This work presents a proof interface for the Yang–Mills mass gap outcome, ensuring reproducibility and auditability.
# TitleYang–Mills Mass Gap via OS Windows: a Sealed, Auditable Proof Interface (physics_strict packet, v10.2r) # OverviewThis record releases **v10.2r** of a Yang–Mills mass-gap program organized around an **OS-window proof interface**:a finite, hash-locked *anchor witness* + a mechanically auditable pipeline that outputs a PASS/FAIL verdict underdeclared strict profiles. The central idea is that the reader-facing object is not an informal “numerical evidence” claim, but a **sealedcertificate interface**: a public packet must reproduce (from a fixed inputs ledger) the reports, contracts,and manifest bindings whose checked inequalities trigger the downstream analytic upgrade. # Contents- **Sealed proof-interface packet (ZIP):** `YM_MG_pkt_v10.2_physics_strict_sealed.zip` - includes `README.md`, `docs/`, `scripts/`, `results/`, and manifest bindings.- **Audit outputs inside the packet** - `results/audit_report.json` (overall PASS/FAIL) - `results/verifier2_report.json` (independent recomputation & binding checks) - `results/verifier3_report.json` (rational verification) - `results/verifier4_interval_report.json` (interval/Decimal verification-only path) - `manifest.json`, `manifest_core.json` (hash-locked file ledger) - `results/strict_anchor_contract.json` (binds the anchor witness to `manifest_core_sha256`) # How to verify (from the unzipped packet root)Run:- `bash scripts/final_seal.sh physics_strict` Expected:- `results/audit_report.json` contains `"ok": true`- `scripts/verify_manifest.py` passes for both `manifest.json` and `manifest_core.json` # What is new in v10.2- **Strict profiles are “Clay-facing” by default.** `physics_strict` requires: - `results/external_source_note.json` with `status="REAL"` and non-empty `citations[]` - `results/physics_sanity_report.json` bound into `raw_data.files` - `results/pb_instantiation_report.json` at `instantiation_level="physics_validated"`- **Interval verification is mandatory (verification-only).** `numeric_model.json` enforces `require_interval_for_pass=true`; Verifier4 is **no-warnings** (any mismatch is a FAIL).- **Contract ↔ manifest binding without cycles.** `manifest_core.json` excludes volatile auditor outputs and the contract itself; `results/strict_anchor_contract.json` binds the anchor witness to `manifest_core_sha256`.- **E5-min schema upgrade to v1.4** `scripts/augment_e5_report_intervals.py` inserts interval enclosures (`*_iv`) and decimal midpoints (`*_dec`) for PASS-critical scalars. # Scope & non-toy statusThis record is designed as an **auditable proof interface**.It does not ask reviewers to trust a narrative; it asks them to reproduce a sealed, finite object whosechecked inequalities and bindings are mechanically verified. # KeywordsYang–Mills mass gap; lattice gauge theory; Osterwalder–Schrader axioms; reflection positivity;spectral gap; log-Sobolev inequality; Wilson action; Wilson flow; computational proof;reproducibility; certificate; manifest; audit pipeline # Suggested citation(Provide your preferred author line here), “Yang–Mills Mass Gap via OS Windows: a Sealed, Auditable Proof Interface(physics_strict packet, v10.2)”, Zenodo (2026). YM_MG_v10.2_r3_strict_simulation_note_patched7.pdfb9c8e3f51c2c2d7a6d932f2622d3fd1b5d99a61f1bd03263c2f1efc8e8ff6f6b YM_MG_v10.2_r3_strict_simulation_note_patched7.texa3febd864b4b6d4f9705cdfb4f309f5bf11696ca49719027c4255beba004e50d
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Byoungwoo Lee (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: