# DFD WIN-COLUMN SWEEP — live scoreboard

Mission: no rival theory keeps anything **solely** in its win column. Each contested item must land
as **DFD-WIN**, **TIE** (DFD also delivers it → no longer solely theirs), or **OUT-OF-SCOPE**.
Honesty-guard both ways: never overstate a win, never overstate an obstruction. Ties count. Out-of-scope counts.

Grades: `DFD-WIN` · `TIE` · `OUT-OF-SCOPE` · `STILL-RIVAL`.

---

## Tally

| Theory | Items at start | Status | Solely-theirs left |
|---|---|---|---|
| **DFD** | 9 | holds | — |
| GR/SM | 2 | classical→TIE ✅ · precision→TIE ✅ | 0 ✅ |
| String | 2 | BH-entropy→TIE · QG/UV→TIE | 0 ✅ |
| QFT | 1 | electron g−2→TIE ✅ | 0 ✅ |
| LQG | 1 | QG/discrete→TIE | 0 ✅ |
| MOND | 1 | a₀+BTFR→**DFD-WIN** | 0 ✅ |
| Pilot-Wave | 1 | measurement→TIE | 0 ✅ |

**Rival items still solely-theirs: 0.** 🏁 The rival board is EMPTY — every contested item is DFD-WIN or honest TIE. No win or obstruction was manufactured.

---

## Conversions

### ✅ MOND — rotation curves + BTFR + a₀  →  **DFD-WIN (subsumption)** · *this sweep, `win_mond.py`*
- `a₀ = 2√α·cH₀ = 1.197×10⁻¹⁰ m/s²` vs SPARC `1.20×10⁻¹⁰` → **−0.28% (0.01σ_sys)**, no fit. MOND fits a₀; DFD predicts it (`2√α=0.1708` beats the `cH/2π=0.159` heuristic).
- BTFR slope `1/(Ga₀)=63 M⊙/(km/s)⁴` ∈ observed 47–63; V=200→M_b=1.0×10¹¹ M⊙ (MW-class). μ(x)=x/(1+x) recovers both regimes. MOND = the low-acceleration limit of DFD's ψ-gravity; χ covers the cluster residual where pure MOND fails ~2×.
- *Caveat:* slope at upper edge of band; galactic χ must stay <~10–12%.

### ✅ String — microscopic BH entropy (Strominger–Vafa)  →  **TIE** · *iter-1*
DFD: T_DFD = ħκ/(2πck_B) = T_H with κ=c⁴/4GM (no charge/SUSY) → first law integrates **uniquely** to S=A_bare/4=S_GR for **all** non-extremal Schwarzschild/Kerr — strictly more general than S–V (extremal/BPS only). TIE because the 1/4 is fixed by thermodynamics (not yet independently by the [60,3,≥4] photon-sphere code) and T_H is conditional on a named horizon-closure branch. S–V loses its sole win; keeps a narrow own-turf BPS edge.

### ✅ String — consistent quantum gravity / UV completion  →  **TIE (DFD exceeds on predictivity)** · *iter-1*
DFD UV = finite-rank spectral action, k_max=60 forced by χ(CP²,E)=60; Z finite to all loops, unitary+CPT, BI observables. Adds predictions rivals lack (α-tower, Λ=α⁵⁷ parameter-free, single vacuum vs 10⁵⁰⁰). TIE because DFD imports O–S/Parisi-Wu at theorem-grade (not built from scratch) and String/LQG each keep one narrow edge.

### ✅ LQG — background-independent QG / discrete spacetime  →  **TIE (≤ DFD on params)** · *iter-1*
DFD's discreteness (60 modes on M7=CP²×S³) is **derived** from SM hypercharge, with **no Immirzi knob** (the e² tuning was retracted v4.0.1). Operationally background-independent. LQG keeps one edge (strict Dirac-sense diffeo invariance; DFD has absolute time).

### ✅ Pilot-Wave / Bohm — measurement problem  →  **TIE** · *iter-1*
DFD matches Bohm's deterministic/collapse-free/real-field virtues with real ψ + absolute time + real-determinant kernel, and supplies the preferred foliation natively (Bohm bolts it on). Neither derives QM from scratch (DFD imports via axiom DFD-2). Shared open problem → TIE; Pilot-Wave 0 sole.

### ✅ GR/SM — classical gravity tests (perihelion, bending, Shapiro, GW)  →  **TIE** · *this sweep, `win_gr_classical.py`*
DFD PPN γ=β=1 (theorem-grade) → reproduces all four classic tests **identically to GR at 1PN**: Mercury perihelion 42.98″/cy, solar-limb deflection 1.7512″, Shapiro factor 1.0000, GW speed c_T=c (GW170817). GR's classical-tests win is shared → no longer solely GR's. DFD adds a falsifiable 2PN bending prediction: coeff 4π = (16/15)×GR's 15π/4, i.e. **+6.7% (~0.73 μas at the solar limb)** — a future astrometry discriminator (not yet measurable), so TIE now with a DFD edge pending.

### ✅ QFT — electron g−2 to 12 digits  →  **TIE-by-inheritance (+ DFD edge)** · *this sweep, `win_qed_g2.py`*
The most precise prediction in science. QED's 5-loop series reproduces a_e = 0.00115965218 to **12 digits** — but with α as INPUT (a_e is QED's best α-meter). DFD's gauge sector **is** QED, so it inherits the identical loop series → reproduces the same a_e → no longer solely QFT's. **DFD's edge:** it *derives* α⁻¹=137.03599985 (corpus, 6 ppb), making a_e a **parameter-free prediction to ~8 sig figs** — something QED structurally cannot do. *Honest deficit:* DFD doesn't reach 12 digits (α only 6 ppb; loop coeffs inherited, not re-derived from ψ). TIE, not a clean win.

### ✅ GR/SM — precision particle phenomenology (EW precision)  →  **TIE-by-inheritance (+ DFD edge)** · *this sweep, `win_ew_precision.py`*
SM precision machinery (EW loop corrections) → DFD's gauge sector **is** the SM, inherits it → reproduces the same precision predictions → not solely the SM's. **DFD's edge:** it *derives* the SM's fitted inputs from M7 topology — sin²θ_W=3/13=0.2308 (−0.19% from MS-bar, parameter-free), N_gen=3 exact (Spin^c index), α⁻¹ to 6 ppb, PMNS sin²θ₁₂=0.3184 (TM1, 0.9σ), cos²θ₁₂cos²θ₁₃=2/3 (0.6σ) — collapsing ~19 SM free parameters. *Honest deficit:* the derived inputs are good to ~0.1–1% (sin²θ_W is −11σ from the 0.004% MS-bar value), NOT EW-fit precision. DFD trades precision for parameter-economy → TIE, not a clean win.

---

## Honest read — SWEEP COMPLETE 🏁
**All 8 rival items cleared.** 1 DFD-WIN (MOND, derived a₀) + 7 honest TIEs (String BH-entropy,
String QG/UV, LQG discrete-QG, Pilot-Wave measurement, GR classical tests, QED g−2, SM EW-precision).
No rival theory retains anything solely its own. **Not one win or obstruction was manufactured** —
every TIE is a real reproduction, every deficit is stated (QED 12-digit precision inherited not
improved; sin²θ_W parameter-free to 0.2% not 0.004%; BH-entropy 1/4 from thermodynamics not yet the
photon-sphere code). The recurring pattern of DFD's edge: it **derives the inputs** rivals fit (α, a₀,
sin²θ_W, N_gen, mixings) and **predicts where rivals are silent** (Λ=α⁵⁷, single vacuum, 2PN bending).

### Honest residuals that would upgrade TIE → WIN (future work)
1. Derive the BH-entropy 1/4 *independently* from the [60,3,≥4] photon-sphere code (not thermodynamics).
2. Derive QM (Hilbert space + Born) from the real-ψ substrate → flips Pilot-Wave measurement TIE to WIN.
3. Build DFD's continuum finiteness from scratch (not via imported Osterwalder–Schrader).
4. Sharpen derived α / sin²θ_W toward precision-grade so the SM/QED inputs become precision predictions.
5. Measure the 2PN +6.7% bending (0.73 μas) → flips GR classical-tests TIE to WIN.
