# Measurement Blind Spots

**300 hypotheses about what experimental science fails to see, 30 developed in detail, and three investigated with working mathematics.**

Compiled 1 November 2026. Every entry is a proposition, not a report of a measurement. No experiment described in this collection has been performed.

---

## What this is

Science advances by measuring. It also accumulates blind spots: quantities an instrument cannot observe, parameters that are fitted rather than measured, approximations that are exact in the regime where they were tested and wrong in the regime where they are used, and disagreements between two accepted methods that are resolved by convention rather than by evidence.

This collection is a systematic hunt for those blind spots. It contains:

- **300 hypotheses**, each stating the established baseline, the proposed mechanism, the observation that would discriminate, an available data source or experiment, the prior art, and an explicit refutation condition. They span physics, astronomy, chemistry, electrochemistry, materials, biology, medicine, engineering, Earth science, and the shared statistical machinery underneath all of them.
- **30 refined hypotheses** developed further, each separating what is a mathematical identity, what is an artefact of the analysis, and what is a genuine falsifiable prediction.
- **3 full investigations** with derivations, validated numerical code, and results: a finite-window identifiability problem in decay fitting, a hidden boundary conductance in thermal metrology, and a proof that Kramers–Kronig consistency does not imply linearity in impedance spectroscopy.

## The seven blind-spot classes

Every hypothesis is tagged with one:

| Class | Count | What it means |
|---|---:|---|
| `boundary-condition` | 64 | The measurement is dominated by an interface, edge, or finite-size term that the model omits |
| `hidden-parameter` | 54 | A quantity is fitted, assumed, or inherited from a protocol rather than measured |
| `time-dependent` | 37 | Drift, aging, relaxation, or protocol timing sets the result |
| `model-disagreement` | 27 | Two accepted methods give different answers and both are internally consistent |
| `model-artifact` | 27 | The analysis procedure manufactures the effect it reports |
| `nonlinearity` | 17 | A linear or small-signal approximation fails where it is used |
| `selection` | 13 | The sample is chosen in a way correlated with the effect |
| `circularity` | 12 | The calibration is defined by the quantity it measures |
| `assumption` | 10 | A standard approximation is applied outside its domain |
| `blind-spot` | 8 | The instrument is structurally incapable of observing the relevant quantity |
| `degeneracy` | 6 | Two parameters enter identically and cannot be separated |
| `artefact` | 5 | A known analysis artefact in a new place |

## Three good places to start

1. **I2 — the spot-size bias.** A closed-form result showing that in one limit the reported in-plane thermal conductivity of a 2D material stops depending on the material and becomes a function of the substrate conductance and the laser spot size. The predicted signature (κ_app ∝ s²) is checkable against published data with no new experiment.

2. **I3 — Kramers–Kronig blindness.** The spectrum at 100 mV is a Debye element to eight digits, so it passes every KK test, while the charge-transfer resistance it returns is 36% low. The standard validity test is provably incapable of seeing the dominant systematic.

3. **R04 — a negative result.** The common explanation for OD600 growth-curve compression (stray light) is quantitatively insufficient below OD 1.5. The calculation is included, the hypothesis is narrowed rather than rescued, and the low-OD mechanism is left open.

## How to read an entry

Each of the 300 has the same seven fields:

- **Baseline** — what is currently believed and practised
- **Mechanism** — the proposed physical or statistical route to the blind spot
- **Discriminating observation** — the observable that separates the hypothesis from the baseline
- **Test** — the data or experiment that could supply it
- **Prior art** — the nearest existing work, including this collection's own investigations
- **Refuted if** — the explicit result that would kill it
- **Readiness / novelty** — 1–5 scales, defined in `METHODOLOGY.md`

## What this collection is not

It is not a review. Absence of an entry is not a judgement. Several entries are deliberately contrarian and are marked as such. The readiness scores are optimistic by design: a 4 means *someone* could test it soon, not that the test is easy. And no entry claims an observation that was not made.

## Files

| File | What it is |
|---|---|
| `Blind-Spots.pdf` | The full document, typeset for reading |
| `Blind-Spots.docx` | The same text in Word |
| `hyp/01-physics.md` … `hyp/06-crosscutting.md` | The 300, by domain, canonical Markdown |
| `data/hypotheses_300.csv` / `.json` | The 300 as structured data, one row per hypothesis |
| `refined/R01-R15.md`, `refined/R16-R30.md` | The 30 refined hypotheses |
| `investigations/` | Three investigations: code, data, figures, writeup |
| `data/r1_refinement_numbers.json` | Every quantitative number quoted in the refined set |
| `sources.csv` | Every external source cited, with a verified identifier |
| `CORRECTIONS.md` | Corrections, negative results, and superseded claims |
| `METHODOLOGY.md` | How the set was built, the scales, and the limits |