================================================================================ TLT TEST AUDIT REPORT ================================================================================ Date: 2026-03-18 Auditor: Claude Opus 4.6 (independent review) Scope: 6 unaudited tests + 4 superseded items Methodology: Per AUDIT_PROTOCOL.txt — verify data integrity, internal consistency, methodology soundness, and readiness for audited status. NOTE: Theory interpretations are explicitly excluded from this audit. ================================================================================ ================================================================================ 1. TLT-011B: FAITHFUL PULSED 3D FDTD CRYSTAL GROWTH — HIGH PRIORITY ================================================================================ TEST DESCRIPTION: Replaces TLT-011 (which used a coherence-decay envelope approximation). TLT-011B solves the actual 3D wave equation via FDTD with pulsed sources (ON during wave period T, OFF during decoherence gap t_d). Uses Liesegang- style batch nucleation at intensity maxima. Sweeps t/T ratio to find optimal decoherence for crystal ordering. DATA REVIEWED: - sweep/ (96^3 grid, 80 atoms, 4 t/T values: 0.0, 0.1, 0.5, 1.0) - fixed_run/ (160^3 grid, 500 atoms, 9 t/T values: 0.0-5.0) - TLT-011B_report.txt (both runs) - fdtd_sweep_results.json (both runs) - grok_audit.txt (independent Grok code audit, 7/10 overall) - Per-run atom positions (.npy) and results (.json) KEY FINDINGS: Quick run (96^3, 80 atoms): t/T=0.0: Q4=0.161, Q5=0.037, Q6=0.134, CN_mode=18 t/T=0.1: Q4=0.231, Q5=0.017, Q6=0.201, CN_mode=17 t/T=0.5: Q4=0.123, Q5=0.032, Q6=0.100, CN_mode=33 t/T=1.0: Q4=0.157, Q5=0.029, Q6=0.178, CN_mode=29 Production run (160^3, 500 atoms target): t/T=0.0: Q6=0.065, 500 atoms grown, CN_mode=21, CN_mean=14.6 t/T=0.1: Q6=0.466, only 60 atoms, CN_mode=20 t/T=0.2: Q6=0.579, only 43 atoms, CN_mode=20 t/T=0.3: Q6=0.720, only 35 atoms, CN_mode=13 t/T=0.5: Q6=0.735, only 33 atoms, CN_mode=14 t/T=1.0: Q6=0.555, 45 atoms, CN_mode=16 t/T=2.0: Q6=0.605, 35 atoms t/T=5.0: Q6=0.672, 35 atoms DATA INTEGRITY ISSUES: 1. CRITICAL: Production run did NOT reach 500-atom target for any t/T > 0. t/T=0.0 reached 500 atoms; all pulsed runs stopped at 33-60 atoms. The growth algorithm appears to stall when pulsing is active — likely because the pulsed intensity field produces maxima below the deposition threshold, or the valid-region mask is too restrictive. 2. Q6 values for the production run (0.72-0.74 at t/T=0.3-0.5) are suspiciously high for 33-35 atoms. These approach FCC reference values (~0.575), which is unusual for such small clusters. With only 33-35 atoms, many are surface atoms with incomplete coordination shells, which normally DEFLATES Steinhardt parameters. High Q values in tiny clusters suggest either: (a) the atoms happen to form a very ordered small cluster, or (b) the Steinhardt calculation is being biased by the small sample size. 3. The quick run (80 atoms) shows DIFFERENT trends from the production run — Q6 peaks at t/T=0.1 in the quick run but at t/T=0.3-0.5 in the production run. The grid sizes differ (96^3 vs 160^3) and the production run has a finer dx (0.1 vs 0.15), so this inconsistency is not necessarily wrong, but it means the results are grid-dependent. 4. CN_mode values of 13-14 at t/T=0.3-0.5 (production) with 33-35 atoms are physically suspect — with 33 atoms, most atoms are on the surface and should have low coordination. CN_mode=13-14 for a 33-atom cluster suggests very dense packing or incorrect cutoff in the CN calculation. GROK AUDIT (already performed): Overall: 7/10. Key concerns: - C4 (hidden free parameters): 5/10 — multiple tunable parameters - B3 (numerical artifacts): 6/10 — dispersion and grid anisotropy - C2 (deposition bias): 6/10 — threshold/distance filters may bias Recommendations: Higher resolution, PML boundaries, sensitivity analysis CONSISTENCY WITH PREDICTIONS: P1 (different from TLT-011): Cannot properly assess — production run did not reach comparable atom counts P2 (batch > one-at-a-time): Partially supported at very small sizes but comparison is unfair due to different atom counts P3 (optimal t/T 0.1-0.5): Supported by Q6 trend, but confounded by atom count issue P4 (high t/T destroys structure): NOT supported — t/T=5.0 still shows Q6=0.672, higher than t/T=0.0 AUDIT VERDICT: INCOMPLETE The test has a sound concept and the Grok audit verifies the code is largely correct (7/10). However, the production run's failure to grow beyond 33-60 atoms for pulsed configurations is a serious confound. The Q6 trends may reflect small-cluster artifacts rather than genuine structural ordering. The test needs to be re-run with: 1. Adjusted deposition thresholds to allow growth to proceed 2. Minimum 200+ atoms for all t/T values (matching TLT-010R) 3. Explicit documentation of why growth stalls 4. Sensitivity analysis on threshold_frac parameter The quick-run data (80 atoms) is more internally consistent and could be moved to audited as a preliminary result with caveats noted. CORRECTIONS NEEDED: - Re-run production sweep with adjusted thresholds - Document atom-count disparity in the report - Add note about small-sample Steinhardt bias ================================================================================ 2. TLT-019: PHI-SQUARED DECOHERENCE SWEEP — HIGH PRIORITY ================================================================================ TEST DESCRIPTION: Fine-grained sweep of t/T from 0.15 to 0.55 (step 0.005, 81 values) to determine whether the optimal decoherence ratio aligns with 1/phi^2 = 0.382. Uses TLT-003 Variant C methodology (audited). Tests at M = 10, 50, 100, 500 accumulation levels. Pre-registered predictions with explicit acceptance windows. DATA REVIEWED: - TLT-019_phi_squared_sweep_results.txt - TLT-019_data_20260317_171937.json (48KB, full sweep data) - TLT-019_phi_squared_sweep_description.txt (test design) KEY FINDINGS: ALL four M values show peak CV at t/T = 0.5100 (not 0.382). This is perfectly scale-independent (std = 0.0000 across all M). CV at special values (M=500): t/T = 0.300 (prior optimal): CV = 0.099 t/T = 0.382 (1/phi^2): CV = 0.079 t/T = 0.236 (1/phi^3): CV = 0.073 t/T = 0.510 (peak): CV = 0.293 Distance from 1/phi^2: 0.128 (far outside the ±0.005 acceptance window) Prediction evaluation: P1: Peak at 1/phi^2? --> NEITHER. Peak at 0.510 — different entirely. P3: Scale independence? --> YES. All M values show identical peak. DATA INTEGRITY: 1. GOOD: The JSON data file contains all 324 configurations (81 t/T values x 4 M values) with complete metrics (CV, silhouette, n_classes, peak info). 2. GOOD: The pre-registered predictions were honestly evaluated. The phi-squared hypothesis was cleanly falsified per the pre-registered criteria. 3. NOTE: The peak at 0.510 (not 0.500) is interesting. The sweep step size of 0.005 means 0.500 was tested and was NOT the peak. The 0.010 offset from 1/2 is real and within resolution. This is reported honestly. 4. NOTE: Silhouette scores show perfect 1.0 but at DIFFERENT t/T values for different M (0.315, 0.155, 0.495, 0.255). This inconsistency in the secondary metric should be noted — it means silhouette is not a robust measure in this context (possibly degenerate with few clusters). The CV metric is the primary and is robust. 5. GOOD: The sweep used the SAME methodology as audited TLT-003 (Variant C, N=3 interference, 800x800 grid). This is a direct extension of an already-audited pipeline. 6. CONCERN: FWHM values are very narrow (0.01-0.02). This means the peak is extremely sharp. The contrarian self-audit (C1) noted this risk. A sharp peak at 0.510 is a clean result, but the narrowness means the prior 0.1-resolution sweep would have missed it entirely (0.5 and 0.6 were tested, but 0.51 was not). MISSING DATA: - The description mentions CV curve plot (TLT-019_CV_vs_tT.png) and multi-metric plot (TLT-019_all_metrics.png), but these are NOT present in the results directory. Only the .txt and .json files exist. Plots should be generated before archiving. AUDIT VERDICT: PASS (with minor corrections) This is a well-designed test with pre-registered predictions, honest reporting of a falsification result, and clean data. The phi-squared hypothesis is falsified. The peak at t/T = 0.510 is scale-independent and deterministic. This should be moved to audited status. CORRECTIONS NEEDED BEFORE MOVING: - Generate the missing plot files (CV_vs_tT.png, all_metrics.png) - Add a note about silhouette score inconsistency across M values - Note that 0.510 was a NEWLY DISCOVERED peak not tested in prior sweeps (which used 0.1 step size) ================================================================================ 3. TLT-014: 3D CHIRALITY TEST — MEDIUM PRIORITY ================================================================================ TEST DESCRIPTION: Tests whether screw dislocation growth produces measurable chirality (handedness) in 3D crystal structures. 15 runs: 1 control (isotropic) + 7 right-handed + 7 left-handed screws at different pitch values. Uses scalar triple product chirality metric (chi), helical order parameter (H_fit), and Steinhardt Q_l values. DATA REVIEWED: - TLT-014_chirality_test.txt (comprehensive test description) - Local results: chirality_summary.txt (200 atoms, 1.3 minutes) - Hetzner results: chirality_summary.txt (2000 atoms, 85 minutes) - chirality_results.json (both locations) - Plots: chirality_distributions.png, chirality_pitch_scan.png, chirality_vs_q5.png, structure_3d_chirality.png (both locations) KEY FINDINGS — LOCAL (200 atoms, quick mode): Control chi: -0.036 +/- 0.575 (near zero, as expected) Right-handed: chi ranges from -0.067 to +0.056 (mixed signs!) Left-handed: chi ranges from -0.046 to +0.051 (mixed signs!) Prediction P1 (opposite signs): PARTIALLY — some right/left pairs show opposite chi (0.500 pitch: R=-0.035, L=+0.051) but others don't (0.6667 pitch: R=-0.026, L=+0.006) or are weak. Prediction P2 (control ~ 0): SUPPORTED — chi = -0.036 is small relative to chi_std = 0.575. KEY FINDINGS — HETZNER (2000 atoms, production): Control chi: -0.022 +/- 0.575 Right-handed: chi ranges from -0.015 to +0.012 (VERY close to zero) Left-handed: chi ranges from -0.010 to +0.008 (VERY close to zero) At 2000 atoms, ALL chi values are within 0.02 of zero. The chirality signal is WEAKER at larger size, not stronger. This suggests the small chi values at 200 atoms were statistical noise. DATA INTEGRITY: 1. GOOD: Both runs (local/Hetzner) have complete data — all 15 conditions, JSON with full per-atom data, summary tables, multiple diagnostic plots. 2. GOOD: Control shows near-zero chi in both runs, validating the methodology (no spurious chirality injection). 3. GOOD: Q4/Q6 values are internally consistent between local and Hetzner for matching pitch values (e.g., pitch=0.5 gives Q4~0.21, Q6~0.17 in both runs for right-handed). Note: left/right at same pitch magnitude give identical Q4/Q5/Q6, confirming that chirality (if present) doesn't affect bulk order parameters. 4. CONCERN: H_fit (helical order parameter) varies wildly and inconsistently. Control shows H_fit=0.415 (local) vs 0.334 (Hetzner). Some screw conditions show LOWER H_fit than control (e.g., right 0.8165: H_fit=0.001). This metric does not appear to be measuring what was intended. 5. IMPORTANT FINDING: The chi_std values (~0.55-0.63) are 25-50x larger than the chi_mean values (~0.01-0.03). This means the per-atom chirality distribution is extremely broad and centered near zero. There is no statistically significant net chirality in ANY condition. The signal-to-noise ratio is far too low. CONSISTENCY WITH PREDICTIONS: P1 (opposite handedness): WEAKLY SUPPORTED at 200 atoms, NOT SUPPORTED at 2000 atoms (all chi ~ 0) P2 (control ~ 0): SUPPORTED P3 (chi varies with pitch): NOT SUPPORTED at 2000 atoms P4 (Q5 correlation): Cannot assess — Q5 values too small (~0.01) P5 (H_fit coupled to Q6): NOT SUPPORTED — no clear correlation AUDIT VERDICT: PASS The test is well-designed with honest reporting. The RESULT is that screw dislocation growth does NOT produce statistically significant net chirality. This is a legitimate null result. Both the 200-atom and 2000-atom runs are internally consistent (the 2000-atom run confirms the 200-atom chi values were noise). The data and methodology are sound; the finding is simply negative. CORRECTIONS NEEDED BEFORE MOVING: - Summary should explicitly state the null result conclusion - H_fit metric should be flagged as unreliable (inconsistent between control and screw conditions) - Add statistical significance test: with chi_std ~ 0.55 and N = 2000, the standard error of the mean is 0.55/sqrt(2000) = 0.012. Most chi_mean values are within 1-2 SEM of zero. None are significant at p < 0.05. ================================================================================ 4. TLT-007: FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLE LATTICE — MEDIUM PRIORITY ================================================================================ TEST DESCRIPTION: Maps Standard Model particles onto the {2,3} lattice framework using Compton frequencies. Two sub-tests: - TLT-007: Particle data compilation (masses, frequencies, ratios) - TLT-007b: N-wave lattice simulation for particles (lattice metrics) DATA REVIEWED: - TLT-007_particle_data.txt (particle properties and mass ratios) - TLT-007b_lattice_data.txt (N-wave metrics and cross-scale matches) - frequency_landscape.png, nwave_scale_comparison.png - crossscale_lattice_comparison.png, fdtd_decoherence_patterns.png, nwave_lattices_with_peaks.png KEY FINDINGS — TLT-007 (particle data): Compton frequencies span 10^14 to 10^25 Hz across particles. Massless particles (photon, gluon) correctly listed. Neutrino mass = 0.0000 MeV for nu_e but still shows a Compton frequency of 2.66e14 Hz — this appears to use a placeholder mass. Mass ratios fitted to nearest 2^a * 3^b: charm/up = 587.96 vs 576 (2^6 * 3^2) — 2.1% error top/charm = 135.98 vs 144 (2^4 * 3^2) — 5.9% error strange/down = 20.00 vs 18 (2^1 * 3^2) — 11.1% error muon/electron = 206.77 vs 216 (2^3 * 3^3) — 4.5% error {2,3} counting in Standard Model: Correct identification. Koide formula Q = 0.666661 vs 2/3: Correctly computed. KEY FINDINGS — TLT-007b (lattice simulation): N-wave lattice metrics (normalized lambda=1): N=2: 13670 peaks, NN=0.01, CN=2.0 — stripes N=3: 192 peaks, NN=0.66, CN=5.7 — hexagonal N=4: 149 peaks, NN=0.71, CN=3.7 N=6: 73 peaks, NN=1.14, CN=5.8 Cross-scale matches (log_phi basis, |residual| < 0.15): 10 matches found across hydrogen, carbon, iron, gold vs fundamental particles. Residuals range from 0.03 to 0.14. DATA INTEGRITY: 1. CONCERN: Neutrino masses are problematic. The nu_e entry shows mass = 0.0000 MeV but a nonzero Compton frequency. Neutrino masses are upper bounds from experiment (~0.0022 eV for nu_e), not zero. This should be corrected or noted as an approximation. 2. CONCERN: The "nearest 2^a * 3^b" fitting is post-hoc. Any real number can be approximated by 2^a * 3^b to some accuracy. The errors (2-11%) are not negligibly small. No null model is provided (what accuracy would random ratios achieve?). Without a statistical test, this data point is OBSERVATIONAL only. 3. CONCERN: Cross-scale matches on log_phi basis use |residual| < 0.15 as threshold. With ~16 particle pairs * ~4 atomic elements = ~64 comparisons, finding 10 matches at < 0.15 residual needs to be compared to the null hypothesis. If log_phi residuals are uniformly distributed on [0, 0.5], expected matches = 64 * 0.3 = 19.2. Finding 10 is actually BELOW chance expectation. This needs to be acknowledged. 4. GOOD: Physical constants appear correct (alpha, masses, Compton formula). Koide formula is accurately computed. 5. GOOD: N-wave simulation results are consistent with audited TLT-002 (N=3 produces hexagonal lattice). AUDIT VERDICT: PASS (with caveats) The data compilation is sound, particle properties are correct (with the neutrino caveat), and the N-wave simulations are consistent with prior audited work. However, the {2,3} mass ratio fitting and log_phi cross-scale matching lack null models and should be labeled as OBSERVATIONAL/EXPLORATORY, not as evidence for or against any hypothesis. CORRECTIONS NEEDED BEFORE MOVING: - Fix or flag the nu_e mass/frequency entry - Add null model for 2^a * 3^b fitting accuracy - Add null model for log_phi cross-scale matches - Label mass ratio fitting and cross-scale matching as EXPLORATORY ================================================================================ 5. TLT-008: CROSS-SCALE STRUCTURE — MEDIUM PRIORITY ================================================================================ TEST DESCRIPTION: Computes scale ratios between fundamental physical constants (proton radius, Bohr radius, Compton wavelengths, fine structure constant) and N-wave lattice spacings. Includes nuclear charge radii from Angeli & Marinova 2013. DATA REVIEWED: - TLT-008_cross_scale_data.txt - scale_hierarchy.png KEY FINDINGS: Scale ratios computed: proton_r / proton_reduced_Compton = 4.000781 (close to 4 = 2^2) a_0 / electron_reduced_Compton = 137.036 (= 1/alpha, exact by definition) proton_r / proton_Compton = 0.636744 m_p / m_e = 1836.153 a_0 / proton_r = 62892.5 N-wave analytical lattice spacings: N=2: NN = 0.500 lambda N=3: NN = 0.667 lambda N=4: NN = 0.707 lambda N=5: quasicrystalline N=6: NN = 0.667 lambda (same as N=3) Nuclear charge radii: 10 nuclei listed with published values. DATA INTEGRITY: 1. GOOD: a_0 / reduced_Compton = 1/alpha is exact by definition in QED. This is correctly identified as a known relationship. 2. GOOD: proton_r / reduced_Compton = 4.0008 is a known approximate relationship. The 0.02% deviation from exactly 4 is real. 3. GOOD: Physical constants match CODATA/NIST values. 4. GOOD: Nuclear charge radii match Angeli & Marinova 2013 tabulation. 5. CONCERN: The data file is purely a compilation of known physical constants and derived ratios. There is no NEW computation or test here — it's a reference document. Calling it a "test" is somewhat misleading; it's more of a data sheet. 6. CONCERN: N-wave lattice spacings are repeated from TLT-002 (already audited). No new simulation was run. AUDIT VERDICT: PASS The data is accurate and well-sourced. However, this is a reference compilation, not a test with predictions or falsifiable claims. It should be moved to audited as a REFERENCE DOCUMENT, not as a test result. CORRECTIONS NEEDED BEFORE MOVING: - Relabel as "Reference Document" rather than "Test" - Cite CODATA values explicitly - Note which relationships are definitional vs. empirical ================================================================================ 6. TLT-010R: 3D UNFOLDING REVISED — LOW PRIORITY ================================================================================ TEST DESCRIPTION: Revised 3D crystal growth simulation. Starts from 19-atom hexagonal seed, grows by depositing atoms at wave interference maxima. Three conditions: isotropic (control), screw scan (7 pitches), and FDTD wave evolution. Run locally (200 atoms) and on Hetzner (5000 atoms). DATA REVIEWED: - isotropic/isotropic_report.txt (200-atom and 5000-atom) - screw_scan/screw_scan_results.json (200-atom and 5000-atom) - fdtd/ subdirectories (snapshots, evolution plots) - isotropic_wave_step*.png (wave evolution snapshots) - screw_scan_ql.png (Q parameter comparison across pitches) KEY FINDINGS — LOCAL (200 atoms): Isotropic: Q4=0.105, Q5=0.049, Q6=0.108, CN_mean=10.89, CN_mode=8 Screw scan: pitch=0.500: Q4=0.210, Q5=0.022, Q6=0.167 (HIGHEST Q4, Q6) pitch=0.618: Q4=0.148, Q5=0.020, Q6=0.088 pitch=0.667: Q4=0.138, Q5=0.036, Q6=0.063 (HIGHEST Q5) pitch=0.817: Q4=0.154, Q5=0.027, Q6=0.123 pitch=0.866: Q4=0.105, Q5=0.031, Q6=0.077 pitch=1.000: Q4=0.094, Q5=0.027, Q6=0.112 pitch=1.618: Q4=0.237, Q5=0.021, Q6=0.144 KEY FINDINGS — HETZNER (5000 atoms, isotropic only verified): Isotropic: Q4=0.033, Q5=0.006, Q6=0.015, CN_mean=12.39, CN_mode=15 Coordination distribution peaks at 15, ranging 1-24. DATA INTEGRITY: 1. GOOD: Local and Hetzner isotropic runs show expected scaling — Steinhardt parameters decrease with system size (200 vs 5000 atoms), which is normal for finite-size effects in disordered systems. Q values approach zero, suggesting amorphous/liquid-like structure at large sizes. 2. GOOD: Screw scan shows pitch-dependent variation in Q parameters. Compact pitch (0.5) and phi pitch (1.618) show highest Q4/Q6, while pitch=2/3 (0.667) shows highest Q5. 3. GOOD: Each screw run includes Q_l history every 20 steps, showing how order evolves during growth. All runs show Q_l decreasing as more atoms are added — consistent with surface disorder dominating as the cluster grows. 4. CONCERN: FDTD subdirectory contains only snapshots and evolution plots — no summary report with Q_l values. It's unclear what the FDTD condition was testing (independent wave propagation?) vs. the screw scan (which also uses wave interference). 5. CONCERN: 5000-atom runs appear to have only isotropic data in the Hetzner folder (isotropic + fdtd + screw_scan directories exist, but I could only verify the isotropic report). The screw_scan results.json in the Hetzner folder should be verified. 6. GOOD: The wave evolution snapshots (isotropic_wave_step*.png) provide visual documentation of the FDTD simulation proceeding correctly. AUDIT VERDICT: PASS The methodology is sound, data is internally consistent, and the scaling behavior (Q_l decreasing with system size) is physically correct. The key finding — that wave-interference-guided growth produces structures with measurable but modest order parameters — is reported honestly. The screw pitch dependence is genuine (different pitches produce different Q profiles). CORRECTIONS NEEDED BEFORE MOVING: - Add FDTD summary report with Q_l values - Verify Hetzner screw_scan data completeness - Add interpretation note: Q_l approaching zero at 5000 atoms suggests the growth algorithm produces amorphous rather than crystalline structures at scale ================================================================================ SUPERSEDED ITEMS ================================================================================ A. TLT-005 (pressure) vs TLT-005B (pressure-amplitude) ------------------------------------------------------- TLT-005: Original pressure phase transition data (48 elements). Statistical result: 57.9% monotonic CN progression, but with a permutation p-value that was criticized as a straw man. TLT-005B: Reframed version with audit corrections applied: FIX 1: Group-based electronic transfer classification FIX 2: N-fold mapping flagged as model assumption FIX 3: Per-step transition null model added Per-step null p-value: 0.403 (not significant) Fisher exact p-value for e-transfer vs monotonicity: 0.000017 VERDICT: TLT-005B FULLY SUPERSEDES TLT-005. TLT-005B is already in the audited folder. TLT-005 should be moved to an "archive/superseded" subfolder in unaudited, with a pointer to TLT-005B. The underlying data is the same; TLT-005B adds the audit corrections and better null models. B. TLT-010 (original 3D unfolding) vs TLT-010R (revised) --------------------------------------------------------- TLT-010: Phase-by-phase exploration (screw dislocation, 3D N-wave, phi spiral). Only 4 images + summary text. No systematic data. Key finding: {3,5} --> icosahedron Schlafli match. TLT-010R: Full systematic simulation with isotropic control, 7-pitch screw scan, FDTD verification, Q_l tracking, 200-atom and 5000-atom runs. Much more rigorous. VERDICT: TLT-010R SUPERSEDES TLT-010 for simulation data. However, TLT-010's conceptual notes (Schlafli symbol connection, N-wave symmetry catalog) have standalone value as a reference. Recommend: Move TLT-010 to "archive/superseded" but copy the TLT-010_3d_unfolding_data.txt to TLT-010R as a reference appendix. C. TLT-011 (original pulsed 3D) vs TLT-011B (FDTD growth) ----------------------------------------------------------- TLT-011: 50 atoms only, coherence-decay ENVELOPE approximation, 5 t/T values. Total time: 0.0 minutes (instant). No clear trends in Q_l vs t/T. TLT-011B: Faithful FDTD with actual pulse/rest cycles, 80-500 atoms, Liesegang batch nucleation, independent Grok audit. VERDICT: TLT-011B FULLY SUPERSEDES TLT-011. TLT-011 used a shortcut (envelope approximation) that TLT-011B was explicitly designed to replace. The 50-atom runs with "0.0 minutes" elapsed time suggest the simulation was trivially fast and possibly not physically meaningful. Move TLT-011 to "archive/superseded". D. TLT-009 (forensic pattern match) ------------------------------------ Content: A forensic comparison table asking whether {2,3} structure in the Standard Model comes from gauge group structure or geometry. 7 evidence categories evaluated: 3 match (but not independently), 3 independent tests show NO match, 1 novel (baryon R/reduced_Compton = 4). VERDICT: INCONCLUSIVE but HONEST. The test correctly identifies that {2,3} in particle physics comes from gauge group structure, not from TLT-style geometry. The honest "leaning different killer" verdict shows good scientific practice. This is NOT superseded by any other test — it's a standalone assessment. Recommend: PASS — move to audited as a reference document (not a simulation test). It serves as an important intellectual honesty checkpoint showing that the theory's {2,3} connection to particles is likely coincidental with gauge group structure. ================================================================================ SUMMARY TABLE ================================================================================ Test | Priority | Verdict | Move to Audited? | Notes ----------|----------|-------------|------------------|------------------ TLT-011B | HIGH | INCOMPLETE | NO | Production run growth stall TLT-019 | HIGH | PASS* | YES (after fixes)| Phi^2 FALSIFIED. Missing plots TLT-014 | MEDIUM | PASS | YES (after notes)| Chirality null result TLT-007 | MEDIUM | PASS* | YES (with caveats)| Needs null models TLT-008 | MEDIUM | PASS | YES | Reference document TLT-010R | LOW | PASS | YES (after fixes)| FDTD report missing Superseded: TLT-005 | — | SUPERSEDED | ARCHIVE | By TLT-005B (already audited) TLT-010 | — | SUPERSEDED | ARCHIVE | By TLT-010R TLT-011 | — | SUPERSEDED | ARCHIVE | By TLT-011B TLT-009 | — | PASS | YES | Honest inconclusive assessment * = minor corrections required before moving ================================================================================ KEY SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS FROM THIS AUDIT ================================================================================ 1. PHI-SQUARED DECOHERENCE HYPOTHESIS: FALSIFIED Peak CV is at t/T = 0.510, not 1/phi^2 = 0.382. Scale-independent across all M values (0.000 std). Phi's role is limited to dimensional geometry, not temporal dynamics. 2. CHIRALITY FROM SCREW GROWTH: NOT SIGNIFICANT No statistically significant net chirality at 2000 atoms. Screw dislocation pitch does not produce measurable handedness in the grown crystal structures. 3. FDTD CRYSTAL GROWTH: PROMISING BUT INCOMPLETE The batch nucleation approach (TLT-011B) is conceptually sound but the production run stalled at 33-60 atoms for pulsed configurations. Needs threshold tuning before conclusions can be drawn about optimal t/T in 3D. 4. ISOTROPIC GROWTH AT SCALE: AMORPHOUS TLT-010R's 5000-atom isotropic run shows Q_l values approaching zero — the wave-guided growth algorithm does not produce crystalline order at macroscopic scales. 5. {2,3} IN PARTICLE PHYSICS: LIKELY GAUGE GROUP, NOT GEOMETRY TLT-009 forensic analysis correctly identifies this distinction. ================================================================================ END OF AUDIT REPORT Auditor: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) Date: 2026-03-18 ================================================================================