CMM.X State Infrastructure PUBLIC
LIVEVERIFY
CLAIM BOUNDARY predictive_claim = NONE Diagnostic + verification + history layer. predictive_claim = NONE. No edge, no alpha, no direction, no trading signal. Under prospective test.
Sources3 Newest value7.3 h last sealed Oldest value7.3 h last sealed Without timestamp2 Page refreshesevery 20 s
sealed336 evaluated264 since2026-07-23 stateFRESH

Sealed before. Counted after. No proof.

Every statement is sealed before the measurement and evaluated unchanged afterwards — this prevents a result from being relabelled after the fact as though it had been stated in advance. What stands here is a tally of that procedure, not proof of skill. A single SUPPORTED result is NOT a skill claim; pending seals are shown as INCONCLUSIVE_PENDING until their target time elapses.

sealed and already evaluated 264 / 336 · 78.6 %

The rest is open — open pre-registrations are not a result and are not counted as one.

of which supported 242 / 264 · 91.7 %

Refuted: 22. Both figures stand here; a ratio without its denominator would be an assertion.

Targets AGE UNDETERMINED

TargetSubjectVerdictOrigin
T1SHAPE SUGGESTIVEAUTHORED
Beats baselines on log-loss (calibration, not accuracy). Not proof.
T2STRUCTURE_REGIME TIES_CLIMATOLOGY_ACC · WINS_LOGLOSSAUTHORED
Ties climatology on accuracy (baseline-easy) — the real win is calibration (log-loss).
T3ENERGY_STRESS REFUTED_DEGENERATEAUTHORED
Refuted as defined — near-constant target (HIGH band never realized); no model can express skill.
T4ELEMENTS MAJORITY_BEATS_CLIMATOLOGYAUTHORED
22/30 elements beat climatology on log-loss (73.3%). Strongest signal in the set — still suggestive, not proof.

SUGGESTIVE is not proof. Mechanism validation — historical walk-forward is SUGGESTIVE, not proof. Skill measured by proper scoring rule (log-loss / Brier) vs climatology & persistence baselines. Not a forecast, no edge, no direction. The numbers in the detail lines are read from the report; the verdicts are written as constants in the code and marked AUTHORED. Deriving them would require a threshold, and a threshold is a decision, not a measurement — so none is invented here. Were the underlying measurement to change, an authored verdict would not follow it.

Classification

ClassificationRESEARCH_SHADOW · MECHANISM_VALIDATION · kernel_state_hash=null
predictive_claimNONE
Open, pending0

A predictive claim would require many pre-registered, out-of-sample confirmations accumulated over real elapsed time. None exist yet.

Provenance

Pre-registrationreproduce_leg/…/prereg_ledger/prereg_ledger.jsonl
Pre-registrationreproduce_leg/…/prereg_ledger/prereg_outcomes.jsonl
Evaluationreproduce_leg/…/SEER_LEARNING_REPORT.json
Evaluationreproduce_leg/…/LEARN_T2_REPORT.md
Evaluationreproduce_leg/…/LEARN_T3_REPORT.md
Evaluationreproduce_leg/…/LEARN_T4_REPORT.json
next question Does the same language hold elsewhere? A procedure that counts honestly on one market is still a procedure for one market.