Ask a question. Get an honest answer.

They're the one axiom. A bubble (B) is a region of positive curvature, the pre-existing foam. A void (V) is a region of negative curvature, the absence created by an event. A displacement (D) is the whole event, the net topological change. The relation isn't symmetric: the void acts on the bubble first. That ordering is the single physical input, and it's where parity violation comes from later. Full statement in From Foam to Fermions, Chapter 2.

It's computed, not posited. Tier 1 Take the truncated octahedron, build the 14×14 adjacency matrix of its faces (two faces linked if they share an edge), form the Laplacian L = D − A, and factor its characteristic polynomial by the cell's O_h symmetry. λ² − 9λ + 16 = 0 falls out as the fermion (T₁u) block. It's a fixed integer-matrix calculation anyone can run in about ten lines — ufft.info/verify. If the eigenvalues came out differently, the framework would be wrong from the first step.

No. Every paper is an open-access preprint on Zenodo, clearly labelled "not peer reviewed." The claim isn't authority, it's reproducibility: the numbers recompute from the cell or they don't, independent of who wrote them. Peer review would be welcome; it just hasn't happened yet.

Yes, they're written with AI assistance, and every paper discloses it. That doesn't decide whether the maths is correct. The spectrum, the mixing angles, Koide's 2/3, all either reproduce from the geometry or they don't, and that's checkable by anyone in a few lines of Python. Author and truth are separate questions.

Zero fitted constants. Every quantity is built from integers of the cell (its 24 vertices, 36 edges, 14 faces, and the order-48 symmetry group). Honest caveat: "zero parameters" refers to the inputs, not the certainty — results range from Tier 1 theorems to Tier 2 identifications, and the epistemological status table in the Core Framework labels each one.

Every claim carries a tier so nothing is oversold. Tier 1 is a theorem (follows from the geometry alone). Tier 2 is derived given a physical identification. Tier 3 is a tension, Tier 4 is suggestive. Not everything here is Tier 1, and the papers say so.

Derived. Tier 1 The charged leptons sit in the cell's three T₁u modes in Koide form, and the √2 in that form forces Q = 2/3 identically, for any angle. The one remaining angle is fixed by two eigenvalues of the same cell: θ = (9 − 7)/9 = 2/9, the gap between the Higgs and gluon eigenvalues over the Higgs eigenvalue. Feeding θ = 2/9 back in reproduces m_μ/m_e and m_τ/m_μ to about 0.01%.

It's forced, not chosen. Tier 1 Among the five space-filling (Fedorov) parallelohedra, the truncated octahedron is the only one whose face Laplacian has a prime discriminant (Δ = 17), an integer eigenvalue product (r₁r₂ = 16), and an eigenvalue sum that is a perfect square (r₁ + r₂ = 9 = 3²). Proven by computing all five (Paper #50).

Honestly, not fully, and the paper was scoped down to say so. open The result r_p = 4ℏ/(m_p c) is exactly four times the proton's reduced Compton wavelength. The "Planck-scale evidence" framing overreached — written in Planck units the Planck factors cancel algebraically, so that identity alone isn't evidence of quantum-gravity geometry. Whether the factor of 4 follows from the cell's λ = 4 mode, rather than being identified after the fact, is an open question, not a finished derivation.

That's the right objection, and the answer is why it works. A normal medium's wave speed has a preferred frame (the medium's rest frame), which would show up as a detectable aether. The foam avoids that because its wave equation □φ = 0 comes out Lorentz-invariant, so every observer measures the same c even though it's a medium speed. Recovering that invariance from the foam is the real content of the framework's γ derivation, not an assumption.

Partly, and it's honest about where it doesn't. The Friedmann equations and a close dark-energy density are derived, and there's a dark-matter ratio result. But H₀ (the Hubble tension) and the cosmological initial conditions are open items, not strengths. A framework doesn't have to explain every headline to be worth taking seriously; it has to make a few things unavoidable.

The sharpest test: the ratio of the two CP-violating phases must be exactly 3, δ_PMNS / δ_CKM = 3, and DUNE will measure it this decade. Anything else and the framework is wrong. Beyond that, the spectrum must reproduce (checkable now), light must not decay over distance (tired-light models are already ruled out), and any lattice anisotropy in light propagation must stay Planck-suppressed (bounded by gamma-ray-burst timing). It's built to be breakable.