6. Closure paths
Every open question this program attacks has to end somewhere. This page maps, at a high level, the honest endpoints an attack can actually reach — and just as importantly, what does not count as an endpoint here. None of these is "solved" in the sense of a from-nothing proof; every one of them is an honest, named place for an answer to land.
The honest endpoints
Derived, given an anchor
A complete chain of reasoning lands on a measured anchor or a Foundational Constraint already in honest use elsewhere — no new assumption, no new dial. Reducing to a shared foundation already carrying weight elsewhere is the strong outcome, not a weaker fallback.
Closed against a measured anchor
The question reduces to one of the small set of measured quantities this program already relies on (the Planck mass, a gauge coupling, the top Yukawa, a mixing angle, the dark-energy density). This is not a claim that the anchor was derived from nothing — it is a claim that the question has been traced down to a number already in honest use, and honestly labeled as measured.
Dissolved — the demand was malformed
The attack shows the question itself rested on a false premise — usually a continuum idealization, or an obligation imported from another framework that this construction never actually owes. Dissolution removes a false debt; it is never counted as a solved number, and the distinction is kept on every row.
Certified irreducible — a named posit, paid openly
The question bottoms out on an assumption that provably cannot be gotten for free — with explicit countermodels showing nothing weaker suffices. The posit goes on the books by name, with its price stated, rather than being smuggled in silently.
Closed negative
An attack sometimes shows a candidate answer, or an assumption behind it, is simply wrong. That outcome is kept on the public record — see Residuals — rather than dropped, because a refutation sharpens the constraints for everything downstream of it.
Open, with a named path
The honest answer is "not yet resolved." A real open question on this site always carries a stated path forward — what computation, measurement, or argument would close it — rather than being left as a bare unknown. Nothing is ever rounded up out of this bin.
One further endpoint exists in the vocabulary — reduced to a named value-free axiom, which closes at the honestly-counted price of one new assumption (+1). The current board uses it zero times: every closure reached +0.
Where the board stands
All 33 requirement-gates have been driven to one of these named endpoints: 33 resolved at +0 · 0 anchored at +1 · 0 open, with every residual shown on its row. The separate honest axis is stated beside it, not hidden under it: 0 of 33 gates are physics-closed — "physics-closed" would mean solved from nothing, needing no measured anchor at all, and that is unreachable in principle, because you cannot conjure a dimensionful scale from pure number: at least one measured ruler is always mandatory, for any theory. So 0-of-33 is the design, stated plainly, not a failure. Provenance: the scoreboard and per-gate dossiers on Gates.
What does not count as closure
Two moves are explicitly disallowed, because they are the most common ways a program like this can quietly deceive itself or a reader:
- No claiming something was derived from nothing. A dimensionful or contingent quantity that isn't itself one of the measured anchors always has to bottom out somewhere — on a constraint or a measured input — never on thin air. A page that seems to get a number "for free" is a page that has not finished tracing its own reasoning.
- No relabeling a result to a grade it did not earn. An open question does not get relabeled "resolved" just because it would be convenient. Every change of grade must land first on the public ledger at Gates — the closure of record every other page derives from — with the new, checkable work that earned it. The same rule cuts both ways: a closure that earned its terminal is stated plainly and is not softened afterward on anyone's discomfort; it changes only if a named, checkable defect is found and logged.
Why this matters more than any single result
A theory that only reports its wins is not checkable. A theory that types every verdict from a fixed endpoint menu, prints the residual on every row, publishes its own refuted claims with the disproofs, and states plainly that nothing is physics-closed gives a reader something real to push against. That is the entire bet this program is making: that being this specific about what has and has not been shown is worth more, to a serious reader, than a vaguer scoreboard would be — and it is exactly this specificity that makes the 33-for-33 result mean something.
See it applied
Gates
Every requirement gate this program tracks, each landed on one of these endpoints and labeled accordingly — 33 resolved at +0, 0 open.
The Tests
The itemized roster of checks already run, with their statuses.
Foundational Constraints
The shared floor that "reduced to a constraint" actually reduces to.
See it applied on Gates → ← Back: The process we built
You've reached the end of The Process
That completes the six-page walkthrough: a thought experiment about invariance, the constraints it forces, the shape those constraints select, how that shape is tested, what the three manuscripts do with it, and the honest endpoints an attack can reach. Every claim referenced along the way carries its own status elsewhere on this site — this section only tells the story of how they connect.