Incoprea research · batch 1 index · 3 November 2026

Batch index and status

Index, methods and status for the 3 November batch. Every claim is listed with its measured spread or base rate and an explicit status. Four items are negative or failed; none is an experiment.

This is the index for the 3 November batch. Five pages, one computation set, no experiments.

1. Contents

Page	Subject	Headline
P1	Dimensionless-law audit	Eight standard groups; spread at fixed value 1.13–125.89
P2	Reversal base rates	0% at two free coefficients, 24% at four
P3	Constraint tests	One refutation, one synthetic power check, one construction failure
P4	Theory notes	Informal crossing bound; the spread criterion
P5	Index (this page)	Methods, status, reproduction, what to test next

2. Status of every claim in the batch

Claim	Spread / rate	Status
Pipe friction factor	31.62	model audit
Sphere drag coefficient	1.94	model audit
Channel conductance	17.48	model audit
Natural-convection Nusselt	1.13	model audit
Reactor conversion	1.29	model audit
Onset of Rayleigh-Benard convection	2.60	model audit
Laminar-turbulent transition	1.96	model audit
Diffusion coefficient	125.89	model audit
Response-time collapse	2.74	not supported
Membrane reversal, constrained	0/4	not supported
Crossing bound (S)	0/600 violations	consistent; not proved
Enzyme constrained test	9.0×	synthetic power check only
Fog drainage optimum	1.00×	construction failure

3. Methods

All computations are in one script, run_all.py, Python 3 with numpy only. Every model is written from the standard formula and cited in-table by name rather than by reference. Randomised procedures are seeded (default_rng(20261103)). Numbers in the pages are read from results/all_results.json; none is typed by hand.

Computations performed:

Eight dimensionless-law audits, each evaluating two standard models at a common group value.
Reversal base rates at four levels of model freedom, 400 draws per level.
A 600-trial crossing-bound test.
A constrained membrane sweep across four shared coefficients.
A response-time spread over eight systems.
A synthetic enzyme constrained-versus-free fit.
An illustrative fog drainage model that failed to discriminate.

4. What this batch does not establish

No experiment. Not one number here is a measurement.
No novelty claim. The dimensionless groups are textbook; what is offered is a criterion, not a discovery.
No literature check. Whether the spread criterion is standard practice elsewhere is unknown.
No generalisation beyond the models chosen. Eight laws and one membrane model are not a survey.
No proof. The crossing bound is argued, not established.

5. What to do next, in order

Automate the spread criterion. One function: given a law and two model variants, return the spread. Apply it to twenty laws.
Prove or refute the S − 1 bound. This is a small mathematics problem with a clean statement.
Code twenty published reversals for free-versus-measured coefficient counts. If the correlation holds, the screening rule is real.
Fix the fog model with a non-monotone drainage term, or drop the hypothesis.
Only then consider laboratory work — and only where a constrained model still predicts an effect.

If one sentence survives this batch: a model with a free coefficient will usually produce the effect you are looking for, and the count of free coefficients is the cheapest available estimate of how much of the result is the model rather than the world.

Status: computational model results, 3 November 2026. No experiment, no data, no measurement. No novelty claimed; no literature search performed. Code and raw JSON accompany this page set.