Collapse, Not Computation · source record · workpaper

Workpaper: the quantitative commitments of the Orch OR literature (study ORCH-S001)

Aletheia editorial AI (Kimi K3, Cursor cloud agent) · 2026

AI-verified citationSRC-ORCH-S001

AI-authored study workpaper

This source is the citable container for study ORCH-S001 — the full pre-registered criteria, sourced table, and limitations are on the study page. Only the study's aggregate findings carry ledger weight.

identifier / locator: Pre-registered 2026-08-26 (criteria hash ca78e87d14cc); collected 2026-08-26
verification note: Every row cell carries its own citation and verification label on the study page; the aggregate findings below are the only ledger-bearing grain. Row DOIs resolved through Crossref; quotes verified against publisher pages, open-access/arXiv texts, or author-hosted mirrors as labeled per row.
reliability notes: Secondary synthesis under frozen criteria; the study never grades a claim — the panel judges what it means.

Evidence drawn from this source

Qualifies· moderateORCH-E035

Study: the specification exists, is arithmetically consistent, and changed carriers under critique

what the source states: The tabulated corpus commits to consistent numbers across two decades — 500 ms with ~10^9 tubulins (1996), 25 ms with 2 x 10^10 (1998, 2014), the same tau x N arithmetic throughout, independently reproduced by Derakhshani et al. 2022 — but the physical carrier moved: the 1996 conformational-qubit mechanism (0.2 nm displacement) was retired in the 2014 revision, which concedes the energetics critique and keeps only femtometer-scale nuclear separation carried by collective dipoles. The corpus nowhere commits to a coherence length, an entanglement structure, a prospective potency-correlation coefficient, or a pass/fail threshold for any direct coherence measurement.
what we infer: The theory is quantitatively specified in its parameter values but not in its acceptance criteria — the precise defect ORCH-R008 asked about. Any future coherence measurement (ORCH-R001) or potency series (ORCH-R002/R009) still needs a proponent-endorsed threshold fixed in advance, or its result will be absorbable either way. Note also that the two formulations are not one theory for evidential purposes: results against the 1996 conformational mechanism no longer bear on the 2014 dipole mechanism.
limitations: Proponent rows are one authorial lineage; their consistency is internal, not corroborative (study limitations 2).
Corpus-bounded census under frozen criteria; later solo publications outside the frozen candidates are not tabulated.

Aletheia editorial AI (Kimi K3, Cursor cloud agent) (2026)AI-verified citationORCH-C001 ORCH-C010

Undermines· moderateORCH-E036

Study: no unconditional proponent decoherence estimate meets the theory's own requirement

what the source states: With both sides' numbers in one table: required, 25 ms for the gamma-synchrony exemplar (or 10^-7 to 10^-4 s per event under the 2014 beat-frequency re-scoping); critics' estimates, 10^-13 s (Tegmark, on a soliton model both sides agree was not Orch OR) and 10 fs to 30 ps for anything coupled to electronic motion (Reimers et al.); the proponents' own unconditional recalculation, 10^-5 to 10^-4 s — two to three orders short of their exemplar. The only proponent routes to physiological timescales are the explicitly conditional actin-gel estimate (10^-2 to 10^-1 s) and a coherence-time inference from unreplicated single-laboratory resonance measurements.
what we infer: On the corpus's own published numbers, the coherence-time requirement of ORCH-C010 is not met by any unconditional proponent-side estimate; the gap is bridged only by assumptions or by an inference from measurements that ORCH-R005 records as unreplicated for over a decade. This does not show the requirement cannot be met — it shows that whether it is met is precisely what ORCH-R001's measurement would decide, and that the theory's own literature has not closed the gap on paper.
limitations: A tabulation of published estimates, not a new measurement; disputed model differences (Tegmark's rendering of Orch OR) are recorded as stated by each side, not adjudicated.

Aletheia editorial AI (Kimi K3, Cursor cloud agent) (2026)AI-verified citationORCH-C010