This note records a prediction before any experimental data are examined. It is a pre-registration, deposited so that the prediction and its test criteria are fixed in advance. In the ENSO Framework, the reciprocal pair (r, 1/r) under the Fibonacci law preserves unity exactly at every step while settling onto its fixed point (φ, 1/φ). Successive deviations from the fixed point stand in the ratio −1/φ² ≈ −0.382. That ratio is set by the law's two eigenvalues and has no free parameter. The same matrix is the transfer matrix of the nearest-neighbour Rydberg-blockade constraint, whose allowed configurations form the Fibonacci Hilbert space studied in Rydberg atom arrays. Two predictions follow: Prediction 1 (atemporal and spatial). Connected density correlations in the infinite-temperature blockaded chain alternate with ratio −1/φ² per site, and the bulk density is 1/(1+φ²). Standard statistical mechanics predicts the same, so this serves as a calibration of the identification, not as a discriminator. Prediction 2 (conjectural and discriminating). The same ratio governs how the chain settles after a Néel quench, universally across Rabi frequency, system size and lattice spacing. A built-in control requires next-nearest-neighbour blockade to give a different, non-alternating signature. Decision criteria (supports, refutes, inconclusive), the author's prior and the analysis procedure are all stated before any data are consulted. The upload includes the note (PDF and LaTeX source) and a reproducibility script that computes every number in it for ideal chains (8/8 checks).
This note records a prediction before any experimental data are examined. It is a pre-registration, deposited so that the prediction and its test criteria are fixed in advance. In the ENSO Framework, the reciprocal pair (r, 1/r) under the Fibonacci law preserves unity exactly at every step while settling onto its fixed point (φ, 1/φ). Successive deviations from the fixed point stand in the ratio −1/φ² ≈ −0.382. That ratio is set by the law's two eigenvalues and has no free parameter. The same matrix is the transfer matrix of the nearest-neighbour Rydberg-blockade constraint, whose allowed configurations form the Fibonacci Hilbert space studied in Rydberg atom arrays. Two predictions follow: Prediction 1 (atemporal and spatial). Connected density correlations in the infinite-temperature blockaded chain alternate with ratio −1/φ² per site, and the bulk density is 1/(1+φ²). Standard statistical mechanics predicts the same, so this serves as a calibration of the identification, not as a discriminator. Prediction 2 (conjectural and discriminating). The same ratio governs how the chain settles after a Néel quench, universally across Rabi frequency, system size and lattice spacing. A built-in control requires next-nearest-neighbour blockade to give a different, non-alternating signature. Decision criteria (supports, refutes, inconclusive), the author's prior and the analysis procedure are all stated before any data are consulted. The upload includes the note (PDF and LaTeX source) and a reproducibility script that computes every number in it for ideal chains (8/8 checks).
This note reports the outcome of the test pre-registered in DOI 10.5281/zenodo.23047418, applying its observables, step rule and decision criteria without modification. Using standard quantum mechanics for the ideal Rydberg-blockade (PXP) chain as the benchmark, Prediction 2, that the post-quench density settles with the universal ratio −1/φ², is refuted: the ratios are fixed by a slowly decaying oscillation about an offset centre, as a centre-and-amplitude decomposition shows exactly. Prediction 1, the spatial correlation ratio −1/φ² at infinite temperature, holds exactly in theory and awaits laboratory confirmation. The qualitative picture is corroborated: the transition is gradual, with unity exact throughout while local coherence fades. The residual ~5% amplitude loss per half-swing is shown not to be structural, since a small Hamiltonian deformation removes it. A near-hit at the first step is reported as post hoc and not counted. Includes the note, LaTeX source and a reproducibility script.
Results paper — the prediction is refuted, and published as promised. P18 (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21801251) committed in advance to an exact ladder ratio (√(3/8)=0.612372 per rung in amplitude; 3/8 in trace) in two independent planes, with thresholds and nulls frozen and OpenTimestamps-anchored (SHA-256 prefix 8615c386) before either test ran. Both tests have now run. T1 (angular, virgin window ℓ=20..29, sealed instrument b1a1121d): rung ratios ~1 (|ratio|=1.079, outside 0.6124±0.05); a free ratio wins at Δ=5.1≥3. T2 (temporal, frozen 11,100,220-byte decay-counting snapshot, ordinal census, clock-preserving block null): the two resolvable levels give a trace ratio of +2.19 (device-signature-deflated +1.92; deflator frozen pre-judgment), outside 0.375±0.05. Per the binding table: prediction refuted; the framework's ladder remains an internal construct without observable shadow in these planes. Incidental finding, reported separately: the sealed instrument's own pre-registered detection threshold was exceeded in the virgin window — the axis-alignment chain continues through ℓ=20..29 (p=0.0033) with no decay (ratio ~1): the phenomenon extends, and the predicted decay law is not its law. A pre-registered E-mode test is sealed; the E data remain unexamined at deposit time. [ES] Paper de resultados: la predicción queda refutada en sus dos planos y se publica tal cual, como P18 prometió. Hallazgo incidental aparte: la cadena de alineamiento continúa en la ventana virgen sin decaer (p=0,0033). Integrity: PDF SHA-256 2094364ad745650e... · source 0efc8ffb22ebf7f5...; both OTS-anchored before deposit; .ots archived here. Pre-registration 8615c386, instrument b1a1121d, data snapshot 3ce29d7c, deflator 5ecd09d7 — all OTS-anchored before their respective uses.
Three predictions derived from the Substrate Independent Topology Framework (SITF) concerning topological error protection in quantum computing systems. The predictions are entered into the prior art record before examination of any experimental dataset against which they would be tested. The registration timestamp is the operative prior art date. The three predictions concern: (1) local noise suppression scaling in a superconducting qubit chain engineered to enforce Fibonacci state space structure; (3) the substrate-independent suppression ratio per encoding depth level in Fibonacci-structured quantum systems across hardware platforms; and (4) a hierarchy of topological protection quality indexed to the attractor value of the state space recursion, distinguishing Fibonacci-structured from Ising-structured quantum systems. Each prediction is specific enough to be falsified by existing or readily obtainable experimental data from current quantum hardware platforms. The generative architecture that produces these predictions is not disclosed in this document. This preregistration establishes priority for the phenomenological predictions — what the framework predicts, where, and at what numerical values — without revealing the structural logic that generates them. The two are legally distinct and maintained separately. Note on prediction numbering: This preregistration covers P-QC-01, P-QC-03, and P-QC-04. P QC-02 is held pending completion of the substrate translation derivation required to state it with the operational precision a preregistration demands. P-QC-05 is withheld per standing protocol.
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.
Fibonacci Causal Loop Theory (FCLT) predicts that decoherence rate Γ scales inversely with necessity depth D: Γ(D) = Γ₀ × φ^(−D), and the ratio of decoherence rates at adjacent necessity depths satisfies Γ(D+1)/Γ(D) = 1/φ ≈ 0.618. This formalizes FCLT Prediction 12 (pre-registered in FCLT Complete Manuscript v16, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20087640). The derivation follows directly from the QNM quality factor confirmations: P73 confirmed Q = φ³ (D=3, Schwarzschild) and P73e confirmed Q = φ⁴ (D=4, Kerr). Since Q = ω₀/Γ, the decoherence scaling law Γ(D) = Γ₀ × φ^(−D) follows with zero free parameters. The prediction is testable in NMR quantum simulators, trapped-ion arrays, and superconducting qubit platforms where decoherence rates can be measured across multiple organizational depth levels. Confirmation criterion: δ < 0.05. Classification: technology-gap pending validated D(x,t) measurement protocol. FCLT scorecard unchanged: 20 confirmed / 5 falsified / 24 tech-gap / 4 gray zone.
This deposit seals the baseline (v1.0) pre-registration of four experimentally testable predictions of the Triadic Entanglement State-Determination Engineering (TESE) framework, together with a shared-coupling back-inference protocol and pre-specified decision criteria. All four predictions derive from a single coupling set {g_AB} governing six fundamental modes of a first-space meta-field; confirmation of any one prediction, combined with back-inference of {g_AB} and consistency checks against the remaining three, constitutes system-level (global) confirmation rather than an isolated one. The predictions are: (M5-delta) a four-threshold decoherence staircase with threshold positions at 13.6 eV, 8.8 MeV, 939 MeV, and 200 MeV, plus six absorption peaks of an entanglement-medium response spectrum; (M5-gamma) a statistically significant deviation of the cosmological structure growth index from the general-relativistic scaling law, jointly with superior TESE-template fit over Lambda-CDM at pre-specified model-comparison thresholds; (M5-beta) vanishing of decoherence rates as temperature approaches zero, in contradiction with spontaneous-collapse models; and (M5-alpha) an upward shift of +9.6 percent in the hadron-quark transition temperature in neutron-star gravitational environments, with environment-independence of the crossover shape as an independent kill criterion. For each prediction we register the quantitative anchor value, the acceptance and rejection thresholds, the designated data source, and the axiomatic link that a conflict would localize. This v1.0 baseline is immutable; revisions follow a versioned chain under one concept DOI with explicit change logs. Companion frozen analysis code is deposited separately. No analysis choice in this document depends on post-registration information.