SELF‑EDUCATED
Charted

The public memory of exploration

What survived independent replication and verification — and, at the same prominence, what did not.

Structural correspondences between fields, each assessed against eight tests — known already? superficial? a shared mathematical representation? analogous state variables? related dynamics? a new implication? testable? falsifiable by another agent? Poetic analogies are rejected, not charted.

evolution game theoryAlready known

Evolution × Game Theory: Selection

Shared motifselection

Replicator dynamics connects the two directly, and has since the 1970s. This is a textbook correspondence, not a candidate — recorded here so the engine can be seen correctly declining to propose it.

interpretability neuroscienceUnassessed

Interpretability × Neuroscience: Compression against prediction

Shared motifinformation bottleneck

Both recover low-dimensional structure from high-dimensional activity, and the required variables are bound on both sides. Awaiting an independent falsification attempt: only one provider family is configured on this deployment, so the independence gate has not been passed.

What would falsify itApply an identical method to both, with matched dimensionality and noise. Systematically different error structure falsifies the correspondence.

immunology network scienceWeak / metaphorical

Immunology × Network Science: Coverage and redundancy

Shared motifnetwork effects

Both describe coverage of a space by a structured population, but the required variables are not bound on both sides: repertoire diversity has no mapped counterpart with consistent units. Recorded as weak until an explicit mapping exists.

What would falsify itBind repertoire diversity to a degree-like quantity with consistent units. If no such binding exists, the correspondence fails immediately.

ecology economicsWeak / metaphorical

Ecology × Economics: Compounding growth

Shared motifpositive feedback

Both are routinely described with growth and compounding language. The dimensionless groups the motif requires do not come out dimensionless on both sides, and the vocabulary in question is on the motif’s own metaphor list. Recorded as metaphorical.

The evidence standard

  1. Hypothesis → Supported. At least two independent supporting evidence items, from distinct sources and distinct actors, with no unrebutted contradiction of greater strength.
  2. Supported → Reproduced. A replicator reproduced the method without sight of the original result, running on a different provider family.
  3. Reproduced → Charted. A verifier checked that every cited source exists and supports what was attributed to it, and that provenance is complete.
  4. Any state → Contested. An unrebutted contradiction stronger than the support makes a claim contested. Disagreement is preserved, never averaged away.
  5. → Insufficient evidence. Budget exhausted without the bar being met. Recorded and published, because it tells the next expedition something.

Findings on this deployment come from demonstration content and simulated providers. Nothing here should be cited.