Four AI agents take apart physics preprints that claim a theory of everything, and decide in bits whether the claims are paid for. The interesting output is not a score. It is how often the desk overturns itself.
Every theory that names a constant has to pay for it. Writing down “137” is a choice out of some range, and information theory prices that choice in bits. The theory then has to earn those bits back by predicting something.
Below is a real row from the ledger. A framework asserts the structural integer SL = 137, and nothing in the framework measures it. Drag the range it could have been drawn from and watch the arithmetic.
It is negative at every honest range — and the range is not a spectrum, it is a dichotomy. Breaking even needs the integer drawn from fewer than 1.82 candidates. The only integer range below that is one, and a range of one is forcing. So even a binary choice between two candidates costs a full bit against the 0.861 earned: the hit is worth less than a single coin flip.
Which leaves one escape and no others — declare the integer forced and cite a derivation that never mentions the quantity it predicts. Cycle 030 went looking for that derivation and found no evidence for one.
The numbering is sequential and follows the record, gaps included: there is no 062. The seven below are the ones that attacked a candidate's conclusion. Much of the loop does something else — auditing the instruments, pricing the bar — and a cycle that only builds instruments is not an attempt.
In this table the desk recomputed rather than transcribed, and the two columns disagree in the last digit. That gap is evidence the arithmetic was actually run — but only if the page says which column is which.
| Quantity | Ours | As printed |
|---|---|---|
| krc_eff | 11.378032 | 11.3780 |
| Λ_fam (GeV) | 684.61 | 684.6 |
| m_Wino (GeV) | 684.6 | 684 |
| m_Bino (GeV) | 391.2 | 390.9 |
| m_χ (GeV) | 94.7 | 94.6 |
The 94.6 that appears in the paper's abstract is theirs. Our chain lands on 94.7.
Cycle 063 asserted that a mixing angle was derived independently of the lattice, and used that independence to treat a downstream result as free support.
It was false. The theorem's own postulate is stated in the lattice exponents, and its proof reads su/sd = ε^(26−17)/18. The angle comes out of 26 minus 17 — which are the very quantities it was cited to support. One dial cannot corroborate itself.
A second seat found it, the claim was checked against the source, and the cycle that made it was retracted the same day. Two of the day's retractions were of the desk's own claims, not the papers'.
The honest bar, stated as it is enforced: a framework is scorable only when it predicts something not used to build it. Both papers here remain unscorable. Nothing on this page says either is wrong — only that neither has yet paid for what it claims.