Plain-language note for non-insiders · 2026-07-24 · Nanjie Ma ·
ORCID
For a Progress explainer subpage — not the homepage hero
physical_genesis_truth=false).
Standard cosmology is excellent at: what the sky looks like (fitting data).
QNM asks one more step: can those readouts be traced from a disclosed generative rulebook, step by step, in a way outsiders can audit and try to falsify — rather than tune after the fact?
So we compare who handed in homework on which step, not who has more citations.
Private scoreboards make every team “first.” We published a shared checklist and score our track and peers (no-boundary, GFT, causal sets, …) with the same questions. Only then is an “advantage” meaningful — and criticisable.
FAIL here means this house-gate is not closed. It does not mean no native dynamics object exists. On the internal Standard A native-dynamics cell, QNM is 1 (scoped, unpaid); several review peers are also 1; nobody is 2.
Is there a checkable classical record / pointer structure — not just the slogan “it classicalises”?
Why our branch among many histories? Selection must weld to paid dynamics.
All three are needed before anyone may claim cosmogenesis closure. Today: 1 pass, 2 fail → written as 1/3. Listed peers are often 0/3 on the same ruler.
Not “we are closer to the whole truth,” but: on leaving a checkable record, we filed public, killable, comparable intermediate work; many famous narratives still cannot pass that strict question.
Roughly: a soft stage + record rule — the theory must support a readable record structure, not only abstract equations. B1 is one sealed homework block (acceptance bars + kill controls). Passing it pays the record gate; it does not finish the building.
No. On other rulers:
| Question | Who looks stronger today |
|---|---|
| What does the sky look like? | ΛCDM / standard cosmology |
| How dense is generative dynamics shape? | Often GFT-like programmes |
| Selection-shape language? | Often no-boundary / tunneling |
| Record / classicality homework filed? | Own track has a narrow lead (Soft Hold B1) |
| Literature shape density (T1–T9 mean)? | A 2026-07-20 archival snapshot reports own mean 8.111. That table is not this page’s three-door 1/3, not Standard A/B payment, and not a live ranking. |
| Generative slice T1+T2? | Same archival snapshot. Do not read it as the live house-gate or as cosmogenesis payment. |
| Full cosmogenesis closed? | Nobody |
This page’s live public ruler is the three-door house: hard Tier-U 1/3. Intermediate / literature composites (including the 2026-07-20 T1–T9 Official Fair Edition, own mean 8.111) are archival shape-density snapshots — not the main peer rank and not cosmogenesis payment. The 2026-07-19 public reading “Tier-U all 0/3 / Soft Hold unpaid / mean ≈4.778” is superseded by Soft Hold B1 and this page.
Q: Is 1/3 = 33% cosmogenesis complete?
A: No. It means one of three hard gates.
Q: Are other theories “wrong”?
A: No. Comparison is not denigration.
Q: Did you invent a ruler to flatter yourselves?
A: The three-door house is disclosed and shared. A 2026-07-20 T1–T9 shape-density table exists as an archive; it is not this page’s live ranking.
Q: What would count as real next progress?
A: Closing the two still-open house-gates: paid generative dynamics, and selection welded to paid dynamics. A Standard A native-dynamics cell at 1 is not that closure.
Q: Does mean 5.0 or 8.111 mean we “won”?
A: No ranking contest. Hard gates remain 1/3. Archival T1–T9 composites are not cosmogenesis payment.
docs/06 · docs/10 · CLAIM_BOUNDARY; Maps 62_* / 64_*Full tables live on Zenodo — not on the homepage hero.