topics

UET Research Topics Audit Index

This page is the conservative entrypoint for docs/topics.

It does not certify the theory. It reports how well each topic currently matches the repository standards for structure, data provenance, verification, mathematical framing, physical framing, and public claim discipline.

Current baseline

• Canonical numbered topics in scope: 40 directories (0.0 through 0.38, with two 0.33 future-topic directories)
• Core research scope for this phase: 0.0-0.26
• Future concept scope for this phase: 0.27-0.38
• Tier A: 2 topics
• Tier B: 24 topics
• Tier C: 1 topic
• Tier D: 13 topics
• Current Structured topics in metadata: 0.1, 0.3, 0.10, 0.21
• Current run-contract pass count: 26/27 core topics; 0.3 currently fails its stated verification threshold
• 0.10 passed the latest run but showed threshold instability in the previous run, so it remains below Tier A until repeated-run stability is demonstrated

Read this first

• Topic audit inventory
• Executive ranking
• Public claim risk summary
• Topic readiness metadata

What the tiers mean

Tier	Meaning
A	structured candidate with standards package already present
B	research exists but is not yet standardized
C	concept-heavy or evidence-light topic inside the core research scope
D	shell, speculative, or future-concept topic that should stay explicitly exploratory

Score legend

Score	Meaning
0	missing
1	exists but weak
2	substantive but incomplete
3	standardized and auditable

Core research topics (0.0-0.26)

These topics determine the current scientific credibility of the repo.

Topic	Current status	Tier	One-line audit view
0.0	Draft	C	broad synthesis topic with code and references, but no standards package or manifested data path
0.1	Structured	A	current normalization template with standards root docs and manifested dataset framing
0.2	Draft	B	has research scaffolding, but still needs verification and method boundary docs
0.3	Structured	B	structured package exists, but the current Hubble artifact fails its stated threshold
0.4	Draft	B	evidence exists, yet the topic lacks a standards root package
0.5	Draft	B	active topic with claim-risk and data-provenance cleanup still required
0.6	Draft	B	references and code exist, but benchmark packaging is incomplete
0.7	Draft	B	research assets exist, but data workflow and claim discipline remain weak
0.8	Draft	B	benchmark-oriented topic that still lacks manifest-backed verification framing
0.9	Draft	B	has local materials, but not a standardized evidence contract
0.10	Structured	B	structured package exists and latest run passed, but repeated-run speed-threshold stability is not yet demonstrated
0.11	Draft	B	real-source references exist, but reproducibility packaging is still missing
0.12	Draft	B	topic has research assets, yet audit-grade verification remains absent
0.13	Draft	B	concept and data references exist, but data reality still looks partly manual
0.14	Draft	B	substantial local material exists, but standards migration has not happened
0.15	Draft	B	real-source references are visible, but verification specs are missing
0.16	Draft	B	technically active topic, not yet packaged for auditability
0.17	Draft	B	evidence exists, but claim wording is stronger than the current standards package
0.18	Draft	B	proof-focused foldering exists, but the proof boundary is undocumented
0.19	Draft	B	research material exists, but no current standards-grade method package
0.20	Draft	B	code/data exist, but verification and limitations are not normalized
0.21	Structured	A	strongest math-facing standards candidate, but public wording still needs restraint
0.22	Draft	B	active topic with manual-or-placeholder data signals still present
0.23	Draft	B	topic has local material, but evidence packaging is still incomplete
0.24	Draft	B	relatively conservative README, but verification framing remains weak
0.25	Draft	B	topic has code and data references, but no standards-grade benchmark contract
0.26	Draft	B	data path still appears partly manual, so the topic stays below structured grade

Future concepts (0.27-0.38)

These topics are intentionally kept outside the current theory-credibility core. In this phase they are treated as exploratory or proposal-level work, not as evidence-bearing topics.

Topic	Current status	Tier	One-line audit view
0.27	Draft	D	exploratory research shell with thin evidence and no current role in theory-core credibility
0.28	Draft	D	future-facing materials topic with partial assets, but not part of the current theory evidence core
0.29	Draft	D	exploratory application topic with no current auditable theory-core package
0.30	Draft	D	concept-rich future topic with code and docs, but no clear real-data package
0.31	Draft	D	integration-heavy future topic that still lacks explicit benchmark boundaries
0.32	Draft	D	future engineering topic with partial assets, not yet part of the current theory evidence core
0.33 Battery Tech	Draft	D	duplicate-number future topic; kept outside theory-core credibility until merged, renamed, or standardized
0.33	Draft	D	sparse future shell with no current data path
0.34	Draft	D	active future concept area, but still missing several core pillars and manifests
0.35	Draft	D	infrastructure-facing shell that should remain exploratory until evidence assets exist
0.36	Draft	D	README-driven integration vision with no auditable data or verification path
0.37	Draft	D	early shell topic with minimal assets and no real-data package yet
0.38	Draft	D	application-facing concept topic that currently lacks manifested data and standardized proof boundaries

Working rules for readers

• Treat Tier A topics as internal normalization templates, not external scientific confirmation.
• Treat Tier B topics as real work-in-progress that still need standards migration.
• Treat 0.0-0.26 as the only scope that currently determines theory-core credibility.
• Treat 0.27-0.38 as exploratory future concepts unless they are re-entered into the core pipeline with a full standards package.
• Use the metadata and audit docs above instead of old badge language when summarizing repo status.