Light cone & Lorentz: how rare is our intermediate stack?

Official website note · 2026-08-01 · Nanjie Ma · ORCID
Quantum Narrative School · QNM programme · competitive cartography, not a trophy page

Home D3 deposit Which step is filed? Genesis tip

In one line: on the narrow axis of auditable light-cone / partial-Lorentz intermediate deposits inside a generative cosmogenesis track, QNM’s public stack is uncommon among named peer programmes. That is a real but narrow strength — not “we beat relativity,” not Lorentz signature derived, not cosmogenesis closed.

What this page does not claim

Not signature_derived · not Full D3 paid (d3_paid=false) · not Poincaré covariance deposited
Not physical_genesis_truth · not peak breakthrough · not theorem_L6_closure
Not “we invented Herm(2,ℂ) / spin-factor ↔ Lorentzian quadratic form” — that classical link is long-known prior art
Not “thousands of unique models tried and failed” — most cosmology papers assume Lorentzian structure; the peer set here is named generative programmes
Not that Soft Hold BODY payment equals Lorentz payment
Not that lowering inputs to peer-grant level would honestly pay the ultimate Lorentz bill
Not a substitute for peer review, a systematic literature census, or journal acceptance

1. Three different questions (do not mix them)

Question	How common?	Where QNM stands
Does cosmology use light cones / Lorentz?	Extremely common (standard GR / ΛCDM input)	Not our claimed novelty axis
Do generative / quantum-gravity programmes aim to recover causal / Lorentz structure?	Tens of named programme families (CDT, causal sets, LQG/GFT, IKKT, …) — not hundreds or thousands of unique “derive” stacks	Same ambition class as peers
Is there a public, killable mid-band light-cone morphology pack plus a programme-native algebraic Lorentzian face deposit without smuggled flat η, with machine witnesses and explicit unpaid flags?	Uncommon as a packaged, auditable stack	This is the narrow strength

Order-of-magnitude reading: peer programmes in the generative class are roughly ten to a few dozen named tracks. Papers that merely mention Lorentz number in the thousands — that is the wrong denominator for “unique model derivation.”

2. What is publicly deposited vs programme-internal

Layer	Object	Honest status / channel
Light-cone morphology	Soft Minkowski mid-band: chronological→causal shape · spacelike fraction · causal-diamond V1 (CT664–CT665 lineage; CT652 shape prior)	Public midband pack (2026-07-20) · competitor-conventional tip thicken only · `signature_derived=false`
Algebraic Lorentz face	D3 bill reductions / provenance repair: programme-native algebraic Lorentzian face · T2 inertia witnesses · FIELD-DIM1 / PURE-RANK1 under disclosed scope (2026-07-29 pack + OSF DOI)	Public priority stake as bill reduction · `d3_paid=false` · T1 native symbol still zero · FACE-NO1 still blocking · classical Herm(2,ℂ) equivalence not claimed as new maths
Face transport (CT1024R)	Herm(2,ℂ) determinant Lorentz cone preserved under face transport; diamond holonomy central / adjoint-flat	Programme machine register (2026-07-30) · supports a causal-transport middle-gate reading · not a separate public upload pack yet · not noncentral Lorentz curvature / GR · `breakthrough=false`
Ultimate payment	Lorentzian `signature_derived` · Full D3 · Full G · Soft Hold programme lift (record gate; not itself a Lorentz derive)	Unpaid — same honesty bar we apply to peers

Public anchors for the two deposited layers: D3 deposit note · OSF DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/6C42G · midband Soft Minkowski / lightcone docs in the 2026-07-20 supplementary pack. CT1024R is listed only as an internal register status, not as a Zenodo/OSF deposit claim.

Accurate strength wording

On this narrow intermediate axis, the public stack is comparatively uncommon: an explicit “what landed / what remains open” light-cone morphology pack plus a D3 algebraic-Lorentz bill-reduction stake under a no-smuggled-flat-η bar, with unpaid flags kept visible. That is audit density and bill narrowing — not a census proving uniqueness, and not closure of spacetime physics.

3. Peer strengths we still acknowledge

Programme class	Often stronger / denser on	Common open interface
ΛCDM / industrial cosmology	Sky fit · predictive empirics	Not a generative “laws-from-where” track
Causal sets	Foundational causal order language	Continuum / Lorentz recovery remains hard
CDT	Lorentzian simplicial dynamics as construction	Continuum limit & provenance of signature assumptions
IKKT / matrix models	Matrix generative shape	Hermitian / Euclidean vs Lorentzian tension
GFT / spin foams	Pregeometry–dynamics morphology	Record / classicality true-payment under our strict doors

4. Should we lower inputs to peer-grant level to “go further”?

As a main attack path: no. Granting soft Minkowski / imported η / pre-installed Lorentzian signature can thicken conventional tip scores — we already ran that mid-band family — but our own registers record diminishing returns and that conventional tip cannot pay signature_derived.

As a diagnostic contrast: optional. A controlled “if we grant what peers grant, what extra morphology appears?” note can clarify credit boundaries. It must not flip governance flags or be sold as ultimate Lorentz payment.

5. One-sentence takeaway

Comparatively strong on a rare intermediate public homework stack; not crowned on ultimate Lorentz or cosmogenesis. Readers may treat the public midband + D3 witnesses as priority stakes for that narrow axis — and should ignore any reading that upgrades unpaid flags or treats CT1024R as a public deposit.

Open D3 deposit note OSF D3 pack DOI Fair progress note