This record contains version 0.5 of the Epsilon–Theta (ET) Framework Meta-Specification: a framework-level specification for baseline-relative deviation analysis in finite bipartite Bell scenarios. The ET framework defines a residual-first language for comparing observed Bell data with an explicit baseline probability model. Its primary object is the full observable residual table, from which scalar radii, compressed static summaries, Bell-functional projections, no-signalling diagnostics, and temporal diagnostics may be derived under declared conventions. The framework separates two complementary layers of analysis. The epsilon layer describes static, baseline-relative deviations in conditional probability tables. The theta layer provides a generic contract for temporal, order-dependent, or higher-order diagnostics, such as memory, drift, block dependence, and settings-time confounding, under declared calibration protocols. This Meta-Spec defines the framework-level contract: scope, baseline modes, residual-first principle, conformance classes, reporting requirements, calibration discipline, extension rules, and the relationship between the general framework and named scenario packs. It does not define a universal compressed residual vector, universal Bell functional, or universal temporal statistic. Those objects are intentionally delegated to scenario-specific packs. The document is not a new physical theory, not a new Bell inequality, and not a replacement for Bell-valid significance analyses, loophole-specific experimental audits, device-independent security proofs, or quantum-set compatibility tools. Instead, ET is intended as a complementary reporting, diagnostic, and sensitivity framework for declared classes of baseline-relative observable departures. The canonical 2x2x2 binary-outcome scenario is specified separately in the ET-CS-222 scenario pack and its companion supplements. Future versions of the Meta-Spec may extend the framework-level contract to additional Bell-scenario families, such as multipartite, network, or adaptive settings.
This record contains version 0.5 of the Epsilon–Theta (ET) Framework Meta-Specification: a framework-level specification for baseline-relative deviation analysis in finite bipartite Bell scenarios. The ET framework defines a residual-first language for comparing observed Bell data with an explicit baseline probability model. Its primary object is the full observable residual table, from which scalar radii, compressed static summaries, Bell-functional projections, no-signalling diagnostics, and temporal diagnostics may be derived under declared conventions. The framework separates two complementary layers of analysis. The epsilon layer describes static, baseline-relative deviations in conditional probability tables. The theta layer provides a generic contract for temporal, order-dependent, or higher-order diagnostics, such as memory, drift, block dependence, and settings-time confounding, under declared calibration protocols. This Meta-Spec defines the framework-level contract: scope, baseline modes, residual-first principle, conformance classes, reporting requirements, calibration discipline, extension rules, and the relationship between the general framework and named scenario packs. It does not define a universal compressed residual vector, universal Bell functional, or universal temporal statistic. Those objects are intentionally delegated to scenario-specific packs. The document is not a new physical theory, not a new Bell inequality, and not a replacement for Bell-valid significance analyses, loophole-specific experimental audits, device-independent security proofs, or quantum-set compatibility tools. Instead, ET is intended as a complementary reporting, diagnostic, and sensitivity framework for declared classes of baseline-relative observable departures. The canonical 2x2x2 binary-outcome scenario is specified separately in the ET-CS-222 scenario pack and its companion supplements. Future versions of the Meta-Spec may extend the framework-level contract to additional Bell-scenario families, such as multipartite, network, or adaptive settings.
This record contains release v0.7 of the ET-CS-222 document package for the Epsilon–Theta (ET) Framework. ET-CS-222 is the scenario-pack specification for the canonical 2x2x2 binary-outcome Bell case. It is designed for use with the ET Framework Meta-Specification v0.5, published separately at DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20472966. The package includes four PDF documents: 1. ET-CS-222 Scenario Pack Supplement This document defines the scenario-specific ET core for the canonical 2x2x2 binary-outcome Bell case. It fixes the supported baseline modes, the default profiled quantum baseline family, the 8-component compressed static residual interface, no-signalling diagnostics, core Bell-style projections, and the core temporal diagnostic structure. 2. ET-CS-222 Companion Supplement: Recommended Analysis Workflow This non-normative companion describes a recommended analysis sequence for applying ET-CS-222, including preprocessing declarations, baseline selection, cross-fit structure, block bootstrap uncertainty, theta-layer diagnostics, reporting cards, red flags, and optional extensions. 3. ET-CS-222 Companion Supplement: Worked Example (A–C) This non-normative companion provides synthetic worked examples illustrating the ET-CS-222 workflow: a null i.i.d. case, a CHSH-blind static deviation, and a purely temporal/order-dependent structure that is invisible to static counts. 4. ET-CS-222 Companion Supplement: Sensitivity Certificates for the 8-Component Static Interface This non-normative companion defines simultaneous ellipsoidal sensitivity certificates for the 8-component compressed static residual vector. It provides baseline-relative, finite-sample-calibrated bounds for declared linear functionals in the fixed ET-CS-222 static interface. Together, these documents instantiate the framework-level ET Meta-Specification for a concrete finite Bell scenario. The scenario pack is the normative ET-CS-222 specification; the workflow, worked example, and sensitivity certificate are companion supplements intended to support reproducible use, interpretation, and reporting. The package does not introduce a new physical theory, a new Bell inequality, or a replacement for Bell-valid significance analyses, loophole-specific experimental audits, device-independent security proofs, or quantum-set compatibility tools. Instead, it provides a scenario-specific residual, temporal-diagnostic, and sensitivity-reporting layer for declared baseline-relative observable departures in the canonical 2x2x2 Bell setting. This release should be cited when referring to the ET-CS-222 scenario pack and its companion supplements as a document package. The ET Framework Meta-Specification v0.5 should be cited separately when referring to the framework-level ET contract.
This record contains version 0.5 of the Epsilon–Theta (ET) Framework Reader’s Guide. The Reader’s Guide is a non-normative, human-facing entry point to the ET Framework document suite. It explains the purpose, structure, and intended interpretation of the ET Framework without replacing the normative documents. The ET Framework is a baseline-relative residual, diagnostic, and sensitivity-reporting framework for finite Bell scenarios. It is designed to help describe declared observable departures from an explicit baseline probability model, including static residual structure and temporal or order-dependent diagnostics, under declared calibration and reporting protocols. This guide explains how the ET Framework Meta-Specification, the ET-CS-222 scenario pack, and the ET-CS-222 companion supplements fit together. It also clarifies what ET is and is not: ET is not a new physical theory, not a new Bell inequality, and not a replacement for Bell-valid significance analyses, loophole-specific experimental audits, device-independent security proofs, or quantum-set compatibility tools. Instead, ET is intended as a complementary layer for baseline-relative residual, temporal, and sensitivity reporting. The guide is intended for readers who want to understand the ET document suite before reading the formal Meta-Specification or the scenario-specific ET-CS-222 documents. It summarizes the residual-first principle, the epsilon/theta split, the role of scenario packs, the meaning of non-detection statements, the relation to existing Bell-analysis tools, and the recommended order for reading the ET documents. This Reader’s Guide refers to two separately published ET records: 1. The ET Framework Meta-Specification v0.5, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20472966.2. The ET-CS-222 Scenario Pack and Companion Supplements v0.7, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20474207. This release should be cited when referring specifically to the reader-facing overview and explanatory entry point to the ET Framework document suite. The Meta-Specification and ET-CS-222 package should be cited separately when referring to the normative framework-level contract or the canonical 2x2x2 scenario-pack specification.
Addendum VIII (Version 2) is an extension of the core publication The Berg Theory: A scalar–tensor energy web as a common foundation of space–time, gravitation, quantum phenomena, and entropy (core article collection DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17937466). It records an audit-ready, fit-ready coherence module for two-path interference, measurement, decoherence, and entanglement, and adds a laboratory-facing interface to quantum-processor diagnostics. The operational backbone is intentionally mainstream-compatible: two-path interference is tracked through measured fringe visibility as the primary coherence proxy, and visibility loss is linked to the physical creation of which-way records via the standard environment-overlap mechanism. The Berg-specific contribution is isolated as a comparative hypothesis: a background-response factor (denoted Xi_Psi in the manuscript) that may rescale the effective decoherence response under carefully defined regime comparisons. Some regime changes are used only to calibrate and verify laboratory couplings (dial checks), while Xi_Psi is tested only under regime changes explicitly designed to keep the laboratory coupling unchanged within declared tolerances. The addendum is designed so that the default outcome is a bound: if no reproducible residual survives controls, the correct report is consistency with the null case in the tested regime. Version 2 strengthens falsifiability and reviewer-robustness by adding: a strict separation between “dimensionless decoherence exponents” and “decoherence rates” to avoid notational ambiguity, an explicit complementarity sanity check as a pipeline diagnostic, an operational regime definition (reference / modified / placebo) with logging requirements, plus blinded analysis and placebo discipline to protect against hidden drift and p-hacking (with the chosen Xi_Psi parametrization pre-declared before unblinding), fit-ready experimental routes for (A) residual coherence in two-path interferometers and (B) entanglement-lifetime curves based on CHSH-type tests, including practical detectability budgets, a quantum-processor section that turns coherence-language into laboratory diagnostics (correlated noise, memory effects, noise spectroscopy) with explicit null hypotheses and significance discipline, and tests a Berg-specific delta: whether any residual structure shows regime dependence under the same placebo/blinding audit rules used for interferometers. Two compact appendices provide independent numerical scale anchors: a double-slit fringe-spacing benchmark (including an electron-scale reference) and a tunneling benchmark included solely as a verified exponential-law boundary-value sanity check complementary to coherence-loss diagnostics.
Version 8.1 develops a state–channel–task framework for quantum correlations, with anexplicit pedagogical and diagnostic layer.The framework contains three distinct structures.First, the set-inclusion hierarchy describes exact mathematical relations among classicalcorrelations, separable states, entangled states, steerable states and Bell-nonlocal states:Cclass ⊂ Csep, CBell ⊂ Csteer ⊂ Cent = S \ Csep. (1)Second, operational robustness is defined as a state–channel functional rather than as auniversal ordering of resources. For a resource measure M, noise channel Eθ and initial stateρ0, the survival function isPM(θ) = Pr[M(Eθ(ρ0)) > Mmin] . (2)Third, task utility is defined through an explicitly specified performance functional involvingsensitivity, precision, resource cost, robustness and experimental overhead.Version 8.1 additionally integrates a distance-to-boundary analysis, an explicit correc-tion note on the misstated inclusion Csteer ⊂ Cent, a verification protocol based on the chainSCHSH > 2 ⇒ Rsteer > 0 ⇒ N > 0, and illustrative reference tables with explicit disclaimers.The framework rejects the interpretation that a single universal hierarchy of robustness canbe inferred from set inclusion.No experimental result is claimed.
Version 6.1 develops an integral framework for an analog quantum simulator of spin modelsbased on programmable superconducting-qubit arrays.The principal objective is not merely to construct a quantum device, but to establish atraceable mappingcontrol parameters −→ Hreal −→ quantum evolution −→ observables −→ classical reference.The framework supports transverse-field Ising, XY, XXZ, Heisenberg, long-range, anddisordered spin Hamiltonians.Version 6.1 introduces an explicit Hamiltonian- identification layer between hardwarecalibration and scientific validation.The realized Hamiltonian is decomposed into target terms, static calibration errors, dynamiccontrol errors, crosstalk, leakage, decoherence, and residual unwanted interactions.Validation is organized hierarchically:1. hardware calibration;2. Hamiltonian identification;3. state-preparation validation;4. readout calibration;5. static observable validation;6. dynamical observable validation;7. finite-size benchmarking;8. statistical equivalence testing;9. cross-device reproducibility;10. independent analytical reproduction. The statistical framework replaces the inadequate criterion of “statistical significance ofagreement” with an equivalence framework based on preregistered tolerances.The primary hypothesis is therefore formulated using two one-sided tests (TOST) or anequivalent confidence interval criterion:|∆O| < ϵO.Version 6.1 additionally specifies:• a supplementary Bayesian posterior probability of equivalence as a robustness check;• an explicit distinction between engineering no-go and physical falsification.The framework also specifies negative controls, positive controls, blind analysis, lockedanalysis code, exclusion rules, uncertainty propagation, data provenance, and reproducibilityrequirements.No experimental result or quantum advantage is claimed.
Public photon Bell-test records retain timing structure that is lost in aggregate statistics. This paper tests whether that structure survives quantitative response controls in three experimental archives. In the Weihs data, a rectangular contrast of four channel-pair timing centroids tests whether accepted signal delays can be written as a sum of local channel contributions. For longdist1, the contrast is 1.405 ns and 1.515 ns in disjoint chronological halves, with pointwise 95% block intervals [1.018, 1.791] ns and [1.193, 1.836] ns. Both survive the enumerated centroid scan under the specified 20-block inference at an 8-ns coincidence half-width and remain positive under clock, background, and gate checks. A flexible empirical timing model, however, transfers between chronological halves after clock-drift calibration. In the Christensen archive, the suppressed setting-pair channel is strongly enriched in coincidence tails, but a cross-fitted signal–accidental model predicts 714.6 of 730 counts beyond 300 ns; the residual is 15.4 counts with interval [−54.6, 85.3]. NIST timing-offset records exhibit a terminal-mask excess accompanied by an Alice-side singles-rate change and compatible with a separately calibrated local-setting mixture. The evidence separates reproducible structure, failure of an additive accepted-centroid model, and effects accommodated by explicit response controls. Finite coincidence selection and known switching-related populations prevent the centroid contrast alone from establishing intrinsic polarization–time coupling or a failure of quantum theory. Statistical scope. The analyses are exploratory. Coarser clustering weakens scan-adjusted significance: with ten blocks per half, the highlighted Weihs contrast has adjusted approximate p values of 0.087 and 0.014. The residual is specific to the accepted-centroid model and does not establish a discrepancy beyond all independently calibrated temporal-response models. Files and reproducibility. Bell_manuscript.pdf is the self-contained, 13-page preprint dated 30 October 2026. Bell_Reanalysis_Source.zip contains the editable LaTeX manuscript, numerical figure code, reconstruction and analysis scripts, derived records, source manifests and hashes, full comparison tables, calibration and sensitivity results, and reproduction instructions. The NIST analysis uses 60 prescribed samples of 500,000 trials, rather than complete runs. The full upstream Christensen archive and Weihs time-tag files are retrieved by the supplied fetchers and are not bundled. A clean internal rerun reproduced the checked numerical outputs exactly; external independent reproduction is not claimed. Publication status and assistance. This research preprint has not been peer reviewed. AI tools assisted programming, analysis, and manuscript preparation; responsibility for the work remains with the author. License scope. The manuscript and original figures are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. Original analysis code is licensed under MIT. Third-party source data and derived excerpts retain applicable source terms and attribution; this deposit does not relicense upstream material.