Structural Admissibility

A framework for evaluating whether theoretical claims have earned the right to be evaluated as candidate solutions, applied to a survey of theories of everything (and to established physics) component-by-component. Ontology-first: the framework catalogues what kinds of theoretical work exist before describing how to test any specific work. The audit follows from the ontology.

Why this site

Most arguments about whether a paper is good are arguments about whether it is right. There is a prior question, older than AI but easier to ignore while production was slow: is this paper a candidate solution at all? A claim that fails admissibility is not wrong. It is not yet a candidate. Admissibility is the entry condition to the category of work worth evaluating on its merits, and most contemporary discourse on theories of everything skips this entry condition because the discourse evolved when production cost made it implausible to write something inadmissible at length. That assumption is dead.

The structural verdict is independent of sociological position. A theory aligned with the mainstream that fails admissibility fails. A theory presented by an independent scholar that passes admissibility passes. The framework is offered as a tool for reading derivation work carefully, not as a credential check, and the site applies it to every entry under the same template on the same standard.

What admissibility asks

Not "is this true?" but "is this what it claims to be?" A piece of work claims a kind. It presents itself as fundamental unification, as effective phenomenology, as mathematical exploration. The framework catches misrepresentation of kind: work that occupies one bucket honestly while claiming another for institutional reasons. A claim that fails admissibility is not wrong; it is not yet a candidate in the bucket it claims. The same content honestly presented at a lower bucket may be perfectly admissible.

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 is evaluated in the survey as one row in the same table as every other theory, under the same template, on the same standard. The framework was developed in the course of writing Wave Relativity, to clarify what makes a derivation closed at the layer it claims to close at. It is offered here in the same spirit: structural verdicts, the verdict shape exposed for the reader to verify against the actual work.

Where to read next

• Framework. The ontology and the audit. The four buckets, the three closure modes, the three legs, the worked decompositions of QM / GR / SM / QFT-on-CS / ΛCDM / String / LQG, and the diagnostics that show the audit in action.
• Theory survey. The list of theories with bucket-claimed / bucket-supported / closure-mode verdicts at the theory level, with deep-dive pages for the load-bearing cases.