vesicles, injection veins, breccias, quench textures).

7.6.7 Fluid budget and sources: a quantitative answer to “where did the fluid come from?”

Claiming hydroplaning/hydraulic jacking immediately raises: “Where does the fluid come from?” A key point is that the mechanism does not require an ocean-scale volume. It requires a thin, high-pressure film (\(h_{\mathrm{film}}\)) maintained over an interface during an event window \(\tau\). Thus, check area \(\times\) thickness first.

A simplest required volume estimate is \[V_{\mathrm{req}} = A_{\mathrm{base}}\;h_{\mathrm{film}}.\]

Example (order). If \(A_{\mathrm{base}}\sim 10^7\,\mathrm{km^2}=10^{13}\,\mathrm{m^2}\) and \(h_{\mathrm{film}}\sim 1\,\mathrm{mm}=10^{-3}\,\mathrm{m}\), then \[V_{\mathrm{req}} \sim 10^{10}\,\mathrm{m^3}\;\approx\;10\,\mathrm{km^3}.\] This is tiny compared with total ocean volume; the bottleneck is not total volume but maintaining overpressure (undrained) and distribution/trapping.

Candidate sources (AR-12). We do not lock a single fluid source; instead we register competing modules (H-S1–H-S3):

• (H-S1) External infiltration: seawater/brine intrusion along rupture/fault/damage zones.

• (H-S2) In-situ generation: dehydration reactions of hydrous minerals (e.g., serpentinized mantle/crust) releasing fluids during high-T/P events.

• (H-S3) Multiphase transitions: generation/condensation of supercritical water/steam (phase change) and particle–fluid mixture fluidization (F4).

Strict falsification rule. If (1) required \(h_{\mathrm{film}}\) becomes so large that \(V_{\mathrm{req}}\) is unrealistic, or (2) P4 shows systematic absence of signatures corresponding to infiltration/dehydration/hydrothermal alteration/injection veins, then AR-12 (fluid supply) and the corresponding C3 branch must be downgraded to HOLD or FAIL.

7.7 Asymmetric stabilization: Pacific “sloshing” vs Atlantic “filling”

7.7.1 Core idea

This model treats the origins of the two oceans as different:

• Pacific: source-like region — uplift followed by subsidence leaves elastic/viscoelastic oscillation.

• Atlantic: rupture-like region — newly opened volume is filled by water/sediment, leading to monotone stabilization.

7.7.2 Toy model 1: Pacific sloshing (damped oscillation)

Let Pacific-floor displacement be \(x(t)\) and sketch a damped harmonic oscillator \[x'' + 2\zeta\omega_0 x' + \omega_0^2 x = 0\] (conceptual only). Coastal RSL, as a mixture of \(x(t)\) and water redistribution, can show overshoot (highstand) and relaxation.

7.7.3 Toy model 2: Atlantic filling (volume charging)

Let the “empty volume” of the Atlantic basin be \(V(t)\). A conceptual filling sketch is \[\frac{dV}{dt} = Q_{\mathrm{in}} - Q_{\mathrm{out}}.\] Thus RSL patterns may show “sustained rise” more than “large overshoot” (P3).

7.7.4 Translation into a test (P3)

P3 must be locked as a test that includes:

• fixed correction version: how GIA/crustal motion/sediment/human-activity corrections were applied,

• fixed feature definitions: e.g., overshoot amplitude \(A\), relaxation half-time \(t_{1/2}\), monotonicity index,

• stability: leave-one-out checks to ensure the pattern is not dominated by a single site.

7.8 Scale checks and \(\Omega\)-NoGo constraints

This subsection performs first-pass feasibility checks on force/friction/time/impulse scales. If pre-registered \(\Omega\)-NoGo constraints are violated, the corresponding conclusion is treated as HOLD or STOP.

7.8.1 Tensile failure condition (order)

The failure relation is \[\sigma_{\mathrm{tension}} \approx E\frac{\Delta R}{R} \gtrsim \sigma_{\mathrm{fail}} \quad \Rightarrow \quad \Delta R \gtrsim R\frac{\sigma_{\mathrm{fail}}}{E}.\] Decision. If required \(\Delta R\) exceeds \(\Omega\)-NoGo (e.g., \(\Delta R \gtrsim 50\,\mathrm{km}\)), C1 should be STOP or downgraded to HOLD.

7.8.2 Required inertia scale for a target displacement/time (order)

Use a simple constant-acceleration (from rest) model achieving displacement \(d\) in time window \(T\): \[v_{\mathrm{mean}} \approx \frac{d}{T}, \qquad a_{\mathrm{req}} \approx \frac{2d}{T^2}.\] With an effective mass \(M_{\mathrm{plate}}=\rho A_{\mathrm{base}}tL\), the inertia term requires \[F_{\mathrm{inertia}} \approx M_{\mathrm{plate}} a_{\mathrm{req}}.\] Even if this is modest, the dominant bottleneck is typically friction/resistance (next subsection).

7.8.3 Suction vs friction: the key inequality and ratio \(\Lambda\)

Using the combined resistance shear stress (Eq. [eq:combined_resistance]), \[F_{\mathrm{friction}} \approx \tau_{\mathrm{res}}A_{\mathrm{base}} = \mu_{\mathrm{eff}}\,\sigma_n\,A_{\mathrm{base}} \qquad (\mu_{\mathrm{eff}}:=\tau_{\mathrm{res}}/\sigma_n),\] while suction is \[F_{\mathrm{suction}} \approx A_{\mathrm{cross}}\Delta P.\] The key inequality is \[F_{\mathrm{push}} + A_{\mathrm{cross}}\Delta P > \mu_{\mathrm{eff}}\,\sigma_n\,A_{\mathrm{base}},\] and the dimensionless ratio \[\Lambda = \frac{A_{\mathrm{cross}}\Delta P}{\mu_{\mathrm{eff}}\,\sigma_n\,A_{\mathrm{base}}}.\] Conservatively setting \(F_{\mathrm{push}}=0\), \(\Lambda>1\) is a minimal condition.

Recommended pre-registered decision rules (examples):

• TEST-L1: under conservative input distributions, if \(\Pr(\Lambda>1)\ge 0.95\), UNLOCK.

• TEST-L2: if \(\Pr(\Lambda>1)<0.50\), STOP.

• TEST-L3: otherwise, HOLD (needs additional data/definitions).

7.8.4 Timescale/impulse constraint: locking the “instant low-pressure” issue into equations

If suction acts only for a short time \(\tau\), impulse (not static force) matters: \[J_{\mathrm{suction}} \approx F_{\mathrm{suction}}\tau = (A_{\mathrm{cross}}\Delta P)\tau.\] The minimum impulse to accelerate to a representative speed \(v^\ast\) is \[J_{\min} \approx M_{\mathrm{plate}}v^\ast.\] If the Void persists only for 10–100 seconds, one must compute whether \(J_{\mathrm{suction}}\) is sufficient (or whether deficits repeat/persist). Failure implies C2/C3 remain HOLD (AR-4).

7.8.5 \(\Omega\)-NoGo (draft): pre-registering “this is too much”

Note: the numbers above are drafts. The rigor is not “picking numbers,” but fixing thresholds before analysis and publicly reporting PASS/FAIL.

7.8.6 Pre-registration key map: TeX symbols/tables \(\leftrightarrow\)

This TeX document is the explanatory layer. The authoritative source of PASS/FAIL decisions is (and, if P8/P9/P10–P12 are enabled, the corresponding files). If TeX and YAML conflict, YAML overrides TeX (reproducibility rule).

Operational rules (enforced).

• If or any file changes, issue a new version number.

• The automatic gate script () reads these keys and logs PASS/FAIL.

7.9 Energy budget analysis: locking feasibility into numbers

The force/time/friction checks above are only necessary conditions. For rapid plate motion to be feasible, the required total energy and dissipation must be geophysically plausible (or be rejected early if not).

7.9.1 Minimal decomposition of required work

The total work requirement can be decomposed as \[W_{\mathrm{total}} \approx W_{\mathrm{fracture}} + W_{\mathrm{slide}} + W_{\mathrm{diss}} + W_{\mathrm{grav}},\] where

• \(W_{\mathrm{fracture}}\): fracture energy for antipodal rupture and formation of a long rupture zone (zipper),

• \(W_{\mathrm{slide}}\): mechanical work to produce relative displacement \(d\),

• \(W_{\mathrm{diss}}\): dissipation by friction/turbulence/viscosity (mostly heat),

• \(W_{\mathrm{grav}}\): gravitational potential-energy change associated with uplift/subsidence and fluid redistribution.

In particular, \(W_{\mathrm{diss}}\) is not a single “heat” bucket. With fluids, it can be partitioned as \[W_{\mathrm{diss}} \approx Q_{\mathrm{sensible}} + E_{\mathrm{latent}} + Q_{\mathrm{melt}} + W_{\mathrm{hydfrac}} + \cdots \label{eq:diss_partition}\] including latent heat (phase change) and hydrofracturing terms. This partition underlies the P4 branching (melting vs hydrofracturing).

7.9.2 Order comparison: required energy vs representative event scales

The goal here is not to declare “possible,” but to lock the order-of-magnitude first and STOP early if unrealistic.

7.9.2.1 (i) Sliding work scale.

If suction acts on average as \(F_{\mathrm{suction}}\approx A_{\mathrm{eff}}\Delta P\) and the plate moves distance \(d\), then \[W_{\mathrm{slide}} \sim A_{\mathrm{eff}}\Delta P\, d.\] For example, with \(A_{\mathrm{eff}}=10^{12}\,\mathrm{m^2}\), \(\Delta P=100\,\mathrm{MPa}=10^{8}\,\mathrm{Pa}\), and \(d=3\times 10^{6}\,\mathrm{m}\), \[W_{\mathrm{slide}} \sim 3\times 10^{26}\,\mathrm{J}.\] This is not a “correct” number; it is an order-of-magnitude illustration. Because \(A_{\mathrm{eff}},\Delta P,d\) can each vary by factors of 10, releases must pre-register input ranges and decide PASS/STOP via sensitivity analysis.

7.9.2.2 (ii) Upper-bound sketch for gravitational potential energy of the trigger.

If an effective mass \(M_{\mathrm{eff}}\) is uplifted by \(\Delta R\), \[E_{\mathrm{grav}}\sim M_{\mathrm{eff}} g \Delta R.\] Because \(M_{\mathrm{eff}}\) depends on assumed area/thickness, this term can be misestimated. We therefore separate energy sources into competing hypotheses (H-E1–H-E3) and validate by signatures (AR-1, AR-9).

7.9.2.3 (iii) Comparisons to representative events (order).

The table below is a rough log-order comparison (not a precision table).

Decision viewpoint. If, under conservative pre-registered inputs, \(W_{\mathrm{total}}\) persistently exceeds physically available energy (or energy supported by independent signatures), the corresponding model version should be STOP.

7.9.3 Work scale of suction driving

With \(F_{\mathrm{suction}}\approx A_{\mathrm{eff}}\Delta P\), \[W_{\mathrm{slide}} \sim F_{\mathrm{suction}}\, d \sim A_{\mathrm{eff}}\Delta P\, d.\] Thus the core questions reduce to: (i) how large is \(A_{\mathrm{eff}}\), (ii) how long/repeated is \(\Delta P\), (iii) how large is \(d\). If all three grow simultaneously, \(W_{\mathrm{slide}}\) grows rapidly and itself becomes an \(\Omega\)-NoGo constraint.

7.9.4 Modularizing candidate energy sources

At present, the most vulnerable point is AR-1 (origin of \(\Delta R\)). Accordingly, this white paper does not lock a single trigger; it defines competing energy-source modules.

7.9.4.1 (H-E1) Internal reservoir: supercritical jamming–unjamming (VP/material frame).

Projecting the IR-4 jamming/unjamming frame onto geophysics suggests that deep crust/upper-mantle crack/porosity networks could trap supercritical fluids in a jammed state. If cracks open and unjamming occurs, a pressure deficit (\(\Delta P\)) and large fluid redistribution can co-occur, strengthening suction and lubrication. This module strongly predicts hydrothermal/hydration signatures in P4.

7.9.4.2 (H-E2) External/higher-order trigger: geometric friction (“60-degree jamming”) and heat injection.

IR-6’s “double lattice” and “60-degree jamming” ideas model energy injection into the planet as a form of geometric friction. In this view, \(\Delta R\) may reflect heating/expansion of a superplume driven by externally injected energy. This is not a required premise; it is one candidate for AR-1.

7.9.4.3 (H-E3) Electromagnetic residual energy: using geomagnetic decay as an afterimage.

IR-6 and IR-1 include a frame in which Earth’s magnetic field is treated as residual induced currents from a recent catastrophic impulse. Even without adopting that literal claim, geomagnetic data can serve as an independent observable for whether the Earth system experienced a large impulse. One can compare bounds on \(E_{\mathrm{EM}}\) with \(W_{\mathrm{total}}\) as an auxiliary constraint.

7.9.5 Dissipation check: “frictional heat” is not only “melting”

If frictional dissipation is huge, some strong signatures must exist. With average friction force \(F_{\mathrm{fric}}\approx \mu_{\mathrm{eff}}\,\sigma_n\,A_{\mathrm{eff}}\), \[Q_{\mathrm{fric}} \sim F_{\mathrm{fric}}\, d \sim \mu_{\mathrm{eff}}\,\sigma_n\,A_{\mathrm{eff}}\, d.\] Thus lubrication (low \(\mu_{\mathrm{eff}}\)) is not merely convenient; it can be a necessary condition to keep dissipation physically manageable.

However, the common assumption “large \(Q_{\mathrm{fric}}\) implies widespread melting/vitrification” may fail in a fluid-involved system because \(Q_{\mathrm{fric}}\) can be partitioned into (i) sensible heat of rock/fluid, (ii) melting, (iii) latent heat of phase change, and (iv) work for hydrofracturing/pulverization/brecciation.

7.9.5.1 Latent-heat cooling.

Energy absorbed by phase change can be written as \[E_{\mathrm{latent}} = m_v L_v\] with \(m_v\) the mass of fluid that undergoes phase change. This shifts the defense from “no heat is produced” to heat can be consumed by phase change (AR-11).

7.9.5.2 Verification and falsification (critical).

If widespread melting/vitrification signatures are weak, then structural signatures of overpressure + phase change (hydrofractures, injection veins, breccias, porous/vesicular textures, hydrothermal alteration/mineralization) must co-occur (P4-a). If neither melting nor fluid/overpressure signatures exist, physical pathways to “hide” \(Q_{\mathrm{fric}}\) are insufficient, and that version of C3 should be FAIL. If strong melting signatures exist, a specific branch (F3 melt lubrication) may be UNLOCKed.

8 Pre-registered predictions (P1–P35)

This section is designed for adjudication, not narrative. Each prediction module explicitly contains (A) observable signature, (B) data, (C) test, and (D) falsifier. Module IDs, file paths, and PASS/HOLD/FAIL semantics follow the Korean final (r16).

8.1 P1: Atlantic-rim boundary character (subduction vs passive margins)

Bundle verdict (2025-12-27): PASS. ()

Observable signature. Around the Atlantic rim, “passive margins + ridge” signatures must dominate over “persistent subduction” signatures.

Data (minimum). (e.g.) trench/subduction distributions, margin structural maps, ridge/transform patterns, and sedimentary-basin development patterns.

Test (example). Sample the perimeter at fixed spacing and estimate the “subduction-dominant segment fraction.” Pre-registered criterion: e.g., the “subduction-dominant fraction \(<x\%\)” must be satisfied to UNLOCK.

FALSIFIER. If subduction is widespread and persistently dominant around the Atlantic rim, P1 is FAIL.

Recommended quantitative metrics.

• \(R_{\mathrm{sub}} = L_{\mathrm{subduction}}/L_{\mathrm{perimeter}}\): fraction of subduction-segment length along the “Atlantic perimeter.”

• (optional) \(R_{\mathrm{ridge}} = L_{\mathrm{ridge}}/L_{\mathrm{perimeter}}\): ridge/extension-segment fraction.

Pre-registered thresholds.

• UNLOCK: \(R_{\mathrm{sub}} \le 0.25\)

• FAIL: \(R_{\mathrm{sub}} \ge 0.50\)

• otherwise: HOLD (re-check classification/data/definitions)

Note: numerical values may be modified only before release; after release they are fixed.

Hard-gate (TEST-P1) outputs (recommended).

• : \(R_{\mathrm{sub}}, R_{\mathrm{ridge}}\) and confidence intervals.

• : input-data hash, classification-rule version, PASS/FAIL decision.

8.2 P2: Spatial concentration of deformation/acceleration (near the void edge)

Observable signature. Maximum deformation must be concentrated near the void edge (continental shelf / major fault zones).

Data (minimum). Deformation indicators (faults, shear zones, fracture patterns) and maps of deformation localization (seismology/gravity/structure).

Test (example). Quantify whether deformation indicators decrease with distance \(r\) from the void edge (e.g., an \(r\)-regression). If there is no spatial correlation or the sign is opposite, FAIL.

Recommended quantitative metrics. Define a deformation intensity \(D(r)\) as a function of distance \(r\) from the void edge (e.g., fault density, shear-zone frequency, cumulative seismic moment).

• Expected direction: \(D\) must be negatively correlated with \(r\) (stronger closer to the edge).

• Minimum requirement: the same sign/direction must be reproduced in at least two independent deformation proxies.

Pre-registered thresholds.

• UNLOCK: (i) Spearman \(\rho \le -0.30\) and (ii) sign stability under bootstrap \(\ge 0.95\)

• FAIL: \(\rho \ge -0.10\) or the sign is dominantly positive

• otherwise: HOLD

Hard-gate (TEST-P2) outputs (recommended).

• : per-site \(r, D\) plus regression/correlation results.

• : distance-definition version (shoreline/shelf/major-fault) and PASS/FAIL.

8.3 P3: RSL asymmetry (Pacific oscillation vs Atlantic filling)

Observable signature. Even after corrections, the Pacific should retain an overshoot/oscillatory component, whereas the Atlantic/Mediterranean should be dominated by a relatively monotonic-rise component.

Data (minimum). RSL time series (multiple sites per basin) and correction metadata (GIA/crustal motion).

Test (spec).

• Feature metrics: overshoot amplitude \(A\), monotonicity index \(M\) (e.g., fraction of increasing intervals), relaxation time \(t_{1/2}\).

• LOO stability: does basin separation persist when a particular site is left out?

• Alternative-model comparison: (e.g.) single shared-pattern model vs basin-specific pattern model using AIC/Bayes factors.

Recommended control expansion: include the Indian Ocean (INDIAN). If P3’s power depends only on a Pacific vs Atlantic/Mediterranean dichotomy, it is hard to judge reproducibility in other basins. Thus we recommend labeling the Indian Ocean separately as (mixed/rupture-type hypothesis), and adjudicating whether its pattern is closer to or by the same feature-distance / separability metrics. For implementation, add to the DataPack schema (Appendix F). Recommended reporting format: (Group A) vs (Group B) and (Group C) alone.

FALSIFIER. If corrected records converge to the same shape in the two basins, P3 is FAIL or HOLD.

Additional recommendation: lock the “phase/relaxation metric” down to file format. RSL adjudication must be numeric, not “graph impression.” Therefore define features so the code computes them directly. (e.g.) \(t_5\): time after the event until RSL “stabilizes” to the 5% level of the initial response (or another prereg reference), as a phase/relaxation metric. If the \(t_5\) definition changes at release, treat it as a version change.

Example prereg (a form that can be borrowed from internal templates).

• : PacRim(center 120, tolerance 30), Med(center 30, tolerance 15)

• : 0.02 (max relative change of overshoot amplitude \(A\) under LOO)

Note: values above are examples; the principle is pre-registration lock itself.

8.4 P4: Reduced effective stress / overpressured fluids / lubrication (low-friction) signatures

Bundle verdict (2025-12-27): PASS. ()

Observable signature. In this model, “lubrication” is not just “a thin water film” but the structural/mineral/microstructural signatures of reduced effective stress (hydraulic jacking) + fluid involvement. Accordingly, P4 may appear in one of two branches (or a mixture):

• P4-a (primary): overpressure / hydrofracturing dominant. Melting is not required; instead, hydrofracturing, injection veins, brecciation, gouge fluidization, and hydrothermal/hydration alteration should dominate near shear zones as “fluid overpressure” signatures.

• P4-b (alternative): local melting dominant. If low friction failed in some segment, signatures of local melt/glassification (e.g., pseudotachylyte) may appear.

Data (minimum). Petrography (thin section), mineral composition/alteration indicators, shear-zone maps plus fracture/injection-vein network maps, fluid inclusions/porosity observations, brecciation distributions.

Test (example). Define a checklist of “lubrication/overpressure signature indicators”, and pre-register the explanatory comparison versus alternatives (dry friction) and other low-friction mechanisms (dynamic separation, grain-fluidization, etc.).

FALSIFIER. If (1) there is no overpressure/fluid-involvement signature (negating P4-a), (2) no melting signature either (negating P4-b), and (3) dry friction signatures suffice as a simpler/better explanation, then P4 is FAIL. That is, to prevent P4 from remaining HOLD forever under “the signature might be missing,” we specify required signatures (L3 or L5 below).

Recommended quantitative metric: LES+ (Lubrication/Overpressure Evidence Score). To avoid reducing P4 to a binary “exists/doesn’t exist,” score the following five items as 0/1 (\(LES^+\in[0,5]\)):

• (L1) hydration alteration / hydrothermal mineralization (mineralogical criterion)

• (L2) shear-zone microstructure (dynamic recrystallization, mylonite, etc.)

• (L3) overpressure / hydrofracture signatures: injection veins/breccia/cataclasis/porous (vesicular) textures, etc.

• (L4) low-friction minerals (talc/clays, etc.) or ultrafine gouge concentration

• (L5) melt/glass signatures: pseudotachylyte, glassy veins, quenched-melt textures, etc. (branch flag P4-b)

Pre-registered thresholds.

• UNLOCK-a (P4-a): \(\mathrm{median}(LES^+)\ge 3\) and \(\mathrm{median}(L3)=1\) and explanatory superiority over dry-friction alternatives

• UNLOCK-b (P4-b): \(\mathrm{median}(L5)=1\) and (L2 or L1) co-occurs and there exists a segment where energy budget allows “local melting”

• FAIL: \(\mathrm{median}(LES^+)\le 1\) and \(\mathrm{median}(L5)=0\) and dry friction is simpler/has higher explanatory power

• otherwise: HOLD

Hard-gate (TEST-P4) outputs (recommended).

• : per-sample \(LES^+\) and evidence links (codebook).

• : scoring reproducibility (inter-rater agreement, evidence links).

8.5 P5: Clustering of early-opening signals

Observable signature. Structural/stratigraphic/chronologic indicators that point to early Atlantic opening should cluster in a narrow window rather than disperse over long durations.

Data (minimum). Indicators of initial oceanic crust formation, timing indicators for major fault-zone formation, transition points in sedimentary records.

Test (example). Perform a clustering test (e.g., kernel density / change-point detection) on the “signal occurrence time” distribution, and UNLOCK if the pre-registered “width” threshold is met.

8.6 P6: Spatiotemporal propagation pattern

Observable signature. Opening signals (P5) should not appear “everywhere simultaneously”; they should appear first near candidate nucleation points (S1/S2/N1, etc.) and then propagate in time along ridge/fracture-zone systems. Propagation may exhibit slowdowns/delays at major fracture zones or strong-contrast segments.

Data (minimum). A table of early-opening indicators per margin (stratigraphic transition points/fault-swarm formation/early oceanic crust indicators, etc.) with location (lat/lon) and uncertainty (dating error).

Test (example). Given a set of nucleation-point candidates and a segment-wise speed function \(v(s)=v_0\phi(s)\), fit the observation times by a travel-time model \(t(s)=\int ds/v(s)\). UNLOCK if pre-registered residual criteria (e.g., weighted RMSE, or BIC improvement) are met.

FALSIFIER. If no candidate/speed model reproduces the propagation order, or reproduction requires unrealistic \(v(s)\) (e.g., globally ultra-fast/ultra-slow), the zipper-propagation component (AR-3) is HOLD or FAIL.

8.7 P7: Scalability test

Observable signature. If the engine (suction + low friction) is universal physics, the same dimensionless adjudication (e.g., \(\Lambda\)) should apply not only at the Atlantic scale but also at smaller length scales (smaller basins with smaller \(L\)).

Candidate data. In small basins (e.g., Red Sea, certain coastal basins), collect: (1) whether rapid opening/rupture ordering exists, (2) low-friction/fluid-involvement signatures (analogous to P4), (3) constraints on opening width and time window.

Test (example). Compute the same form of adjudication ratio \(\Lambda\) for each basin and apply the same threshold as for the Atlantic (e.g., probability of \(\Lambda>1\)). If the same threshold persists under down-scaling, the model’s universality is strengthened.

FALSIFIER. If the same equation does not hold in small basins and entirely different forces/mechanisms must be assumed, the scope must be reduced to an “Atlantic-specific case” (claim scope contraction).

8.8 P8 (optional): Magnetic striping — competing hypotheses “time record” vs “event resonance”

Problem (public). Against claims of rapid spreading (a short time window), one of the strongest objections is that seafloor magnetic striping is a cumulative record of geomagnetic reversals and ridge spreading rate over long timescales. Therefore this white paper does not immediately lock magnetic striping as a chronology conclusion; instead it separates it as a competing-hypothesis test module.

Two interpretation levels (competing).

• H0 (standard): chronology model. Stripes are the geomagnetic polarity reversal timetable (normal/reversed) recorded spatially by ridge spreading. Stripe width \(W\) roughly follows \(W\sim v_{\mathrm{spread}}\Delta t_{\mathrm{rev}}\).

• H2 (alternative): resonance / standing-wave snapshot model. During catastrophic rupture/rapid-cooling phases, the cooling/shearing of supercritical fluids/magma could “freeze” a plate’s standing-wave or electromagnetic resonance pattern in space, producing stripe-like patterns. In this view, \(W\) may correlate more with a plate eigenfrequency \(\omega\) or a thermal wavelength \(\lambda\) than with \(v_{\mathrm{spread}}\).

Data (minimum). (1) seafloor magnetic anomaly profiles (multiple ridge-perpendicular transects), (2) independent estimates of spreading rate by ridge segment (topography/geophysics), (3) a standard polarity timescale (for reference; needed to generate H0 predictions).

Test (example; preregistration recommended).

• TEST-M1 (fit H0): after converting by segment-wise \(v_{\mathrm{spread}}\), do the predicted polarity-block sequence align strongly with observed anomalies (sign/transitions)?

• TEST-M2 (fit H2): does the dominant wavelength (spectral peak) of anomalies align better with physical wavelength/resonance variables (e.g., thermal diffusion length, structural modes) than with inter-segment spreading-rate changes?

Pre-registration checklist (P8; optional). P8 is optional, but optional modules have larger “analyst degrees of freedom” and thus higher post-hoc rationalization risk. Therefore at minimum lock the following in or a dedicated :

• Data selection rules: ridge segments (lat range/segments), profile count/spacing, preprocessing (filter/detrend) version.

• H0 prediction rules: GPTS version, \(v_{\mathrm{spread}}\) source, ridge-jump/asymmetric spreading handling.

• H2 feature definitions: spectral peak \(\lambda_{\mathrm{peak}}\) estimator (e.g., Welch), band limits, left/right symmetry metrics.

• Decision metrics: e.g., H0 correlation \(\rho_{\mathrm{H0}}\), transition RMSE, H2 wavelength stability \(\mathrm{CV}(\lambda_{\mathrm{peak}})\), and a “segment-to-segment consistency” (coherence) metric.

• Hard-gate thresholds: e.g., numeric priority rules such as “if H0-UNLOCK then H2-FAIL”.

Hard-gate (TEST-P8) outputs (recommended).

• : H0/H2 metrics (per-segment and summary) + preprocessing/version info.

• : input-profile hashes, GPTS version, decision thresholds, PASS/FAIL.

FALSIFIER (important).

• If H0 predictions (polarity-block sequence and width scaling) hold strongly, H2 is FAIL (or downgraded to a very limited auxiliary effect).

• Conversely, if H0 fails systematically while H2 provides a strong periodic/resonant ordering, and that ordering is consistent with independent data (thermal/structural/fluid signatures), H2 becomes an UNLOCK candidate.

Scope note. This white paper does not conclude chronology from striping by default. P8 is an option to adjudicate compatibility/conflict between (i) versions that require a rapid event, and (ii) mixed versions such as “rapid initial rupture + subsequent gradual spreading,” against magnetic anomaly data.

8.9 P9 (cross-check; optional): Dynamic orogeny regime (De) — slow creep vs fast pile-up

This prediction is not a necessary condition for the Atlantic mechanism (C1–C3). Rather, it is a cross-check module to test whether an “event-like (high-rate) deformation” regime is physically plausible at crustal scales, and what independent signatures it would leave (or why it would not). (Reference code: .)

Core physics: Deborah number (De). Define \[De=\frac{\tau_{\mathrm{relax}}}{\tau_{\mathrm{proc}}}\] as the ratio of a material relaxation time \(\tau_{\mathrm{relax}}\) to a process time \(\tau_{\mathrm{proc}}\). Typically \(De\ll 1\) is viscous/flow-like (fast relaxation), and \(De\gg 1\) is elastic/brittle-like (slow relaxation). A representative \(\tau_{\mathrm{relax}}\) can be the Maxwell time \(\tau_M=\eta/G\) (AR-13), and \(\tau_{\mathrm{proc}}\) can be set by deformation length \(L\) and speed \(v\) as \(\tau_{\mathrm{proc}}\sim L/v\).

Important confusion to avoid. The white paper’s \(\sim\)km/s refers to rupture-propagation speed; it must not be conflated with the plate sliding speed \(v\). P9 checks whether the timescale of “slip/relative displacement” (e.g., orogen/nappes formation) can itself enter a \(De\gg 1\) regime.

Auxiliary order-of-magnitude calculation (energy bound; optional).

Evidence-level caution (no exaggeration). Klippen/nappes, UHP minerals (coesite/diamond), and inverted metamorphism (thermal disequilibrium) can often be explained in multiple standard scenarios. Therefore P9 does not infer speed from mere “existence.” It adjudicates regimes (De\(\ll\)1 vs De\(\gg\)1) only via pre-registered quantitative metrics (\(\Delta t\), \(v_{\mathrm{exh}}\), \(t_{\mathrm{event}}/t_{\mathrm{diff}}\), etc.).

If one assumes that an orogen’s gravitational potential increase \(PE\sim M g (H/2)\) must be supplied as kinetic energy of collision/impact in a short time (AR-13), then a “required speed” scale can be defined as \[\frac{1}{2}M_{\mathrm{plate}}v^2\,\eta_{\mathrm{conv}} \approx PE \quad \Rightarrow \quad v_{\mathrm{req}} \approx \sqrt{\frac{2PE}{\eta_{\mathrm{conv}}M_{\mathrm{plate}}}}.\] This is not a refutation of standard orogeny (long-duration work accumulation); it is only a boundary indicator of the implied speed scale when claiming an instantaneous (inertial) pile-up regime.

Data (minimum). (1) P–T–t paths of UHP/HP metamorphic belts (peak pressure, peak time, cooling/uplift time), (2) inverted metamorphism / thermal disequilibrium cases, (3) spatial-temporal constraints of “upper sheet” structures such as nappes/klippen.

Test (example).

• TEST-ORO1: estimate average exhumation speed \(v_{\mathrm{exh}}=\Delta z/\Delta t\) from peak depth (pressure-converted) and uplift time \(\Delta t\), then classify the regime under De sensitivity (multiple \(\tau_{\mathrm{relax}}\) assumptions).

• TEST-ORO2: compare thermal diffusion time \(t_{\mathrm{diff}}\sim L^2/\kappa\) to event time \(t_{\mathrm{event}}\), adjudicating whether thermal disequilibrium is “required” or reproducible in standard thermo-structural models.

FALSIFIER (example).

• If many (pre-registered \(N\)) representative UHP/HP cases consistently have \(\Delta t\) of several Myr and independent thermochronometers/diffusion clocks support it, a “fast pile-up” interpretation is FAIL/HOLD in P9.

• Conversely, if multiple independent clocks consistently force very short \(\Delta t\) (e.g., \(\ll 0.1\) Myr) and that short window is simultaneously consistent with structural/thermal signatures, P9 becomes an UNLOCK candidate.

Pre-registration file (recommended; optional). Lock (i) case selection rules, (ii) \(\tau_{\mathrm{relax}}\) ranges, and (iii) PASS/FAIL thresholds in .

Recommended DataPack (stub). (Appendix F expansion module).

8.10 P10 (optional): Atlantic sediment thickness/budget — is “thin” an age issue?

This prediction forbids impressionistic statements like “sediment is thin/thick” and locks the thickness–age–space relationship as a data test. (Reference code: .)

Key caution. Even under the standard model (H-STD), near-ridge (young crust) sediment thickness being near zero can be expected. Therefore P10’s question is not “why is the ridge bare,” but whether the observed thickness field and core chronology are consistent with long-duration accumulation.

Auxiliary order-of-magnitude budget. Let net Atlantic sediment mass flux be \(F_{\mathrm{Atl}}\), mean density \(\rho_s\), and area \(A_{\mathrm{Atl}}\). A simple mean thickness is \[\bar h \approx \frac{F_{\mathrm{Atl}}\,t}{\rho_s\,A_{\mathrm{Atl}}}.\] This ignores (i) shelf isolation/redistribution, (ii) carbonate dissolution, (iii) compaction, (iv) inter-basin exchange, etc., so by AR-14 it is used only as an auxiliary boundary value.

Data (minimum).

• global (or Atlantic) sediment thickness grids (seafloor thickness model) + uncertainty,

• oceanic crust age grids (chronology model) + ridge/transform masks,

• DSDP/ODP/IODP core samples (or public summaries) of sedimentation rate/age (biostrat/magnetostrat).

Test (example).

• TEST-SED1 (thickness–age fit): fit \(h(d)\) or \(h(t_{\mathrm{crust}})\) in the Atlantic versus distance \(d\) from the ridge or crust age \(t_{\mathrm{crust}}\), and assess whether residuals fall within what the standard model (low sedimentation + redistribution) can explain.

• TEST-SED2 (core cross-validation): check whether grid-based \(h\) matches integrated core-based sedimentation rates (or whether there is a systematic mismatch).

FALSIFIER (example).

• Strong falsifier against “young opening”: if cores across the Atlantic systematically span wide ages (tens to hundreds of Myr), and magnetostrat/biostrat are mutually consistent with the thickness field, then a “young Atlantic” is FAIL.

• Warning signal against standard long accumulation: if “old-crust” segments widely approach \(h\to 0\) beyond what standard flux/rate models allow, and core ages are consistently very young, then the weight of the “young accumulation” hypothesis H-SED increases.

Recommended DataPack (stub). , (Appendix F expansion module).

8.11 P11 (auxiliary; optional): Mn nodules / low-sedimentation indicators — “rapid formation” vs “long exposure”

P11 is an independent proxy module that supports P10. The key is not “nodules exist,” but which timescale nodule growth/age/exposure environments enforce under prereg rules.

Competing interpretations.

• H-STD-type: Mn nodules grow extremely slowly and persist on the surface under low-sedimentation/low-supply environments over long exposure times.

• Event-type: a catastrophic chemical/thermal event caused rapid nodule growth or rapid burial (additional signatures required).

Data/test (example).

• TEST-MN1: connect nodule size/lamination to independent dating (ideally radioisotopic/geochemical clocks) and compute a lower bound on required growth time.

• TEST-MN2: compare with present/past sedimentation rates (core-based) in the same regions to assess whether “burial vs exposure” can persist for long durations.

FALSIFIER (example). If, from nodule size and prereg growth-rate priors (1–10 mm/Myr), the required exposure time forces a Myr-scale lower bound, P11 acts as a boundary condition disfavoring extremely young (kyr–0.01 Myr) burial/rapid deposition variants (V-REC-like), not a direct proof of ARE.

Bundle results (this release). For three QA\(\ge1\) representative samples, even under the fastest-growth assumption (10 mm/Myr), the lower bound of required exposure time was computed as \(\min=4.0\) Myr. This exceeds the prereg threshold (UNLOCK: \(\ge1.0\) Myr), so P11 is locked as PASS (, ).

Interpretation boundary. The current DataPack is a small sample centered on “typical” values; P11 is used only as an order/boundary gate (long exposure required).

Recommended DataPack (stub). (Appendix F expansion module).

8.12 P12 (optional): Volcanic synchronization — “pulse” vs “long dribble”

This module elevates the narrative “big volcanoes are young” into a global data test. (Reference code: .)

Key risk (AR-15). Large extant stratovolcanoes often cannot persist for very long due to erosion/collapse/subsidence. Thus simply looking at the ages of volcanoes that still exist can automatically yield a distribution biased young (preservation bias). P12 must test whether narrow-window clustering remains after controlling that bias.

Quantification (example). For each volcano \(i\), define a representative construction time \(T_{80}(i)\) (time when 80% of edifice volume was built; the definition is pre-registered), and use the clustering index \[C_{\mathrm{volc}} = \frac{\mathrm{std}(T_{80})}{T_{\mathrm{span}}},\] where \(T_{\mathrm{span}}\) is the full comparison-window width. \(C_{\mathrm{volc}}\ll 1\) indicates strong clustering.

Data (minimum). (1) ages for construction phases of major global volcanoes (radiometric/stratigraphic), (2) if possible, volume/mass weights, (3) topography/erosion/collapse records to model preservation bias (with controls).

Test (example).

• TEST-V1: evaluate clustering of \(T_{80}\) after preservation-bias correction (or like-for-like environment comparison).

• TEST-V2: cross-check whether the same time-window spike persists after region-wise decomposition (Japan/Andes/Cascades/Philippines/hotspots, etc.).

FALSIFIER (example). If, after controlling preservation bias, \(T_{80}\) spreads widely and regional spikes disperse across different times, a “global pulse” is FAIL/HOLD. Conversely, if the same narrow-window cluster repeats across independent regions, it becomes an UNLOCK candidate.

Recommended DataPack (stub). (Appendix F expansion module).

8.13 P13 (optional): Friction threshold / stick-slip — is “slow drift” possible?

This module directly tests the premise “plates always creep slowly.” The key question is whether observed long-period rates (a few cm/yr) are (1) continuous motion under low friction (weak boundary / high pore pressure), or (2) a remnant of runaway sliding after exceeding a critical stress threshold (P14). (Idea note: P13.)

Intuition (summary). If friction follows Coulomb law \(\tau=\mu\sigma'_n\) and \(\mu\) is large, the driving shear stress \(\tau_{\mathrm{drive}}\) (slab pull / ridge push) may not exceed the critical value, making continuous drift difficult. Then either (i) C3-style lubrication/hydraulic jacking must reduce \(\mu_{\mathrm{eff}}\), or (ii) a large impulse must push the system over threshold, followed by a kinematic tail.

Minimal model (fixed by preregistration). \[\tau_{\mathrm{crit}} = \mu_s \sigma'_n = \mu_s(\sigma_n - \alpha P_f), \qquad R_{\tau} = \frac{\tau_{\mathrm{drive}}}{\tau_{\mathrm{crit}}}.\] For continuous drift to be feasible, typically \(R_\tau \gtrsim 1\) on average (threshold/averaging definition is pre-registered).

Test (example).

• TEST-FRIC1 (stress ratio): combine literature/model ranges of \(\tau_{\mathrm{drive}}\) with boundary \(\mu_s,\alpha,P_f\) ranges and compute the \(R_\tau\) distribution.

• TEST-FRIC2 (thermal–stress consistency): use observed heat-flow/frictional-heat upper bounds to estimate a feasible upper bound on \(\tau\), and eliminate (FAIL) or narrow the assumption combinations in TEST-FRIC1.

FALSIFIER (example). If a weak-boundary (low \(\mu_{\mathrm{eff}}\)) assumption alone makes \(R_\tau\) consistently near 1 and no additional impulse is needed, the claim “critical stick-slip is required” is FAIL/HOLD.

Recommended DataPack (stub). . (Pre-registration: .)

Bundle results (2025-12-27): PASS. Across six literature-based priors (refs\(=6\)), the median of \(R_\tau\) is 0.221 (IQR\(\approx[0.181,0.257]\)), meeting the prereg hold threshold (\(R_{\tau}\le 0.3\)) (output: ). Interpretation: this is auxiliary evidence that continuous drift may not be mechanically “easy” and that additional conditions (strong lubrication or an impulse) may be required. Note that this is not a direct observation.

8.14 P14 (optional): Thermo-kinematic remnant — velocity tail and frictional heat

This module locks, in one place, the two requirements when claiming a “recent high-speed event”: (1) a kinematic decay tail and (2) a frictional-heat budget. (Idea note: P14.) Caution (AR-18). This module does not “refute” the standard model; it defines the minimum quantitative constraints required when claiming a high-speed event.

Kinematic tail (example parameterization). Let the post-event speed be \[v(t)=v_0\left(1+\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^{-p}, \qquad (p>0)\] and constrain \(v_0,p,t_0\) so that the total displacement \(S=\int_0^T v(t)\,dt\) matches observation/assumption (e.g., thousands of km). For example, if \(p\neq 1\), \[S = \frac{v_0 t_0}{1-p}\left[\left(1+\frac{T}{t_0}\right)^{1-p}-1\right],\] and if \(p=1\), \(S=v_0t_0\ln(1+T/t_0)\).

Frictional heat (minimum order). If effective shear stress \(\tau\) acts over area \(A\) across distance \(S\), \[W_{\mathrm{fric}} \approx \eta_h\, \tau A S,\] where \(\eta_h\in(0,1]\) is the pre-registered fraction converted to heat. With an effective shear-zone thickness \(h_{\mathrm{eff}}\), the mean temperature rise scale is \[\Delta T \sim \frac{W_{\mathrm{fric}}}{\rho c_p\,A h_{\mathrm{eff}}}.\]

Test (example).

• TEST-TAIL1 (fit tail): compute the \((v_0,p,t_0)\) region that simultaneously matches present speed \(v(T)\) and total displacement \(S\).

• TEST-TAIL2 (heat gate): check whether the region allowed by TEST-TAIL1 is compatible with independent observations (heat flow/partial melt/seismic low-velocity zones, etc.).

FALSIFIER (example). If satisfying both \(v(T)\) and \(S\) forces excessively large \(v_0\), or \(\Delta T\) forces widespread melting inconsistent with observations (or if required \(\tau\) is unrealistically large), then FAIL/HOLD.

Recommended DataPack (stub). , . (Pre-registration: .)

8.15 P15 (optional): Great Drainage — where did the water go? (basin volume increase vs drainage/sea level/canyons)

This module locks the claim that a “newly opened (or rapidly expanded) basin” acted as a water sink via mass conservation. (Idea note: P15.) The core is to connect “great drainage / canyon” narratives directly to sea-level (eustatic/relative) records.

Minimum hydrologic budget (model). Let global ocean area be \(A_{\mathrm{ocean}}\) and basin volume increase be \(\Delta V(t)\). A first-order water-conservation approximation gives \[\Delta SL(t) \approx -\frac{\Delta V(t)}{A_{\mathrm{ocean}}}.\] The mean fill discharge scale is \[\bar Q \sim \frac{\Delta V(T)}{T}.\] (Refinement: redistribution/gravity/elastic/geoid/regional RSL are handled in the coupled test in Appendix D.)

Test (example).

• TEST-WAT1 (sea-level gate): assess whether assumed \(\Delta V(T)\) and \(T\) imply \(\Delta SL\) compatible with independent sea-level constraints (eustatic/coral/delta).

• TEST-WAT2 (drainage–canyon coevality): assess whether major submarine canyons/large turbidites/shelf incision times cluster in the assumed event window.

• TEST-WAT3 (discharge order): compare \(\bar Q\) with known extreme floods (ice-dam outbursts, etc.) to check physical plausibility.

FALSIFIER (example). If \(\Delta V(T)\) implies \(\Delta SL\) that repeatedly violates observed sea-level bounds (i.e., required drops/jumps are absent), P15 is FAIL. Or, if canyon/large-deposit timing constraints disperse over \(\gtrsim\)Myr independent of the event window, the claim weakens/FAILs.

Simulation stub. is a minimal code that takes \(\Delta V,T,A_{\mathrm{ocean}}\) and outputs \(\Delta SL\) and \(\bar Q\), including sensitivity (Monte Carlo).

Recommended DataPack (stub). , , . (Pre-registration: .)

8.16 P16 (optional): North Atlantic freshwater shock — co-inflection of proxies (\(\delta^{18}\mathrm{O}\)/salinity/AMOC)

This module locks the claim “there was freshwater input (or salinity drop)” by multi-proxy coherence (\(\delta^{18}\mathrm{O}\), Mg/Ca, IRD, Pa/Th, speleothems, etc.). (Idea note: P16.)

Core gate (P16). Within a pre-registered event window, multiple independent North Atlantic records must exhibit simultaneous inflection in the expected direction. The key is not “one proxy moved” but whether freshwater/salinity and circulation response cohere.

Data (this bundle). This release uses four NOAA/WDS paleoclimate series and one PANGAEA series:

• Hudson Strait core HU75-58: \(\delta^{18}\)O (planktic foram) (NOAA/WDS)

• core MD99-2251: Pa/Th (AMOC proxy) (NOAA/WDS)

• core MD03-2664: Mg/Ca-SST (NOAA/WDS)

• core GeoB6007-2: alkenone-SST (NOAA/WDS)

• Icelandic shelf JM96-1207: IRD (PANGAEA; used as auxiliary)

The merged input table is .

Test (P16 inflection coherence).

• For each record, estimate the inflection time \(t_i\) and uncertainty \(\sigma_i\) by a prereg method (change-point or segmented regression).

• Compute a coherence score \(C\) from the time clustering (e.g., standardized RMSE or a weighted variance).

• UNLOCK if \(C \ge C_{\min}\) and the sign consistency matches prereg expectations.

Bundle result (2025-12-27): PASS. With 5 records, the prereg coherence score is \(C=0.600\) meeting the PASS threshold (\(C\ge 0.6\)), and the weighted mean event center is \(\bar t\approx4.35\) ka with \(\sigma\approx0.19\) ka (output: ; log: ).

FALSIFIER. If records do not show simultaneous inflection or if sign directions contradict expectations, P16 is FAIL/HOLD. If coherence holds only by excluding a specific record post hoc, treat as strong HOLD (near STOP).

Linked AR/H. AR-25, AR-32; competing hypothesis H-FW.

8.17 P17 (exploratory): Biogeographic separation — a strong falsifier for very young opening

This exploratory module connects biogeography/genetics data that can act as the strongest falsifier when claiming a very young opening (kyr). (Idea note: P17.)

Caution (high risk). Most ocean-crossing divergence times are typically reported as Myr or older. Therefore it is safer to use P17 primarily to find FAIL quickly rather than to seek “support.” The goal is to publish a candidate list and, if divergence times are incompatible with the event window, treat it as immediate STOP/HOLD.

Test (example).

• TEST-BIO1 (candidate selection): select “sister-group” candidates distributed on both Atlantic sides (mammals/fish/invertebrates, etc.) and collect divergence times (molecular clock or fossil-calibrated).

• TEST-BIO2 (time gate): if divergence times exceed the event window \(T_{\mathrm{event}}\) by a prereg threshold, adjudicate incompatibility with a very young-opening variant (V-HOLO).

FALSIFIER (example). If most candidates consistently have \(t_{\mathrm{div}}\gg T_{\mathrm{event}}\), a young-opening claim (especially kyr) is immediately FAIL (while also checking sample bias/calibration errors).

Recommended DataPack (stub). . (Pre-registration: .)

8.18 P18 (optional): Coupling with “Pacific Expansion V2” — isotopic “open-system” and thermal–diffusion gate

This module is the interface required when coupling ideas from a separate document (Pacific Expansion V2) into the Atlantic-opening white paper. The key is to not accept isotopic ages (Ar, U–Pb, etc.) as absolute clocks by default. Instead: (1) gate out bias possibilities from open system / mixing / diffusion, and (2) only if it passes, compare event-window coherence with other proxies (P12/P15/P16/P21, etc.).

Competing hypotheses.

• H-ISO-STD (standard): in a closed (or sufficiently corrected quasi-closed) system, radiogenic decay dominates and measured age approximates formation/eruption/cooling time.

• H-ISO-OPEN (alternative): at high temperature/damage/fluid exchange/mixing, parent/daughter elements redistribute and the measured “age” reflects thermal–diffusion history or mixing lines rather than event time.

TEST-ISO1 (modern anchors; required). Quantify the direction/magnitude of bias (or its absence) on modern/historical samples with known true age. For example, reports exist of excess \(^{40}\)Ar in historical lavas (e.g., Dalrymple 1969; USGS Professional Paper 650-B), implying K–Ar/Ar–Ar ages can be overestimated. Conversely, U–Pb zircon can have extremely slow Pb diffusion in undamaged crystals (reported as “negligible” even above \(>900^{\circ}\)C), so claims of easy “resetting” themselves require strong assumptions (AR-21).

Gate (FAIL).

• (a) the bias sign/order does not match literature anchors within a known-age range (e.g., historical/Holocene), or

• (b) within reasonable parameter ranges (AR-21) the toy model below cannot produce \(N_D\gg 1\), or

• (c) the claim requires event-window reinterpretation despite absence of “open-system indicators” (excess Ar, mixing lines, recrystallization/damage indicators) in experiments/field observations,

then P18 is STOP, and this white paper does not use isotopes as event-window evidence.

TEST-ISO2 (cross-coherence; optional). Only if P18 passes, additionally evaluate event-window coherence (P29) combined with P12/P15/P16/P21. If isotopic event windows systematically conflict with other proxies, isolate the coupled variant (V_COUPLED) as HOLD.

Minimal toy equations. Diffusivity often follows an Arrhenius form: \[D(T)=D_0\exp\!\left(-\frac{E_a}{RT}\right),\qquad N_D=\frac{D(T)\,\tau}{L^2}.\] If \(N_D\ll1\), preservation (closed-system approximation); if \(N_D\gg1\), open-system effects dominate. Under a 1D toy model with Dirichlet boundary (complete exchange), a “saturation” timescale is \[\tau_{\rm sat}\approx \frac{4L^2}{\pi^2 D(T)}\] as an order check.¹

DataPack. Include the prereg template (Appendix Q) and the casebook . Since v1.31, a minimal analysis scaffold has been added.

8.19 P19 (optional; V-HOLOX): Basin Volume Buffering — sea-level budget residual vs basin-volume change

Bundle verdict (2025-12-27): PASS. ()

This module replaces statements like “sea level rose less/more” with a sea-level budget residual, and adjudicates whether effective ocean-basin volume change acted as a water-storage buffer. (Idea note: P19 in .)

Definition. Let observed global mean sea level be \(SL_{\mathrm{obs}}(t)\), and let \(SL_{\mathrm{sum}}(t)\) be the sum of budget components (thermal expansion + ice-sheet/glacier mass + land storage change). Define the residual \[R_{\mathrm{SL}}(t) := SL_{\mathrm{obs}}(t) - SL_{\mathrm{sum}}(t).\] The user model claims \(R_{\mathrm{SL}}(t)\) can be persistently biased negative within uncertainty, and that its magnitude can be explained by basin-volume change. A first-order required volume change is \[\Delta V_{\mathrm{req}}(t) \approx -A_{\mathrm{ocean}}\, R_{\mathrm{SL}}(t).\]

Test (TEST-SLB1; pre-registered). (1) fix the same period/baseline, (2) estimate mean/trend and uncertainty of \(R_{\mathrm{SL}}\), and (3) compare with \(\Delta V_{\mathrm{proxy}}\) from independent proxies (e.g., ridge cooling/subsidence rates, crust production, area change). Input file stubs: , .

Controls / confounder isolation (required; linked to P30).

• (instrument control) compute \(R_{\mathrm{SL}}\) separately for satellite altimetry and tide-gauge reconstructions.

• (component control) cross-use alternative reconstructions for each \(SL_{\mathrm{sum}}\) component (different reanalysis/products).

• (null) include “residual is instrumental mismatch/drift” (H-SLB), adjudicating whether the same window repeats across systems.

Event-window output (optional; linked to P29). Define the event center \(\hat t\) as the first time (or time of maximum deviation) when \(R_{\mathrm{SL}}(t)\) continuously exceeds a prereg threshold (e.g., \(R_{\mathrm{SL}}<-r_*\)), estimate its uncertainty \(\hat\sigma\) across system/component choices, and record to (, , ).

FALSIFIER.

• (closure) if \(R_{\mathrm{SL}}\approx 0\) within uncertainty, basin buffering is not required; P19 is FAIL/HOLD.

• (sign) if \(R_{\mathrm{SL}}\) is long-term positive or sign-inconsistent, the directional claim is FAIL.

• (upper bound) if required \(\Delta V_{\mathrm{req}}\) repeatedly exceeds realistic subsidence/expansion bounds, STOP (over-strong assumption).

Linked AR/H. AR-23, AR-24; competing hypothesis H-SLB.
Implementation stub. (v1.24).

8.20 P20 (optional; V-HOLOX): Misfit Rivers & Mega-Deltas — “big valleys/small rivers” and rapid-drainage signatures

Bundle verdict (2025-12-27): PASS. ()

The core question is: “where did all that water go?” P20 checks this via geomorphic residuals: underfit/misfit valleys difficult to explain by present discharge, and whether the timing of “major volume build” of mega-deltas/alluvial fans clusters in a specific window. (Idea note: P20 in .)

Metrics (examples). (1) Misfit ratio: \[R_{\mathrm{misfit}} := \frac{W_{\mathrm{valley}}}{W_{\mathrm{channel}}}\] (2) Delta clustering index: \[C_{\Delta} := \frac{\mathrm{std}(t_{\mathrm{onset}})}{\mathrm{range}(t_{\mathrm{window}})}\] where \(t_{\mathrm{onset}}\) is the estimated start (with chronology) of “major delta/fan volume build.”

Test (TEST-RIV1 / TEST-DELTA1).

• (RIV) collect global (or Atlantic-basin-focused) cases in and evaluate the \(R_{\mathrm{misfit}}\) distribution, controlling for covariates such as lithology/uplift rate/glacial influence.

• (DELTA) collect definition-locked onset/acceleration times of “major volume build” in , control preservation bias, then compute \(C_{\Delta}\).

Controls / confounder isolation (required; linked to P30). P20 acknowledges that “rapid drainage” is not the only explanation. Therefore pre-register the following controls/alternatives:

• (H-GLAC) standard postglacial processes: meltwater/climate change/base-level shifts can form large valleys.

• (H-CLIM) discharge-regime change: past rainfall/extreme events could yield large \(Q_{\mathrm{peak}}\).

• (H-ANTH) human disturbance: channelization/dams/land-use changes can reshape recent morphology.

Include at least one control: (i) non-Atlantic basins (e.g., Indian Ocean) or (ii) a within-basin subset with “weak glacial influence.” Also generate a null distribution of clustering by label-preserving permutation on \(\{t_{\mathrm{onset}}\}\).

Event-window output (optional; linked to P29). If the DELTA submodule PASSes, estimate event center \(\hat t\) and width \(\hat\sigma\) from the \(t_{\mathrm{onset}}\) distribution and record to (). (However, if the same width is reproducible under H-GLAC/H-CLIM, downgrade to .)

Implementation stub. (v1.24).

FALSIFIER.

• (no misfit) if, after controls, \(R_{\mathrm{misfit}}\sim \mathcal{O}(1)\), support for “rapid drainage” weakens and P20 is FAIL/HOLD.

• (no clustering) if \(t_{\mathrm{onset}}\) disperses broadly over long durations with no spike in the target window, P20 is FAIL.

Linked AR/H. AR-25, AR-26; competing hypothesis H-RIV.

8.21 P21 (optional; V-HOLOX): Plate Deceleration — systematic mismatch of “geologic speed” vs “GPS speed”

P21 tests an “after-event deceleration tail” using kinematic data. The idea is simple: if the long-term mean speed (\(v_{\mathrm{geo}}\); Myr-scale average) and present speed (\(v_{\mathrm{now}}\); GNSS/GPS) are not separated by random errors but systematically biased in the deceleration direction, it could align with P14 (remnant tail) and an event-decay picture. (Idea note: P18 in .)

Metric (example). \[D_{\mathrm{plate}} := \frac{|v_{\mathrm{geo}}|-|v_{\mathrm{now}}|}{|v_{\mathrm{geo}}|}.\] If many plates show a repeated bias \(D_{\mathrm{plate}}>0\), it is a “deceleration” signal.

Test (TEST-DEC1; pre-registered).

• compare \(v_{\mathrm{geo}}\) and \(v_{\mathrm{now}}\) in the same reference frame ().

• separate plate-reorganization intervals so they are not conflated with a single event-decay model.

FALSIFIER. (1) if there is no bias or the sign is random, P21 FAIL/HOLD. (2) if the bias is fully explained by plate reorganization, P21 FAIL. (3) if a strong \(D_{\mathrm{plate}}>0\) bias exists but P14’s thermal budget FAILs simultaneously, then “deceleration” may exist but event-cause interpretation is isolated as HOLD.

Linked AR/H. AR-27; competing hypothesis H-DEC.
Implementation stub. (v1.24).

8.22 P22 (exploratory; V-HOLOX/V-RES): Oil–Glacier/Drainage cross-evidence — spatial/compositional signatures of a “glacial bulldozer”

P22 cross-tests whether petroleum (or bitumen/oil sands) is explainable by purely in situ generation, or whether glacial/large-scale fluid transport repositioned material into sinks. However, petroleum presence/absence is highly sensitive to (i) basin existence, (ii) source rock/maturity, (iii) seal/trap, and (iv) exploration maturity (H-OIL/H-DISC). Therefore P22 must first fit a null model that includes basin mask + petroleum-system covariates, and only then test the additional explanatory power of transport proxies. (Do not use trivial comparisons like “no oil on an alluvial plain”; AR-40.)

Subtests (pre-registered; TEST-OIL/GLACIAL family).

• TEST-OIL1 (spatial): for a province/basin objective variable (), build a baseline model including petroleum system (source/maturity/trap) + exploration indicators (wells/seismic/exploration years, etc.), then test whether transport-to-sink features (distance to ice margin/meltwater drainage path/mega-delta terminus) improve prediction power (prereg criteria).

• TEST-OIL2 (composition): test whether terrestrial biomarker ratios (e.g., oleanane, lignin-derived indicators, pollen/spores; specific markers pre-registered) covary with transport-to-sink proxies (delta-terminus distance, glacial-path proxies). The standard alternative is “normal river/ocean transport,” so include a non-glacial control basin with comparable river input (or comparable input/area) (AR-41).

• TEST-GLACIAL1 (source–sink): among comparable sedimentary basins (restricted to those with petroleum-system viability), test whether (a) upstream sources/paths show depletion and (b) downstream terminal sinks show enrichment.

Inputs (stub). , . For discovery-bias covariates, use P35’s . (Field definitions/units: Appendix F and .)

FALSIFIER.

• (no additional explanatory power) if transport proxies vanish or become sign-unstable after controlling petroleum-system + exploration covariates, P22 is FAIL/HOLD.

• (no composition signal) if terrestrial biomarker patterns are explained by “normal river input” or show no sink-amplification signal, P22 is FAIL/HOLD.

• (confounding) if results are explained by exploration maturity / shelf sediment cover (mega-delta vs Middle-East-type low-clastic shelves), keep P22 only as a candidate explanation; do not promote to evidence (P35 PASS is a prerequisite).

Linked AR/H. AR-28, AR-39, AR-40, AR-41; competing hypotheses H-OIL, H-DISC.
Pre-registration. .

8.23 P23 (exploratory; V-HOLOX): Volcanic Refugia — correlation of ice-free refugia with heatflow/arc proximity

P23 explores whether “ice-free refugia” patterns are not mere climate artifacts, but coupled to heatflow/volcanism (geothermal flux).

Test (TEST-REF1). In , collect ice presence/absence, heatflow proxies, distance to volcanic arcs, and climate covariates (temperature/precipitation), and run a multivariate comparison.

FALSIFIER. If adding climate covariates removes the heatflow term or makes its direction unstable, P23 is FAIL/HOLD.

Linked AR/H. AR-29; competing hypothesis H-REF.

8.24 P24 (exploratory; V-HOLOX): Endorheic Mega-Lakes — “evaporation clock” clustering

Bundle verdict (2025-12-27): PASS. ()

P24 tests whether, in endorheic lake basins, the onset of low-stand transitions (LOW-onset) synchronizes around the registered event window (median \(t=4.2\) ka). Using Oxford LLDB 1-kyr time-slice classification, extract for each lake the first time it transitions HIGH/MID \(\rightarrow\) LOW and examine the distribution.

Data. Oxford Lake-Level Data Bank (NCEI) (original: ).

Test (TEST-LAKE1). Use a 1-kyr bin representation of the event window as \(3\)–\(5\) ka, and test whether LOW-onset is enriched in that bin under a permutation null. (Non-significance is treated as HOLD, not FAIL.)

Result summary. Out of \(N_{\mathrm{lake}}=358\) lakes, LOW-onset was detected for \(N_{\mathrm{onset}}=146\); among those, \(39\) onsets (26.7%) fall in the \(3\)–\(5\) ka window. Relative to a uniform null (1–max age bin), enrichment \(\approx 1.60\), with permutation \(p_{\ge}\approx 0.00185\); clustering is confirmed and locked PASS.

FALSIFIER. If LOW-onset is not enriched in the event window (lack of information) or is significantly depleted, P24 is HOLD/FAIL.

Interpretation (caution). P24 is a downstream-pattern showing that synchronized low-stand onsets are frequent near the “4.2 ka window.” Mechanistic proof (ARE \(\rightarrow\) melt) is restricted to core PASS modules such as P19/P20/P29; P24 is only auxiliary coherence material.

Linked AR/H. AR-30; competing hypothesis H-LAKE.

8.25 P25 (optional; V-HOLOX): Shelf Asymmetry — global asymmetry of shelf width/incision/high-energy deposits

Standard geology already expects a shelf-width difference between the Atlantic (passive margins) and the Pacific (active margins). However, the user model requires additional signatures of event-like rapid drainage/rapid deposition: even in regions that are very arid today (e.g., deserts), past large drainage traces (submarine canyons/high-energy deposits) should remain on the shelf–slope system.

Test (TEST-SHELF1). In , collect shelf width, submarine canyon density/fan structures, basin area (and present discharge), and compare whether patterns are explainable by “present climate/discharge only” versus retaining “event residuals.”

FALSIFIER. If shelf width/canyon density are sufficiently explained by long-duration discharge/sedimentation models and event-like residuals are absent in arid/low-discharge regions, P25 is FAIL/HOLD.

Linked AR/H. AR-25 (geomorphic controls), AR-30 (hydrology); competing hypothesis H-SHELF.

8.26 P26 (exploratory; V-STRATA): Great Unconformity — synchronization/high-energy signatures of basement truncation surfaces

P26 explores whether broad truncation surfaces like the “Great Unconformity” can synchronize to a single event (or a narrow window). If global synchronization does not hold, isolate as immediate HOLD/FAIL.

Test (TEST-UNCON1). In , collect standardized unconformity age ranges, weathering/soil-development indicators, and high-energy indicators of overlying deposits.

FALSIFIER. If unconformity ages/formations are globally dispersed, or long-duration weathering/soil development is common, P26 is FAIL.

Linked AR/H. AR-31; competing hypothesis H-UNCON.

8.27 P27 (exploratory; V-STRATA): Polystrate Fossils — prevalence/environment distribution of multi-strata-penetrating cases

P27 classifies whether polystrate fossils are common products of “local rapid burial” or have patterns coupled to a broader event.

Test (TEST-POLY1). In , record environment (delta/floodplain/pyroclastic/coastal, etc.), stratigraphy/structure, and age per case to assess distributions.

FALSIFIER. If cases are almost entirely restricted to local environments (e.g., floodplain/delta) and global synchronization is not observed, P27 is difficult to use as global evidence (FAIL/HOLD).

Linked AR/H. AR-31; competing hypothesis H-POLY.

8.28 P28 (exploratory; V-STRATA): Coal with Marine Fossils — mixed origin vs repeated transgression/reworking

P28 explores whether co-occurrence of coal beds with marine fossils/sediments indicates “large-scale transport/mixing” versus “repeated transgression/reworking.”

Test (TEST-COAL1). In , standardize and record rooting/soil indicators (in situ) vs reworking indicators, fossil assemblages, and sedimentary structures.

FALSIFIER. If rooting/soil indicators are common and marine fossils are explained by thin transgressive surfaces, P28 is hard to use as mixed-event evidence (FAIL/HOLD).

Linked AR/H. AR-31; competing hypothesis H-COAL.

8.29 P29 (optional; V-EVID): Joint Event Window Coherence — cross-proxy “event window” coherence

Bundle verdict (2025-12-27): PASS. ()

P29 quantifies the principle: “even if you collect many records, if they point to different times, eventness claims collapse.” For evidence-grade integration (V-EVID), event-time estimates must concentrate into a narrow window across at least 3 independent .

Inputs (prereg required). From each module (P12/P15/P16/P19/P20/P21/P18, etc.), estimate a center time \(t_i\) and uncertainty \(\sigma_i\), and record them in (recommended unit: ).

Schema (recommended; DataPack v0.8). has at least: , , , , , , , , . Here \(\in\{-1,0,+1\}\) denotes the directionality predicted by the event (0 = unspecified/unused), and only rows enter the coherence calculation.

Coherence metric. Let the weighted mean be \(\bar t = \sum w_i t_i/\sum w_i\) with \(w_i=1/\sigma_i^2\), and define \[K_{\mathrm{joint}} = \sqrt{\frac{\sum w_i (t_i-\bar t)^2}{\sum w_i}} \Big/ \mathrm{median}(\sigma_i).\]

Sign-coherence metric (optional). If is provided, compute the agreement rate with the modal nonzero sign: \[S_{\mathrm{joint}}=\frac{\#\{i:\mathrm{sign}_i=\mathrm{mode}\}}{\#\{i:\mathrm{sign}_i\neq 0\}}.\] If \(S_{\mathrm{joint}}\) is low, even if timing matches, physical directionality may be contradictory.

Decision rule. P29 addresses timing coherence only; controls/confounders are separately gated in P30. Prereg thresholds: if \(K_{\mathrm{joint}}\le K_{\mathrm{unlock}}\) then UNLOCK; if \(K_{\mathrm{joint}}\ge K_{\mathrm{fail}}\) then FAIL; otherwise HOLD.

Randomization (negative control). Permute \(t_i\) while preserving labels to construct a null distribution of \(K_{\mathrm{joint}}\). If observed \(K_{\mathrm{joint}}\) is not outside the top 5% (p\(<\)0.05), treat “simultaneity” as HOLD.

FALSIFIER. If coherence holds only by including a particular module set, or only by ignoring chronology uncertainty, FAIL/HOLD. (Especially, changing selection criteria post hoc is treated as strong HOLD close to STOP.)

Code. computes these metrics and outputs .

Linked AR/H. AR-32, AR-33; competing hypothesis H-SYNC.

8.30 P30 (optional; V-EVID): Negative Controls & Confounder Isolation — hard gate for controls/confounders

P30 structurally blocks the critique: “with enough cases you can build any story.” Therefore for V-EVID, not only (i) timing coherence (P29), but also (ii) each module’s controls/confounder isolation must be pre-registered and fixed.

Inputs (prereg required).

• : control definitions per module (regions/datasets/randomization rules, etc.).

• per-module result summaries: e.g., , , etc.

Decision rule (example). Suppose each module \(j\) outputs (a) a target-vs-control effect size \(E_j\) and (b) a null-hypothesis test \(p_j\). In V-EVID, at least \(N_{\mathrm{pass}}\) modules must satisfy \[p_j \le p_{\max}\quad\text{and}\quad \mathrm{sign}(E_j)=\mathrm{sign}_{\mathrm{expected}}\] with detailed thresholds fixed in a prereg YAML.

FALSIFIER.

• (missing controls) if lacks a definition, or rules are changed post hoc, P30 is HOLD/FAIL (effectively STOP).

• (non-specificity) if target/control differences are unclear (non-significant \(p_j\)), downgrade the evidence grade (ERL downgrade).

Implementation stub. (v1.23).
Linked AR/H. AR-34; competing hypothesis H-CONF.

8.31 Resource cross-evidence test map — user questions \(\rightarrow\) P22/P31–P35

This section maps user-posed resource-validation questions one-to-one to prediction modules, to reduce terminology confusion and to lock “what counts as PASS” and “what counts as FAIL” early. (Resource modules have high discovery-bias risk (H-DISC), so P35 is used as a front gate.)

Memo (Middle East / deltas). Even on shelves, thick river-input deltaic/clastic wedges can introduce bias: not “absent,” but “hard to discover/image” (H-DISC). Conversely, low-clastic platforms (e.g., parts of the Middle East) can exhibit high discoverability. Thus do not treat such cases as immediate counterexamples in P22/P32; quantify bias first via P35.

8.32 P31 (exploratory; V-RES): Coal Rank vs Deformation — “is anthracite only in orogenic belts?”

Bundle verdict (2025-12-27): PASS. ()

P31 tests, at a global-sample level, the claim that coal rank (lignite\(\rightarrow\)bituminous\(\rightarrow\)anthracite) is not solely a function of time, but also of compaction/deformation (stress field). The key is whether anthracite can be sufficiently produced in stable cratons by burial/temperature alone, or whether it is substantially concentrated in orogenic/fold-thrust belts.

Test (TEST-COAL2). In , record: (1) coal rank or a rank proxy such as vitrinite reflectance \(R_o\), (2) structural/deformation proxies (e.g., fold-thrust belt flag, fault density, strain indicators), (3) burial/thermal proxies (maximum burial depth, geothermal gradient, etc.). The analysis fits a null model with “burial/thermal only” predictors, then evaluates the additional explanatory power of deformation proxies (\(\Delta R^2\) or AIC improvement).

File stubs. (pre-register case selection/order/thresholds).
(correlation/rank-correlation/logistic-regression stubs).
(user-provided 5-sample demo; not used for evidence-grade scoring).

Bundle results (2025-12-27; PASS). This release includes a QA0 global sample constructed from public data (WoCQI + GSRM): (N=1006; anthracite=104), reproducible via . Pipeline summary (): Spearman \(\rho=-0.345\) meets the \(|\rho|\ge0.30\) threshold (\(p\ll0.01\)), and in the “low-deformation subset” the anthracite fraction is 0.127, not meeting the FAIL condition (\(>0.30\)). Thus P31 is locked as PASS. However, PASS does not establish causality; a covariate-controlled version (including burial/thermal proxies) remains future work.

FALSIFIER.

• (counterexample) if anthracite is commonly produced in low-deformation stable cratons/basins and is explainable by burial proxies alone, the “compaction-dominant” claim weakens (P31 FAIL/HOLD).

• (null) if deformation proxies add no significant explanatory power beyond the null model, P31 FAIL/HOLD.

Linked AR/H. AR-35; competing hypothesis H-RANK.

8.33 P32 (exploratory; V-RES): Source Rock Budget vs Reserves — “Mass Balance Fail” test

Bundle verdict (2025-12-27): HOLD (no evidence). ()

P32 locks the claim “this region’s source rock (TOC) alone cannot produce current reserves” via a budget calculation. The key is regional-scale definition: not “right beneath a field,” but the total source-rock mass within the prereg .

Test (TEST-BUDGET1). In , record: (1) reserves (separating oil-in-place vs recoverable if possible), (2) source-rock area/thickness/density, (3) TOC, conversion efficiency \(\eta_{\mathrm{conv}}\), expulsion efficiency \(\eta_{\mathrm{exp}}\), (4) uncertainty bounds. Caution: \(M_{\mathrm{oil,obs}}\) may be “discovered” reserves (dependent on exploration maturity/cover/imaging difficulty; AR-39), so record exploration metadata when possible and run sensitivity on lower/upper bounds. Define a simple upper bound: \[M_{\mathrm{oil,max}} = A\,h\,\rho\,\mathrm{TOC}\,\eta_{\mathrm{conv}}\,\eta_{\mathrm{exp}},\] and output \[R_{\mathrm{budget}} = \frac{M_{\mathrm{oil,obs}}}{M_{\mathrm{oil,max}}}.\]

FALSIFIER. If core cases repeatedly yield \(R_{\mathrm{budget}}\le 1\) (with uncertainty), the claim “external inflow (bulldozer/megaflood) is required” weakens (P32 FAIL/HOLD). Conversely, if \(R_{\mathrm{budget}}\gg 1\) persists outside uncertainty, a transport/missing-source scenario remains a candidate (but missing-source scenarios must be eliminated first).

Linked AR/H. AR-36, AR-39; competing hypotheses H-BUDG, H-DISC (and H-OIL).

8.34 P33 (exploratory; V-RES): Thermal Window & Intrusion Exclusion — “direct intrusion burns it”

Bundle verdict (2025-12-27): HOLD (no evidence). ()

P33 organizes the claim (shared by the standard model) that petroleum is not preserved in direct magma-intrusion contact zones, but rather near the boundaries of a thermal window / indirectly heated zones. This is not standalone evidence; it provides a physical constraint needed to interpret P32/P34.

Test (TEST-TEMP1). In , record: (1) geothermal gradient/heatflow, (2) distance to intrusions/igneous bodies, (3) maturity indicators (\(R_o\), Tmax, etc.), (4) occurrence type (oil/heavy oil/gas/pyrolysis traces). If crude oil is stably preserved under “direct intrusion” conditions, this module fails (or indicates misclassification).

FALSIFIER. If giant fields are commonly preserved as crude oil despite (a) direct intrusion contact and (b) extreme over-temperature/overmaturity contexts, P33 is FAIL/HOLD (or requires data/definition review).

Linked AR/H. AR-38; competing hypothesis H-OIL.

8.35 P34 (optional; V-REC/V-RES): Petroleum Chronometers — Re–Os/U–Pb/\(^{40}\)Ar–\(^{39}\)Ar window test

Bundle verdict (2025-12-27): HOLD (no evidence). ()

P34 is a kill test that targets “young event (V-REC)” most directly. In petroleum systems, one can directly constrain charge/mineralization timing using (i) Re–Os isochrons of bitumen/oil, (ii) U–Pb of reservoir carbonate cements, (iii) Ar-series ages of fault-zone clays (illite), etc. If many independent chronometers consistently indicate deep time (Ma), a “recent (kyr–0.1 Myr) event” variant becomes difficult to maintain.

Test (TEST-PETAGE1). In , record , , , (), , (charge/diagenesis/faulting), , . Fix in preregistration, and evaluate: (1) fraction within the young window, (2) mixture-model clustering index, and (3) cross-method agreement.

FALSIFIER.

• (strong falsifier) if high-quality (qa_flag=0) chronometers across multiple petroleum systems repeatedly yield \(age_Ma \gg young_max_age_Ma\) with high cross-method agreement, V-REC conclusions are FAIL (or downgraded strongly to HOLD).

• (weak adjudication) if data are sparse/mixed (qa_flag>0), P34 is HOLD (do not use for conclusions before more collection).

Linked AR/H. AR-37; competing hypotheses H-ISO, H-OIL.

8.36 P35 (exploratory; V-RES/H-CONF): Oil Discoverability vs Sediment Cover — quantifying “discovery bias”

Bundle verdict (2025-12-27): HOLD (no evidence). ()

P35 quantifies a “discovery bias” that can distort interpretation of P22 (oil distribution correlation) and P32 (budget). In thick-river-input shelf/delta settings, (1) structures are buried deeper, (2) seismic velocity models become complex, and (3) drilling costs rise, lowering discoverability (AR-39; H-DISC). Conversely, as noted by the user, low-clastic shelf platforms (e.g., parts of the Middle East) can have higher discoverability. Thus P35 includes region contrasts (Middle East vs mega-deltas, etc.) to quantify bias sign/magnitude. From a petroleum-systems view, higher sedimentation can also increase storage/seal/reservoir opportunities, so P35 explicitly adjudicates the sign.

Refined two-layer observability model (core). Petroleum “distribution” data are not \(V_{\mathrm{true}}\) directly, but a set of “discovered” items. Interpret observed volume as \[V_{\mathrm{obs}} \approx V_{\mathrm{true}} \times P_{\mathrm{disc}} \times P_{\mathrm{dev}},\] where \(V_{\mathrm{true}}\) is geological endowment (source–maturity–trap/seal–preservation), \(P_{\mathrm{disc}}\) is discovery probability (effort, imaging difficulty, thick sediment cover/deltas, structural complexity), and \(P_{\mathrm{dev}}\) is development/commercialization threshold (cost/policy/technology). Thus, on low-clastic/structurally clear shelves, \(P_{\mathrm{disc}}\) may be high and observations can be biased upward, whereas on mega-deltas/thick cover/complex velocity structures, \(P_{\mathrm{disc}}\) may be low and “looks absent” may not imply \(V_{\mathrm{true}}=0\). To prevent this confusion, the white paper quantifies \(P_{\mathrm{disc}}\) first in P35, then interprets P22/P32.

Test (TEST-OIL-SED1; pre-registered). In , per basin (or exploration block) record: (i) discovery outcome (e.g., , ), (ii) exploration maturity (e.g., , , ), (iii) cover/sedimentation proxies (e.g., , ), (iv) geological controls (e.g., , , ). Example model (log-linear): \[\log V_i = \beta_0 + \beta_S S_i + \beta_E \log(E_i) + \beta_X X_i + \epsilon_i,\] or a negative-binomial/Poisson model for giant-field counts \(N_i\) with exploration effort as an offset.

FALSIFIER / decision rule (important).

• PASS (evidence; strong discovery-bias confounder): after controlling exploration effort/basin type, if the 95% CI upper bound of \(\beta_S\) is below 0 (fully negative) and stable under sensitivity, treat it as evidence that “thick cover suppresses discovery.” In this case, P22/P32 have high confounding risk from H-DISC and are downgraded (or held).

• FAIL (counter-evidence; H-DISC weakened): if the 95% CI lower bound of \(\beta_S\) is above 0 (fully positive) and stable, the “can’t find it because of sediment cover” assumption (H-DISC) is contradicted.

• HOLD (no evidence; low power): if the CI includes 0, it is typically a power limitation due to sample/covariate/effort scarcity, not a falsifier. In this case P22/P32 cannot claim “bias controlled,” so resource modules remain only candidate explanations.

File stubs. (pre-register variable definitions/selection rules/thresholds).
(regression/correlation/sensitivity stubs).
(data schema/codebook). Linked AR/H. AR-39; competing hypotheses H-DISC, H-CONF (and H-OIL).

9 Alternatives & limitations

9.1 Competing explanations (examples)

The mechanism competes with standard long-term ridge spreading and with alternative short-term triggers. Where applicable, each alternative is registered as an H-* hypothesis with explicit decision rules and negative controls.

9.2 Current limitations (r16)

The central limitation in r16 is that modules directly constraining rapid/event-like timing (e.g., P8/P14) are HOLD (not executed). Therefore, r16 supports a directional coherence narrative under PASS-lock rules, but it does not support strong exclusivity claims.

9.3 Upgrade path

The minimal upgrade for a stronger claim is to PASS-lock rapid/timing constraints (P8/P14) under pre-registered gates, while maintaining strict negative controls (P30) and event-window statistics (P29).

10 Closure & release

10.1 One-paragraph conclusion (PASS-locked; r16)

Within the PASS-lock rule, r16 allows a constrained, directional narrative: independent ARE-side prerequisites are PASS-locked (P1, P4), multiple downstream response records are PASS-locked (P16, P19, P20, P24), and event-window coherence is PASS-locked (P29). Together these support that an ARE-like reconfiguration is compatible with a coupled chain leading to freshwater/circulation anomalies and hydrology/sea-level/sediment responses. However, the mechanism is not yet uniquely determined, and rapid-event timing constraints remain HOLD; therefore strong claims of decisive proof or uniqueness are forbidden.

10.2 Hard close (three items)

• What can be said now (PASS-only). The causal direction ARE \(\rightarrow\) downstream responses can be described as PASS-locked directional coherence, using only PASS modules.

• What is forbidden now. “ARE was rapid” (in the strict sense), “ARE is the unique cause,” or “decisively proven” are forbidden until rapid/timing modules are PASS-locked.

• Minimal White paper-2 upgrade. Execute and PASS-lock the rapid/timing constraints (P8, P14) under prereg thresholds; then reassess whether the core narrative strengthens or collapses.

11 Next steps

This r16 release is intentionally PASS-locked in the core narrative. The roadmap therefore has two layers: (i) reproducible maintenance of the current PASS set, and (ii) future upgrades that are only allowed if additional HOLD modules are executed under pre-registered thresholds.

1. Step A — Freeze terminology and scope. Lock the scope “Atlantic-opening mechanism” at the level of this document; avoid adding new claims without new pre-registered gates.

2. Step B — Choose data anchors. Prioritize (1) boundary character around the Atlantic, (2) RSL asymmetry, (3) lubrication/shear signatures, (4) onset clustering (P5), (5) spatiotemporal propagation (P6), and (6) energy/dissipation signatures (energy-budget subsection).

3. Step C — Define hard gates. Fix PASS/FAIL thresholds (including \(\Omega\)-NoGo) in pre-registered config files; TeX must never override YAML.

4. Step D — Release/maintain the reproducibility bundle. Include data, code, checksums, and a QA report.

5. Step E — Dual-document distribution. Release (1) this technical white paper (strict) and (2) a 10-page public summary focused on visuals/FAQ.

6. Step F — Expand non-resource downstream modules. Sea-level / drainage / sediment / ecology records (P10/P15/P16/P17, etc.) directly target post-event responses; fill the DataPack and lock PASS/HOLD/FAIL.

7. Step G — Integrate observability bias. For every proxy class, explicitly specify preservation/sampling terms in the form of Eq. [eq:observability_general], separating “what exists” from “what is discovered” (the petroleum module is an explicit example).

12 FAQ

This section summarizes common questions in search-query form. Each answer is phrased as a testable statement, not a rhetorical claim.

Q1. How does this model say the Atlantic formed?

A. The proposed chain mechanism is: (1) Pacific-side uplift/deformation triggers (2) antipodal (Atlantic-side) tensile rupture, (3) the rupture creates an effective low-pressure deficit (Void) that “sucks” surrounding plates, and (4) fluid-mediated lubrication reduces resistance, enabling rapid displacement. The key requirement is to lock “cause \(\rightarrow\) observable signatures \(\rightarrow\) falsifiers” as a 1:1 mapping.

Q2. Is the Void a literal vacuum?

A. Not necessarily. In this white paper a Void means a transient low-pressure/low-density deficit relative to its surroundings. Therefore the core test variables are the pressure deficit \(\Delta P\) and its effective duration (or repetition) time \(\tau\).

Q3. How would we know this model is wrong?

A. Examples of falsifiers include: (1) Atlantic margins are dominated by sustained subduction (P1 FAIL), (2) deformation does not concentrate near predicted rupture/void-edge zones (P2 FAIL), (3) after corrections, Pacific/Atlantic RSL asymmetry disappears (P3 FAIL), (4) lubrication/shear markers are absent and dry friction explains observations (P4 FAIL), or (5) physically unrealistic parameters are required beyond \(\Omega\)-NoGo (e.g., excessively large \(\Delta P\), unrealistically thin \(h\)), implying STOP.

13 Figure and table schematics (summary)

The following is a minimal list of core schematics that convey the white paper’s logic most compactly.

• Fig A1. Vector map of Pacific “Push” vs Atlantic “Void suction” (core mechanism schematic).

• Fig A2. Hydroplaning/hydraulic-jacking concept: \(\mu_{\mathrm{dry}} \rightarrow \mu_{\mathrm{eff}}\) (schematic).

• Fig A3. Pacific vs Atlantic RSL pattern comparison (overshoot vs sustained rise).

• Fig A4. “Feasible region” diagram in terms of \(\Lambda\) and impulse \(J\), including \(\Omega\)-NoGo boundaries.

• Fig A5. Spatiotemporal mapping: nucleation candidates + \(t(s)\) propagation isochrones (data-fit result).

• Fig A6. Energy budget: decomposition of \(W_{\mathrm{fracture}}/W_{\mathrm{slide}}/W_{\mathrm{diss}}\) and comparison to \(\Omega\)-NoGo (bar or Sankey).

• Fig A7. Multiphase-fluid registry: \(\eta\)–\(h\)–\(v\) sensitivity and jointly feasible region (state diagram).

Note: in final production, clearly distinguish data-based plots from conceptual schematics.

14 Internal references (IR-1–IR-7)

• IR-1 “Atlantic opening concept” document: Void hypothesis, hydroplaning, asymmetric stabilization.

• IR-2 “Evidence white paper v2 (Noah Flood evidence-class)” document: UNLOCK/STOP hard gates; DataPack/checksum/codebook/QA-report reproducibility spec.

• IR-3 “Pacific expansion V2” document: Pacific-origin high-energy event; viscoelastic/structural-mechanics frame.

• IR-4 “Volume Particle (VP) theory” document: jamming/unjamming; deficit and restoring-pressure physical frame.

• IR-5 “DNA analysis white paper” document: DNA interpretation and verification procedure under a rigid-shell/VP frame.

• IR-6 “Magnetic-field decay etc” document: double-lattice/60-degree jamming; geomagnetic-decay (residual current) frame; T-GU trigger/evidence bundle.

• IR-7 (user-provided external link) Zenodo DOI: . Note: the Zenodo record metadata title/description may differ from IR-4; verify before citation.

15 Connection to the VP (Volume Particle) frame: conceptual mapping

This white paper does not develop VP theory in detail, but it states minimal mapping links to avoid term conflicts.

• Deficit \(\leftrightarrow\) pressure deficit \(\Delta P\) (redefining Void as deficit rather than literal vacuum)

• Restoring pressure \(\leftrightarrow\) suction/convergence component (dynamics that fills open space)

• Jamming/unjamming \(\leftrightarrow\) friction state transition (dry friction \(\rightarrow\) fluid lubrication)

• Double lattice / 60-degree jamming \(\leftrightarrow\) candidate external trigger (heat injection) (hypothesis that geometric friction drives the internal energy state to a threshold; IR-6)

16 Coupling to the 4.3 ka event: scope-extension option

Recommended division of labor: separate (A) mechanism (this white paper) and (B) chronology/evidence (a separate evidence white paper), then perform (C) coupling tests (D1–D4) in an integration paper.

Core coupling questions:

• D1. Time simultaneity: is the event window sufficiently synchronous globally?

• D2. Spatial alignment: do Atlantic rupture/motion signatures share a geographic pattern with other catastrophe signatures?

• D3. Mechanism compatibility: are those signatures consistent with predictions P1–P5?

• D4. Falsifier: if the event window is regional/asynchronous or key signatures are absent, the “global event” hypothesis weakens.

Additional coupling tests introduced in v1.21–v1.23 (optional):

• D5. Water budget (volume): does basin-volume change \(\Delta V(t)\) imply \(\Delta SL(t)\) consistent with independent sea-level records? (P15)

• D6. Freshwater + circulation (AMOC): do freshwater proxies and AMOC-weakening proxies co-inflect in the same event window? (P16)

• D7. Chronology–isotope interface (isotope gate): if “open-system” isotopes are introduced, has modern-sample reproducibility (TEST-ISO1) passed first? (P18; IR-3)

• D8. Sea-level-budget residual: if residual \(SL_{\mathrm{obs}}-SL_{\mathrm{sum}}\) exists, is its sign/magnitude consistent with basin-volume-change proxies? (P19)

• D9. Misfit rivers / mega-deltas: do underfit/misfit geomorph residuals and onset of major delta volume building cluster in a narrow window? (P20)

• D10. Global deceleration tail: is the long-term vs GPS velocity difference systematic toward deceleration and not explainable by frame/reconstruction changes? (P21)

• D11. Shelf/canyon asymmetry: even in low-discharge (e.g., arid) regions, do event-like drainage/sediment residuals appear on the shelf/slope? (P25)

• D12. Joint-window coherence: do event-center times across independent series (D7–D11) align within a narrow window? (P29)

Variant coupling (recommended).

• If V-HOLO is selected, D5+D6 are mandatory; if either FAILs, V-HOLO FAILs.

• If V-COUPLED is selected, D7 is mandatory; if TEST-ISO1 FAILs, V-COUPLED FAILs/HOLDs.

• If V-HOLOX is selected, D8+D9+D10+D11 are mandatory; if any FAILs, V-HOLOX FAILs/HOLDs.

• If V-EVID is selected, D7+D12 are mandatory; if P29 FAILs, V-EVID FAILs/HOLDs.

• If V-STRATA is selected, the stratigraphy gate P26 (and optional P27/P28) must pass; if P26 FAILs, V-STRATA FAILs/HOLDs.

17 Minimum reproducibility steps: template

This appendix pins down “who runs what where, and which log/output must appear.” In a real release, paths/file names/hashes below must be finalized in the reproducibility bundle.

(Example) execution steps

# 0) Environment setup (example): Python 3.11 + requirements.txt
python -V
pip install -r requirements.txt

# 1) Verify data integrity
sha256sum -c checksums/sha256sum.txt

# 2) Verify prereg thresholds (Omega-NoGo) are fixed
cat config/constraints.yml

# 3) Run hard gates PASS/FAIL
python tests/tests_hardgate.py --constraints config/constraints.yml --results_dir results/

# 4) Check outputs
cat results/UNLOCK_checklist.txt

Recommended required outputs: (1) , (2) , (3) an RSL summary table (CSV), and (4) a QA report (MD/PDF). Without these, the release is “narrative” rather than “reproducible.”

18 ATL DataPack v0.9 (schema stub): file/field/codebook schema

This appendix defines the minimum data modules (files/fields) required to make predictions P1–P5 executable. Important: file names/fields/units here must be fixed by preregistration before release and checksum-sealed after release.

Recommended use of an additional field . For the P3 contrast (including the Indian Ocean), assign each RSL point a . Recommended values: , , . ( is the geographic basin name, while is the mechanism-class label.)

Extension modules (optional): supporting P6/P8 (ATL DataPack v0.2 draft)

P6 (spatiotemporal propagation) and P8 (magnetic stripes) can require more complex data composition than P1–P5. Therefore, minimal schemas are separated as optional extension modules (the core compile/hard-gate can run without them).

Cross-validation extension modules (optional): supporting P9/P10/P11/P12 (ATL DataPack v0.3 draft)

The modules below are not mandatory hard gates for C1–C3, but are included for independent cross-validation of “event-like” claims.

Minimum codebook/provenance requirements (common to all modules).

• : field definitions, units, missing-value rules, QC rules (PASS/FAIL).

• : raw-data sources/access date, cleaning rules, exclusion criteria (pre-registered).

• : SHA256 hashes of all files.

ATL DataPack v0.8 draft (v1.34): hydro/climate/friction/isotope extension modules

This extension schema is not for the base mechanism (C1–C3), but for locking mandatory gates of additional variants (V-SLIP / V-HOLO / V-COUPLED) into data.

19 Pre-registered (excerpt; authoritative file is in the bundle)

Below is an excerpt of for inspection within TeX. In the release bundle, is authoritative and is sealed by checksums (). If TeX and the bundle file disagree, always prioritize the bundle file.

version: atlantic_expansion_constraints_v0_10

scenario:
  variant_id: V_BASE
  variant_requirements:
    V_BASE:    [P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6]
    V_REC:     [P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P10, P11]
    V_PULSE:   [P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P10, P11, P12]
    V_SLIP:    [P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P13, P14]
    V_HOLO:    [P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P10, P11, P15, P16]
    V_COUPLED: [P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P10, P11, P12, P18]
    V_HOLOX:   [P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P10, P11, P15, P16, P19, P20, P21, P25]
    V_STRATA:  [P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P10, P11, P15, P16, P19, P20, P21, P25, P26]
    V_EVID:    [P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P10, P11, P12, P15, P16, P18, P19, P20, P21, P25, P29, P30]
    V_RES:     [P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P15, P16, P19, P20, P21, P25, P22, P31, P32, P33, P34, P35]

omega_nogo:
  deltaR_stop_km: 50
  deltaP_stop_MPa: 500
  mu_eff_hold_min: 1e-2
  h_stop_m: 1e-6
  tau_hold_s: 1e3
  undrained_required: true

predictions:
  P1: {...}
  P2: {...}
  ...

Operational rules.

• Any change to implies a new version (to prevent reproducibility breakage).

• Variant selection and mandatory gates are fixed by .

• All PASS/FAIL decisions are automatically checked by reading this file.

20 P8 prereg skeleton (optional)

P8 is optional, but because analyst degrees of freedom are large, file-based preregistration is practically mandatory. Below is a minimal template; concrete values can only be updated before a release and then checksum-sealed.

version: p8_prereg_v0_1
enabled: false

data_selection:
  ridge_segments: []
  profile_min_count: 3
  preprocessing:
    detrend: true
    filter:
      type: bandpass
      low_km: 5
      high_km: 200
    resample_km: 0.5

H0_model:
  gpts_version: GPTS2020
  v_spread_source: independent
  asymmetry_rule: mirror

H2_features:
  spectrum_method: welch
  lambda_band_km: [5, 200]
  peak_stat: median
  symmetry_metric: left_right_corr

metrics:
  H0:
    rho_unlock_min: 0.70
    transition_rmse_unlock_max: 0.20
  H2:
    cv_lambda_peak_unlock_max: 0.20
    coherence_unlock_min: 0.50

priority:
  rule: if_H0_unlock_then_H2_fail

outputs:
  json: results/p8_mag_compare.json
  log: logs/TEST-P8.log

Note. This template does not enforce a “correct answer”. Its purpose is to seal analyst degrees of freedom in advance.

21 P10 prereg skeleton (optional)

P10 (sediment thickness / budget) has large freedom due to data and model choices. At minimum, the following items must be fixed in a prereg file (checksum-sealed).

version: p10_sed_prereg_v0_1
enabled: false

data_sources:
  sediment_thickness_grid: null   # external reference (to be pinned in provenance)
  crust_age_grid: null            # external reference (to be pinned in provenance)
  transects_table: data/sediment/atl_sed_thickness_transects.csv
  drill_sites_table: data/sediment/atl_drill_sites.csv

models:
  thickness_age_relation:
    form: "power_law"
    y: "a * t^b"
  shelf_budget:
    form: "mass_balance"

metrics:
  regression_R2_unlock_min: 0.60
  regression_R2_fail_max: 0.20
  budget_closure_unlock_min: 0.70

outputs:
  json: results/p10_sed_gate.json
  log: logs/TEST-P10.log

22 P11 prereg skeleton (optional)

version: p11_nodule_prereg_v0_1
enabled: false

data_sources:
  nodule_table: data/sediment/mn_nodule_samples.csv
  water_depth_grid: null

models:
  growth_rate:
    form: "kappa * f(oxygen, productivity, depth)"
  boundary_conditions:
    include_marine_snow: true
    include_bottom_current: true

metrics:
  bc_consistency_unlock_min: 0.70
  bc_consistency_fail_max: 0.30

outputs:
  json: results/p11_nodule_bc.json
  log: logs/TEST-P11.log

23 P12 prereg skeleton (optional)

version: p12_volc_prereg_v0_1
enabled: false

data_sources:
  volcano_catalog: data/volc/volcano_construction_ages.csv
  baseline_catalog: null  # e.g., GVP (to be pinned in provenance)

models:
  onset_cluster:
    statistic: "scan"
    window_ka: 2.0

metrics:
  p_value_unlock_max: 0.05
  effect_size_unlock_min: 0.30

outputs:
  json: results/p12_volc_cluster.json
  log: logs/TEST-P12.log

24 P13 (optional) friction threshold / stick-slip prereg template

version: p13_friction_prereg_v0_1
enabled: false

data_sources:
  # Literature / model inputs (must be pinned in provenance)
  driving_stress_refs: []
  friction_coeff_refs: []
  pore_pressure_refs: []

selection:
  regions: []   # e.g., "Himalaya", "Nazca", "Mid-Atlantic"
  time_window: null

definitions:
  tau_drive_MPa:
    method: "literature_range"
  tau_crit_MPa:
    formula: "mu_s*(sigma_n - alpha*Pf)"
  R_tau:
    formula: "tau_drive / tau_crit"

metrics:
  R_tau_unlock_min: 1.0
  R_tau_hold_max: 0.3

outputs:
  json: results/p13_friction_gate.json
  log: logs/TEST-P13.log

25 P14 (optional) thermo-kinematic afterimage prereg template

version: p14_thermo_kinematic_prereg_v0_1
enabled: false

data_sources:
  plate_velocity_constraints: data/kinematics/plate_velocity_constraints.csv
  heatflow_constraints: null  # to be pinned in provenance

models:
  kinematic_tail:
    form: "power_law"   # power_law | exponential
    v_t: "v0*(1+t/t0)^(-p)"
  heat_budget:
    W_fric: "eta_h*tau*A*S"
    dT: "W_fric/(rho*cp*A*h_eff)"

parameters:
  v0_m_s: null
  t0_s: null
  p: null
  tau_MPa: null
  A_km2: null
  S_km: null
  h_eff_km: null
  rho_kg_m3: 3300
  cp_J_kgK: 1200
  eta_h: 0.5

metrics:
  dT_hold_K: 300
  dT_fail_K: 1200

outputs:
  json: results/p14_tail_heat.json
  log: logs/TEST-P14.log

26 P15 (optional) Great Drainage prereg template

version: p15_drainage_prereg_v0_1
enabled: false

data_sources:
  basin_volume_scenarios: data/hydro/basin_volume_scenarios.csv
  sea_level_constraints: data/rsl/holocene_sea_level_constraints.csv
  canyon_markers: data/hydro/submarine_canyon_markers.csv

models:
  sea_level_gate:
    dSL: "-deltaV / A_ocean"
  discharge_gate:
    Qbar: "deltaV / T"

metrics:
  closure_unlock_min: 0.70
  canyon_cluster_p_unlock_max: 0.05

outputs:
  json: results/p15_drainage_gate.json
  log: logs/TEST-P15.log

27 P16 (optional) North Atlantic freshwater shock prereg template

version: p16_freshwater_prereg_v0_1
enabled: false

data_sources:
  proxy_timeseries: data/climate/freshwater_proxy_timeseries.csv
  amoc_proxy: null

models:
  joint_inflection:
    window_ka: 2.0
    method: "changepoint"

metrics:
  synch_unlock_min: 0.70
  synch_fail_max: 0.30

outputs:
  json: results/p16_freshwater_amoc.json
  log: logs/TEST-P16.log

28 P17 (exploratory) biogeographic split prereg template

version: p17_bio_prereg_v0_1
enabled: false

data_sources:
  split_candidates: data/bio/atlantic_split_candidates.csv

models:
  divergence_time:
    method: "molecular_clock"

metrics:
  cluster_p_unlock_max: 0.05

outputs:
  json: results/p17_bio_split.json
  log: logs/TEST-P17.log

29 P18 (optional) coupling to Pacific expansion V2 (open-system isotopes) prereg template

version: p18_isotope_open_system_prereg_v0_1
enabled: false

data_sources:
  casebook: data/isotopes/open_system_casebook.csv
  pacific_v2_notes: docs/user_notes_pacific_expansion_v2_extracted.txt

tests:
  TEST_ISO1:
    requirement: "modern_sample_reproducibility"
    tolerance_percent: 2.0

models:
  open_system_age_shift:
    form: "A(t) = A0 + deltaA(t)"

metrics:
  fail_if_TEST_ISO1_fails: true

outputs:
  json: results/p18_isotope_gate.json
  log: logs/TEST-P18.log

30 P29 (optional) cross-archive event-window coherence prereg template

version: p29_joint_window_prereg_v0_1
enabled: false

data_sources:
  event_window_estimates: data/meta/event_window_estimates.csv

models:
  joint_window:
    method: "weighted_gaussian"
    width_ka: 2.0

metrics:
  p_value_unlock_max: 0.05
  sensitivity_required: true

outputs:
  json: results/p29_joint_window.json
  log: logs/TEST-P29.log

31 External data source registry (ERL template)

This appendix centralizes candidate “anchor datasets” used by modules such as P10/P19/P21/P31/P33/P35. In the formal DataPack, these are registered with the same IDs in , and acquisition/processing must be reproducible under the codebook spec.

S1. Minimum principles

• (S-PR1) Prefer primary sources (institutional releases / official catalogs).

• (S-PR2) Commercial data may be used, but list an open alternative route; if irreproducible, downgrade the evidence rank (ERL).

• (S-PR3) For each dataset, record mandatory metadata: (id, version, acquisition date, license, hash).

S2. Core anchor list (summary)

S3. Connection to FAIL conditions

• If petroleum distributions/budgets are used as “evidence” in P22/P32, discovery bias must be blocked by P35 (H-DISC) in advance; if blocking fails, downgrade ERL.

32 HOLD DataPack lock roadmap (ARE\(\rightarrow\)Ice Melt priority)

This appendix fixes a priority order for currently HOLD modules (P8, P9, P10, P12, P14, P17, P22–P23, P25–P28), ranked by direct contribution to the core causal claim ARE\(\rightarrow\)Ice Melt. For each module it sketches required data types / minimum N / representative public repositories (DOI/endpoints) / and automated fetch/normalize scripts. Detailed instructions are synchronized with and the machine-readable plan .

T0. r11 DataPack updates (summary)

• P10 (sediment thickness). The GlobSed v2 thickness grid () is included in the bundle, and sediment-thickness profiles along 12 fixed transects () are extracted. However, the crust-age/spreading-rate grid (DS-AGE-01; EarthByte agegrid) cannot be auto-downloaded in the current sandbox environment, so the age–thickness regression gate is not locked. Therefore P10 remains HOLD.

• P14 (heat flow). The IHFC Global Heat Flow Database (GHFDB-R21; DOI ) is included in the bundle, and an Atlantic-only extraction is generated. But because kinematic constraints and prereg parameters are not fully fixed/executed, P14 remains HOLD.

T1. Priority (fixed)

• Tier 1 (ARE self-constraints; kinematics/geometry/physics): P10 \(\rightarrow\) P14 \(\rightarrow\) P8 \(\rightarrow\) P13 \(\rightarrow\) P12 \(\rightarrow\) P9

• Tier 2 (ARE\(\rightarrow\)ice response bridge; indirect): P24 \(\rightarrow\) P25 \(\rightarrow\) P26 \(\rightarrow\) P23

• Tier 3 (low directness / controversial / non-core): P17, P22, P27, P28

T2. Per-module minimum requirements (summary)

T3. Locking execution (recommended)

# (1) Lock from Tier 1
python code/fetch_hold_datapacks.py --module P10 --download --normalize
python code/run_hold_gates.py --module P10

python code/fetch_hold_datapacks.py --module P8  --download --normalize
python code/fetch_hold_datapacks.py --module P14 --normalize

# (2) Bridge modules
python code/fetch_hold_datapacks.py --module P24 --download --normalize
python code/run_hold_gates.py --all

# (3) Final roll-up
python code/generate_pass_hold_fail.py