Kill Switches

Each kill switch in Claim / Test / Status / Recovery form. Eight switches per the Master Kill Switch Registry. One empirical (KS-R.7), seven structural.

KS-R.7 — G prediction

Claim. The predicted G = α_em²¹ × (1 + 1/π) × ℏc/m_e² must agree with the measured gravitational constant within 1%, or within the leakage correction (AP06).

Test. Compare the prediction to precision measurements of G. Current discrepancy: 0.69%.

Status. LIVE — EMPIRICAL. Fires if future precision measurements exceed 1% discrepancy and the leakage correction cannot account for it.

Recovery. If KS-R.7 fires beyond the leakage correction, the counting argument’s output is wrong: the channel count, the puncture factor, or the compounding law must be re-examined. The constants tripod (c, ℏ) is unaffected.

KS-R.8 — Channel count

Claim. The exponent 21 is derived from six faces (AP24) across three spatial dimensions (AP10) plus three actualisation couplings.

Test. Re-derive the channel count from the faces and dimensions. Fires if the number of independent coupling channels is shown to be other than 21.

Status. LIVE — STRUCTURAL. The count rests on Propositions 1 and 2.

Recovery. If the count differs, the exponent on α_em changes and the prediction shifts. The form of the argument (multiplicative compounding of independent channels) survives; the value does not.

KS-R.8a — Face completeness

Claim. ε has exactly six independent scalar readings (Proposition 1).

Test. Exhibit a seventh independent scalar reading of ε that is not a function of the six.

Status. LIVE — STRUCTURAL. Proposition 1 proves completeness by three-case exhaustion (no fifth axiom, no second gauge freedom, no fourth dimension).

Recovery. If a seventh reading exists, the face count rises, the channel count rises, and the exponent on α_em increases — predicting a smaller G. Recoverable by recomputation.

KS-R.8b — Actualisation scope

Claim. The actualisation state couples to the three spatial dimensions, not independently to the six faces; the actualisation couplings number exactly 3 (Proposition 2).

Test. Show the actualisation state coupling to a degree of freedom independent of both the three dimensions and the six faces.

Status. LIVE — STRUCTURAL.

Recovery. If the actualisation scope is larger, the additional couplings raise the channel count and shift the prediction. Recoverable by recomputation.

KS-R.8c — Channel independence

Claim. All 21 channels are mutually statistically independent (Proposition 3).

Test. Demonstrate a correlation between two channels that does not reduce to a shared dependence on ε itself.

Status. LIVE — STRUCTURAL.

Recovery. If channels are correlated, the compounding is no longer a clean product of independent probabilities; the multiplicative law α_em²¹ must be replaced by a correlated calculation. The picture survives; the simple exponent does not.

KS-R.8d — Uniform coupling

Claim. The per-channel coupling is α_em for every channel; the N-channel coupling is α_em^N (Proposition 5).

Test. Show the per-channel coupling differs from α_em — e.g. that different faces have different intrinsic coupling strengths.

Status. LIVE — STRUCTURAL.

Recovery. If couplings are non-uniform, the compounding becomes a product of distinct factors rather than α_em²¹. The counting structure survives; the single-exponent form does not.

KS-R.9 — Puncture geometry

Claim. The correction factor 1/π follows from the circular cross-section of the electron as topological puncture (Proposition 4).

Test. Show the puncture geometry is non-circular. Separately, verify the boundary-coupling normalisation (1/π versus 1/2π versus 1/4π) against the full puncture topology of AP04/AP05.

Status. LIVE — STRUCTURAL. Carries a sub-debt: the formal normalisation of the boundary coupling. The 0.69% agreement supports 1/π.

Recovery. If the geometry is non-circular or the normalisation differs, the puncture factor changes (e.g. to 1 + 1/2π) and the prediction is recalculated. The channel-count result (§3–§4) is unaffected.

KS-R.10 — Unification structure

Claim. Gravity is the quantum end (maintaining superposition) and electromagnetism the classical end (collapsing it) — the interpretive claim of §9.

Test. Demonstrate a physical system in which gravitational coupling does NOT maintain superposition, or electromagnetic coupling does NOT collapse it.

Status. LIVE — STRUCTURAL. Tied to the interpretive §9, which is explicitly non-derivational.

Recovery. If KS-R.10 fires, the interpretive unification of §9 fails. The G prediction (§7) is entirely unaffected — the formula does not depend on the interpretation.