================================================================================
AUDIT PROTOCOL — 4D RESEARCH TESTS
================================================================================
Created: 2026-03-21
Adapted from: tlt tests/audited/AUDIT_PROTOCOL.txt (2D lattice protocol)
Purpose: Independent first-principles verification of 4D test methodology and code
Auditors: Gemini (Google), Grok (xAI) — independent, no prior context
Scope: Methodology and code ONLY. Interpretations are explicitly excluded.
Focal Point: 24-cell geometry (Schlafli {3,4,3}, discovered 1850s-1890s)
================================================================================

WHAT IS BEING AUDITED
---------------------
Any test code and its equation specification that produces results
destined for the audited/ folder in the 4D research project.

WHAT IS NOT BEING AUDITED
-------------------------
- Interpretations of results
- The theory itself (Time Ledger Theory or its 4D extensions)
- Any claims about what results mean
- The 24-cell geometry itself (established mathematics)

AUDIT CRITERIA
--------------
Each auditor independently scores the following (1-10 scale):

A. EQUATIONS AND PHYSICS
   A1. Is the wave equation correctly formulated for the stated dimensions?
   A2. Is the FDTD discretization correct (stencil, stability)?
   A3. Are boundary conditions correctly implemented?
   A4. Is the CFL stability condition correctly derived and applied?
   A5. Is the source injection correctly implemented?

B. GEOMETRY AND CONSTANTS
   B1. Are all geometric coordinates correct (24-cell vertices, forms, etc.)?
   B2. Are normalizations correct (unit sphere, consistent radii)?
   B3. Is source-to-grid interpolation correct?
   B4. Are all constants derived correctly from their stated sources?

C. METHODOLOGY
   C1. Are there hidden assumptions or free parameters beyond what is stated?
   C2. Is the test design unbiased (does it favor any particular outcome)?
   C3. Are derived quantities (curvature, decoherence, etc.) correctly computed?
   C4. Are all numerical mechanisms physically/numerically reasonable?
   C5. Are results honestly reported?

D. CODE INTEGRITY
   D1. Does the code implement what the equations spec describes?
   D2. Are there numerical artifacts that could affect results?
   D3. Is energy tracking correct?
   D4. Are there any bugs or implementation errors?

E. OVERALL
   E1. Overall scientific rigor (1-10)
   E2. Identified concerns or red flags (list)
   E3. Recommendations for improvement
   E4. Is there any evidence of bias toward a predetermined outcome?

SCORING
-------
  9-10: Rigorous, publication-quality methodology
  7-8:  Sound methodology with minor improvements needed
  5-6:  Methodology is reasonable but has notable gaps
  3-4:  Significant methodological concerns
  1-2:  Fundamentally flawed

OUTPUT FORMAT
-------------
Each auditor produces a structured report with:
  - Score for each criterion (A1-E4)
  - Brief justification for each score
  - List of specific concerns
  - List of recommendations
  - Overall assessment

PROCESS
-------
1. Each auditor receives the SAME input: test code, equation spec,
   and test description document
2. Auditors work independently (no cross-contamination)
3. Results are compared for convergence or divergence
4. Any criterion scoring below 7 from either auditor triggers investigation
5. Audit reports saved to tests/audited/<test>/audit_reports/
================================================================================