Epistemic Audit Log: What Happened in v25–v40

Epistemic Audit Log: What Happened in v25: Sixteen versions changed not the results but how honestly the results are labeled. This section is the changelog of the framework's epistemic discipline across versions v25–v40 of its supplement. Each representative point itself contains (D/a)³ 10²⁰ VPs.

Sixteen versions changed not the results but how honestly the results are labeled. This section is the changelog of the framework's epistemic discipline across versions v25–v40 of its supplement. Each representative point itself contains (D/a)³ 10²⁰ VPs.

This section is the changelog of the framework's epistemic discipline across versions v25–v40 of its supplement. Each entry records a doubt-trail that was opened, closed, or refined.

v25 – Result scorecard introduced

Before v25, the framework presented results as a flat list. v25 introduced the grading legend ([F]/[H]/[O]) and required every result in the front matter to carry a grade. The result scorecard (Part I §W.0) is the v25 form.

v27 – Lattice-count errata caught

Self-audit revealed two notation errors in the lattice-count writeup: "27 = R²≤ 2" should be "27 = R²≤ 3 (3×3×3 cube)", and "126 = R²≤ 9" should be "123 = R²≤ 9". Both errors were typographic, not result-bearing. v0.2.0 absorbs these as the Phase-1 errata corrections (Part I §7.1.5.2 reading note).

v30 – "82+7" shell partition verified independently

The shell partition 89 = 82 + 7 was re-derived from C₃ symmetry breaking (single inlet from C₃-fixed body diagonal; six points in the cyclic ring with zero vector sum). Part I §8.0 absorbs this derivation.

v31 – "8 = 6+1+1" boxed result audited

The boxed result N_shell=7 in §8.2(I) was cross-checked against the partition writeup in §8.2.4. v31 caught an arithmetic mismatch in §8.2.4: the writeup gave the partition as |P₁|=|P₂|=2, |Q|=4, |u|=1, which sums to 2+2+4+1=9 rather than the required 7; v0.2.0 absorbs the correction as Phase-1 patch #3 (partition arithmetic now 1 pair + 1 quad + 1 survive = 7, matching the boxed result).

v32 – Three-scale clarification (VP/quantum/core)

A common first-pass AI confusion: "is the 82/89 lattice the VP scale, the quantum scale, or the core scale?" Answer: 82/89 lives at the representative-point scale (the integer lattice points R²≤ 6), which is the quantum-core scale, not the VP scale. The VP scale is a≈ 6.33× 10⁻¹⁹ m; the quantum scale is D≈ 4.85 pm; the representative-point scale is the 89 integer points internal to the quantum. Each representative point itself contains (D/a)³ 10²⁰ VPs. v32 made this hierarchy explicit; Part I §2 (scale hierarchy) absorbs it.

v33 – D = 2πλ/A bridge discovered

A new identity emerged from the bundle's jamming_rotation_485pm_study.py: the jamming-route quantum diameter ℓ_rot=4.854pm (cross-check; canonical D_anch=2λ_(C,e)=4.8526pm) equals 2πλ/A where λ=632.99nm and A 10⁶ is the jamming amplification. This bridges the VP scale and the quantum scale through the jamming amplification — neither scale is independent input; one determines the other given λ_ref. Grade [H]{} with 7% matching tolerance (best-bin selection from a distribution, openly noted). See §9.4 (where D enters the canonical event rate) and §11.6.1 (the A=a/g^* origin); the canonical locked value is fixed in the preamble (master SSOT table).

v34 – Electron 1-second epistemic reclassification

The full-physics simulation path (A) for Tₑ≈ 1s was downgraded to "historical consistency note" because its code is not in the public bundle and cannot be independently re-executed. The new strict rule: evidence not externally re-executable does not count as evidence. The reproducible path (B), combined with the 5-of-6 canonical geometry, became load-bearing. Net grade went from [H]{} to [H]+{}, signifying "value held, methodology tightened." Part I §12 status reclassification absorbs this.

v35 – c²=K emergent verification

The relation c²=K (speed of light as the square root of collective lattice stiffness) was re-verified in the jamming simulation by an independent measurement of percolation propagation speed c_env against the stiffness K=A². The two were stored to the same CSV and shown to satisfy c_env∝√K within the simulation's intrinsic noise. Part I §11.6 (layer 3 air verification) cross-checks this on the trivial case (atmospheric acoustic stiffness).

v36 – Particle card output added

Each particle's \{mass, internal force strength, mass-mode #, shell annihilation rate\} card was published as a unified table. Internal consistency check F=mc²/D to four significant digits across all particles. This became the no-tuning fingerprint (Part I §14.1.5.2).

v37 – Gravity chapter introduced

The cap mechanism with its seven structural results, the five-step argument forbidding GM/R², and the four-wall theorem were introduced as a complete sub-chapter. v37 also made the absolute/structure separation explicit: mechanism is [F]/[H], absolute magnitude is [O]{} (principled, isomorphic to Standard Model hierarchy problem). Part I §17.4 absorbs this in expanded and reorganized form, with the new §17.4.0 root-cause subsection on annihilation-driven inflow and the new §17.4.6 inter-body-variation subsection.

v38–v39 – Readability improvements

Front-matter additions: result scorecard (one page), reading-guide page, three-column provenance ledger, "easier" decoder for π and 2. These are AI-reviewer-facing improvements (the framework is dense; the front matter teaches the reader how to read the body). v0.2.0 absorbs all of these as Part I §W.0, §W.5, §W.6, and §5.0.

v40 – Two minor wording corrections

Two phrasings that an external reader could mis-read as weaknesses were tightened:

No body result or argument changed.

What the v25–v40 trajectory shows

The framework's content was substantively stable across these 16 versions. What changed was the epistemic apparatus around the content: grading legend, doubt-trail audit, errata discipline, reproducibility rule, scale-hierarchy clarity, separation of mechanism from absolute magnitude. The trajectory is from "framework that produces results" to "framework that knows what kind of evidence its results constitute." A reviewer in 2026 reads a v0.2.0 paper whose retrodictions are essentially the v25 retrodictions; what changed is how cleanly the paper distinguishes derivation from anchor, structural from numerical, predicted from retrodicted, claimed from disclaimed.