Structural AdmissibilityThe question before correctness.

A framework for evaluating theories of everything by what their structure actually supports, not what their authors claim.

Read the framework

Browse the survey

The methodology essay

Four buckets ladder with three legs of audit

Mathematical exploration

Conditional claim, evaluated as mathematics. The structure works under its own assumptions; whether the assumptions hold of reality is a separate question.

Effective model

Operational primitives within a stated regime, no derivation claim. The framework fits observation, names its empirical inputs, and scopes the regime honestly.

Theory proposal

Unconditional claim to describe reality, derivation in progress. The work claims to be physics, the open items are named, the closure is forthcoming.

Physical theory

Derived from named empirical anchors, recovers established physics at boundaries, closes on three legs (primitives anchored, regime covered, boundary continuity).

The move

Before asking whether a theory of everything is correct, ask what kind of work it actually is. Many disputes about contested frameworks (String Theory, Geometric Unity, Loop Quantum Gravity, Wave Relativity, MOND, ΛCDM) collapse into clear structural readings once the question of category is settled. A theory's institutional claim to a bucket can be checked against what its structure actually supports. The framework catches the bucket-misrepresentation case by walking three legs: are the primitives at the right level, does the work operate at the level it claims, is the work positioned correctly relative to established physics?

The framework does not gatekeep on credentials, journal venue, or institutional affiliation. The crank-or-not test is sociological; this framework cuts orthogonally. Theories with full institutional infrastructure can fail Leg B2; obscure independent-scholar derivations can pass Leg A.

What to read first

The methodology essay frames why this question matters now and how the framework moves through it. Read this first if you want the motivation.
The framework page is the full ontology: the five technical categories, the components-in-regimes decomposition, the three closure modes, and the three legs of audit. Read this for the canonical definitions.
The survey is the central navigation device: theory-by-theory verdicts in the four public-facing buckets, with deep-dive pages for the contested cases.
The QM + GR instantiation applies the framework specifically to the quantum-gravity discourse, where the categorical confusion has done the most damage.

Author disclosure

This site is run by Daniel Tan Fook Hao, the author of Wave Relativity and the author of the structural admissibility framework. Wave Relativity appears in the survey as one row in the same table as every other theory, under the same template, on the same standard. The about page carries the full disclosure.