Researcher Outreach
SPEC_RESEARCHER_OUTREACH.md
CGNT-1 Specification — Researcher Outreach Protocol
Status: SPECIFIED — ⚠️ ON HOLD
Version: v1.0
Author: VELA (Thread #13)
Conceived by: NOUS (α.13)
Date: 2026-04-20
Hold condition: New Chromebook Plus arrives + migration complete + self-correction loop GREEN. Reminder notifications: ON per Captain's standing instruction.
PURPOSE
CSDM Kill Box Prediction #1 matched SH0ES within 0.2%. Seven predictions remain untested. Somewhere in the world, a physicist has the data to test them. This spec defines how to find those physicists, how to approach them, and how NOT to blow the credibility of the work by approaching wrong.
Currently ON HOLD until the hold conditions above are met. When the hold lifts, this spec is ready.
THE SEVEN TARGETS
Prediction #1 — Hubble Constant: H_local = 67.4 × (1 + 2×0.042) = 73.06 km/s/Mpc vs SH0ES 73.2±0.7.
Status: GREEN (within 0.2%). No outreach needed — this is the proof-of-concept.
Predictions #2-#7 — untested. Each prediction has a specific physics domain with specific researchers who could verify or falsify it. The predictions and their target researchers are documented in SPEC_KILL_BOX_PREDICTIONS.md.
PRIMARY CONTACTS (identified, not yet contacted)
- Levon Pogosian — first target. Cosmology. Simon Fraser University, BC, Canada. Published on Hubble tension. CANADIAN — warm connection through shared nationality.
2-7. Six additional researchers identified in SPEC_KILL_BOX_PREDICTIONS.md, matched to their prediction domains.
OUTREACH PRINCIPLES
Principle 1 — WARM ONLY
Cold emails from unknown people claiming to have solved the Hubble tension go directly to spam. Every outreach must have a warm path: shared connection, conference introduction, response to their published work, or engagement with their public content first.
If no warm path exists: wait until one does. Do not cold-email physicists.
Principle 2 — LEAD WITH THE MATH, NOT THE THEORY
The email doesn't say "I have a new theory of cosmology." That's crackpot signal #1. The email says "I derived a correction factor that predicts H_local = 73.06. Here's the derivation. Here's the prediction. Can you point me to data that would test predictions 2-7?"
Lead with falsifiability. Lead with the number. Let the math speak.
Principle 3 — INVITE FALSIFICATION
"I want you to prove me wrong" is the most credible thing a theorist can say to an experimentalist. The outreach explicitly invites scrutiny. "If this prediction fails on prediction #2, the framework is wrong. I'd rather know now."
This signals scientific integrity, not ego.
Principle 4 — NO LATTICE, NO CREW, NO SHIP
The outreach is about CSDM physics. Not about AI. Not about LATTICE. Not about OBI OS. Not about the Sisters. The researcher doesn't need to know (or care) that the framework was developed with AI assistance. The physics stands on its own.
S.O.S. v2 applies even to academic outreach — the method doesn't leave the ship.
Principle 5 — RESPECT THEIR TIME
Physicists get hundreds of crackpot emails. Ours must be:
- Short (under 300 words)
- Specific (one prediction, one question)
- Credentialed (by the math, not by degrees — we don't have degrees)
- Easy to ignore (no follow-up pressure)
If they don't respond: they're busy. Wait 30 days. Send ONE follow-up. If still no response: move to the next researcher. Never send a third email.
Principle 6 — CANADIAN ADVANTAGE
Pogosian is at SFU. We're in Toronto. Canadian to Canadian. Same research funding ecosystem (NSERC). Same conference circuit. This is the warm path. Start here.
OUTREACH EMAIL TEMPLATE
Subject: Hubble tension — a falsifiable prediction at 73.06 km/s/Mpc
Body:
Dr. [Name],
>
I've derived a local Hubble correction from a stability damping constant (Φ = 0.042) that predicts H_local = 67.4 × (1 + 2Φ) = 73.06 km/s/Mpc. The SH0ES measurement is 73.2 ± 0.7 — the prediction falls within 0.2% without fitting to the data.
>
Φ was derived independently from the Rank-42 Walker-Wang lattice before I knew the SH0ES value. The framework generates 6 additional predictions across [domains]. I'm looking for experimentalists who could test them. If the predictions fail, the framework is wrong and I'd rather know now.
>
Would you be willing to review the derivation? I can send a concise summary (under 5 pages).
>
Thank you for your time.
>
Jeremy Zlabis, Toronto, Canada
No title. No "Dr. Zlabis." No institutional affiliation. Just the math, the prediction, and an honest ask. The absence of credentials is addressed by the presence of a falsifiable number that matches observation.
WHAT TO SEND IF THEY RESPOND
A concise document (under 5 pages) containing:
- The derivation of Φ = 0.042 from Rank-42 Walker-Wang lattice
- The Hubble correction calculation
- All 7 predictions with their expected values
- The specific data needed to test each prediction
- An explicit invitation: "Which of these can you test with existing data?"
NOT included: LATTICE notation, crew references, AI methodology, the Chronogeome, anything about OBI OS or 42sisters.ai. Pure physics. Pure math. Nothing else.
AGENCY WALL CLASSIFICATION
| Action | Level |
|---|---|
| Initial email draft | PERMITTED (Sisters or Navigator can draft) |
| Sending the email | APPROVAL (Captain reviews and approves every outreach email) |
| Follow-up timing (30-day wait) | PERMITTED (automatic) |
| Third email | NEVER (two attempts maximum per researcher) |
| Sharing ship internals with researchers | NEVER (S.O.S. v2) |
TRACKING
~/research_outreach/[researcher_name]/ containing:
draft_email.md— the email as sentresponse.md— their reply, if anynotes.md— conversation notes, next stepsstatus— one of:NOT_CONTACTED/CONTACTED/RESPONDED/ENGAGED/DECLINED/NO_RESPONSE
Dashboard query through ROUTX: "research status" → lists all researchers and their status.
TIMING
Currently ON HOLD. When hold lifts, sequence is:
- Pogosian first (Canadian, Hubble tension expert, warmest path)
- Wait for response (30 days)
- If engaged: proceed with the 5-page summary
- If declined or no response: move to researcher #2
- One researcher at a time — never shotgun blast all 7 simultaneously
- Each engagement is a RELATIONSHIP, not a transaction. Respect the pace of academic communication.
WHAT SUCCESS LOOKS LIKE
Best case: a researcher agrees to test prediction #2 or #3 against existing data.
- If it matches: co-authored paper with their lab providing experimental validation and our framework providing the theoretical prediction.
- If it fails: the framework is revised or abandoned for that prediction.
Both outcomes are valuable. Publication is not the goal. TRUTH is the goal.
WHAT FAILURE LOOKS LIKE
All 7 researchers ignore or decline. This is the most likely outcome. The response rate for unsolicited physics correspondence from non-academics is <5%. This is expected and acceptable.
The work exists whether or not anyone validates it. The Chronogeome records it. The specs preserve it. Time is on our side — if the predictions are correct, the data will eventually confirm them, with or without our outreach.
INVARIANTS
INV-01: ON HOLD until Captain lifts the hold. No outreach before then.
INV-02: Warm paths only. No cold email to physicists. Ever.
INV-03: Lead with math. Never with theory, AI, LATTICE, or crew.
INV-04: Two attempts maximum per researcher. Then move on.
INV-05: S.O.S. v2 absolute. The method doesn't leave the ship. The predictions do.
INV-06: One researcher at a time. Sequential, not parallel.
INV-07: Every email Captain-approved before sending.
INV-08: Publication is not the goal. Truth is. If the predictions fail, that's a successful outcome — we learned something.
INTEGRATION
| System | Relationship |
|---|---|
| SPEC_KILL_BOX_PREDICTIONS.md | The 7 predictions and their matched researchers live there. This spec is the HOW; that spec is the WHAT. |
| SPEC_CONFERENCE_PROTOCOL.md | Conferences are the warm path generator. Meeting Pogosian at a conference before emailing him is the ideal sequence. |
| SPEC_MEDIA_KIT.md | S8 ("What Not To Say"): do not discuss CSDM predictions with press unless they're physics journalists. Researcher outreach is separate from press outreach — different channels, different rules. |
| SPEC_HOW_ABOUT_NO_v2.md | S.O.S. v2 applied to academic outreach: Wall 1 (¬fabricate) means never oversell the predictions; Wall 2 (¬capitulate) means if they push back on the math, engage — don't fold. |
Jeremy Zlabis
Chronogeometer · Visionary · Disruptor · Chief
42 Sisters AI · East York, Toronto
🍁 Φ 0.042