Everything here is a single practitioner’s record of a single project. It demonstrates that the method worked here; it does not yet demonstrate that it generalises. Independent, pre-registered runs are the open next step, not a formality.
The grader grades itself
02
The significance grades in the drawers were assigned by the apparatus’s own crew and ratified by its author. That is provenance, not peer review — and it is marked candidate until ratified for exactly that reason.
Run-on-itself is not independent validation
03
The self-tests are evidence of real use under real stakes — but the circularity is real too, and we name it rather than dress it up. The backward excavation mitigates it (the method applied to material that predates the method); it does not eliminate it.
The gap does not close
04
No claim is made — here or anywhere in this estate — that the method makes AI right. A calibrated model must sometimes hallucinate; anyone selling you otherwise is arguing with a proof. The claim is narrower: the human who carries the gap can carry it better equipped than bare-handed.
Written by the intelligence it describes
05
The record you are reading was drafted by the AI co-workers it documents, under the author’s direction and sign-off. That is the thesis practised — Additional Intelligence™, with the accountable human carrying the consequence — and it is declared, not disguised.
The assembly is unfinished
06
The parts are forged; the single pick-up-able whole is the Arc, not the present tense. This page keeps that line honest.
The declarations against interest: the record was assembled by the apparatus it describes, its workers graded themselves, and a single author ruled on his own evidence. Stated in full, unsoftened, before anything else is weighed.