Skip to content

Independent scrutiny / preparation ledger

Do not trust the curve. Try to break the claim.

Five flagship papers are bound to ten review roles. None is assigned. None is complete. This page makes the burden visible and gives technical criticism a structured path.

Inspect the review bench Open critique form
Claim boundary

This is a local preparation queue. It proves no submission, acceptance, DOI, peer review, citation, external review, or independent replication.

The review bench

Two independent lanes for every paper.

A methods reviewer attacks the inference. A reproducibility reviewer attacks the path from data to claim. One cannot silently substitute for the other.

01

Alpaca paper + simulation

Point-in-Time Inflation Surprise and the Equity Size Spread: A Corrected Null, a Deployment-Governance Failure, and a Frozen Forward Experiment

Preparation only
Methods lane Statistics, econometrics, quantitative finance Unassigned
Reproduction lane Data lineage, environment, commands, hashes Unassigned
02

Local simulated paper

Crypto Perpetual Carry: Trial Lineage, Capacity Failure, and Live Evidence Boundary

Preparation only
Methods lane Statistics, econometrics, quantitative finance Unassigned
Reproduction lane Data lineage, environment, commands, hashes Unassigned
03

Alpaca paper + simulation

Equity Momentum Under Complete Trial Accounting: A Selected Survivor and Failed Deep-History Replication

Preparation only
Methods lane Statistics, econometrics, quantitative finance Unassigned
Reproduction lane Data lineage, environment, commands, hashes Unassigned
04

Alpaca paper + simulation

Managed-Futures Trend as an Unresolved Diversifier: Complete Trial Lineage and Forward Burden of Proof

Preparation only
Methods lane Statistics, econometrics, quantitative finance Unassigned
Reproduction lane Data lineage, environment, commands, hashes Unassigned
05

Research simulation

Crypto Multi-Factor Engine: Seven Trials, Capacity Decay, and No-Deploy Verdict

Preparation only
Methods lane Statistics, econometrics, quantitative finance Unassigned
Reproduction lane Data lineage, environment, commands, hashes Unassigned

Governed intake

Criticism first. Status later.

  1. 01
    Bind the version

    Name the manuscript, version and SHA-256. Findings against an unspecified draft cannot change governed status.

  2. 02
    Disclose the reviewer

    Record qualifications, relationships, conflicts, compensation and automated tool use before assignment.

  3. 03
    Number the findings

    Mark every item blocking, major, minor or question. Ask for criticism, not approval.

  4. 04
    Separate review from execution

    Replication requires commands, environment, hashes, deviations and an outcome from a system outside the project.

  5. 05
    Keep every objection

    Arhan answers each finding. The original review and unresolved objections stay attached to the revised version.

What counts

A public issue is evidence of criticism. It is not peer review.

Issue opened
Public technical criticism
Not assigned review
Conflict screen passed
Eligible reviewer for one scope
Not completed review
Findings answered
Completed governed review
Not replication
Protocol executed externally
Replication attempt
Outcome may pass or fail
Journal or conference decision
Formal editorial state
Submission is not acceptance

Public correction channel

Find the strongest reason a claim could be wrong.

Formal commissioning and archive release remain gated. The public papers and correction channel are available now. No favorable conclusion is requested.

Open structured critique Read published corrections