Archival composite — not a live ranking.
This 2026-07-20 T1–T9 table (own mean 8.111) is a frozen shape-density snapshot. It is not Standard A/B payment, not the three-door 1/3 explainer, and not a current ranking of programmes. Prefer the three-door note and Zenodo 22638568.
Fair T1–T9 Competitor Scoreboard
Official Fair Edition
One-line reading rule. One shared ruler scores cosmogenesis-adjacent programmes on nine layers T1–T9 (0–10 shape density), then ranks by arithmetic mean. This is comparative cartography under an intermediate progress bar — not an ultimate truth verdict, and not Soft Hold / Lorentzian signature / physical cosmogenesis-truth payment.
1. Scoring standards (read first)
1.1 Two non-interchangeable bars
| Bar | Name | Used here? | Role |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intermediate progress | Competitor-conventional shape density | Yes | Compare named, killable morphologies |
| Ultimate payment | Tier-U / Soft Hold BODY, etc. | No | Decide whether critical payments are closed |
A higher mean only means denser intermediate shapes — never automatic Soft Hold lift, signature_derived, or genesis closure.
1.2 Score bands (0–10 per layer)
| Band | Meaning (shape density) |
|---|---|
| 0–1 | Almost no comparable cosmogenic shape; or pure phenomenology unrelated to the layer |
| 2–3 | Weak narrative / thin named object; hard to kill; or heavily granted dynamics |
| 4–5 | Recognisable mid-band morphology; not yet a full killable protocol object |
| 6–7 | Strong conventional mid-band: named constructs with controls |
| 8–9 | Very dense under this ruler; or (T9) strong falsifiability |
| 10 | Reserved for near-saturation with retained killability |
1.3 Layer keys (T1–T9)
| Layer | Name | Question |
|---|---|---|
| T1 | Pregeometry | Pregeometric / discrete / matrix or graph seed morphology? |
| T2 | Generative dynamics | Generative evolution / growth / update law? |
| T3 | Branch selection | Branching / path measure / no-boundary-like selection? |
| T4 | Classicality / record | Classical record / boundary dictionary / checksum morphology? |
| T5 | Continuum / bridge | Continuum limit / bridge / coarse-grain scaffold? |
| T6 | Matter seeds | Species×generation / charge / chirality / mass-proxy seeds (not full SM)? |
| T7 | Parameter-free prediction | Protocol-level killable prediction vs pure fit? |
| T8 | Non-smuggling | Avoids swapping ultimate payment for toy ignition / empty rescan? |
| T9 | Falsifiability | Kill controls and negative-space tests sufficient? |
1.4 Fairness rules
- One checklist for every listed programme.
- IKKT included for fairness among matrix / emergent-spacetime traditions — not a parity trophy.
- Own-track rises require named deposits (disclosed killable morphologies).
- Competitor rows stay frozen when refreshing own tip (CT651 competitor baseline retained).
- Mean ≠ generative-kernel slice: report Mean and (T1+T2)/2 separately.
1.5 Mean formula
Mean = (T1+…+T9) / 9. Own track this snapshot: T = [8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,9] → Mean = 8.111.
2. Current board (CT699)
2.1 Rank by Mean
| Rank | Programme | Mean |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Own track (DFC→ACEH→QNM tip) | 8.111 |
| 2 | GFT condensate | 4.444 |
| 3 | Hartle–Hawking no-boundary | 4.333 |
| 4 | Vilenkin tunneling | 4.333 |
| 5 | IKKT matrix cosmology | 4.222 |
| 6 | Causal sets | 4.111 |
| 7 | CDT | 3.778 |
| 8 | Holography (cosmological usage) | 3.667 |
| 9 | LQC / pre-big-bang class | 3.222 |
| 10 | ΛCDM / pure fit | 2.444 |
2.2 Full table (T1–T9 · 0–10)
| Programme | T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | T5 | T6 | T7 | T8 | T9 | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Own track (DFC→ACEH→QNM) | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 8.111 |
| GFT condensate | 7 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 4.444 |
| Hartle–Hawking no-boundary | 5 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 4.333 |
| Vilenkin tunneling | 5 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 4.333 |
| IKKT matrix cosmology | 6 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 4.222 |
| Causal sets | 7 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 4.111 |
| CDT | 4 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 3.778 |
| Holography (cosmo usage) | 4 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 3.667 |
| LQC / pre-big-bang class | 2 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3.222 |
| ΛCDM / pure fit | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 7 | 2.444 |
2.3 Generative-kernel slice (T1+T2)
| Programme | T1 | T2 | (T1+T2)/2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Own | 8 | 8 | 8.0 |
| GFT | 7 | 7 | 7.0 |
| IKKT | 6 | 7 | 6.5 |
| Causal sets | 7 | 6 | 6.5 |
| HH / Vilenkin | 5 | 5 | 5.0 |
At the CT651 baseline, own T1+T2 trailed GFT (5.5 vs 7); this snapshot is 8.0. That remains intermediate shape density, not Soft Hold payment.
3. How to read the own-track scores
- CT651 baseline own mean ≈4.778.
- Tip thicken to current 8.111 (T1–T8 all ≥8; T9=9).
- Midband tip deepen sealed; further exceptional deepen did not land.
- Still unpaid: Soft Hold programme lift ·
signature_derived· physical cosmogenesis truth · theorem-level L6 · breakthrough.
What readers must not conclude. Not Soft Hold BODY paid; not Lorentzian signature derived; not cosmogenesis truth established; not an ultimate-truth “defeat” of GFT/HH/IKKT. ΛCDM near-zero generative pregeometry is expected; T7/T9 reflect empirical prediction, not “bad science.”
4. Suggested citation
Ma, N. (2026-07-20). Fair T1–T9 Competitor Scoreboard (Official Fair Edition). One competitor-conventional shape-density ruler (0–10); own tip vector [8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,9], mean ≈8.111. Intermediate cartography only — not Soft Hold / signature / genesis payment.