Most proposed table-top tests of gravity in the quantum regime use equal-amplitude spatial superpositions and seek either gravitationally induced entanglement or collapse-motivated loss of interference. This paper develops a complementary theory-classification framework in which branch weights are scanned as operational control parameters. A massive source is prepared in a two-branch state\ₚ= pL+1-pR, , more generally, in an \ (m\) -branch state\=₀=₁^mpₐe^iₐa. elementary two-branch second cumulant \ (p (1-p) (q) ²\) is treated as a baseline branch-resolution law, not as a quantum-gravity signature. The main object is an enlarged witness geometry combining mean response, branch-induced covariance and higher cumulants, operational recoverability, and excess-noise or irreversibility coordinates. The \ (m\) -branch extension yields simplex and covariance-rank constraints; the \ (n\) -particle extension distinguishes independent ensembles from collectively entangled branch states by \ (n\) versus \ (n²\) scaling. Recoverability is formulated as a resource-theoretic witness convention: adaptive recovery may use probe instruments and classical feed-forward but may not introduce an independent branch-basis coherence resource; a separate joint-recovery functional captures coherent erasure using accessible source-probe correlations. Worked models illustrate deterministic expectation-value gravity, coherent branch-mediated interaction, effective irreversible branch-basis dephasing, and noisy classical measurement-feedback dynamics. A finite-record, calibrated measurement-feedback bound shows that, within that simulator class, reproducing nontrivial branch-conditioned response requires record distinguishability; the associated record overlaps bound adaptive recovery of source coherence, with response-calibrated corollaries when the feed-forward range is bounded. The resulting framework is not a new microscopic theory of gravity. It is a model-discrimination scheme for locating gravitational response models in a witness space generated by branch-weight, branch-number, and ensemble-size scans.
Jeffrey Satinover (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: