Documentation quality control · Updated 2026-08-20
Gravity retrieval quality control
This page measures whether a fixed retrieval rubric found the current QTT gravity sources. It does not measure whether QTT is correct, whether a theorem is novel, or whether a prediction has been observed.
Return to the Gravity AuthorityA higher retrieval score can show that the correct paper, theorem, or status ledger was found. It cannot promote E2 reconstruction to E5 observation, turn a calibration into a prediction, or establish a likelihood ratio for QTT.
Same supplied rubric
What changed in the retrieval column
2 · 1 · 2 · 2 · 1 · 0 · 4 · 1 · 1 · 13 · 4 · 3 · 2 · 4 · 0 · 4 · 2 · 3 · 4The corrected score diagnoses QTT retrieval under the crawler's rubric. Other programmes were not re-audited to the same current-source standard.
Source-selection findings
What the original retrieval missed
Six-face authority
A maintenance card was read as though it superseded the current Newton and gravity-reference papers.
A5-X denominator
The surface derivation was not retrieved, so the derived 8π denominator was classified as inserted.
Current Lorentz theorem
An older open audit was scored after a newer scoped one-loop calculation existed.
No E5 gravity confirmation
The retrieval correctly left independently confirmed out-of-sample numerical gravity at zero.
Use rule
How this page may be cited
- Use it to diagnose stale sources, missing dependencies, or incorrect status inheritance.
- Do not use either weighted total as support for a physical equation.
- Do not compare programmes until every column has been re-audited with the same sources and protocol.
- For the scientific claims, constructors, evidence levels, and open gates, cite the Gravity Authority.