This is a current verification supplement, not a claim that the historical archived research report’s old conversational citation tokens resolve. Research lead: Biswajit Jana. Record exact dates, paper versions and DOI when implementing a model.
| Subject | Verified primary source | Established result | What this repo has not verified |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deep-space laser communication | NASA/JPL DSOC mission, NASA 18 Sep 2025 | 267 Mb/s at ~31 million km near the experiment’s shorter ranges; technology demonstration concluded 2025 | No direct Exo/Proxima operational extrapolation; no match to our illustrative telescope model |
| Peer-reviewed DSOC link physics | IEEE 10.1109/JSTQE.2025.3625968 | Real measured optical terminal and link performance and ranging regimes | No independent published-data reprocessing yet |
| CCSDS physical layer | CCSDS 141.0-B-2 | March 2026 non-coherent optical physical-layer standard | No standards-conformant packet generator/modem yet |
| CCSDS optical coding | CCSDS 142.0-B-2 | March 2026 non-coherent optical coding/synchronization | No coded link or compliance test; old 142.0-B-1 is superseded |
| Photon information efficiency | Dacha et al., arXiv:2501.13356 | 14.5 bits/incident photon and 17.8 bits/detected photon reported for one experimental system | Not a universal bound; not reproduced in our simple hard-decision model |
| Interplanetary transport | RFC 5325 LTP motivation | Long-RTT, outage-tolerant transport cannot assume terrestrial rapid handshakes | No implemented LTP/DTN transport layer |
| Gaia astrometry | Gaia DR3 archive data model | Epoch, reference-frame and correlated astrometric columns have defined semantics | No frozen Proxima source vector, validation checksum or propagated covariance |
| Warp metric taxonomy | Bobrick–Martire, arXiv:2102.06824 | Some positive-energy subluminal constructions; speculative superluminal classifications | No validated physical FTL device |
| Energy-condition critique | Santiago, Schuster, Visser, arXiv:2105.03079 | General warp energy-condition restrictions; convenient observer tests are insufficient | No validated source material, energy condition over all observers, or chronology solution |
| Microscopic ‘Hyperwave’ prior art | Pieri, arXiv:2311.12069 | Published speculative warp-based communications, so ‘tiny warp for signals’ is not a new idea on its own | No independent replication of Einstein tensor/source and no physical realization |
| No-signalling quantum control | Quantum reduced-state identities and classical channel requirement | Local operations on Alice’s half cannot select Bob’s unconditioned marginal alone | No spacelike field hardware experiment conducted |
Engineering — strongest immediate route: Which photon-efficient waveform/FEC/background-gating choices maximize confirmed delivered new science bits per Joule subject to laser peak-power and pointing constraints, and can time-stamped predictive residual tiles outperform conventional compression at the same end-to-end reliability? Compare to measured DSOC engineering, not fictional scenarios.
Causal statistics: How often do mutual-information estimators, shared model priors, improper time slicing and clock offsets create apparent prelight correlations? Quantify sensitivity, preregistered false positives and independent reproduction under deliberately contaminated controls.
Theoretical GR: Can a previously published proposed micro-warp communication metric be reconstructed in an independent symbolic/numerical solver, with complete source constraints and chronology analysis? A negative physical realizability result is publishable if validation is rigorous.
If a source is inaccessible, unverified, updated or contradictory, document that status rather than inventing an equation, a value or an experimental result. Revisit this ledger before each release and prior to any public publication.