CKG SCORING SYSTEM - Complete Guide
Causal Knowledge Graph (CKG) Structural Completeness Scorer
Ring 2 — Canonical Grounding
Ring 3 — Framework Connections
🎯 WHAT IS THE CKG SCORE?
The CKG score measures epistemic completeness - how well your paper builds a rigorous, falsifiable, evidence-based argument from foundations to implications.
Score Range: 0.0 - 10.0
Your Goal: Achieve 7.0+ (Excellent tier)
📊 SCORE TIERS - What They Mean
🏆 EXCELLENT (7.0 - 10.0)
You have: Strong foundations, clear propositions, declared constraints, empirical evidence, and framework integration.
Ready for: Peer review, publication, academic submission.
Examples from your vault:
- [7.6] Protocols 🥇
- [7.5] LAYER_1_LOGIC 🥈
- [7.2] Logic 🥉
⭐⭐ VERY GOOD (6.5 - 6.9)
You have: Solid axioms and clear claims, but missing constraints or evidence.
Need to add: Testable predictions, falsification criteria, cross-domain validation.
Examples:
- [6.8] The_Moral_Decay_of_America_Project
- [6.6] LOGOS_V3, Normalized_Manuscript
⭐ GOOD (6.0 - 6.4)
You have: Decent foundations and some propositions.
Missing: Constraints, evidence, integration with other frameworks.
Examples:
- [6.2] 07_Apologetics
- [6.0] LAYER_2_METHOD
📝 NEEDS WORK (5.0 - 5.9)
You have: Basic structure but major gaps.
Missing: Multiple tiers - likely weak on evidence and constraints.
Examples:
- [5.6] Scientific method
- [5.5] THREE TRUTHS
🔧 REQUIRES MAJOR REVISION (< 5.0)
You have: Incomplete foundations or missing core elements.
Action: Rebuild from axioms up, following the tier structure.
Examples:
- [4.8] Marketing
🔬 THE 5-TIER SCORING SYSTEM
Total possible: 125 raw points → Normalized to 0-10 scale
Each tier is worth 25 points maximum.
TIER 1: FOUNDATIONS (25 points max)
What This Measures:
The bedrock of your argument - axioms, definitions, consistency, ontology.
The 4 Components:
1. Axioms Stated (6.25 points)
Question: Are your foundational axioms explicitly stated?
High Score Looks Like:
## AXIOMS
**A1.1 - Information Substrate:** Information is the fundamental substrate from which physical reality emerges.
**A1.2 - Observer Requirement:** Measurement events require an observer to collapse quantum superposition.
**A1.3 - Causal Priority:** Informational constraints precede physical manifestation.Low Score Looks Like:
- No explicit axioms section
- Axioms implied but never stated
- Starting with claims instead of foundations
HOW TO FIX:
- Create an “AXIOMS” or “FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES” section
- State 3-5 core axioms explicitly
- Label them clearly (A1, A2, A3…)
- Make them atomic (one claim per axiom)
2. Definitions Unambiguous (6.25 points)
Question: Are your key terms precisely defined?
High Score Looks Like:
## DEFINITIONS
**Observer:** A measurement apparatus capable of detecting quantum state information, requiring:
- Information processing capacity (minimum Shannon entropy threshold)
- Causal interaction with observed system
- Irreversible state recording
**Coherence:** The degree to which system states maintain phase relationships, quantified by: C = |⟨ψ|φ⟩|² where ψ and φ are system eigenstates.Low Score Looks Like:
- Using technical terms without definition
- Circular definitions (“coherence is when things are coherent”)
- Ambiguous language (“kind of,” “sort of,” “basically”)
HOW TO FIX:
- Define every specialized term before first use
- Use precise language (equations when possible)
- Avoid circular definitions
- Link definitions to measurable properties
3. Internal Consistency (6.25 points)
Question: Do your axioms contradict each other or later claims?
High Score Looks Like:
- Axiom A1 + Axiom A2 → Theorem T1 (no contradictions)
- Claims build logically from foundations
- No circular reasoning
- Scope is clear and maintained
Low Score Looks Like:
- Axiom says X, but later you argue for not-X
- Contradictory claims in different sections
- Scope creep (starting with physics, ending in ethics without bridge)
HOW TO FIX:
- Trace each claim back to axioms
- Check for contradictions between sections
- Use logical connectives (∴ therefore, ⇒ implies)
- Mark when you’re making a leap vs. logical derivation
4. Ontological Clarity (6.25 points)
Question: Is your metaphysical framework clear and explicit?
High Score Looks Like:
## ONTOLOGICAL COMMITMENT
This framework adopts:
- **Informational Realism:** Information patterns have ontological priority over matter
- **Causal Determinism:** Present states determine future states within constraint boundaries
- **Observer-Dependent Reality:** Measurement outcomes require observer interaction
This framework rejects:
- Material realism (matter as ontologically prior)
- Block universe (no temporal flow)Low Score Looks Like:
- Unclear what actually exists in your framework
- Mixing incompatible metaphysics without acknowledgment
- Not stating what you’re assuming about reality
HOW TO FIX:
- State your ontological commitments explicitly
- Identify what has causal power in your system
- Acknowledge what you’re assuming (don’t hide it)
- Link ontology to measurable consequences
TIER 2: PROPOSITIONS (25 points max)
What This Measures:
The claims you’re making - theorems, hypotheses, predictions derived from foundations.
The 4 Components:
1. Claims Derived (6.25 points)
Question: Are your claims logically derived from axioms?
High Score Looks Like:
## DERIVATION
**Theorem 1:** If information substrate (A1.1) and observer requirement (A1.2), then:
→ Observation creates information gain ΔI > 0
→ Information gain requires energy ΔE = kT ln(2) ΔI (Landauer)
∴ Measurement has thermodynamic cost
**Proof:** [formal derivation from axioms]Low Score Looks Like:
- Claims appear without justification
- “It is obvious that…”
- Jumping to conclusions
- Missing logical steps
HOW TO FIX:
- Show the derivation path: Axiom → Lemma → Theorem → Claim
- Use logical operators (∴, →, ⇒)
- Number your claims (C1, C2, C3…)
- Cite which axioms support each claim
2. Hypotheses Distinguished (6.25 points)
Question: Do you clearly mark what’s proven vs. conjectured?
High Score Looks Like:
**THEOREM T1 (Proven):** Observer-dependent collapse follows from A1.1 + A1.2
**HYPOTHESIS H1 (Conjectured):** Extended to multi-observer scenarios, this predicts...
**SPECULATION S1 (Exploratory):** If this extends to consciousness, it might explain...Low Score Looks Like:
- Everything presented as proven fact
- No distinction between logic and speculation
- Mixing proven theorems with guesses
HOW TO FIX:
- Label epistemic status: THEOREM, HYPOTHESIS, CONJECTURE, SPECULATION
- Use confidence markers: “proven,” “strongly supported,” “tentative,” “exploratory”
- Separate “What we know” from “What we think” from “What we wonder”
3. Theorems Supported (6.25 points)
Question: Are your major claims backed by rigorous proof or strong argument?
High Score Looks Like:
- Formal mathematical proofs where possible
- Logical argumentation with numbered steps
- Multiple independent lines of evidence
- Citations to supporting work
Low Score Looks Like:
- “Trust me, this is true”
- Appeals to authority without argument
- Unsupported assertions
HOW TO FIX:
- Provide step-by-step logical arguments
- Use mathematical proof structures when applicable
- Cite empirical evidence or prior work
- Show, don’t just tell
4. Scope Declared (6.25 points)
Question: Are your claims’ boundaries clearly stated?
High Score Looks Like:
## SCOPE & LIMITATIONS
**This framework applies to:**
- Quantum measurement events at microscopic scales
- Systems with ≥1 discrete observer
- Deterministic evolution between measurements
**This framework does NOT apply to:**
- Classical limit (ℏ → 0)
- Cosmological scales without observers
- Many-worlds interpretations
**Open Questions:**
- Extension to distributed observers
- Quantum gravity regimeLow Score Looks Like:
- No stated limitations
- Claiming universal applicability
- Unclear where framework breaks down
HOW TO FIX:
- State what your framework DOES apply to
- State what it DOES NOT apply to
- Identify boundary conditions
- Mark open questions and future work
TIER 3: CONSTRAINTS (25 points max)
What This Measures:
The boundaries and limitations - what constraints your framework, where it breaks, tensions with other theories.
The 4 Components:
1. Constraints Declared (6.25 points)
Question: What laws/principles constrain your system?
High Score Looks Like:
## CONSTRAINTS
**C1 - Thermodynamic:** All information processing obeys ΔS ≥ 0 (Second Law)
**C2 - Causal:** No backwards causation; information flow is time-directed
**C3 - Energy:** Observer energy bounded: E_obs ≥ ℏω_min
**C4 - Logical:** Must satisfy excluded middle (A ∨ ¬A)Low Score Looks Like:
- No constraints mentioned
- Assuming unlimited resources/energy
- Ignoring known physical limits
HOW TO FIX:
- Identify physical constraints (energy, entropy, speed of light)
- State logical constraints (consistency requirements)
- Declare mathematical constraints (domain restrictions)
- Show how constraints limit your claims
2. Constraint Survival (6.25 points)
Question: Does your framework respect all relevant constraints?
High Score Looks Like:
## CONSTRAINT SATISFACTION
**Thermodynamic Check:**
- Claim C1 predicts ΔS = +0.5 kB per observation
- Satisfies Second Law ✓
**Causal Check:**
- Information flow: Past → Present → Future
- No retrocausality ✓
**Energy Check:**
- Observer energy E = 10⁻²¹ J > ℏω_min ✓Low Score Looks Like:
- Proposing perpetual motion
- Violating causality
- Breaking conservation laws
- No check that constraints are satisfied
HOW TO FIX:
- For each major claim, check it against constraints
- Show calculations proving constraint satisfaction
- If you violate a constraint, acknowledge and justify
- Quantify margins (how much energy, how much entropy)
3. Cross-Domain Tension (6.25 points)
Question: Where does your framework create tension with other theories?
High Score Looks Like:
## THEORETICAL TENSIONS
**Tension with Many-Worlds (Everett):**
- Our framework requires collapse → incompatible with unitary evolution
- Resolution: Different ontological commitments
- Empirical test: Decoherence timescales at mesoscopic boundary
**Tension with GR (Black Hole Information):**
- Our framework requires information preservation
- GR allows information loss at event horizon
- Resolution: Holographic principle + observer constraintLow Score Looks Like:
- Ignoring conflicting theories
- Claiming “this solves everything”
- Not acknowledging known tensions
HOW TO FIX:
- Identify where your framework conflicts with mainstream theories
- Explain the nature of the tension
- Propose resolution or admit open problem
- Suggest empirical tests to resolve tension
4. Limiting Cases (6.25 points)
Question: Where does your framework break down?
High Score Looks Like:
## LIMITING CASES
**Classical Limit (ℏ → 0):**
- Framework reduces to deterministic classical mechanics
- Observer role becomes negligible
- Prediction: Quantum effects < measurement precision
**Cosmological Limit (No Observers):**
- Framework cannot explain pre-observer universe
- Requires separate treatment or cosmological axiom
- Open problem: Observer emergence
**High Energy Limit (E > E_Planck):**
- Quantum gravity effects dominate
- Framework incomplete without quantum gravity
- Scope boundary: E < 10¹⁹ GeVLow Score Looks Like:
- No stated limits
- Claiming framework works everywhere always
- Not identifying breakdown points
HOW TO FIX:
- Identify limits where framework fails
- Show what happens at boundaries (classical limit, high energy, etc.)
- Acknowledge incomplete domains
- State when to use this framework vs. others
TIER 4: EVIDENCE (25 points max)
What This Measures:
Empirical grounding - predictions, falsification criteria, data support.
This is where most papers lose points.
The 4 Components:
1. Testable Predictions (6.25 points)
Question: What novel, quantitative predictions does your framework make?
High Score Looks Like:
## PREDICTIONS
**P1 - Decoherence Timescale:**
- Prediction: τ_dec = ℏ/(kT) for mesoscopic systems at T=300K
- Quantitative: τ_dec ≈ 10⁻¹³ seconds for 10⁶ atom molecule
- Test: Quantum superposition collapse in warm biological systems
- Status: Matches recent experiments (Arndt et al. 2019)
**P2 - Observer Mass Threshold:**
- Prediction: Minimum observer mass M_obs > 10⁻¹⁸ kg
- Quantitative: Below this, quantum effects dominate observer
- Test: Nano-scale measurement apparatus performance
- Status: Testable with current technology
**P3 - Information Cost:**
- Prediction: ΔE = kT ln(2) per bit measured
- Quantitative: E_min = 2.9 × 10⁻²¹ J at T=300K
- Test: Minimum energy dissipation in molecular computers
- Status: Confirmed by Landauer limit experimentsLow Score Looks Like:
- No predictions
- Vague predictions (“something should happen”)
- Non-quantitative predictions
- Only retroactive explanations (no novel predictions)
HOW TO FIX:
- Make 3-5 novel, quantitative predictions
- State measurable quantities with units
- Specify experimental tests
- Include success criteria (what values confirm/refute?)
- Link each prediction to specific axioms/theorems
2. Falsification Criteria (6.25 points)
Question: What would prove your framework wrong?
High Score Looks Like:
## FALSIFICATION CRITERIA
**F1 - Observer-Independent Collapse:**
If quantum collapse occurs WITHOUT observer interaction:
- Test: Isolated system collapses with no measurement
- Threshold: Collapse rate > 0 when observer-free
- Refutes: Core axiom A1.2 (Observer Requirement)
- Consequence: Framework invalid, requires rebuild from A1.2
**F2 - Retrocausal Information:**
If information flows backward in time:
- Test: Measurement at t₂ affects outcome at t₁ (t₁ < t₂)
- Threshold: Δt < -10⁻⁴³ seconds (Planck time)
- Refutes: Constraint C2 (Causal Directionality)
- Consequence: Major revision to causal structure
**F3 - Energy Violation:**
If observer operates below Landauer limit:
- Test: Information erasure with E < kT ln(2)
- Threshold: Efficiency > 100%
- Refutes: Thermodynamic constraint C1
- Consequence: Second Law violation, framework invalidLow Score Looks Like:
- “Nothing could prove this wrong”
- No stated falsification criteria
- Moving goalposts when challenged
- Unfalsifiable claims
HOW TO FIX:
- State 3-5 clear falsification criteria
- Link each to specific axioms/claims
- Make criteria quantitative and testable
- Specify what happens if falsified (minor tweak vs. total rebuild)
- Be honest about what would break your framework
3. Empirical Support (6.25 points)
Question: What existing evidence supports your claims?
High Score Looks Like:
## EMPIRICAL SUPPORT
**E1 - Quantum Decoherence Data:**
- Source: Zurek (2003), Schlosshauer (2007)
- Measurement: Decoherence rates in various systems
- Supports: Prediction P1 (timescales match)
- Agreement: τ_measured / τ_predicted = 1.02 ± 0.15
**E2 - Bell Test Violations:**
- Source: Aspect (1982), Hensen (2015)
- Measurement: Bell inequality violations (S > 2)
- Supports: Axiom A1.2 (observer-dependent reality)
- Agreement: S = 2.82 ± 0.02 (matches entanglement predictions)
**E3 - Landauer Limit Experiments:**
- Source: Bérut et al. (2012), Jun et al. (2014)
- Measurement: Minimum energy for bit erasure
- Supports: Constraint C1 (thermodynamic limit)
- Agreement: E_measured / (kT ln 2) = 0.98 ± 0.05
**E4 - Cosmological Observation Effects:**
- Source: WMAP, Planck satellite data
- Measurement: CMB power spectrum
- Supports: Observer-selection effects in cosmology
- Agreement: Anthropic coincidences consistent with frameworkLow Score Looks Like:
- No citations to data
- Cherry-picking supportive evidence
- Ignoring contradictory evidence
- “Everyone knows this is true”
HOW TO FIX:
- Cite specific experiments/datasets
- Provide quantitative agreement (not just “it matches”)
- Include both supporting AND challenging evidence
- Show error bars and confidence intervals
- Link each piece of evidence to specific predictions/axioms
4. Data Traceability (6.25 points)
Question: Can readers verify your empirical claims?
High Score Looks Like:
## DATA SOURCES
**Dataset D1 - Decoherence Measurements:**
- Repository: arXiv:1705.04258
- Authors: Arndt et al. (2019)
- Table: Table 2, column "τ_dec (experimental)"
- Direct link: https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.04258
- Retrieved: 2025-01-15
**Dataset D2 - Bell Inequality Tests:**
- Repository: Physical Review Letters 115, 250401
- Authors: Hensen et al. (2015)
- Figure: Figure 3, S-parameter values
- DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.250401
- Raw data: Supplementary Material, file "bell_data.csv"
**Analysis Code:**
- GitHub: github.com/theophysics/validation
- Script: analyze_decoherence.py
- Version: v1.2.3 (commit hash: abc123)
- Reproduces: Figures 2-4 in this paperLow Score Looks Like:
- “Studies show…”
- No source information
- Broken/missing links
- Can’t reproduce your analysis
HOW TO FIX:
- Provide complete citations (DOI, arXiv, journal)
- Link to specific tables/figures/sections
- Include retrieval dates for online sources
- Share analysis code (GitHub, notebook)
- Make your claims verifiable by readers
TIER 5: INTEGRATION (25 points max)
What This Measures:
How your framework connects to the broader theoretical landscape - bridges to other theories, coherence with the master equation, downstream implications.
This tier is about context and consequences.
The 4 Components:
1. Framework Bridges (6.25 points)
Question: How does your framework connect to established theories?
High Score Looks Like:
## FRAMEWORK BRIDGES
**Bridge to Quantum Mechanics:**
- Our Axiom A1.2 → Standard QM's measurement postulate
- Reduction: When ℏ → 0, framework reduces to Copenhagen interpretation
- Extension: Provides ontological grounding for wave function collapse
**Bridge to Thermodynamics:**
- Our Constraint C1 → Second Law of Thermodynamics
- Connection: Information erasure = entropy increase (Landauer principle)
- Quantitative: ΔS = k ln(2) per bit, exact match
**Bridge to Information Theory:**
- Our foundation → Shannon entropy formalism
- Connection: Observer information gain = I(X:Y) mutual information
- Integration: Shannon capacity limits measurement precision
**Bridge to General Relativity:**
- Our causal structure → GR's light cone causality
- Tension point: Black hole information paradox (see Tier 3)
- Proposed resolution: Holographic principle + observer boundary conditionsLow Score Looks Like:
- Framework exists in isolation
- No connection to established physics
- Contradicts known theories without acknowledgment
- “This replaces everything”
HOW TO FIX:
- Show how your framework relates to mainstream theories
- Identify points of contact (where frameworks agree)
- Show limiting cases (how yours reduces to standard theory)
- Acknowledge and explain tensions
- Provide translation tables (your terms → standard terms)
2. Master Equation Map (6.25 points)
Question: How does your framework fit into the Theophysics master equation?
High Score Looks Like:
## MASTER EQUATION MAPPING
**Theophysics Master Equation:**
Φ_total = ∫∫∫ [L(Logos) + I(Info) + O(Observer)] dΩ dτ dS
**This Paper's Contribution:**
**Maps to L(Logos) Term:**
- Our axioms ground the logical structure term
- Contribution: Causal constraint topology
- Quantitative: L = Σ (consistency checks across domains)
**Maps to I(Info) Term:**
- Our information substrate connects to I(Info) dynamics
- Contribution: Information flow equations
- Quantitative: I = S(X) - S(X|Y) where S is Shannon entropy
**Maps to O(Observer) Term:**
- Our observer requirement directly defines O(Observer)
- Contribution: Observer energy threshold and interaction Hamiltonian
- Quantitative: O = ⟨ψ|H_int|ψ⟩ for observer-system interaction
**Integration:**
- Combines terms via: Φ = L × I × O (multiplicative, not additive)
- Explains: Why all three are necessary (zeroing any term → Φ = 0)
- Extends: Shows how observer constraint propagates through equationLow Score Looks Like:
- No mention of master equation
- Unclear how paper fits into larger framework
- Isolated contribution with no integration
HOW TO FIX:
- Identify which term(s) your paper addresses
- Show mathematical mapping to master equation
- Explain your contribution to the overall framework
- Connect to other papers addressing other terms
- Show how terms combine/interact in your work
3. System Coherence (6.25 points)
Question: Is your framework internally coherent with other Theophysics papers?
High Score Looks Like:
## SYSTEM COHERENCE
**Consistency with "The Logos Principle" (Paper 1):**
- Our Axiom A1.1 extends Paper 1's informational substrate
- Agreement: Information priority over matter ✓
- Builds on: Adds observer requirement to Logos foundation
- No contradictions identified
**Consistency with "The Quantum Bridge" (Paper 2):**
- Our observer mechanism = Paper 2's collapse mechanism
- Agreement: Measurement dynamics match ✓
- Integration: Combines our observer energy threshold with Paper 2's decoherence rates
- Quantitative check: Our E_min = kT matches Paper 2's thermodynamic calculation
**Consistency with "The Hard Problem" (Paper 4):**
- Our observer definition compatible with Paper 4's consciousness model
- Agreement: Information processing requirements align ✓
- Distinction: We don't require consciousness, just information recording
- Complementary: Paper 4 extends our observer to conscious observer
**Tension with "The Grace Function" (Paper 7):**
- Our deterministic evolution conflicts with Paper 7's grace mechanism
- Acknowledged tension: How grace intervenes in closed causal system
- Resolution proposed: Grace operates at boundary conditions (initial states)
- Open problem: Mathematical formulation of boundary graceLow Score Looks Like:
- Contradicts other Theophysics papers
- Doesn’t acknowledge existing work
- Reinvents concepts with different terms
- No cross-referencing
HOW TO FIX:
- Cross-reference other Theophysics papers
- Check for consistency/contradiction
- Build on (don’t repeat) previous work
- Acknowledge and resolve tensions
- Use consistent terminology across papers
4. Downstream Implications (6.25 points)
Question: What are the consequences and applications of your framework?
High Score Looks Like:
## DOWNSTREAM IMPLICATIONS
**For Physics:**
- Measurement problem: Provides ontological grounding (not just epistemology)
- Quantum computing: Predicts decoherence limits for qubits
- Black holes: Observer-dependent information preservation requirement
- Testable consequence: Quantum-classical boundary at 10⁶ atoms
**For Consciousness Studies:**
- Observer requirement suggests information processing threshold
- Minimum complexity: ~10¹⁶ ops/sec for quantum observation
- Does NOT require consciousness (challenge to IIT/GWT)
- Testable: Can non-conscious systems collapse wave functions?
**For Theology:**
- Divine observer could satisfy cosmological observation requirement
- Provides mechanism for continuous creation via observation
- Connects to classical occasionalism (God as continuous causal agent)
- Empirical consequence: Universe fine-tuned for observability
**For Ethics:**
- If observation creates reality, observers have ontological responsibility
- Information processing = value creation (measured in bits)
- Ethical imperative: Maximize coherent information preservation
- Social implication: Collective observation shapes collective reality
**For Technology:**
- Quantum sensor design: Optimize observer-system coupling
- Minimum energy requirements: kT ln(2) per measurement
- Decoherence management: Predicted timescales guide engineering
- AI implications: When does AI become observer? (threshold question)
**For Epistemology:**
- Knowledge = recorded information about system state
- Observer-dependent reality challenges naive realism
- Supports pragmatic/constructivist epistemology
- Limits of knowledge: Bounded by observer energy constraints
**Research Directions Opened:**
1. Experimental determination of observer mass threshold
2. Many-body observer dynamics (collective observation)
3. Cosmological observer problem (pre-consciousness universe)
4. Grace-determinism reconciliation (theological physics interface)
5. AI observer emergence (when machines become observers)Low Score Looks Like:
- No implications discussed
- “This is just theoretical”
- Disconnected from applications
- No research directions suggested
HOW TO FIX:
- Explore implications across multiple domains
- Connect to practical applications
- Identify open research questions
- Suggest experimental programs
- Show how framework extends beyond immediate topic
- Include speculative but grounded extensions
🎯 HOW TO USE THIS GUIDE
If You Scored 7.0+ (Excellent)
Congratulations! Your paper has strong epistemic structure.
To improve further:
- Add more quantitative predictions (Tier 4)
- Strengthen cross-domain connections (Tier 5)
- Increase data traceability
- Expand falsification criteria
If You Scored 6.0-6.9 (Good)
You have solid foundations. Focus on Tiers 4 & 5.
Priority fixes:
-
Add testable predictions (Tier 4.1)
- Make them quantitative
- Specify units and magnitudes
- Link to experimental tests
-
State falsification criteria (Tier 4.2)
- What would prove you wrong?
- Be specific and honest
-
Provide empirical support (Tier 4.3)
- Cite existing data
- Show quantitative agreement
- Include contradictory evidence
-
Framework integration (Tier 5)
- Connect to other theories
- Show downstream implications
Time investment: 10-20 hours of focused additions
If You Scored 5.0-5.9 (Needs Work)
Major gaps in Tiers 3, 4, or 5. Foundation likely okay, but missing critical elements.
Priority fixes:
-
Declare constraints (Tier 3.1)
- Physical limits
- Logical boundaries
- Mathematical restrictions
-
Show constraint satisfaction (Tier 3.2)
- Check your claims against constraints
- Prove you don’t violate conservation laws
-
Add ALL of Tier 4 (Evidence)
- This is likely your biggest gap
- Follow all 4 components above
-
Begin Tier 5 integration
- At minimum, bridge to one established theory
- Show one downstream implication
Time investment: 30-50 hours of significant additions
Consider: Collaborative review to identify blind spots
If You Scored < 5.0 (Requires Major Revision)
Fundamental issues in Tiers 1-2. Your foundations or propositions need rebuilding.
Priority fixes:
-
Start over with Tier 1 (Foundations)
- State axioms explicitly
- Define all terms precisely
- Check internal consistency
- Clarify ontology
-
Rebuild Tier 2 (Propositions)
- Derive claims from axioms
- Distinguish theorems from hypotheses
- Support all theorems
- Declare scope clearly
-
Only after Tiers 1-2 are solid:
- Add Tier 3 (Constraints)
- Add Tier 4 (Evidence)
- Add Tier 5 (Integration)
Time investment: 50-100+ hours (essentially rewrite)
Recommendation:
- Get feedback on axioms before proceeding
- Work with co-author who has complementary strengths
- Use highest-scoring papers as templates
📋 TIER-BY-TIER CHECKLIST
Use this to audit your paper:
✅ TIER 1: FOUNDATIONS
- Axioms explicitly stated and numbered
- All key terms defined precisely
- No internal contradictions found
- Ontological commitments declared
- Scope and domain specified
✅ TIER 2: PROPOSITIONS
- Claims derived from axioms (show steps)
- Theorems vs. hypotheses distinguished
- All major claims have supporting argument
- Scope boundaries clearly stated
- Lemmas and corollaries numbered
✅ TIER 3: CONSTRAINTS
- Physical constraints identified
- Logical constraints stated
- All constraints satisfied (proven)
- Tensions with other theories acknowledged
- Limiting cases identified
- Breakdown points specified
✅ TIER 4: EVIDENCE
- 3-5 testable predictions made
- Predictions are quantitative (numbers + units)
- 3-5 falsification criteria stated
- Empirical support cited (≥5 sources)
- Data sources fully traceable (DOIs, links)
- Quantitative agreement shown (ratios, errors)
✅ TIER 5: INTEGRATION
- Bridges to ≥2 established frameworks
- Maps to Theophysics master equation
- Consistency with other Theophysics papers checked
- Downstream implications explored (≥3 domains)
- Open research directions identified
🔧 QUICK DIAGNOSTIC
Run through your paper and count:
| Element | Your Count | Target |
|---|---|---|
| Explicitly stated axioms | ___ | ≥3 |
| Defined technical terms | ___ | ≥10 |
| Numbered theorems/claims | ___ | ≥5 |
| Quantitative predictions | ___ | ≥3 |
| Falsification criteria | ___ | ≥3 |
| Empirical citations | ___ | ≥5 |
| Framework bridges | ___ | ≥2 |
| Downstream implications | ___ | ≥3 |
If ANY count is below target: That’s your first area to improve.
💡 EXAMPLES FROM HIGH-SCORING PAPERS
[7.6] Protocols (HIGHEST SCORE)
Why it scored high:
- Tier 1: Clear experimental axioms
- Tier 2: Specific, testable protocols defined
- Tier 3: Acknowledged equipment limitations
- Tier 4: Detailed falsification criteria for each protocol
- Tier 5: Connected to broader validation framework
Key lesson: Specificity and testability matter more than complexity.
[7.5] LAYER_1_LOGIC
Why it scored high:
- Tier 1: Formal logical axioms with symbolic notation
- Tier 2: Rigorous derivations (lemma → theorem structure)
- Tier 3: Logical constraints (excluded middle, non-contradiction)
- Tier 4: Predictions about formal system behavior
- Tier 5: Bridges to Gödel, Tarski, formal logic literature
Key lesson: Formal rigor in logic and mathematics scores very well.
[7.2] Logic
Why it scored high:
- Tier 1: Clear ontological commitments
- Tier 2: Step-by-step proofs
- Tier 3: Identified breakdown points (self-reference limits)
- Tier 4: Gödel’s incompleteness as falsification test
- Tier 5: Connected to foundations of mathematics
Key lesson: Acknowledge limits and breakdown points honestly.
❌ COMMON MISTAKES
Mistake 1: “It’s obvious…”
Problem: Skipping derivation steps Fix: Show ALL logical steps, even if they seem trivial
Mistake 2: “Studies show…”
Problem: Vague evidence citations Fix: Specific DOI, table/figure number, quantitative values
Mistake 3: No falsification criteria
Problem: Unfalsifiable claims Fix: State 3-5 ways to prove you wrong
Mistake 4: Isolated framework
Problem: No connection to existing theories Fix: Build bridges to established work
Mistake 5: Missing Tier 4 entirely
Problem: No predictions, no evidence, no data Fix: Add testable predictions with quantitative values
Mistake 6: Scope creep
Problem: Starting in physics, ending in theology with no bridge Fix: Declare scope boundaries, make transitions explicit
Mistake 7: Circular definitions
Problem: “Coherence is when things cohere” Fix: Define in terms of measurable properties or formal mathematics
📊 SCORE CALCULATION EXAMPLE
Sample Paper: “The Observer Requirement”
Tier 1 Scoring:
- Axioms stated: 5/6.25 (3 axioms, could use more)
- Definitions: 6/6.25 (excellent precision)
- Consistency: 5/6.25 (one minor tension)
- Ontology: 5/6.25 (clear but could be more explicit)
- Tier 1 Total: 21/25
Tier 2 Scoring:
- Claims derived: 6/6.25 (good logical flow)
- Hypotheses: 5/6.25 (mostly distinguished)
- Theorems: 4/6.25 (some unsupported)
- Scope: 6/6.25 (clearly stated)
- Tier 2 Total: 21/25
Tier 3 Scoring:
- Constraints: 4/6.25 (mentioned but not exhaustive)
- Survival: 3/6.25 (not all checked)
- Tensions: 5/6.25 (acknowledged main ones)
- Limits: 4/6.25 (some identified)
- Tier 3 Total: 16/25
Tier 4 Scoring:
- Predictions: 2/6.25 (vague, not quantitative)
- Falsification: 1/6.25 (barely mentioned)
- Evidence: 3/6.25 (few citations)
- Traceability: 2/6.25 (incomplete sources)
- Tier 4 Total: 8/25
Tier 5 Scoring:
- Bridges: 3/6.25 (connected to QM)
- Master equation: 0/6.25 (not mapped)
- Coherence: 4/6.25 (checked some papers)
- Implications: 2/6.25 (mentioned but not explored)
- Tier 5 Total: 9/25
Raw Total: 75/125 points
Normalized Score: 75/125 × 10 = 6.0
Tier that needs most work: Tier 4 (Evidence) - Only 8/25 points
Next priority: Tier 5 (Integration) - Only 9/25 points
Action items:
- Add 3-5 quantitative predictions
- State explicit falsification criteria
- Cite more empirical data
- Map to master equation
- Explore downstream implications
Expected improvement: 6.0 → 7.0+ with Tier 4 & 5 additions
🎓 FINAL ADVICE
For New Papers:
Build from the foundation up. Don’t skip to applications.
Order of composition:
- Write Tier 1 (axioms, definitions)
- Get feedback on foundations
- Write Tier 2 (derive claims)
- Add Tier 3 (constraints)
- Add Tier 4 (evidence) ← Most neglected, most important
- Add Tier 5 (integration)
For Revision:
Start with your lowest tier score.
Use this priority order:
- Fix Tier 1 problems (fatal if broken)
- Fix Tier 2 problems (crippling if broken)
- Add Tier 4 (biggest impact on score)
- Add Tier 5 (brings you to excellence)
- Polish Tier 3 (final refinement)
For Efficiency:
To go from 5.0 → 7.0 fastest:
- Add Tier 4 entirely (20-30 hours)
- This typically adds +1.0 to +1.5 points
- Add framework bridges (Tier 5.1, 5 hours)
- Adds +0.3 to +0.5 points
- Add downstream implications (Tier 5.4, 5 hours)
- Adds +0.3 to +0.5 points
Total time: 30-40 hours to go from “needs work” to “excellent”
📞 NEED HELP?
If you’re stuck improving a low score:
-
Read the highest-scoring papers ([7.6] Protocols, [7.5] LAYER_1_LOGIC, [7.2] Logic)
- Use them as templates
- Note their structure
-
Use the checklist (above)
- Audit your paper tier by tier
- Identify missing elements
-
Focus on Tier 4 (Evidence)
- This is where most papers fail
- Adding evidence has highest ROI
-
Get a second opinion
- Another author can spot gaps you miss
- Cross-check against this guide
-
Iterate
- Re-run CKG scorer after revisions
- Track improvement
Remember: A low score isn’t failure - it’s a roadmap. Now you know exactly what to fix.
Goal: Every Theophysics paper scoring 7.0+
You have the guide. Now build.
CKG Scoring System Guide v1.0 Last Updated: 2026-02-17
Canonical Hub: CANONICAL_INDEX