Results So Far#

An honest accounting of where this project stands.

This page tracks what has been built, what has been tested, and what remains open. It distinguishes between theoretical results (models and proofs), testing results (adversarial review outcomes), and empirical results (real-world evidence). The last category is currently empty — the experiment has not yet launched.

Theoretical Results#

A layered stack of formal models has been developed, each building on the previous:

Foundation models:

  • PET — 14 axioms in 5 groups formalizing panentheism with mereology and S5 modal logic. Six Abrahamic traditions independently support the same formal structure. Theorems th1–th4 derived.

  • JUB — 11 axioms (ax15–ax25) extending PET with 7 theorems (th5–th11). Formalizes why human innovation failure causes evil and how Jubilee-System resets help.

System and agent models:

  • e7Day — Generalized system construction in 8 submodels (VOID through TRUST). 21 axioms, 9 theorems. All tested and HELD under TEMPER adversarial protocol.

  • e7He — The 7-stage hero journey: a perpetual cycle of self-correction that every agent must maintain. 24 statements at OOv2.

  • e7Ch — The 7 change stages of innovation adoption, from first release to Jubilee reset.

  • e7Tr — The 7 track roles that every functioning society needs.

Attractor models:

  • BABL — The self-destructive attractor: how blindly assuming blind leveraging destroys effective insight through the LIE -> SIN -> DEATH pipeline.

  • ZION — The life-giving attractor: how genuine self-correction grows effective insight. Status: stub, pending formal development.

Strategy Results#

A concrete mechanism has been identified for how to change the game-theoretic equilibrium that keeps institutions locked in self-serving behavior:

  • The Frying Pan Proposition — A game-theoretic argument, grounded in Schelling (1960) and Spence (1973), showing that one person’s irreversible commitment to transparent NOT-OK self-assessment transforms the Prisoner’s Dilemma into an Assurance Game. The argument identifies four necessary conditions: irreversibility, transparency, ax19 compliance, and preference revelation.

  • The Transparency Manifesto — A concrete proposal for implementing maximum transparency with specific mechanisms, accountability structures, and independence requirements.

  • The Two Cent a Day Experiment — A funding model that makes independent adversarial testing affordable at scale ($8/year per contributor) while maintaining structural independence.

Testing Results#

The formal models have been subjected to adversarial testing under the TEMPER protocol (part of the FORGE compiler):

  • e7Day: 30 OOv1 statements tested under Iron Maiden (TEMPER Round a2). Result: 30 HELD, 0 BREACH.

  • e7He: 24 OOv2 statements tested across 3 TEMPER rounds including Iron Maiden tests of all priority claims. Multiple repairs applied during testing. Result: all claims either HELD or were repaired and re-tested.

  • PET and JUB: Subjected to earlier rounds of adversarial review (documented in VV records). Known open issues tracked in adversarial aims (AA) documents.

What “HELD” means: The claim withstood the specific attack. It does not mean the claim is proven or final. New attacks may find weaknesses that current testing missed. This is the nature of open systems: no finite set of checks can confirm correctness. The testing record is published in full so that anyone can assess its rigor.

Empirical Results#

None yet.

The theoretical framework predicts that irreversible transparent commitment will shift the game-theoretic equilibrium. The testing infrastructure has been designed. The funding model has been specified.

What has NOT happened:

  • The experiment has not launched.

  • No independent adversarial reviewers have been hired.

  • No empirical data on whether the mechanism works exists.

  • No contributors have been asked for money (the funding mechanism is not yet live).

This section will be updated as the experiment progresses. If the experiment fails, the failure will be documented here with the same rigor as success.

What Comes Next#

The path from here to empirical results requires:

  1. Funding mechanism — a live contribution page (not yet built).

  2. First independent reviewer — hired with contributor funds.

  3. First adversarial review cycle — published results.

  4. Ongoing tracking — this page updated with each cycle.

See the experiment’s AA tracking for the full list of open items.