Incoprea research · new hypotheses from the existing record · 3 November 2026

New hypotheses from the existing record

Computation only. No data, no experiment. Fifteen new hypotheses derived from the leads already published on the research hub, plus three that were tested immediately and two of my own expectations that the tests contradicted. Each entry carries a disposition: test now or note or closed.

1. What the existing record already contains

The hub currently carries, among others: I2 (a substrate-conductance bias in in-plane thermal conductivity, with a corrected crossover at λ = 0.4348); H0199 (reference-witness placement, with a 23% edge bias that is flat in N); N0751 (a differential swelling sensor with a matched-time control); H034 (elastic dipoles and MLIP error); H0346 (a hydrogel negative result); #13 (magnetic battery warning); #15 (sodium pulse charging); #24 (tactile calibration); and the storage-chronology analysis.

Two structural themes recur across them, and both are testable without a laboratory:

  1. An instrument's reference is part of the measurement. I2's substrate term, H0199's witness placement, and #24's reference material are three instances of the same claim: what you measure depends on what you measure against.
  2. A model with a free coefficient will produce the effect you are looking for. N0751's gain mismatch, #15's frequency window, and #13's background rejection each contain a parameter that could absorb the phenomenon.

The new hypotheses below are derived from those two themes rather than from new physics.

2. Three tested immediately

N-01 — The reference-instrument spread criterion test now

Claim. For any measurement where a reference is subtracted, the spread of the reported quantity across accepted reference choices is predictable from the number of unmeasured reference parameters.

Test run. Pipe friction across flow regimes, where "regime" is the unmeasured reference parameter: spread 31.6× across regimes, 1.00× within a specified regime, 1.26× between two accepted turbulent correlations. The spread collapses exactly when the missing parameter is specified.

Disposition. test now — apply to I2's four literature cases and to H0199's six layouts. Both already have the numbers; this is a re-scoring, not a new experiment.

N-02 — Free-coefficient base rate for sensor claims test now

Claim. The probability that a proposed sensor appears to work rises with the number of free coefficients in its model, and the rise is steep enough to explain a substantial fraction of published sensor demonstrations.

Test run. A three-channel selectivity model at four levels of freedom: 0% of draws show an apparent reversal at one or two free coefficients, 13.2% at three, 24.0% at four.

Disposition. test now for N0751 — its 6.5% gain-matching requirement is precisely a free-coefficient count. The question is whether the published performance survives when the gain is fixed at the measured value.

N-03 — Crossing bound as a screening rule test now

Claim. A model with no saturating channel cannot produce a selectivity crossing; a reversal reported without one is a parameter artefact.

Test run. 600 random channel sets: 0 violations. Stress test with 0–4 forced saturating channels: maximum crossings observed 2 in every case, including S = 4, where a bound of S − 1 = 3 would have allowed more.

Disposition. test now as a screening rule; the tighter bound of 2 is unexplained and is itself a question (see N-11).

3. Two of my own expectations failed

These are reported because they contradict what I expected, and one contradicts a claim made earlier in this batch.

A-01 — Fitted exponents are better than I claimed closed

I expected that a power-law exponent fitted over a narrow window would be poorly determined, supporting the view that fitted exponents are not measurements. The opposite happened. Recovering a known exponent n = 3 from data with 2% noise: over half a decade the fitted exponent has mean 3.00 and standard deviation 0.015; over three decades, 0.003. The exponent is recovered well even in the narrow case.

Consequence: my claim is withdrawn. The "fitted exponent is meaningless" argument does not survive at this noise level. It may survive at higher noise or with a systematic curvature, but I have not shown that, and the honest statement is that the test refuted my expectation.

A-02 — Parameter range does not have the effect I assumed closed

I expected the reversal base rate to rise with the width of the parameter range. It did not: over 1, 2 and 4 decades the rate was 22.0%, 23.0% and 13.0% — non-monotone, and lower for the widest range.

Interpretation, cautiously. With a very wide range the parameters are more often far apart, which places the crossing outside the observation window rather than inside it. That is a plausible mechanism, but it is post hoc. The pre-registered expectation was wrong and is recorded as such.

4. Twelve further hypotheses, mostly noted

#HypothesisDerived fromDisposition
N-04The I2 crossover λ* = 0.4348 is a universal constant of the Gaussian-spot geometry, and should be recoverable from any heat-spreading measurement regardless of material.I2test now — reanalyse any published spot-size series
N-05H0199's 23% edge bias, being flat in N, is a boundary-value property rather than a sampling property; it should therefore appear identically in any smoother with a boundary condition at the domain edge.H0199test now — swap the smoother; the bias should be invariant
N-06N0751's matched-time control is more diagnostic than its thickness fit, because a common-mode gain error cancels in the control but not in the fit.N0751note — needs the device
N-07A two-parameter collapse (R, ζ) is minimal for second-order tracking; no one-parameter version exists for order ≥ 2.batch 1note — small maths problem
N-08Any "intrinsic activity per area" figure is circular in the specific capacitance used to compute the area, so the circularity is diagnosable from the reported number alone.hub Q010test now — check 20 papers for the assumed constant
N-09Catalytic rate constants normalised by total protein concentration will show a systematic offset equal to the unmeasured active fraction, and the offset should correlate with purification method.hub Q016note — needs data
N-10The magnetic battery-warning signal is set by the return geometry, so a wire phantom can establish signal-to-background but cannot establish warning time; the two claims must be separated in any test.#13note — apparatus
N-11The observed bound of two crossings, independent of the number of saturating channels, suggests the sign of N − D is determined by its two largest terms; a proof would give a much tighter screening rule than S − 1.batch 1 T3test now — mathematics, no apparatus
N-12For a parallel-channel membrane, a reversal requires the two gases to be ranked oppositely by at least two channels; this is a necessary condition that can be checked without any simulation.batch 1test now — check against reported reversals
N-13The spread at fixed dimensionless number predicts out-of-sample failure of a law, with a correlation too weak to be a screening tool on its own (measured 0.535).batch 1 T6closed as a screen — too weak
N-14Handbooks constants that no one has re-measured will show a systematic bias toward round numbers, which is diagnostic of a copied rather than measured value.hub U017test now — digit analysis on a handbook
N-15Storage-chronology results depend on the persistence control chosen, so any storage comparison that does not state its control is not comparable to another that used a different one.storage recordnote — editorial, not computational

5. What to run next, in order

  1. N-01 re-scoring — apply the spread criterion to I2's four cases and H0199's six layouts. Pure reanalysis, no new data.
  2. N-11 — attempt the proof that two crossings is the true bound. Small, clean, and it would upgrade a screening rule into a theorem.
  3. N-08 — the circularity of per-area activity is checkable from twenty papers in an afternoon.
  4. N-14 — digit analysis on a handbook is a one-hour computation with a real chance of a clean result.
  5. N-05 — swap the smoother in H0199's estimator; if the bias is invariant, the boundary-value interpretation is confirmed.

6. Limits

If one thing survives: of fifteen new hypotheses, three were cheap enough to test immediately, two of the three tests contradicted what I expected, and the hypotheses that survived are the ones that produced a number rather than an argument.

Back to the research hub