T76 establishes a controlled-invariance framework for distinguishing candidate Q5 interferometric signals from ordinary experimental systematics. The theorem begins from the observed residual decomposition\[εobs(φ)=∑_s ε_s(φ)+εQ5(φ),\]and corrects the earlier assumption that Q5 signals could be isolated through function-space orthogonality. Since both ordinary systematics and Q5-consistent residuals generically occupy the same first-harmonic subspace\[span\{cosφ,sinφ\},\]Orthogonality in function space is not an operational discriminator. T76 replaces this with a behavioural criterion based on invariance under controlled experimental transformations. The theorem defines a five-part Q5-consistency protocol. A valid candidate signal must exhibit: first-harmonic confinement, coefficient stability under repeated scans, absence of systematic tracking with controllable nuisance parameters, compliance with the \( Z_4\) phase-cycling rotation law\[vₖ₊₁=Jv_k,\]and persistence after calibration subtraction. Among these conditions, the phase-cycling rotation law inherited from T73 is identified as the strongest discriminator because it tests the specific quarter-turn transport structure predicted by the Q5 framework rather than merely the presence of a harmonic residual. The theorem, therefore, shifts the experimental logic from amplitude fitting to transformation-law verification. T76 is structurally important because it completes the experimental falsification arc initiated in T72-T75. Earlier theorems established the signal form, structural discriminator, statistical detectability threshold, and predicted magnitude scale. T76 adds the final layer: a concrete nuisance-rejection protocol capable of separating Q5-consistent behaviour from conventional interferometric artifacts. The theorem does not claim that unknown systematics cannot mimic the full five-criterion structure, nor does it claim that any existing experiment has observed a Q5 signal. It establishes only the operational framework required for a credible detection claim. Status: solid for the controlled-invariance framework and for the identification of behavioural invariance as the correct replacement for function-space orthogonality; solid for the formulation of the five experimental consistency criteria; conditional on the practical ability to test the \( Z_4\) phase-cycling law and nuisance-parameter independence at sufficient precision; not a claim of positive Q5 detection or uniqueness against all conceivable unknown systematics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Craig Edwin Holdway (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: