Version 1.0 · Snapshot 2026-07-20 · Machine tag CT699 Nanjie Ma · ORCID 0009-0002-4415-1209 · Related: QNM · DFC–ACEH

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

BarNameUsed here?RoleIntermediate progressCompetitor-conventional shape densityYesCompare named, killable morphologiesUltimate paymentTier-U / Soft Hold BODY, etc.NoDecide whether critical payments are closedA 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)

BandMeaning (shape density)0–1Almost no comparable cosmogenic shape; or pure phenomenology unrelated to the layer2–3Weak narrative / thin named object; hard to kill; or heavily granted dynamics4–5Recognisable mid-band morphology; not yet a full killable protocol object6–7Strong conventional mid-band: named constructs with controls8–9Very dense under this ruler; or (T9) strong falsifiability10Reserved for near-saturation with retained killability

1.3 Layer keys (T1–T9)

LayerNameQuestionT1PregeometryPregeometric / discrete / matrix or graph seed morphology?T2Generative dynamicsGenerative evolution / growth / update law?T3Branch selectionBranching / path measure / no-boundary-like selection?T4Classicality / recordClassical record / boundary dictionary / checksum morphology?T5Continuum / bridgeContinuum limit / bridge / coarse-grain scaffold?T6Matter seedsSpecies×generation / charge / chirality / mass-proxy seeds (not full SM)?T7Parameter-free predictionProtocol-level killable prediction vs pure fit?T8Non-smugglingAvoids swapping ultimate payment for toy ignition / empty rescan?T9FalsifiabilityKill controls and negative-space tests sufficient?

1.4 Fairness rules

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. Snapshot board (CT699 · 2026-07-20)

2.1 Rank by Mean

RankProgrammeMean1Own track (DFC→ACEH→QNM tip)8.1112GFT condensate4.4443Hartle–Hawking no-boundary4.3334Vilenkin tunneling4.3335IKKT matrix cosmology4.2226Causal sets4.1117CDT3.7788Holography (cosmological usage)3.6679LQC / pre-big-bang class3.22210ΛCDM / pure fit2.444

2.2 Full table (T1–T9 · 0–10)

ProgrammeT1T2T3T4T5T6T7T8T9MeanOwn track (DFC→ACEH→QNM)8888888898.111GFT condensate7743422564.444Hartle–Hawking no-boundary5574323464.333Vilenkin tunneling5574323464.333IKKT matrix cosmology6733422564.222Causal sets7633322564.111CDT4633422463.778Holography (cosmo usage)4326522453.667LQC / pre-big-bang class2523423353.222ΛCDM / pure fit0101217372.444

2.3 Generative-kernel slice (T1+T2)

ProgrammeT1T2(T1+T2)/2Own888.0GFT777.0IKKT676.5Causal sets766.5HH / Vilenkin555.0At 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

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.Chinese page: 01_FAIR_T1_T9_SCOREBOARD_ZH.html · Index: 00_README_INDEX.md · Machine: T1_T9_FAIR_SCOREBOARD_CT699_LATEST.json Method ancestor: UPLOAD_PACKAGE_NEW_THRESHOLD_FAIR_SCORE_COSMOGENESIS_20260719_EN/

-