Amendment 5 (2026-10-09), deposited before any S2 data. The registered question, estimand, test, seeds (1000-1079), shots (2,000), backend and qubit rules and 600 s ceiling are unchanged. What changes is how sampler calls become IBM jobs: one job per call (960 jobs, about 2,900 billed seconds) cannot fit the ceiling because of per-job billing, so seeds run in two blocks of 40 and every round of a block is one multi-pub job (12 jobs, about 540 s expected). Both arms of a seed share each job; the resulting shared-job exposure is accepted, with the primary test unchanged and per-block estimates reported as a secondary diagnostic. There is no statistical stopping and no interim analysis. Author decisions (shots, blocks, exposure) were made on 2026-10-09. Files: S2_AMENDMENT_5.md, AMENDMENT_5_MANIFEST.json (hashes of the implementation snapshot, commit 3332e893, and of the documents) and rqc-s2-amendment5-5fc50b0c.zip (code, documents and tests at commit 5fc50b0c). The original pre-registration and its frozen tooling are included unchanged. Not approved for execution: a run requires a recorded approval bound to the exact run payload. Pre-registration, deposited before any hardware job. On one IBM Heron backend (alphabetical-first rule; lowest-CZ-error 8-qubit path), with depth, two-qubit gate count, shots and session equal, does feedback-driven local search over single-qubit angles raise the fresh-re-measured, circuit-normalized XEB of the selected circuit compared with random search, at equal output concentration? Primary estimand: β0 of d = β0 + β1·Δc (one-sided, α = 0.05); 80 fresh seeds (1000–1079); 10-minute QPU ceiling. Simulation (S1) on an ibm_fez noise model and on Google's Willow noise model disagreed (β0 +0.010 and −0.003, both intervals include 0); the test is powered for effects of about 0.012 or larger and a null does not rule out smaller ones. Code frozen at github.com/osiris-dnalang/osiris-cli commit 86e3a3f4 (archive included).
Zero-Trust Quantum Benchmarking: Cryptographic Pre-Registration via the OSIRIS Write-Ahead Ledger Author: Devin Phillip Davis Affiliation: OSIRIS Architecture Group Date: September 2026 DOI Reference: 10.5281/zenodo.23045494 Abstract As quantum hardware scales toward practical fault tolerance, the empirical validation of quantum advantage claims faces a systemic replication crisis. Traditional benchmarking methodology relies heavily on post-hoc error mitigation, unverified post-selection, and opaque calibration timing. We present Zero-Trust Quantum Benchmarking, a methodological paradigm and open protocol that eliminates retrospective bias by enforcing immutable, pre-execution cryptographic commitments. Using the OSIRIS Continuous Relativistic State Matrix (CRSM) framework, transpiled quantum circuit manifests and hypothesis thresholds are hashed (
SHA-256) into an append-only write-ahead ledger prior to dispatch to physical Quantum Processing Units (QPUs). We validate this protocol through empirical execution on IBM Quantum's 156-qubit Heron r2 hardware (ibm_marrakesh, Job ID: dau0q3qhcrkc73durtgg). The pre-registered manifest bound a novel bipartite-staggered dynamical decoupling sequence (xy8_stag) targeting residual
ZZ-crosstalk. On an 8-qubit chain, the pre-registered trial achieved a mean survival probability
P(+)=0.8998 at
T=32 μs, representing a +30.5% gain over bare idle (
P(+)=0.5945) and a +6.5% gain over standard simultaneous dynamical decoupling (
P(+)=0.8342), satisfying all pre-registered non-overlapping 95% bootstrap confidence intervals without post-hoc fitting. I. Introduction & The Crisis of Provenance Quantum computing research currently lacks an end-to-end chain of custody for experimental data. Due to environmental noise fluctuation, thermal drift, and cross-talk, QPU performance changes dynamically on time scales ranging from minutes to hours. This instability introduces three major vulnerabilities into published quantum benchmarks: Calibration Arbitrage: Experiments executed across hundreds of QPU calls can selectively showcase runs coinciding with transient calibration peaks while silently discarding noisy trials. Post-Hoc Hypothesis Modification: Error mitigation models and threshold parameters are frequently tuned after observing raw state-vector outputs, confusing exploratory curve fitting with confirmatory validation. Data Loss & Black-Box Execution: Published results rarely preserve transpiled machine-level pulse schedules alongside raw hardware counts and system calibration logs, rendering independent third-party replication practically impossible. To establish verifiable quantum advantage, the field requires a shift to Zero-Trust Quantum Benchmarking, wherein hardware execution permissions are contingent upon prior, tamper-evident pre-registration of experimental intent. II. The OSIRIS Write-Ahead Ledger Protocol The OSIRIS framework enforces experimental integrity via a write-ahead append-only ledger architecture integrated directly into the CI/CD pipeline and QPU submission harness. ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ OSIRIS PRE-REGISTRATION PIPELINE │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ 1. Circuit Synthesis ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Transpile Target Topology & Gate Schedule │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ 2. Manifest Hashing ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Hash (Transpiled Circuit + Hypotheses + Metrics) -> SHA-256 │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ 3. Ledger Write Ahead ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Append Hash to Write-Ahead Ledger (ledger.jsonl) & Update Head │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ 4. QPU Job Submission ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Dispatch to Hardware (IBM Heron r2: ibm_marrakesh) │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ 5. Verification & Audit ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Bind Raw QPU Counts to Ledger Entry and Publish Artifact Package │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ A. Manifest Schema A Pre-registration Manifest (
M) is defined as an immutable JSON document containing: Circuit State: Unrolled OpenQASM 3.0 / Qiskit compiled instructions, physical qubit mappings, and pulse duration definitions. Target Environment: Target backend identifier, scheduled execution window, and expected calibration parameters. Pre-declared Hypotheses: Exact quantitative thresholds (e.g., minimum target fidelity gain
ΔFtarget) and statistical evaluation functions (e.g., 95% bootstrap CI parameters). The manifest vector is serialized into a canonical UTF-8 byte stream and hashed using
SHA-256:
HM=SHA-256(Canonicalize(M)) B. Append-Only Ledger Chaining Each entry
i in the OSIRIS ledger (
Li) contains the hash of the current manifest
HM,i, a UTC timestamp
ti, the state of the preceding block head
HL,i−1, and execution metadata:
HL,i=SHA-256(HL,i−1∥HM,i∥ti) This cryptographic chaining guarantees that modifying, deleting, or reordering any pre-registration attempt breaks the ledger head hash
HL,head, preventing silent trial deletion. III. Structural Comparison FeatureTraditional Quantum BenchmarkingOSIRIS Zero-Trust Benchmarking Execution TriggerAd-hoc script / manual notebook executionAutomated, deterministic CI/CD pipeline lock Circuit CommitmentMalleable, often post-processedImmutable pre-registered SHA-256 manifest hash Noisy Trial PolicyDiscarded or filtered unrecordedAppended permanently to immutable audit trail Verification BasisTrust in institutional reputationCryptographic verification (
HM↔JobID↔Counts) Fitting IntegrityPost-hoc curve fitting allowedPre-declared quantitative pass/fail thresholds IV. Empirical Hardware Validation: IBM Heron r2 (ibm_marrakesh) To validate the Zero-Trust protocol under production conditions, we pre-registered and executed a quantum control experiment on IBM Quantum's 156-qubit Heron r2 processor (ibm_marrakesh). A. Experimental Setup & Cryptographic Provenance Job ID: dau0q3qhcrkc73durtgg Target Backend: ibm_marrakesh (Heron r2, 156 Qubits) Execution Date: 2026-09-29 19:10:20 UTC QPU Execution Duration: 5.0 seconds Calibration Hash: 63f10bd484207c5044237b4115a46a0d29856036c923a2cde165baed57d15c9c Pre-registration Manifest SHA-256: 2d4c19a4a53301a1ac42459acd8b5b0d8cba0d588fa2523ed0994e5e1612d2f9 Ledger Head Hash: 6d7fd1390c1bab25b52f3e5e07be893aaa7194d8e3bd81db8466085da6e38d37 B. Dynamical Decoupling Physics: Bipartite Staggering Static and residual dynamic
ZZ-crosstalk on heavy-hex hardware topologies remains a primary source of decoherence during multi-qubit idle periods. Standard textbook dynamical decoupling applies simultaneous
π-pulses (e.g., CPMG, XY4) across all active qubits. However, simultaneous pulse execution on neighboring qubits induces pulse-collision errors and driven cross-resonance noise. OSIRIS introduces Bipartite-Staggered Dynamical Decoupling (xy4x2_stag, xy8_stag). The 8-qubit linear chain
[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] is partitioned into two disjoint sublattices:
SA={1,3,5,7},SB={2,4,6,8} π-pulse schedules are temporal phase-shifted between
SA and
SB, ensuring that no two adjacent qubits undergo simultaneous rotations, canceling crosstalk while preserving coherence. Sublattice A (Q1, Q3, Q5, Q7): ──[ X ]──────────────[ Y ]──────────────[ X ]── Sublattice B (Q2, Q4, Q6, Q8): ──────────[ X ]──────────────[ Y ]────────────── τ_stag τ_stag τ_stag τ_stag C. Empirical Results The experimental trial evaluated coherence retention across four conditions at time delays
T=16.0 μs and
T=32.0 μs. Effective loss rate
Γ was derived using
Γ=−T1lnP(+). Hardware Execution Summary Table ConditionT (µs)Mean Survival P(+)95% Bootstrap CIEffective Loss Rate Γ (µs⁻¹) none (Idle)16.00.6382[0.6313, 0.6450]0.0280 none (Idle)32.00.5945[0.5942, 0.5947]0.0162 cpmg816.00.9139[0.9075, 0.9204]0.0056 cpmg832.00.8344[0.8289, 0.8398]0.0056 xy4x2 (Simultaneous)16.00.9135[0.9097, 0.9172]0.0056 xy4x2 (Simultaneous)32.00.8342[0.8291, 0.8394]0.0056 xy4x2_stag (OSIRIS)16.00.9313[0.9307, 0.9319]0.0044 xy4x2_stag (OSIRIS)32.00.8997[0.8945, 0.9048]0.0033 xy8_stag (OSIRIS)16.00.9318[0.9309, 0.9326]0.0044 xy8_stag (OSIRIS)32.00.8998[0.8982, 0.9014]0.0033 SURVIVAL PROBABILITY AT T = 32 µs 1.00 ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ █████████ █████████ │ 0.80 │ █████████ █████████ ██ xy4x2 │ │ xy8 │ │ │ │ cpmg8 │ │ xy4x2 │ │ _stag │ │ _stag │ │ 0.60 │ █
Note: description expanded on 2026-10-14 for readability. It adds no new predictions or criteria. The frozen pre-registration is the attached PDF, unchanged since publication. Status: the experiment was run on 2026-10-14, after this record was published. Results, including every pre-registered test, will be reported in a separate record linked here. In plain language Theory says a quantum system never completely forgets where it started, even when its dynamics are chaotic. This leftover memory is called a quantum birthmark (Graf et al., Phys. Rev. X, 2026). Theory also says the birthmark should be larger when the system's rules run the same forwards and backwards in time (time-reversal symmetry) than when that symmetry is broken. This record pre-registers a test of that prediction on IBM's ibm_kingston quantum processor. We built two nearly identical sets of 4-qubit circuits. One set has time-reversal symmetry and the other does not. Both use exactly the same gates, so they experience the same hardware noise. We measure how often each circuit returns to its starting state, compared with the 1-in-16 chance level, and predict that the symmetric set shows about 1.67× more memory than the broken set. All predictions, pass/fail criteria, circuits and analysis code were deposited here before any quantum hardware was used. What is tested, and what is not Tested: whether the return probability stays above the ergodic baseline 1/16 at depths 8–23, and whether that excess is larger for the time-reversal-symmetric class by the ratio exact numerics predict for these fixed instances. Not tested: the withdrawn temporal-memory claims of 10.5281/zenodo.20470129. The birthmark is closed-system coherent memory, which measurement and reset erase, so no outcome here bears on those claims. Not tested: the universal random-matrix value 1.889. At this size (N = 16) the circuit family itself gives about 1.66, so a finite-size difference is expected. Not a quantum-advantage claim: a 16-dimensional system is exactly simulable. This is a hardware-validation experiment. Design Hardware: ibm_kingston, physical qubits 108–109–118–129 as an open chain, selected by a no-QPU calibration audit (included as v6_backend_audit.zip). Circuits: a kicked-Ising Floquet period Kx(a/2) → D(h1) → Kx(b) → D(h2) → Kx(a/2), with D(h) = exp(−iΣhiZi)·exp(−iπ/4 ΣZiZj), at exactly 6 CZ per period. COE (symmetric): h1 = h2. TRSB (broken): h1 = h + d, h2 = h − d. The classes differ only in virtual-Z angles. Instances: 16 seeded COE/TRSB pairs (seed 20261013), run at every depth from 8 to 23 (48–138 CZ). Observable: P(t) = |⟨0000|Ft|0000⟩|². The primary statistic is the readout-mitigated excess ratio R = ECOE / ETRSB, where E is the mean of P(t) − 1/16. A noise fidelity common to both classes cancels in R. Controls: 32 deep circuits (depths 60–63) as a decoherence-floor check. 8 state-preparation monitors. 16 readout-calibration circuits. Run: one SamplerV2 job of 568 circuits at 256 shots each, with dynamical decoupling and twirling off and the execution order shuffled. Predictions Quantity COE TRSB R Excess over 1/16, depths 8–23 (noiseless, primary) 0.0896 0.0537 1.667 Same instances, infinite-time limit 0.0952 0.0634 1.502 Circuit family, 10,000 random draws — — 1.661 Random-matrix reference, N = 16 — — 1.889 Under four simulated noise models (nominal, pessimistic, and each with coherent errors), the mitigated R stays between 1.64 and 1.77. The shot-noise standard deviation of R at 256 shots is 0.070–0.125. Pre-registered decision criteria Test Pass condition H1 (primary): symmetry dependence 99% CI lower bound of R > 1.0 H2 (primary): quantitative agreement 99% CI of R intersects 1.54–1.87 and is at most 1.0 wide S1: birthmark above decohered floor Window excess minus depth 60–63 excess, 99% CI lower bound > 0, for both classes S2: matched fidelity between classes 0.85 ≤ FCOE/FTRSB ≤ 1.15 S3: instance-level agreement Pearson r ≥ 0.80 against exact predictions S4 (flag only): state prep and drift Monitors ≥ 0.95, drift ≤ 0.045 Overall verdict: CONFIRMED if H1, H2 and S2 all pass; PARTIAL if H1 passes but H2 or S2 fails; NOT CONFIRMED if H1 fails. Every test is reported whatever the outcome. Uncertainty comes from a 10,000-sample parametric multinomial bootstrap over every circuit's counts, with instances held fixed. Amendment 1 (v1.1.0, made before any data) Amendment 1 changed two things relative to v1.0.0 (10.5281/zenodo.23355804): Shots: reduced from 1024 to 256 per circuit for QPU budget, cutting estimated execution from about 152 s to about 38 s. H2: changed from "point estimate in 1.54–1.87" to the CI rule above, because at 256 shots the point rule would falsely fail 20–25% of the time under the pessimistic models. A CI-width cap of 1.0 keeps H2 informative. Circuits, instances and predictions are unchanged. The trade-off is that H2 is now a weaker test. Provenance Every reported number is derived by script from raw counts: Source and transpiled circuits are saved as QPY. Before submission, every transpiled circuit is mapped back to 4 qubits and its unitary checked against the exact model to < 10−8. The analysis reads its decision bands only from predictions.json and its data only from the raw results file. Submission is gated on the DOI of this record. Files: The PDF is the authoritative pre-registration. predictions.json holds every predicted number and decision band. birthmark_prereg_v1.1.0.zip contains the circuit builder, verification, submission and frozen analysis scripts, plus simulated-data self-tests. v6_backend_audit.zip is the pre-submission calibration audit. Known limitations Small system size (N = 16), so the random-matrix value is not expected. The prediction is specific to depths 8–23 and to these 16 fixed instances. The noise models exclude leakage, TLS fluctuations and crosstalk from outside the chain. T1 relaxation biases P(0000) upward, which pulls R toward 1 (conservative). One backend, one path, one job: no replication. Data: CC BY 4.0. Code: MIT. Principal investigator: Amit Brahmbhatt, Quantum-Clarity LLC.
This document fixes, before the data exist, the hypothesis, apparatus, observables, cadence, analysis, thresholds, controls, stopping rule and reporting commitment of a one-year search for a modulation of superconducting-qubit energy relaxation (T1) at the sidereal frequency, 1/(23 h 56 m 4.09 s), beyond what the solar day and its seasonal modulation can produce. Data collection began on 17 October 2026 at 16:42 UTC on qubit 9 of the IBM Heron processor ibm_fez: an eight-delay inversion-recovery T1 measurement every six hours (about 3 s of processor time each), with the device's calibration values polled hourly. The analysis is fixed in advance: a least-squares fit of a smooth drift plus sinusoids at the solar, sidereal, anti-sidereal and extended-sidereal frequencies, with the reported amplitude leakage-corrected as sqrt(A_sid^2 - A_anti^2) (Farley and Storey 1954). The pipeline was validated on synthetic data before the first measurement and recovers an injected 0.3% at 2.7-3.4 sigma while returning 0.5 sigma with nothing injected. Detection requires a leakage-corrected amplitude at or above 3 sigma, both control channels below 2 sigma, a phase stable between the two halves of the year, and survival when runs adjacent to calibrations are removed; otherwise the result is the 95% upper limit, expected near 0.3%. The search is declared inconclusive if fewer than 900 of 1460 scheduled runs succeed or the anti-sidereal control exceeds 3 sigma. An amplitude matching the known cosmic-ray anisotropy (~0.1%) is a calibration, not a discovery. Stopping rule: one year, with a six-month interim look at the controls only; a second year is pre-declared as the response to an inconclusive or 2-3 sigma outcome. The result will be reported whether it is a detection, a bound, or a failure of the apparatus. Standard physics predicts a null result at this sensitivity; the alternative hypothesis is from The Cosmic Page (doi:10.5281/zenodo.23287018, Ch. 13) and the research proposal doi:10.5281/zenodo.23201109. Included: the pre-registration (PDF and LaTeX source), the monitor script that runs on the device, the fixed analysis script, the synthetic-data validation script with its results and figure, and the README. First data point: job db9qap9gv2cc73e5tufg, 2026-10-17T16:42:19Z, T1 = 162.9 +/- 7.9 us.
Fresh IBM Fez platform-lock pre-registration for executing the (Z_2)^3 prediction under the Stage 1c topological gate (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20404635). Locks: backend ibm_fez, qubits (15, 2, 23), calibration snapshot of 2026-05-27T02:18:29Z (SHA-256 3f69b12d793b7c0cfc1f7cb343b3a0b8c40f04ae3a6239f7e3edd48192dadd1d), analysis script SHA-256 69c5e040c96f8b0f3fd50bc5014a63b4d461129d2e2affb0297f54887d871534, execution parameters (16,000 shots per circuit, 36 circuits total, bootstrap seed 20260526), and outcome reporting commitment.The Stage 1c gate authority (R_gap = (τ - σ_2) / std(σ_2^bootstrap) ≥ 3.0 with m̂_0 = 1) replaces Stage 1b §6.2's union-bound mundane gate. All other Stage 1b provisions (predictions 7/8 vs 8/9, operational f̂ definition, statistical-power requirement, Bayes-factor decision rule) remain in force.This Stage 2c is distinct from Stage 2 (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20360347) which locked qubits (15, 25, 56) against a 2026-05-23 calibration epoch and yielded the INDETERMINATE Stage 3 outcome (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20360386) under the old gate. The present Stage 2c lock targets a fresh calibration epoch and a freshly-quality-ranked qubit triple, and the certified execution under this lock will produce a Stage 3c result-of-execution report.Files in this deposit:uct_prediction_2_pregist_stage2c_fez.md — platform pre-registration document (SHA-256: f37062bc98e9429ffe6e92fea135ad6ff729a56c00606337747872d0a4b00dc9, 10320 bytes)ibm_fez_cal_snapshot_2026-05-26.json — locked Fez calibration snapshot (SHA-256: 3f69b12d793b7c0cfc1f7cb343b3a0b8c40f04ae3a6239f7e3edd48192dadd1d, 19485 bytes)Calibration validity window: Fez job to be submitted within 24 hours of snapshot time (by 2026-05-28T02:18:29Z). Beyond that window this Stage 2c is invalidated and a fresh Stage 2 must be deposited.Lock chain:Stage 1: 10.5281/zenodo.20360004Stage 1b: 10.5281/zenodo.20360259Stage 1c: 10.5281/zenodo.20404635 (gate authority)Stage 2: 10.5281/zenodo.20360347 (historical — different qubits and cal epoch)Stage 3: 10.5281/zenodo.20360386 (INDETERMINATE under old gate — preserved as historical record)
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.