Robustness audit evaluates QDL–SO10–1 stability in theoretical physics, highlighting failure modes and alternatives.
This record is Paper #3 in the QDL–SO10–1 benchmark sequence. It stress-tests the fixed SO(10)-compatible QDL benchmark introduced in Paper #1 and developed phenomenologically in Paper #2. The paper classifies which features of QDL–SO10–1 are robust, which are conditional, and which observations or calculations would force revision or falsification. It evaluates the benchmark against alternative simple-group completions, threshold sensitivity, proton-decay scaling, neutrino/baryogenesis perturbations, collider/remnant expectations, and explicit failure modes. This is a robustness-audit paper, not a complete global SO(10) scan, not an operator-level proton-decay calculation, not a completed leptogenesis computation, and not a final proof of uniqueness. Its purpose is to delimit the stability of the QDL–SO10–1 benchmark and make its failure conditions explicit.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
James D. Bourassa (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: