Revision history

Anchored Causality Theory: A Record-History Ontology for Open Quantum Systems

Status. Version 3.3 of 28 October 2026 carries the same rule into the Conclusion (“never two from one event”), the one line 3.2 missed. Version 3.2 of 28 October 2026 states exclusivity per event wherever the Mark stated it per quantum (one event, one mark; the honest line per detection; the rock run two events, each leaving one mark), after the critic’s review of 3.1, and cites Paper I at 2.5 and Paper II at 1.8. Version 3.1 of 27 October 2026 names the two kinds of run at the Mark (the first event at the rock or at the screen; the band the anchored fraction, the fringes the surviving one) and states the Mark’s failure condition as a released record. It keeps the content of version 3.0, the paper written for a reader, and standing on its own: a 250-word abstract; every section rewritten to open from the thing everyone has seen, say one thing a sentence, and gloss every coined term where it first appears; and the proofs it rests on in its own Appendices A–D (the Born weights; records, release and exclusivity; the event law; the selection theorem), so that the two technical papers are cited only as further work. Every citation, number, qualifier, equation and table of version 2.10 is kept. It keeps the content of version 2.10, which poses Schrödinger’s cat as the physical question, whether its fate waits for someone to look, and answers it with the bath’s record, in §1 and the Conclusion. It keeps the rest of version 2.9, which adds Occam’s razor to §9: Table 4 counts what each account adds to the Schrödinger equation and the measured bath, and what the addition costs, and among the accounts in which an outcome is a fact apart from any agent or system the count comes down to one comparison, one outcome for each run, the one the run shows, against that outcome and every other besides, the others in worlds no run can reach; the Conclusion offers what ACT adds to the razor. It keeps the rest of version 2.8, which states ACT’s case without concessions that are framing rather than content: the label “corroborated, not singled out” leaves §6, whose closing paragraph is now “What the laboratory has settled”; “the cost”, “the price”, “no safer”, “conceded” and “unearned” go, and §8.4 says the Brown–Wallace objection applies to ACT no less than to Bohm, with the answer a commitment, defended, not derived; each limit is stated once, where it belongs, and the open problems are introduced as places where the law is not yet written in full. It keeps the rest of version 2.7, which says what sets ACT apart from the other accounts that keep quantum mechanics unmodified: not a different prediction but the account it gives. Its abstract states the one result the experiments decide outright — with the erasers, they rule out each earlier place tested for an event of ACT’s kind; release is the earliest the data allow — names the electron a stable wave-mode structure of the field, and fits on its first page. It keeps the rest of version 2.6, which puts the explanatory synthesis first: its abstract opens with the causal sequence, the composite field first, gives the four mysteries as its consequences, and ends on “one causal history of composite field, bath and mark”; §1 carries the map. It keeps the rest of version 2.5, which puts the big picture first: the abstract and §1 say that the electron is never a particle, and that the main accounts keep a particle somewhere or keep every outcome, while ACT does neither; §9 sets Many Worlds out as the opposite and the field-only views of Hobson and Zeh as parting from ACT at the detector; §8.4 answers the Brown–Wallace objection on ACT’s own ground; the Conclusion answers which slit, the cat, the later choice and the copies of the observer; one commitment throughout. It keeps the rest of version 2.4, the text that three adversarial referee rounds converged on, after a final pass for clarity, now with the Born weights forced rather than carried over — by the ontology together with two stated requirements on the chance of a record, no signalling for every division of the world into here and elsewhere and continuity, with the premises and steps in a new Appendix A; an independent referee audit of the argument preceded the change — and with a fourth referee round, on version 1.2, applied: the comparison with Bohmian mechanics corrected (Valentini’s result gives Bohm a no-signalling route of its own, acting on a distribution over its added variables where ACT’s acts on the chance of a record), the mixture identity restricted to a common decay factor, the no-signalling and refinement premises of Appendix A argued rather than stated, and the stopping-time formulation of release named as open — and, in §3.1, the two senses of “real” that the unselected alternatives have and lack, stated once; and, in §1, one sentence corrected after the referee’s reading of version 1.4: the Born-weighted average of the conditioned state returns the unconditioned evolution of the open system, the master equation, not the state of the whole, which is never conditioned; and, in Appendix A, the premise accounting made exact after the independent audit of the proof in full now in Paper II (three premises restate commitments already made, one extends the Bell commitment to every division, one is an assumption about the record architecture, one is new); and, in §9, the relation to the other interpretations made short and sharp after the author and his critic reviewed version 1.7 — opening on the sentence that states the departure, other interpretations ask how a superposed quantum state yields a definite result; ACT begins with a real wave and asks how the environment produces a definite event, now also in §1 and the Conclusion — with the detailed comparison of version 1.7 (two tables and the paragraphs on each account) first moved to an Appendix B and then, by the author’s ruling on his critic’s editorial review, removed; and, as version 2.0, that editorial revision itself: the abstract rewritten in plain prose at about 290 words with every standing qualifier kept, §1, §3, §4, §5, §6 and §8 trimmed of repetition with every qualifier, citation and number kept and an independent audit of the diff applied, the hundred-experiment count moved from the abstract to §6 as a count of the catalogue, and the central sentence of §9 kept in §1 and the Conclusion; then, as version 2.1, the critic’s three precision changes (the theorem and the commitment told apart in the abstract; every Born assumption named; “no event has yet been anchored” for “nothing has happened”); and, as version 2.2, the first whole-paper adversarial referee report applied — the accessible future in one reading throughout, the gate on the hazard restated with the survival law, what an event rule of ACT’s kind withdraws stated exactly, release adapted to the actual history where an intervention is set by an anchored outcome, the Born critics answered on covariance, the Local Friendliness sentence without “a cell of its own,” and Yin et al. 2013 removed from a claim it did not support; and, as version 2.3, alignment with Paper II version 1.3 — the spin-echo clause leaves the table of event placements, since a dephasing an echo undoes is a control and not an exclusion, the table lists the reversal experiments the text cites, the contrast with Bohm names the difference (the whole wave keeps guiding the configuration, so the unselected alternatives keep entering the actual history), and the sentence on how Paper II’s numbers are verified, with the scripts’ Zenodo record, made exact; and, as version 2.4, the four experiments made plain in the abstract and in Section 6, the argument about where an event can sit given its own heading after them, the abstract’s undefined terms glossed, Section 2 opened on the double slit as it is usually told, and the abstract and the Conclusion ending on what the laboratory establishes and what ACT explains — posted for reading. What remains before journal submission is mechanical — the author’s final read, the DOI pass on the references new to this paper, and the deposit of Papers I and II with DOIs so that every theorem cited here can be fetched. The 8 October versions rewrite the abstract in plain prose, add the count of experiments behind the four thought experiments, open §1 by naming wave–particle duality and three of its puzzles, carry the same plain register through the body, and (version 0.8) answer a second adversarial referee pass: the bath’s record before an event is said to tell the alternatives apart, never to say which one holds; the event rules the experiments rule out are stated as rules of ACT’s kind, with Bohm named as the kind they do not test; §7 says exactly what fixes the accessible future and answers the mirror-installed-tomorrow case; and the no-threshold claim is stated with its finite-system idealization. No commitment about what exists changed; the standing of the weights did, and the Claim Ledger and Objection 4 carry it. It is the statement of the theory this site is built from, in the order a reader needs: every sentence of it is carried on a page of this site or in Papers I and II, and the Claim Ledger governs where they differ. Three positions appear in a paper for the first time: the reply on Wigner’s friend (Objection 10) and the answer to “is ACT retrocausal?” (Objection 7), both already on this site, and the forced Born weights (Objection 4), which reach the site with this version. Read first: §1 for the ontology, §2 for the Rock, §5 for what is postulated, §8 for Bell and Wigner’s friend.

From Matter Waves to Anchored Events

Status. The posted copy is version 2.5 of 28 October 2026, version 2.4 with exclusivity stated per event in its laboratory section and the honest line per detection in its Many Worlds passage, with the flagship 3.2, and Paper II cited at 1.8. Version 2.4 of 17 October 2026 is version 2.3 with Occam’s razor in brief in §6, after the answer to Brown and Wallace, the full count in the flagship. Version 2.3 is version 2.2 stated without concession framing: the Brown–Wallace objection applies here no less than to Bohmian mechanics, and the answer is a commitment, defended, not derived; the closing evidence paragraph leads with what the experiments settle. Version 2.2 is version 2.1 with the big picture put first: its abstract and introduction open with what ACT says, Many Worlds is set out as the opposite, the novelty list opens on the root, and Bohm appears only as a contrast; attached at release, the one postulate changes no prediction. It carries the Born weights as forced in general, by the six stated premises of Paper II’s Appendix A, with its own Proposition 2 as the check in the exactly solvable model; the Bell position in Jarrett’s terms, with parameter independence a commitment placed on the law of chance; the two senses of “real”; and the laboratory’s exclusions scoped to event rules of ACT’s kind. It states the count the way this site does: an exclusive outcome register and one actual record history, the first a theorem in the record-algebra class of Paper II and the event-law identification its nondemolition corollary, so that one primitive commitment remains (§14). It carries the Bell position of 3 October (§14; The Picture), the detector/observer effect as the bath’s effect (§5; the Rock), the event ontologies it joins (§6), and the laboratory’s placement of the event (§15). Nothing in its theorems, models or numbers changed from the August text. Read first: §5 for what a detector is, §§9–10 for the event law, §12 for selection, §14 for the postulate ledger.

Record. The verification scripts for Paper I are deposited at Zenodo: doi:10.5281/zenodo.21844369 (v1, 7 August 2026, MIT License).

Released Records

Status. Version 1.8 of 28 October 2026 states exclusivity per event in its laboratory section, says the slab run holds two events, each leaving one mark, and cites Paper I at 2.5, with the flagship 3.2. Version 1.7 of 28 October 2026 opens the fourth family of its laboratory section on the Mark’s single marks, fringes with no record of the path and a plain band when a lossy slab keeps one, and reads the two patterns as two kinds of run, mirroring the flagship 3.1; Tonomura et al. 1989 enters its bibliography; no theorem, proof or check changed. Version 1.6 of 17 October 2026 is version 1.5 citing Paper I at 2.4; nothing else changed. Version 1.5 is version 1.4 stated without concession framing: the contribution relative to eventum mechanics is four points, the detector fixes the selection, and the Conclusion closes on what fixes the readout and on the problem that comes next; no theorem, proof or check changed. Version 1.4 is version 1.3 with the big picture put first: its abstract opens with what ACT says, the bath is named as what writes the record, the readout is fixed by the detector physically present and not by an observer, and Bohm appears only as a contrast; no theorem, proof or check changed. Version 1.3 of 15 October 2026, the companion to Paper I, with the Born weights as a theorem under six stated premises (Appendix A, since version 1.2) and, new in this version, a proposition that the event law’s records carry no particle labels, so identical particles need nothing added, worked through for the exchange hole in two-event statistics and for helium (the end of §5); an independent audit read each addition before posting. Version 1.3 also follows the flagship v2.2: an earlier placement of an event changes what the actual history predicts, the global wave untouched. Every numerical claim carries a check into the five verification scripts, eighty-nine checks in all, deposited with Paper I’s at Zenodo (doi:10.5281/zenodo.21844368, all versions). Read first: §1 for the thesis and the delta, §4 for release and its corollary, §6 for the laboratory, the end of §5 for identical particles; the record algebra, release and the entangled-record statistics are set out on the Mathematics page, Part III.

Superseded notes

Two dated working notes remain posted, each headed by a reading note that says what the papers now carry and what has changed: The Multilevel Event Law and Which Unraveling Is Record-Supported? (both July 2026). Where a note and a paper differ, the paper governs; where either differs from the Claim Ledger, the ledger governs.

Archived. Two earlier notes are no longer posted: The Event Law: The Instrument Formulation (July 2026), superseded by Paper I §§9–10 and the general law of Paper II, and Why This Unraveling? (June 2026), the first statement of the selection question, superseded by the dilation note and by release. The earlier manuscripts (versions 1–4, June–August 2026) are not posted. The archived notes are available on request: ksondere@gmail.com.

anchoredcausality.org, release by release

Each release is a build of the whole site from one source; the build id is in the footer of every page. The flagship PDF keeps one file name across versions, so every link to it stays good.

• v5.40 — 28 October 2026. The flagship at version 3.3, after the critic’s second review of the day: its Conclusion still said the laboratory has seen marks “never two from one quantum”, the one per-quantum line the 3.2 pass missed; it now says “never two from one event”. Every surface was searched again for every form of the phrasing; none remains outside these histories. No page text changed.
• v5.39 — 28 October 2026. One event, one mark, after the critic’s review of v5.38, which Kelly adopted: the Mark said “no quantum leaves two” beside the two kinds of run, in which the rock run holds two events, the path and then the dot, and the two read as different claims. Exclusivity is per event, as the flagship’s abstract already said. Every surface now says “no event leaves two” or “one event, one mark”; the honest line reads “every detection is one mark”, since the rock run leaves two; the failure condition “one event had ever left two marks”; and the two-kinds paragraph says the rock run holds two events in one history, each leaving one mark. The home page gives the alternatives their example: the two lobes of the wave behind two slits, while the field passes through both. The same wording enters the flagship as version 3.2, Paper I as 2.5 and Paper II as 1.8; the dates of the build and the Claim Ledger agree. Counts, theorems and predictions unchanged.
• v5.38 — 27 October 2026. Two kinds of run, after Kelly’s question of 26 October: do we explain the difference between a mark decohered before detection and one that is not? The Mark’s picture now says why the record changes how the marks add up: it changes when the first event of the run happens, at the rock or at the screen. A new paragraph under the Mark names the two runs (with no rock the dot is the first event; with the rock the path is anchored there and the dot is the second), reads a weakly recording rock as a mixture whose contrast is the surviving fraction, and separates a released record from one that is held but can still come back, which decoheres the reduced state and anchors nothing. The Mark’s “could have failed” is stated as a released record, since in the erasers a path record was kept and the sorted marks built fringes; the Rock reads each run as anchored at the slab or not yet; the Mechanism ties its stopped process to the two patterns. The same sentences enter the flagship as version 3.1 and, on 28 October, Paper II as version 1.7; the Mark’s plate label now says that with the rock the path is anchored first. Counts, theorems and predictions unchanged.
• v5.37 — 19 October 2026. The flagship written for a reader, and standing on its own, after Kelly’s review of version 2.10 with his critic. Version 3.0 is the paper rewritten from the first sentence: a 250-word abstract in the words he tightened, every section opening from the thing everyone has seen and saying one thing a sentence, every coined term glossed where it first appears, and the proofs it rests on in four appendices of its own, so that the two technical papers are cited only as further work. Every citation, number, qualifier, equation and table of 2.10 is kept, checked by an independent audit and a cold read before release. The Papers page carries the new abstract; the phrase “each told as a thought experiment and each performed” becomes “four thought experiments, each performed in the laboratory” wherever the site uses it. No theorem, number or prediction changed.
• v5.36 — 18 October 2026. Schrödinger’s cat as the physical question, after the critic’s review of the flagship 2.9, which Kelly adopted. The cat is never described as alive and dead, even to deny it: the question is whether its fate waits for someone to look, and the answer is the bath’s record. The flagship at version 2.10 says so in §1 and the Conclusion; The Picture, the Evidence page and Lecture 1 ask the same question, and Lecture 7’s slide on the cat resolves it the same way. The footer carries the release date, which on v5.35 still read 16 October. No theorem, number or prediction changed.
• v5.35 — 17 October 2026. Occam’s razor, the count. Every account in the count but the collapse models reproduces the statistics of quantum mechanics exactly; the collapse models depart from them, and survive only where the radiation searches have left their constants open. Where the experiments cannot choose, the razor decides: what each account adds to the Schrödinger equation and the measured bath, and what the addition costs, ACT’s row carrying its whole ledger. The Picture’s “What ACT is not” gains the count as a table; a new Objection 11, “Isn’t Many Worlds simpler?”, gives the answer: both keep the whole wave, the difference is what a component holds, and among the accounts in which an outcome is a fact apart from any agent or system, ACT asserts one outcome for each run, the one the run shows, where Many Worlds asserts that outcome and every other besides, the others in worlds no run can reach; Lecture 9 gains the slide “Occam’s Razor: What Each Account Adds”, with the comparison slide before it aligned. The flagship at version 2.9 carries the count in §9 as Table 4, and its Conclusion offers what ACT adds to the razor; Paper I at 2.4 carries the comparison in brief; Paper II at 1.6 cites it. No theorem, number or prediction changed.
• v5.34 — 16 October 2026. Confident and exact, with the flagship at version 2.8, Paper I at 2.3 and Paper II at 1.5: ACT’s case is stated without concessions that are framing rather than content. The label “corroborated, not singled out” leaves the papers and the Evidence page, where a precise sentence beside it already says the same thing; it stays as the defined term of the Claim Ledger and the Glossary, in Objection 9 and in Lecture 9’s evidence step. “The price”, “the cost”, “no safer”, “ACT says so”, “unearned” and “conceded” go from the papers, the Evidence and Objections pages and the lectures; the Evidence page’s figure “0 single ACT out” becomes “0 conflicts with the mechanism”, and “The sentence ACT can defend” becomes “What the laboratory has settled”. Each limit is still stated once, plainly, where it belongs, and the open problems are introduced as places where the law is not yet written in full, not places where it has failed. No claim, number or count changed.
• v5.33 — 16 October 2026. Distinguished by the account, not by a prediction, with the flagship at version 2.7, after the critic’s second review and Kelly’s answer to it: the evidence and the ontology together are what set ACT apart. The flagship’s abstract, and the Evidence page’s opening with it, now state the one result the experiments decide outright — with the erasers, they rule out each earlier place tested for an event of ACT’s kind; release is the earliest the data allow — and what sets ACT apart from the other accounts that keep quantum mechanics unmodified: not a different prediction but the account it gives. “Corroborated, not singled out” is stated where the evidence is discussed, and no longer in an abstract, an opening or a conclusion; Lecture 9 follows. One phrase for the central ontology: the electron is a stable wave-mode structure of the field. The flagship’s abstract fits on its first page. No claim, number or count changed.
• v5.32 — 16 October 2026. The explanatory synthesis first, after the critic’s review of the flagship and the site, which Kelly adopted the same evening, with the flagship at version 2.6. The home page now opens with the headline, a simple map — composite field, a bath that carries a record, an anchored mark — the sequence in plain words, with the composite field first (the electron a stable, structured wave of the field, never a particle), and the four mysteries as its consequences, stated with confidence; the band of mysteries further down is folded into that opening, and the Original Picture stays the page’s leading section. The Picture carries the map under its headline. The Evidence page states the evidence boundary once — corroborated, not singled out — and ends on the flagship’s new close: an interfering quantum field, a bath that carries records, localized marks, and “one causal history of composite field, bath and mark.” The flagship’s abstract and first page follow the same order. No claim, number or count changed.
• v5.31 — 16 October 2026. The big picture first, and the differences on ACT’s own ground, with the flagship at version 2.5, Paper I at 2.2 and Paper II at 1.4. The front pages now say plainly that the electron is never a particle, that the particle is the mark a bath makes with no observer, and that one history of marks is actual, and a line under the masthead carries the headline on every page that does not already open with it. The Picture opens a section, What ACT is not: the main accounts keep a particle somewhere, at the detector or on a hidden path, or they keep every outcome, each in a world of its own, and ACT does neither; Many Worlds is set out as the opposite of ACT, sharing the equation and a real wave that never collapses but parting at the outcome, with the bath only drawing the borders between its worlds; the field-only views of Hobson and Zeh part ways with ACT at the detector, and ACT takes the third road; and the four mysteries — which slit, the cat, the later choice, the copies of the observer — are set out as what dropping the particle dissolves, on the home page as well. Objection 2 is rebuilt on that ground, with its admissions kept, and Objection 3 opens on the root. The falsifiability concession gives way to the honest line: no experiment decides; every run leaves one mark, as both predict; ACT takes that mark at face value. On the Evidence page and in Lecture 8 what each experiment establishes is kept apart from how ACT reads it, and the four mysteries stand beside the experiments, which fit this reading and do not single it out. One commitment everywhere, in the words of the source, with the exclusivity qualifier where the detail lives; Bohm only as a contrast; the lecture banner reads “Where the wave leaves its mark”; the Claim Ledger and the Mathematics page open on what they establish or describe; all nine lectures and the two notes follow. The canonical texts are in one source file, the forest source, written after the forest audit of the whole site and every paper and corrected after two independent reviews: the second had Many Worlds count every other outcome as a world of its own rather than “add” worlds, made the third road ACT’s own with the event ontologies nearest, set the copies question apart as the one that comes from keeping every outcome, and kept the word “commitment” for the one commitment (parameter independence is the Bell requirement). v5.30, prepared earlier the same day, was never deployed.
• v5.30 — 16 October 2026 (prepared the same day as v5.31 and never deployed). The four experiments made plain, with the flagship at version 2.4. Each now opens with what it shows: the Rock, that a slab nothing reads still kills the fringes, so a bath and not an observer keeps the record, and that for a slab the record follows the dissipation; the Valves, that the bath’s rate can be dialled, with the fake valve named for what it is; the Filter, that an apparatus picks components out of one wave, as a radio picks a station out of the air, and that only a record picks the outcome; the Mark, that the same dots build a wave’s fringes when no record of the path was kept and a plain band when the rock keeps one, as the Mark’s plate now shows. The experiments that fix where an event can sit have their own section after the Mark. The flagship’s abstract says what each of the four shows and glosses the words it used before defining (the network, record channels, released, refined); its Section 2 opens on the double slit as it is usually told, with and without an observer; and the abstract and the Conclusion now end on what the laboratory establishes and what ACT explains — a composite field, a well-characterized bath and a mark; no observer making the cat definite; no later choice reaching back — with the qualifications kept but no longer the last word. The four are now “told as thought experiments” and “each performed” on every surface, where they were “each performed, read as thought experiments”. An independent audit of the change, run before release, corrected the Valves (the trapped-ion experiments’ laser-cooling reservoir is a real valve and their random-field reservoirs the fake one; the cavity’s square law is the theory its data agree with, not a measured scaling) and restored the qualifiers the first draft had dropped. The count of one hundred is unchanged.
• v5.29 — 15 October 2026. The flagship at version 2.3, aligned with Paper II version 1.3. Its table of event placements no longer says that a rule placing the event at decoherence would count a dephasing an echo undoes as an event: the spin echo is a control that shows the no-record limit, not an exclusion, as the paper’s own Valves exhibit already said, and the table now lists the reversal experiments its text cites, so the flagship and Paper II list the same experiments row by row. The contrast with Bohm names the difference: an event rule of ACT’s kind leaves the global wave untouched too, but under Bohm the whole wave keeps guiding the configuration, so the unselected alternatives keep entering the actual history. The Evidence page’s placement table, its source file and Lecture 8 follow: each rule is read as an event rule of ACT’s kind; Hahn’s echo and the classical-noise reservoirs of Myatt et al. 2000 leave the decoherence row, and Kokorowski’s revivals leave the carrier row, since no field returns in that experiment; all three stay in the registry, and the count of one hundred is unchanged.
• v5.28 — 15 October 2026. Paper II at version 1.3. Its event law needs nothing added for identical particles: every coupling that writes a record of electrons is built from the electron field, so the records carry no particle labels (Proposition 5), and a worked case finds the exchange hole in two-event statistics — two electrons of the same spin are never registered at the same place and moment — set against bosons and labelled particles, and, for idealised detectors, the Coulomb hole in helium, whose two electrons have opposite spins. The paper also follows the flagship v2.2 in saying that an earlier placement of an event changes what the actual history predicts, the global wave untouched, and its table of candidate placements follows the flagship’s. Five verification scripts now hold eighty-nine checks. On this site: the Papers page (abstract, PDF, version, citation), a Claim Ledger row, and one sentence on the Mathematics page. The new material was read by an independent audit in two rounds before posting.
• v5.27 — 14 October 2026. Three corrections after a reader’s review of the site. The phrase “four thought experiments, each performed” is retired on every surface — the Evidence lede and its panel, Mechanism, the Papers and Claim Ledger pointers, the lecture list, Lectures 8 and 9, and the source file — for the flagship’s form: four experiments, each performed, read as thought experiments (or, where a label needs the noun first, each performed in the laboratory). The home page names anchoring where it first describes it: when the record has passed beyond coherent recovery, one mark is made — that is anchoring. And the sentence on when Copenhagen, Everett and Bohm met decoherence leaves the Mechanism page, whose section keeps ACT’s own claim, and opens the comparison under Objection 3 in the dated form the source file uses: they fixed their postulates first and were told decades later what decoherence does for them. Nothing was removed; the comparison sentence moved to the page that carries the comparison.
• v5.26 — 14 October 2026. The sitewide reduction pass, at the author’s request after his critic’s review: one responsibility per page. The home page keeps the headline, one short explanation, one route per audience, Plate I, the Original Picture and the simulation; its claims band now opens the Claim Ledger as “Stated plainly,” and its second Start Here is gone. The Mechanism page explains the bath, record formation, release and the event law from beginning to end; the table of when each interpretation met decoherence now sits under Objection 3. On the Evidence page the four thought experiments are the presentation: each registry table opens under its picture, and the record in numbers follows the four. The Mathematics page leads with the formal foundations — states in time, irreversibility, the released-record algebra, the event law, the Born weights — and reads the Lagrangian and the Legendre point afterwards as the pattern. No claim, qualifier, row or derivation was removed.
• v5.25 — 14 October 2026. The Papers page remade as a publication library, at the author’s request after his critic’s review of it: the flagship first, then the two technical papers, each with its abstract, its PDF and one line of version and citation; the working notes, the experimental record, the Claim Ledger and the verification code as a short set of pointers; the citations. The status paragraphs, the “what it contains” summaries and the notes’ archive paragraph left the page; each paper’s version history is kept here, on this new archive page, with the site’s revision history, which has moved out of the footer of every page. No abstract changed. Earlier the same day, v5.24 put the two statements at the head of the Picture page.
• v5.24 — 14 October 2026. The Picture page now opens on the two statements that open the home page and the flagship — “The wave is what exists. The particle is what happens.” and “Other interpretations ask how a superposed quantum state yields a definite result. ACT begins with a real wave and asks how the environment produces a definite event.” — followed by the picture in one line (one real quantum wave; physical interactions that produce irreversible records; one actual causal history) and then “One field, one history” as before. The page that carries the governing document had kept its older head since the headline was written on 5 October; nothing else on the page changed. Its search description leads with the same statements.
• v5.23 — 13 October 2026. The flagship at version 2.2. Version 2.1 made the critic’s three precision changes to 2.0: the abstract says exactly what the theorem is (the alternatives exclude one another) and what the commitment is (one history is actual); the Born sentence names every assumption (one actual history, refinable records, no signalling for every division, continuity) and keeps the verb the proof earns, force; “nothing has happened” becomes “no event has yet been anchored.” Version 2.2 applies the first whole-paper adversarial referee report: the accessible future stated in one reading throughout, the network’s actual dynamics, with Wigner’s friend aligned to it; the gate on the hazard restated (classical dephasing that records nothing opens no gate; a scrambled record is a record still) with the survival law written with the gate; what an event rule of ACT’s kind withdraws stated exactly — the unselected alternatives leave the actual history, the global wave is untouched — and what the recoherence experiments therefore test; release adapted to the actual history where a later intervention is set by an anchored outcome; no retrocausal influence on outcomes or signals, with what a later intervention does settle; the Born critics answered on covariance, stated as premise (i); the Local Friendliness sentence without “a cell of its own”; Yin et al. 2013 removed from the boundary claims it did not support; Shimony 1986 cited for the names. On this site: the home page now leads with both statements; the Evidence page leads with what the four pictures corroborate, the count following; the Mathematics page says the Legendre point is a pattern, offered as a pattern; Yin 2013 corrected on the Evidence page, in its source file and in Lecture 8; Objection 10 aligned. Same file name for the PDF, so every link keeps working.
• v5.22 — 13 October 2026. The flagship at version 2.0: the editorial revision the author and his critic asked for after reading 1.8 — the abstract rewritten at about 290 words from 420, with every standing qualifier kept in plain words (one commitment, with exclusivity a theorem in class and a further commitment beyond it; no free constant; the Born weights forced given one actual history and the two stated requirements; corroborated, not singled out; the covariant criterion for release open); §1, §3, §4, §5, §6 and §8 trimmed of repetition with every qualifier, citation and number kept, checked by an independent audit of the diff in two rounds; the hundred-experiment count moved from the abstract to §6, where it is a count of the catalogue; Appendix B deleted by the author’s ruling, its references re-homed in §9; §9’s central sentence kept in §1 and the Conclusion. 28 pages, from 32. On this site: the Papers page’s abstract and status; Objection 3’s pointer to Appendix B removed. Same file name for the PDF, so every link keeps working.
• v5.21 — 13 October 2026. The flagship at version 1.8: §9 made short and sharp, centred on ACT’s two departures, after the author and his critic reviewed 1.7. It opens on one sentence, now also in §1 and the Conclusion: other interpretations ask how a superposed quantum state yields a definite result; ACT begins with a real wave and asks how the environment produces a definite event. First, the wave is not a superposed particle — a superposition is the structure of one wave, so no further worlds, trajectories or collapse are needed to say what a wave with several lobes is, and one commitment says which lobe is anchored. Second, measurement is a physical process, not an act of observation — the detector couples the system to the bath, the bath keeps a record, and that coupling with the irreversible release of the record is the anchoring. The detailed comparison of 1.7 — both tables and the paragraphs on each account — moves whole into a new Appendix B. On this site: Objection 3 opens on the sentence; Lecture 9’s comparison slide carries it; the Papers page. Same file name for the PDF, so every link keeps working.
• v5.20 — 13 October 2026. The flagship at version 1.7: §9, the comparison with the other interpretations, re-cut on two questions after the author’s reading of 1.6 — what the terms of the sum are and what else is said to exist, and what produces the event — with every account placed on both (the collapse models repair the sum; textbook Copenhagen and QBism take the terms as expectations; Bohm and Everett take the sum as one wave, as ACT does, and differ in what else they say exists; ACT adds no second kind of thing and reads no term as a world, and what it adds is a fact), the accounts divided in three on the second question (keep the act of measurement and give it no physics; remove the act, and with it the event, or supply the event by a new law whose rate is a constant of nature; place the event in a physical irreversibility, where ACT stands with the event ontologies), a compact table of eleven accounts, and an independent adversarial referee pass applied in two rounds before posting; the referee-hardened body of every rival paragraph untouched; one new reference (Di Biagio and Rovelli 2021). On this site: Objection 3 opens with the two questions; Objection 2, Mechanism and Lecture 9 carry one sentence each; the Papers page. Same file name for the PDF, so every link keeps working.
• v5.19 — 9 October 2026. The three papers aligned. Paper II at version 1.2: the Born weights are a theorem under six stated premises, with the proof in full in a new Appendix A (audited independently before posting); the order of justification for no signalling stated (a commitment placed on the law of chance; the instrument’s no-signalling the check); the placement sentences scoped to event rules of ACT’s kind; the two senses of “real”; release as a stopping time listed as open; a third verification script. Paper I at version 2.1: the weights forced in general, with its Proposition 2 as the check in the model; the Bell position in Jarrett’s terms, with parameter independence a commitment; the two senses of “real”; the laboratory’s exclusions scoped. The flagship at version 1.6: the premise accounting of Appendix A made exact, and the appendix now points to Paper II for the proof in full. On this site: the Papers page, the Claim Ledger’s Born row, Objection 4, and the Appendix-A pointers on The Picture, Mechanism, Mathematics and the Glossary. Same file names for the PDFs, so every link keeps working.
• v5.18 — 9 October 2026. The flagship paper at version 1.5: one sentence of §1 corrected after the referee’s reading of version 1.4. The state that jumps is the open system’s state conditioned on the records; averaged with Born weights over the histories that could have occurred, it returns the unconditioned evolution of the open system, the master equation — not the state of the whole, which is never conditioned; the interference between record sectors, which no such average contains, is still there as structure of the one wave. On this site, three “Paper II, in preparation” labels on The Picture and Mathematics now cite the preprint, and the Objection number in the v5.17 line is corrected (the two-senses sentence is in Objection 2). Same file name for the PDF, so every link keeps working.
• v5.17 — 9 October 2026. The flagship paper at version 1.4 (versions 1.2 and 1.3 and their site changes were prepared the same day and folded in before deployment): the Born weights are forced, not carried over — by the ontology together with two stated requirements on the chance of a record (no signalling for every division of the world into here and elsewhere; continuity), by Zurek’s argument in Barnum’s no-signalling form, with the premises and steps in a new Appendix A; an independent referee audit preceded the change. The site follows: the Claim Ledger’s two Born rows and legend, Objection 4, the Mechanism, Picture, Mathematics and Glossary lines, the lecture list, and Lectures 2, 6 (one new slide), 7 and 9. A fourth referee round, on version 1.2, is applied as well: the comparison with Bohmian mechanics corrected (Valentini), the mixture identity restricted to a common decay factor, the no-signalling and refinement premises argued rather than stated, the stopping-time formulation of release named as open. And one paragraph on the two senses of “real” that the unselected alternatives have and lack, in the paper (§3.1), on The Picture, in Objection 2 and in the Glossary; the technical statement of anchoring on The Picture (one record-supported alternative made actual, no component destroyed, the global wave unaltered); and two sentences narrowed to the paper’s own form — the experiments rule out, for event rules of ACT’s kind, each of the three earlier placements that has been tested, not every earlier placement. Same file name for the PDF, so every link keeps working.
• v5.13 — 9 October 2026. The flagship paper at version 1.1: a final pass for clarity after the referee rounds — thirteen sentences straightened, nothing of substance changed. Same file name, so every link keeps working.
• v5.12 — 8 October 2026. The flagship paper at version 1.0, the text three adversarial referee rounds converged on; the label loses “draft.” Two rulings: the Rock’s quote now reads “An ideal superconductor should leave them alone” (a limit statement; the same word on the Evidence page, Lecture 1 and Lecture 8, from the one source file), and the paper’s Wigner’s-friend sentence denies Friendliness in record terms — a friend run coherently has made no released record, and no event is assigned without one — while Objection 10 on this site keeps the stronger statement about anchored thoughts. Same file name, so every link keeps working.
• v5.11 — 8 October 2026. The flagship paper at version 0.9, after the critic’s review of version 0.8 (“minor revision”): the accessible future is now stated as Paper II defines it — generated by the actual dynamics of the network, including every intervention that actually occurs and none merely possible — with the mirror-installed-tomorrow case answered; the “one commitment” sentences of the abstract and conclusion are reconciled with the postulate ledger; and the conclusion’s three eliminated placements are scoped to event rules of ACT’s kind. No commitment changed. Same file name, so every link keeps working.
• v5.10 — 8 October 2026. The flagship paper at version 0.8, after a second adversarial referee pass: the abstract now says a quantum system is one wave with internal structure, and that the bath’s record before an event tells the alternatives apart (it never says which one holds); in the paper, the event rules the experiments exclude are stated as rules of ACT’s kind, §7 says exactly what fixes the accessible future, and the no-threshold claim carries its finite-system idealization. No commitment changed. Same file name, so every link keeps working.
• v5.9 — 8 October 2026. The flagship paper at version 0.7: the plain register of the new abstract carried through the body — a sentence of words on each side of every equation, one idea per sentence, the scope of each claim stated once and then plain sentences inside it. Twenty-four changes, mostly in §4 (the event law) and §7 (the formal backbone); no commitment, citation or number changed. The abstract on this page is as at v5.7. Same file name, so every link keeps working.
• v5.8 — 8 October 2026. The flagship paper at version 0.6: the opening paragraph of §1 now names wave–particle duality and three of the puzzles that follow from it — the cat, a delayed choice that seems to reach back, an erased record that seems to restore interference — as the symptoms of the request the theory refuses. Nothing else in the paper changed; the abstract on this page is as at v5.7. Same file name, so every link keeps working.
• v5.7 — 8 October 2026. The flagship paper at version 0.5: the abstract rewritten in plain prose, and one sentence added giving the experimental record behind the four thought experiments — one hundred experiments from 1922 to 2026, seventy-six of which corroborate them, eleven of which are searches for spontaneous collapse the theory could have failed, none of which conflicts with the mechanism. The body of the paper is unchanged. Same file name, so every link keeps working.
• v5.6 — 7 October 2026. The flagship paper at version 0.3: a clarity pass with no change of content — terms glossed where they first appear, long sentences split, and a plain-words paragraph in §1 on what “the Schrödinger evolution is never modified” means. Same file name, so every link keeps working.
• v5.5 — 6 October 2026. The flagship paper. Anchored Causality Theory: A Record-History Ontology for Open Quantum Systems (version 0.2) is posted as the first paper on the Papers page: the theory stated in full, in the order a reader needs, built from the pages of this site, with Papers I and II as its technical companions. Objection 10 now says that ACT stands in a cell of its own in the Local Friendliness classification, not with the collapse models. The Evidence page, Lecture 8 and the source file say exactly what the eraser and echo experiments refuted. No claim-level content changed otherwise.
• v5.4 — 6 October 2026. The papers. Paper I is posted as version 2.0: the count of what ACT adds stated exactly, the detector/observer effect as the bath’s effect (the Rock), the event ontologies it joins, the laboratory’s placement of the event, and the companion paper named where it generalises a result; no theorem, model or number changed. Paper II is posted for the first time, version 1.1, with its corollary that actuality is empirically idle exactly at release and its reading of the recoherence experiments. The Papers page carries both abstracts and both PDFs.
• v5.3 — 5 October 2026. A clarity pass. The home page opens with a plain-words account and a start-here strip for each reader; mode, hazard, martingale, accessible future and CP-divisible are glossed where they first appear; long sentences are split; the Filter says in one line what a filter does to the components of a wave. Passages repeated between pages are kept in one place: the two commitments on The Picture, the status of each claim in the Claim Ledger. The event-rate sentence is stated in its exact form: the rate is read off the same coupling that draws the decoherence curve, and only in the nondemolition case are the two curves one.
• v5.2 — 5 October 2026. An audit pass for cohesion. The home page is cut to one spine; the Evidence, Mechanism and Papers pages are tightened; the Glossary’s status tags become links to the Claim Ledger, which is now the one place status is kept; two working notes whose results the papers absorbed are archived. The lecture course is rebuilt as nine decks, each technical word glossed at first use, with the Filter, the Valves and the Mark entering Part II and the final lecture ending on what the laboratory could still show. A new page, Objections, answers the ten questions a referee asks first.
• v5.1 — 5 October 2026. The Evidence page is rebuilt around four thought experiments, each of which has been performed — the Rock, the Valves, the Filter and the Mark — with one hundred experiments counted and each one carrying what it corroborates and what it does not establish. Lecture 10 (Lecture 8 since v5.2) follows the same four; the Rock enters Lecture 1; the Mechanism, Glossary, Claim Ledger and home pages cross-reference them.
• v5.0 — 4 October 2026. A new design and a new structure. The site is rebuilt around ACT’s three principles, with separate pages for the picture, the mechanism, the mathematics and the evidence. Decoherence is presented as built into the bath, and the bath is placed at the Legendre point of the mathematics.
• v1–v4 — June–August 2026. Earlier versions, archived.