Research Programme

This work is organised as a structured research programme rather than a single paper. Different papers serve different epistemic roles: some state foundational commitments, others formalise mechanisms, others narrow possibilities empirically, and others derive effective physical theories. This page explains how these components fit together and how the papers should be read and evaluated.

Programme Architecture

The Cohesion Dynamics research programme is structured into distinct series, each with a specific epistemic role and objective. Understanding these roles is critical for evaluating the work appropriately.

Series	Name	Epistemic Role	Description	Objective
F-series	Foundational Postulates and Priority Claims	Ontological commitments and starting assumptions	States the minimal metaphysical primitives and foundational assumptions that ground the entire framework	Declare minimal starting points and conceptual foundations; not to derive consequences
K-series	Kernel Grammar & Invariants	Formal kernel specification	Defines the kernel grammar of admissible composition and structural invariants that any substrate must support; includes K-KERN (canonical grammar), K-GOV (governance of epistemic scope and necessity claims), K-LENS-* (semantic lenses mapping kernel to mathematical frameworks), and K-ADAPT-* (formalism adaptations)	Specify what must be structurally possible in any CD-compatible substrate; separate kernel invariants from carrier implementations; govern interpretation of necessity claims; provide semantic mappings to established formalisms
A-series	Carrier Architectures	Mathematical and structural carrier implementations	Provides explicit carrier implementations realizing kernel invariants; shows how capabilities can be realized without claiming necessity	Demonstrate feasibility of kernel-level capabilities through specific carrier implementations (graph-based, order-theoretic, etc.)
M-series	Metaphysical / Formal Mechanism Papers (M1–M9, M-DM, M-CON)	Formal structure and mechanism analysis	Formalises the structural mechanisms governing cohesion, construction, modes, tolerance, and phase behaviour, plus meta-level programme structure; includes M-CON subseries for constraint composition and internal modes	Explain how cohesion, construction, modes, and phase transitions operate as formal mechanisms; provide programme-level infrastructure for definition management and coherence; M-CON subseries explains constraint plurality, internal mode emergence, and quantisation
E-series	Empirical Narrowing and Emergence Programmes (E0, E1, E2, …, E-Wx)	Eliminate alternatives and demonstrate necessity	Uses systematic simulation and empirical testing to narrow the space of possible substrates and identify necessary conditions; includes E-Wx subseries for parameter narrowing of tolerance vector W	Show which substrate ingredients are required for constructors and quantum-like structure to emerge; constrain viable parameter space for tolerance vector W through eliminative testing
R-series	Reference and Classification	Synthesis and structured classification	Provides reference frameworks, classifications, and synthesis documents derived from empirical and formal results	Organize and classify research findings into coherent reference frameworks for ongoing and future work
B-series	Structural Superposition and Representational Consequences	Structural and representational consequences of kernel	Establishes structural and representational consequences of the Cohesion Dynamics kernel, without introducing geometry, dynamics, probability, or empirical claims. Note: B-series v1 (archived) used tolerance-based semantics and is retained for historical reference only. B-series v2 (active) is kernel-aligned with Axioms v2/A-OPS v2/A-NET v2.	Derive structural consequences (branching, non-factorisability, irreconcilability, closure-preserving transport) from anchoring and reconciliation semantics; express results as conditional structural theorems
G-series	Gravity and Geometry Derivation	Geometric and gravitational emergence from cohesion dynamics	Derives geometry, time, distance, and gravity as emergent representational structures from Cohesion Dynamics substrate mechanics without metric or field ansätze	Derive gravitational and geometric structure from closure accounting, propagation delays, and cohesion gradients
ADR series	Architectural Decision Records	Internal architectural justification documents	Provides explicit records of assumptions considered, options evaluated, decisions taken, and trade-offs accepted in the framework’s design; documents reasoning behind representational and structural choices	Record architectural rationale and design decisions; constrain the Cohesion Dynamics design space in a disciplined, auditable way
P-series	Predictions	Falsifiable predictions for empirical testing	States precise, falsifiable predictions with fixed mathematical forms and clear falsification criteria	Make the theory testable by stating what must be observed if Cohesion Dynamics is correct; enable unambiguous empirical falsification
X-series	Exploratory Experimental Simulations	Exploratory simulation-driven research in extreme or unexplored regimes	Uses controlled substrate simulations to explore what Cohesion Dynamics permits or forbids where formal derivation is premature or empirical testing is not yet possible	Investigate extreme regimes, advance simulation infrastructure, identify candidate mechanisms and failure modes; results are explicitly non-normative and may inspire future formal work

Future Directions

Additional series addressing cosmological implications and large-scale structure are planned but not yet developed. These will build on the substrate, emergent physics, and geometric structure established in the core programme.

How to Read and Criticise This Work

Different papers invite different kinds of criticism. Understanding the epistemic role of each series is essential for appropriate evaluation.

F-series: Foundational Postulates

Appropriate criticism:

Philosophical critique of ontological commitments
Internal consistency of foundational assumptions
Minimality: Are these truly the minimal necessary assumptions?
Conceptual clarity and coherence

Not appropriate:

Demands for empirical derivation (this is not the role of foundational papers)
Criticisms that assume different ontological starting points without engaging the stated foundations
Expecting mathematical formalism (this comes in later series)

M-series: Formal Mechanisms

Appropriate criticism:

Formal coherence and internal consistency
Mathematical rigor of mechanism definitions
Explanatory power and scope
Whether the mechanisms follow necessarily from F-series foundations
Clarity of formal structure

Not appropriate:

Demands for empirical predictions at this stage (mechanisms must be specified before predictions)
Treating these as attempts to derive physics (derivation happens in B-series)

M-CON Subseries: Constraint Composition & Internal Modes

Appropriate criticism:

Whether constraint plurality is formally necessary for meaning
Rigor of constraint composition formalism
Whether internal modes genuinely emerge from constraint fibres
Clarity of quantisation as structural requirement
Whether explanations avoid postulating structure

Not appropriate:

Demanding empirical recovery of specific quantum numbers
Treating M-CON as new substrate axioms (these are mechanism analyses)
Expecting immediate physics predictions (that is B-series work)
Criticising for not being representational work (that is B-series scope)

E-series: Empirical Narrowing

Appropriate criticism:

Robustness of simulation methodology
Completeness of alternative elimination
Whether results genuinely demonstrate necessity vs. sufficiency
Reproducibility of simulations
Whether the empirical space explored is adequately comprehensive

Not appropriate:

Treating simulations as “proof” (they are eliminative tools, not deductive proofs)
Demanding that simulations recover full known physics (that is B-series work)
Criticising the use of simulation as a research tool in principle

E-Wx Subseries: W Programme (Parameter Narrowing)

Appropriate criticism:

Robustness of parameter sweep methodology
Completeness of parameter space exploration
Whether eliminations are justified by simulation results
Reproducibility of parameter sweeps and measurement procedures
Cross-phenomenon consistency testing
Correctness of substrate mechanics implementation
Whether backward compatibility with Quantum Emergence Programme is maintained

Not appropriate:

Demanding that W-series establish final parameter values (this is eliminative, not confirmatory)
Treating parameter constraints as new physical laws
Expecting immediate recovery of known physics from parameter values
Criticising the use of simulation for parameter exploration
Demanding mathematical proofs (W-series is empirical/eliminative)
Expecting W-series to introduce new axioms or modify substrate mechanics

R-series: Reference and Classification

Appropriate criticism:

Accuracy of classification boundaries
Consistency with empirical results (E-series) and formal mechanisms (M-series)
Completeness of capability descriptions
Whether classifications are genuinely distinct or artificially separated
Clarity and usability as reference material

Not appropriate:

Treating classifications as ontological claims (they organize empirical findings)
Demanding new empirical results (R-series synthesizes existing work)
Criticising for not being predictive (that is B-series work)

A-series: Substrate Specification

Appropriate criticism:

Mathematical completeness and precision
Internal necessity: Does each component necessarily follow?
Consistency with F-series conceptual foundations
Consistency with E-series empirical constraints
Formal rigor and clarity

Not appropriate:

Demanding that substrate mechanics immediately produce known physics (this is premature)
Treating A-series as a “theory of everything” (it specifies substrate, not emergent physics)

B-series: Structural Superposition and Representational Consequences (v2)

Appropriate criticism:

Whether structural results follow necessarily from Axioms v2/A-OPS v2/A-NET v2
Rigor of derivations from anchoring and reconciliation semantics
Internal consistency of conditional structural theorems
Whether results are expressed without introducing geometry, dynamics, or probability
Clarity of scope and non-claims sections

Not appropriate:

Demanding immediate recovery of known physics (B-series v2 establishes structural consequences, not empirical agreement)
Expecting empirical predictions before derivations are complete
Criticising for not using probability or dynamics (B-series v2 is pre-quantitative)
Referencing B-series v1 as authoritative (v1 is archived and frozen; v2 supersedes)
Introducing tolerance or availability semantics (B-series v2 is kernel-aligned with No-W foundation)

G-series: Gravity and Geometry Derivation

Appropriate criticism:

Whether geometry and gravity genuinely emerge from stated substrate features
Rigor of derivations from Cohesion Dynamics primitives
Clarity of ontology vs. representation distinction
Whether metric/curvature ansätze are avoided as claimed
Internal consistency and mathematical completeness
Whether assumptions are minimal and explicit

Not appropriate:

Demanding immediate agreement with GR without engaging derivation structure
Criticising for not using standard geometric postulates (this is the point)
Treating derived metrics as ontologically fundamental
Expecting empirical predictions before derivations are complete
Assuming spacetime manifolds as primitives when evaluating the work

ADR series: Architectural Decision Records

Appropriate criticism:

Clarity of architectural rationale and trade-offs
Whether assumptions and options considered are made explicit
Internal consistency of design decisions
Whether decisions are well-justified by stated constraints
Adequacy of documented reasoning for future programme evolution

Not appropriate:

Demanding empirical validation (ADRs document decisions, not empirical claims)
Treating ADRs as publishable results (they are internal governance documents)
Criticising for narrow scope (focused architectural decisions are intentional)
Expecting comprehensive theory development (that is A/B/G/M-series work)
Asking for peer review suitability (ADRs are not intended for external publication)

P-series: Predictions

Appropriate criticism:

Whether predictions genuinely follow from the framework
Clarity and testability of falsification criteria
Whether predictions are truly parameter-free or contain hidden adjustability
Empirical testing of predictions against observational data
Statistical significance of agreement or disagreement
Whether predictions are truly novel or already known

Not appropriate:

Criticising for lack of empirical data analysis (P-series states predictions, not results)
Demanding parameter tuning to match observations (predictions are fixed)
Treating predictions as claims about what has been observed (they are claims about what should be observed)
Expecting predictions before derivations are complete in earlier series
Criticising individual predictions without engaging the underlying derivations

X-series: Exploratory Experimental Simulations

Appropriate criticism:

Validity of simulation methodology
Reproducibility of results
Clarity of assumptions and limitations
Whether conclusions are appropriately scoped as exploratory
Correctness of substrate mechanics implementation
Whether simulations maintain backward compatibility with existing infrastructure

Not appropriate:

Demanding mathematical proofs (X-series is empirical exploration)
Treating results as normative theory
Expecting immediate physics recovery
Criticising for not being foundational (exploratory work is the purpose)
Demanding that simulations establish theory (they inform future work)

Reading Paths

Different readers may approach this work from different perspectives. Here are suggested reading paths:

For Philosophers of Physics

Start with F-series (foundational ontology and metaphysics)
Review M-series (formal mechanism structure)
Examine E-series (empirical methodology and necessity arguments)
Consult R-series (classifications and synthesis) for structural overview
Consider A-series and B-series as applications of the framework

For Theoretical Physicists

Begin with B-series v2 (structural consequences) to understand kernel-derived results
Review A-series (substrate mechanics) to see the formal foundation
Examine Axioms v2, A-OPS v2, A-NET v2 for kernel semantics
Review R-series (capability classifications) to understand structural hierarchy
Examine E-series (empirical constraints) to understand what is required
Consult F-series and M-series for conceptual grounding
Review G-series (gravity and geometry derivation) for geometric emergence
Check P-series (predictions) to see what the theory claims empirically

Note: B-series v1 papers are archived at publishing/papers/archive/B-series-v1/ and are retained for historical reference only. They are not kernel-aligned with Axioms v2 and must not be cited as authoritative.

For Experimental Physicists and Observers

Start with P-series (predictions) to see what is being claimed
Review associated R-PRED papers for testing interfaces
Examine G-series or B-series to understand the physical basis for predictions
Consult A-series and M-series to understand substrate-level foundations
Use predictions to design empirical tests

For Researchers Studying Emergence

Start with R-series (capability classifications) for structural framework
Review E-series (empirical narrowing) to understand eliminative methodology
Examine M-series (formal mechanisms) for detailed mechanism analysis
Consult F-series for foundational assumptions
Use classifications to guide new research directions
Review X-series (exploratory simulations) for insights from extreme regimes

For Simulation Researchers

Start with X-series (exploratory simulations) to understand simulation-driven exploration
Review E-series (empirical narrowing) for empirical methodology
Examine A-series (substrate mechanics) for formal substrate specification
Consult M-series (formal mechanisms) for mechanism details
Use simulations to explore what Cohesion Dynamics permits or forbids

For Parameter Constraint Researchers

Start with E-Wx subseries (W Programme) to understand parameter narrowing methodology
Review M-series (formal mechanisms) to understand the role of tolerance vector W
Examine A-series (substrate mechanics) for formal substrate specification
Review Quantum Emergence Programme infrastructure for simulation methodology
Use parameter sweeps to constrain viable tolerance regimes
Check G-series and B-series for downstream parameter sensitivity

For Referees Reviewing a Single Paper

Read the paper’s stated scope and epistemic role carefully
Review the programme architecture table above to understand where it fits
Apply criticism appropriate to that specific epistemic role
Check consistency with earlier series papers where applicable
Do not demand from a paper what is explicitly outside its stated scope

For Programme Architects Reviewing ADR Records

Note that ADR records are architectural rationale documents — they document decisions and trade-offs, not publishable claims
Evaluate clarity: are assumptions, options, and decisions explicit?
Check adequacy of reasoning: does the rationale justify the decision?
Assess whether alternatives were considered and trade-offs documented
Verify consistency with programme structure and existing ADRs
Consider whether the ADR constrains future work appropriately
Focus on: clarity, justification, consistency, and auditability

Status and Transparency

Publication Status

Some papers are published preprints with DOIs (Zenodo)
Others are working drafts in active development
The programme is evolving through peer feedback and ongoing research

Simulation Repositories

Simulation code is provided as supporting material for E-series work
Code is explanatory and eliminative, demonstrating what happens under specified conditions
Simulations are not treated as mathematical proofs but as empirical exploration tools
All simulation results should be independently reproducible

Collaborative and Open Process

This research programme welcomes:

Constructive criticism appropriate to each paper’s epistemic role
Identification of inconsistencies or gaps
Suggestions for strengthening arguments or improving clarity
Independent verification of simulation results
Engagement with the foundational assumptions

This work is transparent about its structure, assumptions, and limitations. The goal is rigorous development of a coherent framework, not promotional advocacy.

Summary

The Cohesion Dynamics research programme is deliberately structured to separate:

Assumptions (F-series) from derivations (B-series v2, G-series)
Conceptual foundations (F, M-series) from empirical constraints (E-series, including E-Wx parameter narrowing)
Substrate specification (A-series) from structural consequences (B-series v2) and emergent physics (G-series)
Theoretical derivations (all series) from empirical predictions (P-series)
Parameter narrowing (E-Wx subseries) from theory establishment (formal series)
Programme-level work (A/B/G/M-series) from architectural governance (ADR series)
Archived work (B-series v1) from kernel-aligned active work (B-series v2)

B-series v2 Status: B-series papers have undergone a kernel realignment. B-series v1 (tolerance-based) is archived at publishing/papers/archive/B-series-v1/ for historical reference only and must not be cited as authoritative. B-series v2 (kernel-aligned with Axioms v2/A-OPS v2/A-NET v2) is the active series and uses anchoring/reconciliation semantics without tolerance parameters.

This structure allows each component to be evaluated on its own merits while maintaining coherence across the programme. Understanding this structure is essential for fair and productive engagement with the work.