Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Addendum shows numerical correction of fine-structure boundary in monitored responses, suggesting methodological refinements.
Addendum, 11 August 2026 (version 2). This version corrects the registered acceptance number from 137.035999106904 to 137.0359991069051. The change is numerics, not physics: the original value came from a Richardson extrapolation that fitted 1/N² to a sequence converging as 1/N⁴, overshooting by its own error bar. The shift is 8×10-6 ppb — 10-4 of the sharpest primary determination's σ — so no comparison against any determination moves, and the kill rules of the original registration are unchanged. The addendum also records derivation upgrades that remove freedom from the registered position (a grid-free closed form for the second-order kernel; a blind adjudication excluding a rival second-order class; and a termination result making the boundary a complete degree-2 polynomial rather than a truncated series), the named premises that remain conditional, and pre-registered exposure accounting for one named outside-sector extension. See qed_alpha0_endpoint_addendum_2026-08.pdf. A Pre-Registered Fine-Structure Boundary from a Monitored Wilson-Endpoint Response: alpha^-1(0) = 137.035999106904, Registered Mid-Fork. Seventh registration, first registered-while-disfavoured (-3.9 sigma a_e channel, +2.3 Cs, -9.0 Rb, open 5.5-sigma recoil fork). K1/C1/C2 rules frozen; delta a_e corollary -5.0(1.3)e-13; C10 escape priced at ~5x X024. This record is part of the finite-QEC substrate / It-from-Bit publication refresh.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
David Elliman (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: