UIP is a candidate framework formalizing coherence, drift, inheritance, resonance, waste, and non-harm constraints as measurable control-theoretic and information-theoretic objects, governed by dC/dt = G(R,U) − L(D,W) subject to a hard non-harm envelope. This Phase 1 record contains three artifacts: (1) the preprint; (2) Appendix A — a single noisy qubit memory in which every UIP object is numerically specified, six preregistered falsification tests passed, and the fixed-point condition G = L predicted steady-state drift D* = 0.1032 vs 0.1051 simulated (within 2%); (3) Appendix B — a two-qubit test of inheritance-guided correction allocation, which FAILED its preregistered falsification condition in both version 1 and a preregistered version 2 across a full coupling sweep, reported in full with the diagnosed mechanism and a sharpened restricted-access boundary hypothesis (v3) left open for independent testing. All results are consistent with standard quantum mechanics, quantum information theory, and feedback control. This work demonstrates reduction to known science (Criterion 1) only; novel prediction (Criterion 2) and independent replication (Criterion 3) remain open. UIP is a candidate framework, not established science. Refutations are solicited as explicitly as confirmations; simulation code is published openly for reviewers to reproduce, vary, and attempt to break every result. Simulation code (open source): https://github.com/derekhone/uip-phase1-testbeds Version 2 adds Appendix C: a preregistered v3 test of inheritance-guided control under restricted access. Predictions were locked before execution. Result: robust pass at weak coupling (+3.5% over best baseline, N=100 seeds); loses at strong coupling. Full boundaries reported. Code: https://github.com/derekhone/uip-phase1-testbeds Version 3 completes Phase 1. Adds Appendices D–G and the synthesis manuscript. D/E: preregistered crossover point and zero-free-parameter law s*(γ) = arcsin(√(γ(1−C̄*)/C̄*)), C̄* = 1/1.45, confirmed across a γ-sweep (r = 0.976), with three-qubit generalization. F: negative result — decision quantities fall 12.19% (v3) and 22.06% (v4) short of a beam-search near-optimal adversary; control-sufficiency claim falsified and closed. G: negative result — C̄* does not transfer to a structure-matched classical system (no crossover exists); universality claim retired. Synthesis manuscript: four confirmed preregistered predictions, three falsified claims. No new physics is claimed. Version 4 adds Appendix H — the first hardware test, run on IBM Quantum (ibm_kingston, Heron r2, job d99brisqp3as739tudkg). The Appendix A fixed-point law, with the per-cycle decay computed from published calibration T2, FAILED its preregistered ±10% kill-condition (predicted D* = 0.0302, measured 0.1463, deviation 383.7%). Diagnosis: bare-idle decay is governed by T2*, not echo-T2; the fixed-point structure (flat steady state) was observed, but the input noise model is falsified on hardware. Sharpened hypothesis H2 (in-situ rate measurement or echo insertion) is preregistrable and left open. Preregistration was committed to the GitHub repository before execution. Ledger: 4 confirmed / 4 falsified — including one rejection delivered by hardware outside our control. FINAL VERSION — PHASE 1 CLOSED (July 12, 2026). This version adds Appendix I (H2a echo-protected hardware test) and the final complete synthesis paper, closing the Phase 1 falsification program. Final ledger: 4 claims confirmed, 5 falsified — including two preregistered hardware rejections of the author's own predictions on IBM Quantum's ibm_kingston processor (Heron r2, 156 qubits), both published unedited the same day. CONFIRMED (simulation): (A) single-qubit recirculation fixed point, steady-state drift predicted analytically within 2%; (C) restricted-access regime where inheritance-guided control is advantageous; (D–E) quantitative crossover law s*(γ), confirmed as preregistered. FALSIFIED: (B) inheritance-guided two-qubit control vs. static baseline, two preregistered versions; (F) near-optimality claim — 12.19% gap vs. a 5% threshold; (G) the universality claim — the word "Unified" was formally retired as a consequence; (H) the fixed-point law with published-calibration inputs on hardware — 383.7% deviation vs. a preregistered ±10% window (job d99brisqp3as739tudkg); (I) the same law with echo-protected idles correcting the diagnosed T2/T2* input error — 81.9% deviation (job Post-closure replication note (2026-07-13): The fixed-point law falsified in Appendix I was re-tested on a second device (ibm_marrakesh, qubit 2, preregistered, job d9airde6hjac73fegau0). Result: FAIL — measured D* = 0.0529 vs. predicted 0.0407 (30.1% deviation). The falsification is device-independent (kingston 81.9%, marrakesh 30.1%). Ledger unchanged: 4 confirmed / 5 falsified.
UIP is a candidate framework formalizing coherence, drift, inheritance, resonance, waste, and non-harm constraints as measurable control-theoretic and information-theoretic objects, governed by dC/dt = G(R,U) − L(D,W) subject to a hard non-harm envelope. This Phase 1 record contains three artifacts: (1) the preprint; (2) Appendix A — a single noisy qubit memory in which every UIP object is numerically specified, six preregistered falsification tests passed, and the fixed-point condition G = L predicted steady-state drift D* = 0.1032 vs 0.1051 simulated (within 2%); (3) Appendix B — a two-qubit test of inheritance-guided correction allocation, which FAILED its preregistered falsification condition in both version 1 and a preregistered version 2 across a full coupling sweep, reported in full with the diagnosed mechanism and a sharpened restricted-access boundary hypothesis (v3) left open for independent testing. All results are consistent with standard quantum mechanics, quantum information theory, and feedback control. This work demonstrates reduction to known science (Criterion 1) only; novel prediction (Criterion 2) and independent replication (Criterion 3) remain open. UIP is a candidate framework, not established science. Refutations are solicited as explicitly as confirmations; simulation code is published openly for reviewers to reproduce, vary, and attempt to break every result. Simulation code (open source): https://github.com/derekhone/uip-phase1-testbeds Version 2 adds Appendix C: a preregistered v3 test of inheritance-guided control under restricted access. Predictions were locked before execution. Result: robust pass at weak coupling (+3.5% over best baseline, N=100 seeds); loses at strong coupling. Full boundaries reported. Code: https://github.com/derekhone/uip-phase1-testbeds Version 3 completes Phase 1. Adds Appendices D–G and the synthesis manuscript. D/E: preregistered crossover point and zero-free-parameter law s*(γ) = arcsin(√(γ(1−C̄*)/C̄*)), C̄* = 1/1.45, confirmed across a γ-sweep (r = 0.976), with three-qubit generalization. F: negative result — decision quantities fall 12.19% (v3) and 22.06% (v4) short of a beam-search near-optimal adversary; control-sufficiency claim falsified and closed. G: negative result — C̄* does not transfer to a structure-matched classical system (no crossover exists); universality claim retired. Synthesis manuscript: four confirmed preregistered predictions, three falsified claims. No new physics is claimed. Version 4 adds Appendix H — the first hardware test, run on IBM Quantum (ibm_kingston, Heron r2, job d99brisqp3as739tudkg). The Appendix A fixed-point law, with the per-cycle decay computed from published calibration T2, FAILED its preregistered ±10% kill-condition (predicted D* = 0.0302, measured 0.1463, deviation 383.7%). Diagnosis: bare-idle decay is governed by T2*, not echo-T2; the fixed-point structure (flat steady state) was observed, but the input noise model is falsified on hardware. Sharpened hypothesis H2 (in-situ rate measurement or echo insertion) is preregistrable and left open. Preregistration was committed to the GitHub repository before execution. Ledger: 4 confirmed / 4 falsified — including one rejection delivered by hardware outside our control. FINAL VERSION — PHASE 1 CLOSED (July 12, 2026). This version adds Appendix I (H2a echo-protected hardware test) and the final complete synthesis paper, closing the Phase 1 falsification program. Final ledger: 4 claims confirmed, 5 falsified — including two preregistered hardware rejections of the author's own predictions on IBM Quantum's ibm_kingston processor (Heron r2, 156 qubits), both published unedited the same day. CONFIRMED (simulation): (A) single-qubit recirculation fixed point, steady-state drift predicted analytically within 2%; (C) restricted-access regime where inheritance-guided control is advantageous; (D–E) quantitative crossover law s*(γ), confirmed as preregistered. FALSIFIED: (B) inheritance-guided two-qubit control vs. static baseline, two preregistered versions; (F) near-optimality claim — 12.19% gap vs. a 5% threshold; (G) the universality claim — the word "Unified" was formally retired as a consequence; (H) the fixed-point law with published-calibration inputs on hardware — 383.7% deviation vs. a preregistered ±10% window (job d99brisqp3as739tudkg); (I) the same law with echo-protected idles correcting the diagnosed T2/T2* input error — 81.9% deviation (job Post-closure replication note (2026-07-13): The fixed-point law falsified in Appendix I was re-tested on a second device (ibm_marrakesh, qubit 2, preregistered, job d9airde6hjac73fegau0). Result: FAIL — measured D* = 0.0529 vs. predicted 0.0407 (30.1% deviation). The falsification is device-independent (kingston 81.9%, marrakesh 30.1%). Ledger unchanged: 4 confirmed / 5 falsified.
Preregistered, one-run hardware characterization of a verification-before-execution boundary using mid-circuit measurement and dynamic-circuit feed-forward on ibm_kingston (job d9ajf3eg26ic73deq3l0, 4096 shots/arm). Preregistered kill-condition: DENY-leakage ≤ 3%. Measured: 12.62% → FAIL. Post-hoc analysis (zero evidential weight): leakage is indistinguishable from the idle-control readout baseline (13.50%), indicating measurement noise, not feed-forward misfire, sets the certification floor. Standalone work; separate from the UIP Phase 1 record. No claim of new physics. Code, preregistration, and raw results: github.com/derekhone/uip-phase1-testbeds (vbe1/).
Residual Quantum Information Persistence Under Native Decoherence: A UIPO-Governed CS2 Precursor Protocol for Prospective Quantum Model-Adequacy Testing Author: Kevin L. BrownResearch Status: Falsifiable hypothesis and preregistration-grade experimental protocol; no empirical result is claimed. This paper presents a prospective experimental protocol for testing whether measurable quantum-state information persists longer than a preregistered family of conventional decoherence models predicts. The proposed experiment uses a superconducting transmon qubit prepared in opposing equatorial quantum states. State distinguishability is reconstructed through single-qubit tomography and quantified using trace distance as the system evolves under native decoherence. The central hypothesis, H-QRP-1, asks whether normalized quantum-state distinguishability exhibits a reproducible positive residual beyond three preregistered parametric comparator models: exponential decay, stretched-exponential decay, and damped-revival dynamics capable of representing conventional memory effects. A Gaussian-process model is included separately as an empirical flexibility control to determine whether any residual structure remains statistically predictable even when the simpler parametric models fail. The protocol is designed to minimize post-hoc interpretation. It specifies state preparation, readout calibration, T1 and T2∗ calibration, tomography reconstruction, dimensional normalization, comparator equations, parameter bounds, optimization procedures, randomization, validation rules, uncertainty propagation, serial-dependence controls, sample-size determination, practical-effect thresholds, and confirmatory decision criteria before evaluation data are collected. The calibration program is divided prospectively into independent model-fitting and calibration-validation stages. Serial dependence across device days is handled through preregistered circular moving-block simulations using multiple dependence lengths. The final evaluation sample size is selected only if the complete decision procedure satisfies predefined false-positive and statistical-power requirements. A positive result would not by itself demonstrate new quantum physics, validate the Unified Informational Physics Ontology (UIPO), confirm Triune Harmonic Dynamics (THD), or invalidate quantum mechanics. It would establish only that the registered conventional parametric model family systematically underpredicts measurable state distinguishability under the tested conditions. The proposed escalation path requires independent hardware replication and stronger conventional characterization, including process-tensor methods, before any mechanism-specific interpretation is considered. The broader practical question is whether quantum information currently treated as effectively lost during decoherence may contain additional measurable and potentially recoverable structure. If independently validated and shown to be usable, such residual persistence could eventually inform quantum-memory modeling, error-correction strategies, qubit control, and quantum-hardware design. THD-specific testing is explicitly excluded from the active hypothesis until an author-approved mapping from the canonical THD structure to measurable quantum observables is prospectively defined and preregistered. Keywords: Quantum Physics, Quantum Information, Quantum Decoherence, Superconducting Qubits, Open Quantum Systems, Quantum State Tomography, Trace Distance, Non-Markovian Dynamics, Quantum Memory, Falsifiable Hypothesis, Preregistered Experiment, UIPO
Proposal to the BlueQubit Quantum Flywheel open call (2026). Track 2 (breaking quantum advantage claims) with a Track-1 hardware component and a Track-3-adjacent seed. Aim 1 — execute the author's own hash-verified K₈ τ-sweep pre-registration (10.5281/zenodo.17918774, never run as written) exactly as specified on three IBM Heron backends under one pre-declared backend amendment; publish the outcome either way. Aim 2 — adversarial classical re-analysis of the author's 156-qubit / 10⁶-shot and 1,430-circuit "entropy suppression" datasets (10.5281/zenodo.19656600, 10.5281/zenodo.19505907) with coverage-adjusted estimators and tensor-network reproduction. Aim 3 — pre-registered hardware test of whether an auditable rule-evolving controller (organism_sim / bridge, 10.5281/zenodo.22862567) helps evolutionary dynamical-decoupling search under real calibration drift; four arms, binding criterion stated in PREREGISTRATION.md before any job. Includes PREREGISTRATION.md (binding criteria committed before submission of any hardware job), prepared form answers, and the supporting audits of the author's 60 prior records (HONEST_ASSESSMENT, FLYWHEEL_ASSESSMENT, PUBLICATIONS index). The archive is git archive of tag v1.0.0.
SSAF's central falsifiable prediction, NS1, requires that under a witness-confirmed fixed classical context, the reduced dynamics of a probe carry no dependence on the quantum state: all fitted rate parameters are functions of the context alone. This record reports a preregistered pilot execution of the NS1 protocol on the superconducting processor ibm_fez, using target qubit 6 and independent witness qubit 10. The independent context witness passed its two-part gate. Raw stability gave p = 0.3617, and witness-rate homogeneity gave p = 0.9998. The primary endpoint found that one shared affine reduced-evolution law accounted for an informationally complete set of eight target preparations, with a leave-one-out statistic of 176.21 against a parametric-bootstrap null 95% quantile of 253.40 and a cross-validation p-value of 0.6167. The secondary endpoint found no preparation-dependent heterogeneity among six fitted transverse decay rates, with a homogeneity p-value of 0.4003 and a maximum fractional deviation of 2.5%. The result is evidence of consistency with the preregistered NS1 prediction at the stated experimental sensitivity. It is not unique confirmation of SSAF, and it does not exclude state dependence below the achieved resolution. Standard fixed-context open-system quantum mechanics also predicts consistency with this result. The deposited record includes the manuscript, TeX source, submitted Python and notebook protocol, preregistration and preflight records, raw and processed data, machine-readable results, figures, run provenance, licensing information, and checksums. The hardware run was executed on July 17, 2026, with 7,424 shots per effective circuit and 435.0 seconds of QPU usage.
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.
This preregistration describes a confirmatory study of an upstream conditioning architecture in a quantum error-correction workflow. The project’s purpose is to test whether an intervention applied prior to the primary decoder produces a real and reproducible decoder-relevant effect, remains compatible with more than one downstream decoder family, generates a measurable exposed-observable statistical footprint, and improves or preserves performance across a preregistered regime rather than only at a single operating point. The study is intentionally limited to architecture-level evaluation, with the public claim set confined to exposed observables, frozen transformations, preregistered statistical tests, explicit negative controls, and bounded interpretation rules. The confirmatory design is organized around five preregistered tests: category existence, decoder compatibility, structural footprint, observable statistical signature, and regime robustness. Across these tests, the central comparison is between a baseline control pipeline and a conditioned pipeline in which the upstream intervention is applied while all non-conditioning settings are held fixed. The study uses frozen observables and frozen execution rules, including matched seeds, shot counts, code distances, physical error rates, geometry, and baseline decoder settings, so that any supported effect can be interpreted as evidence about the architecture under test rather than as a byproduct of post hoc tuning. To preserve a clean-room boundary, the registration restricts primary analysis to exposed, decoder-facing quantities only. These include logical failure, an exposed defect-count summary, and an exposed decoder-difficulty proxy, along with a locked scalar error-load construction derived from control-only standardization. The study does not rely on decoder-internal state variables, hidden confidence traces, or implementation-specific internal diagnostics in its primary confirmatory analyses. This structure is intended to let readers evaluate whether the architecture leaves a reproducible footprint in decoder-facing behavior without disclosing reconstruction-level mechanism details. Expected outcomes are defined in confirmatory rather than speculative terms. If the preregistered hypotheses are supported, the study is expected to provide evidence that an upstream conditioning intervention exists as a real architectural category in QEC, acts before the primary decoder, is compatible with downstream decoding, changes decoder-relevant exposed structure, and produces a reproducible observable statistical footprint in logical-failure behavior. If support is absent, mixed, or null, those outcomes will still be recorded under the frozen rules without rescue through post hoc metric changes, reweighting, or reinterpretation. In either case, the expected result of the registration is a bounded, auditable public record of whether this architecture class shows reproducible category-level behavior under a preregistered confirmatory design. The preregistration is not intended to establish a unique mechanism identity, identify a privileged implementation, disclose implementation-specific reconstruction details, or support claims about exact targeting logic, suppression laws, subset-sizing logic, telemetry-governed control, or broader cross-domain theory narratives. Public-facing interpretation is therefore intentionally limited to category validation and exposed-observable behavior. This is meant to support rigorous public evaluation while preserving strict clean-room limits around protected implementation detail.