Kill Switches

8.1 — KS-42.1 — Dark-matter particle detection

Claim. The 27% is a process (incomplete defragmentation), not a substance; no particle is needed.

Test. Direct detection (LZ, XENONnT, successors), collider searches, indirect detection (Fermi-LAT, CTA). One confirmed detection at the right abundance to explain the observed 27% falsifies the mechanism.

Status. LIVE — EMPIRICAL. Every null result strengthens the mechanism.

Recovery. A confirmed particle kills the defragmentation reading of dark matter; the dark-energy-as-reservoir reading and the channel count would have to be re-examined separately.

8.2 — KS-42.2 — Epoch dependence

Claim. The dark-sector composition varies with epoch along the defragmentation curve (the central prediction, section 4).

Test. Two handles. (i) The DE/DM ratio at z > 1: if the ratio at z ≈ 2 differs from DE/DM ≈ 0.48 by more than the formation-history correction can accommodate, the mechanism fails. (ii) The effective equation of state: the predicted w_eff(z) is phantom in the past relaxing toward −1 (wₐ < 0), so the model matches the phantom-anchored and trend halves of the DESI w₀wₐ contour; a measured wₐ > 0 or a non-evolving w kills it, while a present-day w₀ firmly above −1 is a live tension on the constant-feeding model (section 4.3, KS-42.4). Probes: BAO (DESI), weak lensing (Euclid, Rubin LSST), CMB lensing (Simons Observatory, CMB-S4); the key observables are the growth rate σ₈(z) and the w₀wₐ constraint.

Status. LIVE — EMPIRICAL.

Recovery. A measured epoch dependence off the curve but still monotonic would point to the feeding-rate history (KS-42.5, D48) rather than to the mechanism.

8.3 — KS-42.3 — Defragmentation timescale derivation

Claim. τ = (6/21) × t_H, resting on one face-erasure as the atomic unit of defragmentation work.

Test. A formal derivation of defragmentation dynamics from AP09 and AP41 that contradicts the face-by-face dissolution model — e.g. if defragmentation dissolves all faces simultaneously, or if the correct unit is the face-projection (giving τ = 18/21 × t_H, which fails).

Status. LIVE — STRUCTURAL.

Recovery. If face-erasure is not the atomic unit, the 6/21 ratio fails and the timescale must be rederived; the mechanism survives (dark matter is still a process) but the specific prediction changes, and D47 reopens.

8.4 — KS-42.4 — Equation of state

Claim. Dark energy’s intrinsic equation of state is w = −1 (the substrate at rest). Because the reservoir is sourced and non-diluting, its density grows (ρ̇_DE > 0), so the effective w_eff(z) inferred under a non-interacting (w₀wₐCDM) analysis is phantom (w_eff ≤ −1) at all times, deepest in the past and asymptoting to −1 today — a phantom past with wₐ < 0. The constant-feeding model predicts the phantom-past sign and the wₐ < 0 trend; it does not deliver a present-day crossing to w₀ > −1.

Test. Precision w₀wₐ measurements (DESI BAO; Type Ia supernovae — Rubin LSST; CMB — Planck successors). Two outcomes: a strictly non-evolving w = −1 to high precision, or an evolution in the wrong sense (wₐ > 0, or a quintom-A signature), kills the rest-state reading outright. A present-day value firmly at w₀ > −1 (DESI DR2 currently centres near w₀ ≈ −0.84) is a live tension for the constant-feeding model, since that model gives w₀ ≤ −1.

Status. LIVE — EMPIRICAL.

Recovery. A measured w₀ > −1 with wₐ < 0 does not kill the mechanism but does kill the constant-feeding approximation: reaching the quintessence side requires a declining reservoir density at late times, i.e. a feeding rate that falls faster than replenishment — the feeding-rate history owed to D48. The mechanism survives; the simple feeding model is replaced. Only a wrong-sign or non-evolving w kills the rest-state reading itself.

8.5 — KS-42.5 — Constant feeding rate

Claim. The section-3 derivation uses a constant black-hole feeding rate Ṙ₀.

Test. Compute the convolution using the observed cosmic star-formation history and black-hole mass-function evolution; if the convolved DE/DM ratio at the present epoch differs significantly from 2.609, the constant-rate approximation fails.

Status. LIVE — STRUCTURAL.

Recovery. Failure here kills the simple model, not the mechanism: it requires the detailed formation-history computation (D48), not abandonment of defragmentation.

8.6 — KS-42.6 — Timescale ratio derivation

Claim. The dark-sector timescale ratio is τ/t_H = 6/21 — six faces (AP24) over twenty-one channels (AP28) — the same counting logic as AP28’s hierarchy.

Test. If the timescale ratio that fits the observed dark-sector split, after the formation-history correction, departs from 6/21, the ratio derivation fails.

Status. LIVE — EMPIRICAL.

Recovery. A ratio away from 6/21 that had to be imposed by hand would localise the gap to the face-count or channel-count inputs (AP24, AP28) rather than to the defragmentation mechanism itself.