MODEL PASSPORT v1.0
No document in the «Evolutionary-Phase Theism» (EPT) project aims to provide a scientific proof of the existence of the Creator. The project’s physical module has a secondary and revisable status: it serves to develop the physical correspondences of the hypothesis in a rigorous and testable form; the failure of a particular physical realization requires revision of that realization and does not automatically carry over to EPT as a whole. The normative architecture of the physical module is set out in the «Normative Specification of the Model (NSM) v1.0», its technical development is presented in the «Technical Elaborations to NSM v1.0», and the consistency of the documents within the physical package is controlled by the «Concordance Document for the Model Package v1.0».
0. Purpose, Status,
and Document Hierarchy
The present Model Passport provides a compact overview of the Normative Specification of the Model (NSM) v1.0 and the technical corpus consistent with it.
The Passport is intended as a quick reference to the model architecture, the statuses of the claims introduced, claim boundaries, principal notation, physical modules, accounting rules, unresolved debts, and revision criteria.
Document status: derived overview document. The Passport is not an independent normative source, a new edition of NSM, or a separate Technical Elaboration.
Normative priority: in the event of any discrepancy between the Passport and other documents, priority belongs to NSM v1.0. The Technical Elaborations are subordinate to NSM and may not alter its statuses, model types, formal roles, constraints, or rules of physical accounting.
The Passport:
• does not introduce new fundamental entities or levels of description;
• does not elevate a working hypothesis, working assumption, or conditional mathematical construction to a basic postulate;
• does not replace a technical debt with a completed mechanism;
• does not turn a schematic correspondence into a physical derivation;
• does not add quantitative results absent from NSM and the Technical Elaborations;
• does not alter the two intersector constraints or the rules of energy-momentum accounting;
• does not declare the model empirically confirmed or distinguishable from alternatives without a concrete realization.
The formulas in the Passport serve as navigational aids and provide a compact statement of the architecture. Their precise mathematical form, domains, and assumptions are established only by NSM and the Technical Elaborations.
1. Current Status of the Model
and Limits of Claims
Version v1.0 has the status of a pretheoretical normative framework consistent in both status and structure.
The purpose of the model is not to prove its physical truth, but to construct an internally consistent, technically testable architecture that permits subsequent specification. The absence of an identified contradiction is a necessary but insufficient condition of physical viability.
1.1. What the Current Version Fixes
• the status-structural core and the claim boundary;
• the conditional beginning of operator formalization;
• type discipline between the operator and local levels;
• sector classification as a conditional mathematical construction;
• the architectural place and statuses of the working physical layer: existence of two local realizations — a working physical assumption; local b± and the compositeness of Pa — working physical hypotheses; known secondary fields — phenomenological inputs; two intersector conditions — working physical assumptions with the formal role of normative constraints;
• the requirement of complete physical balance, single-count physical accounting, and explicit replacement of alternative descriptions;
• a register of technical and phenomenological debts;
• criteria for local, module-level, and system-level revision.
1.2. What Version v1.0 Does Not Contain
• a derivation of the first operator level from F;
• a complete direct derivation of spacetime from F;
• a constructed nonempty realization of the full operator-local interface;
• completed local actions and spectra of the two physical realizations;
• calculated masses, lifetimes, cross sections, and amplitudes;
• a derived mechanism for the two exact intersector constraints or proof of their quantum or RG stability;
• a quantitatively closed cosmological model;
• confirmed empirical predictions of its own.
1.3. Two Layers of the Architecture
The status-structural core includes F, the claim boundary, the fundamental dependence of subsequent levels on F, the conditional beginning of operator formalization, status discipline, the requirement of physical balances, and the prohibition of double counting.
The working physical layer includes the existence of two local physical realizations of the sector classes as a working physical assumption; local b± and their massiveness, the compositeness of Pa, and the dark-matter interpretation of a specified stable massive component of the negative realization as working physical hypotheses; and two independent intersector conditions as working physical assumptions with the formal role of normative constraints. The conditional operator β± and the open correspondence β± ⇢ b± belong, respectively, to a conditional mathematical construction and a technical debt of the interface, not to the working physical layer.
1.4. Three Distinguished Levels of Claim
1. Structurally admissible: not prohibited by the adopted architecture and its types.
2. Physically attainable: can be obtained from a specific state under specified dynamics, constraints, and balance conditions.
3. Historically realized: actually occurred in physical history.
Structural admissibility does not prove physical attainability, and physical attainability does not prove historical realization.
2. System of Statuses, Model Types, and Formal Roles
Each significant element of the model is described by three independent characteristics: status of justification and development, model type, and formal role.
2.1. Statuses of Justification and Development
Basic postulate — a claim adopted within the framework without derivation from more fundamental claims of the model.
Working physical hypothesis — a proposed physical object, property, or mechanism that has not yet been derived and may be replaced by another consistent realization.
Working physical assumption — a condition normatively adopted for the current physical module while the mechanism realizing it remains incomplete.
Conditional mathematical construction — a formal structure adopted within a specified module without claiming a completed physical realization.
Consequence of the adopted scheme — a claim that follows logically from explicitly listed inputs and is not an independently established physical fact.
Phenomenological input — a known physical property, field, relation, or constraint used to construct and test a module but not presented as a prediction of the model.
Technical debt — a required relation, realization, derivation, parameter, or mechanism that has not yet been constructed within the stated scope.
Deliberately established claim boundary — a level of explanation that the current version explicitly does not claim and does not undertake to reconstruct using its own apparatus.
2.2. Principal Model Types
• fundamental prequantum and pregeometric ground — F;
• first operator-formalizable level;
• sector class of the conditional operator description;
• state or excitation of the operator or local level;
• structurally nonfundamental local field regime;
• local composite massive realization — Pa;
• process or transition within established dynamics;
• physical quantity or parameter with a specified dimension and scope of applicability;
• structural relation or admissibility class without automatic status as a separate physical object.
2.3. Principal Formal Roles
• definition;
• notation;
• schematic relation;
• operator construction;
• balance rule;
• normative constraint.
2.4. Prohibited Status Readings
• a basic postulate is not a model type, and a definition is not proof of existence;
• an operator construction, a symbolic arrow, and a technical debt are not a completed physical mechanism or a separate entity;
• a strong mathematical form does not elevate the physical status of its assumptions.
3. Model Architecture in a Single Scheme
The cross-cutting architecture distinguishes the fundamental ground, the conditional operator level, sector classification, the operator-local interface, and a single consistent local module.
F | [ℋF, 𝒜F, 𝒞0, ρ0, η̂, Δ±, Π±, β±] ⇢ [M, gμν, b±, Φk, local actions and sources]
The vertical bar fixes the boundary of the commitments of the current version. The left-hand side denotes F. The right-hand side begins with the conditionally adopted operator language. The dotted correspondence denotes the unresolved operator-local interface, not an identity or physical dynamics.
3.1. Logical Positions in the Scheme
1. F — the status-structural prequantum and pregeometric ground.
2. Operator block — the first conditionally adopted formalization with an open physical status.
3. Sector classification — mathematical distinction among classes within the established window.
4. Operator-local interface — a system of typed correspondences and compatibility conditions.
5. Local module — geometry, local degrees of freedom, b±, secondary fields, actions, processes, and complete energy-momentum sources.
6. Concrete physical realization — a separate future construction with dynamics, parameters, observables, and testing.
3.2. What the Arrows and Levels Do Not Mean
• a temporal sequence in the emergence of levels;
• a direct causal chain from a symbol to a physical object;
• automatic derivation of locality or mass from operator notation;
• proved nonemptiness of a full joint realization;
• empirical confirmation of its own.
4. Fundamental Ground F
and the Claim Boundary
4.1. Canonical Status of F
F has the status of a basic postulate and the model type of a fundamental prequantum and pregeometric ground for the conditions of structural determinability.
F denotes a ground for the conditions of distinguishability, identity and difference, compatibility and incompatibility, relations, structural order, composition, quantitative determinability, proportion, invariance, symmetry and the admissibility of symmetry breaking, as well as for distinguishing the possible, the impossible, the necessary, and the conditionally possible.
4.2. What F Is Not
• an ordinary physical, quantum, or local field on spacetime;
• a set of ready-made physical states;
• a Hilbert space or an algebra of observables;
• a collection of ready-made operators, particles, and excitations;
• a spatial distribution or a function F (x);
• a repository of ready-made equations, parameters, or the history of the Universe;
• an undefined reservoir of energy, information, or causality.
4.3. Fundamental Dependence
and the Claim Boundary
The operator, sector, spacetime, and local levels are treated as fundamentally dependent on F. This dependence is part of the status-structural architecture, but it is not a derived dynamical mechanism or a temporal sequence.
F | (ℋF, 𝒜F)
The transition from F to the first operator-formalizable level and the complete direct derivation of spacetime from F lie beyond the claim boundary of v1.0. They are not included in the register of mandatory technical debts of the current version.
Without a separate mechanism, version v1.0 does not choose whether the spacetime level is a phase, representation, realization, or some other derived description relative to F.
5. Conditional Operator Formalization and Sector Classification
5.1. Status of the Operator Level
The first operator-formalizable level is a conditional mathematical construction and the beginning of physical-mathematical formalization. It is not presented as an independently established fundamental physical level.
In the selected realization, it may include the state space ℋF, the algebra 𝒜F, the conditional configuration 𝒞0, where needed a specific state ρ0, the sector-distinguishing operator η̂, spectral regions Δ±, projectors Π±, and the projector Pwin of the established window.
5.2. Distinction Between 𝒞0 and ρ0
• 𝒞0 denotes a conditional operator configuration or a set of applicability conditions for the module;
• ρ0 denotes a specific operator state, if required by the selected formalization;
• 𝒞0 and ρ0 are not synonyms;
• local temperature, density, mass, energy, and metric time are attributed neither to F nor to 𝒞0.
5.3. Projector Classification
If the spectrum of η̂ contains two correctly defined disjoint regions Δ±, exact spectral projectors Π± and the corresponding sector classes may be introduced within the established projector window.
Completeness of the classification, absence of a residual subspace, and applicability beyond the selected window must be established separately.
5.4. What Does Not Follow from the Projectors
• the existence of two independent physical systems;
• locality and spatial separation;
• dynamical invariance of sector membership;
• intersector isolation;
• the existence of β± or local b±;
• a completed physical phase interpretation;
• completeness of the classification over the entire operator space.
5.5. Sector Classes and Local Realizations
The positive and negative sector classes belong to the conditional operator description. They are not two fundamental fields, spatial regions, or automatically established phases.
The existence of the two corresponding local physical realizations is a working physical assumption. Version v1.0 introduces no notations F+ and F− for them; instead, the verbal formulations “local physical realization of the positive sector class” and “local physical realization of the negative sector class” are used.
6. Bit-Potential Module
and the Operator-Local Interface
6.1. Working Meaning of the Word “Bit”
“Bit” is a working name for the proposed minimal binary sector distinguishability. It does not denote a computer bit, a recorded value 0 or 1, a separate object F, a ready-made particle, or an independent portion of physical information.
6.2. Two Levels of the Bit-Potential Module
β±: a conditional operator construction within a sector-classifiable operator description. Its existence, uniqueness, minimality, and ontological status are not derived from η̂ or Π±.
b±: a working physical hypothesis of the local module. Local b± are treated as proposed massive physical realizations of the corresponding sector membership.
β± ⇢ b±
This correspondence denotes one open component of the interface. It is not an identity, completed dynamics, an automatic consequence of the projectors, or a complete transition from the operator level to local physics.
6.3. Fifteen-Component Interface Contract
Technical Elaboration 2 specifies a typed system of tasks and compatibility conditions. It distinguishes:
1. the state map;
2. the dual observable map;
3. coarse-graining;
4. matching of dynamics;
5. matching of the flow parameter to physical time;
6. the local net and embedding compatibility;
7. geometry;
8. local actions;
9. conserved quantities;
10. the energy-momentum ledger;
11. the sector label;
12. the open component of the correspondence between the operator and local bit-potential modules;
13. matching of composite and effective field descriptions;
14. the error budget;
15. an independent relation between the operator input and local initial and boundary data.
The presence of all fifteen component types does not prove the existence of a single full joint realization. Nonemptiness of each component separately does not guarantee joint nonemptiness of the full family.
The full operator-local interface remains a technical debt. A symbolic correspondence is not used as a substitute for constructing domains, dynamics, locality, geometry, initial data, and physical accounting.
7. Local Physical Realizations
and Massive States
7.1. Two Local Physical Realizations
The existence of local physical realizations of the positive and negative sector classes has the status of a working physical assumption. Their specific microphysics has the status of a working physical hypothesis.
Both realizations belong to a single consistent local module together with geometry, local degrees of freedom, b±, secondary fields, actions, interactions, and energy-momentum functionals. The document does not establish a temporal sequence for the emergence of these components.
7.2. Local b±
• belong only to the local physical level;
• are not states of F or β±;
• carry a sector index that does not denote the sign of mass, energy, charge, or gravitational coupling;
• are proposed to be massive; nonzero positive rest mass has the status of a working physical hypothesis;
• may arise, participate in collective configurations, and cease to exist only in physically defined processes with complete balance;
• their number is not automatically declared a conserved quantity.
7.3. Local Composite Massive Realization Pa
Pa is a proposed local dynamically coherent composite massive realization of the positive sector class, formed by local b+, their relations, binding energy, and associated field regimes.
• Pa belongs only to the local physical level;
• no operator-level precursor of Pa is introduced in v1.0;
• the compositeness of Pa has the status of a working physical hypothesis;
• binding dynamics, spectrum, stability, decays, and observable quantum numbers are technical and phenomenological debts;
• the total mass of Pa must include binding energy and other independent internal contributions exactly once.
7.4. Collective States of the Negative Realization
Collective massive states are admissible within the negative local physical realization, but their final notation, composition, spectrum, stability mechanisms, and processes are not fixed in v1.0.
7.5. Minimum Passport of a Local Process
• a specified initial state;
• a physical source of energy and momentum;
• local dynamics or an action;
• applicable conservation laws;
• complete nonoverlapping balance;
• specified final states;
• scope of applicability and testable parameters.
8. Secondary Fields
and Massless Excitations
8.1. Status of Secondary Fields
A secondary physical field is a structurally nonfundamental local field regime conditionally introduced at the spacetime level.
Known physical fields are phenomenological inputs. Their existence, spectrum, quantum numbers, and known interactions are not presented as independently derived predictions of the model.
8.2. Distinguishing F, β±, b±, and Φk
• secondary fields are not F, states of F, or local parts of F;
• they are not treated as directly physically derived from F or β±;
• their relation to the operator-sector level is a technical debt;
• an excitation of a secondary field is a local physical state of the corresponding field regime;
• the sector label by itself does not determine the complete set of local fields.
8.3. Photon
The photon is treated as an excitation of the corresponding secondary electromagnetic field and belongs to the local physical level.
• the photon is not β+ or β−;
• the photon is not b+ or b−;
• the photon is not composed of b±;
• the photon is not a state of F;
• the photon is not treated as directly physically derived from F.
The existence and observed properties of the photon are phenomenological inputs; its placement within the local module is a conditionally adopted structure; its operator-local origin has not been derived.
8.4. Composite and Field Descriptions of Pa
Pa may have a composite description in terms of local b+, their relations, binding energy, and associated field regimes, as well as a local field description as a single massive excitation with specified observable characteristics.
These descriptions refer to one physical state. They must replace one another or be related by an explicit matching relation and do not create two objects, two carriers of energy, or two independent contributions to the source.
9. Physical Processes, Balances, and the Prohibition of Double Counting
9.1. Requirement of Complete Balance
The requirement of physical balances and the prohibition of double counting belong to the status-structural core. A concrete local realization of the balance depends on the selected action, geometry, and source content.
Ttotalμν = T+μν + T−μν + Totherμν
The scheme denotes the sum of the complete sector contributions and, where needed, independent additional sources. Tother is not an undefined reserve and does not permit double counting of contributions already included in the sector sources.
9.2. Single-Count Physical Accounting
Each physical contribution is counted exactly once. An operator label, projector, classification descriptor, and mathematical map are not additional carriers of energy.
• local b± and an already formed complete composite or collective state of the same configuration are not added as independent sources;
• the total mass of Pa and binding energy already included in it are not counted twice;
• Pa and a quantum of its effective field description are not two carriers of energy;
• an initial state, after it ceases to exist, is not retained as a separate residual contribution;
• a vacuum contribution is counted in one consistent way;
• F is not added to local sources as an independent energy component.
9.3. Replacement Rule Across Levels of Description
Microscopic composite, local field, and macroscopic continuum descriptions of one physical state must replace one another. Simultaneous use is admissible only under an explicit matching relation and separation of nonoverlapping degrees of freedom.
9.4. Prohibition of a Positive Net Cycle
No closed process may return the system to its initial physical state while simultaneously producing a positive uncompensated output of energy, momentum, or another conserved quantity.
Neither an undefined property of F, nor a sector label, nor coarse-graining,
nor an unfilled interface component is used as a free energy reservoir.
10. Two Intersector Constraints
and Shared Geometry
10.1. Two Independent Constraints
The current version distinguishes two logically independent intersector constraints. Both have the status of working physical assumptions and the formal role of independent normative constraints.
ℐ±standard = 0
The first constraint fixes the absence of standard direct electromagnetic, strong, and weak interaction terms between the local realizations.
Jmixν = 0
The second constraint fixes zero net transfer of energy and momentum between the complete sector contributions.
• neither constraint follows automatically from the other;
• neither follows from the projectors;
• the absence of an explicitly written portal does not by itself prove an exact zero;
• the realization mechanism and full quantum, RG, anomalous, and nonperturbative stability remain technical debts;
• smallness of a process is not identical to an exact zero.
10.2. Shared Geometry
The positive and negative local physical realizations belong to one local module with shared spacetime geometry. Shared geometry may relate the motion and distribution of sources through geometric dynamics, but is not by itself a direct channel for particle transfer, charge transfer, or intersector energy flow.
Without separate justification, the model does not introduce two independent metrics, mandatory spatial separation of the realizations, or a separate geometric world for each sector class.
10.3. Gravitational Regimes
and Nontransferability of Conclusions
The technical corpus distinguishes a shared classical geometry, semiclassical gravity, and a branch with a quantized geometric degree of freedom. A result obtained in one regime does not automatically carry over to another. Shared geometric dependence, mixed correlation, and actual local flux are distinct claims.
11. Negative Local Realization
and the Dark-Matter Interpretation
11.1. Status of the Negative Local Realization
The existence of the negative local physical realization has the status of a working physical assumption, while its specific microphysics, spectrum, states, and interactions have the status of working physical hypotheses and technical debts.
• the negative sector label does not mean negative mass or energy;
• it does not specify an opposite sign of geometric coupling;
• the negative realization may contain local b−, collective massive states, internal transitions, and its own hidden field regimes;
• the specific spectrum, lifetimes, mediators, and coupling strengths are not established.
11.2. Working Dark-Matter Interpretation
A possible physical basis of dark matter is associated not with the negative operator sector class as such and not with the entire content of the negative local physical realization, but only with a specified stable massive component of that realization satisfying independent phenomenological requirements.
• nonzero effective mass and sufficient longevity;
• compatibility with the two intersector constraints;
• admissible pressure and relativistic regime;
• correct participation in geometric dynamics and structure formation;
• compatibility with astrophysical, cosmological, and laboratory constraints.
11.3. Limits of the Interpretation
• the dark-matter component is not determined by the operator label alone;
• operator weights are not identical to local densities;
• the present-day density ratio is not derived from the number of β± or b±;
• relativistic, massless, and vacuum-like states must be classified separately;
• version v1.0 contains no quantitative dark-matter result of its own.
12. Established Results of
the Technical Elaborations
The Technical Elaborations do not provide a finished physical theory. They specify three technical levels while preserving normative dependence on NSM v1.0.
12.1. Technical Elaboration 1
Investigates the conditional operator module: the projector window, spectral regions, exact and approximate projectors, residual spaces, projector stability, and controlled block-diagonalization.
• obtains conditional operator estimates under explicitly specified assumptions;
• distinguishes the descriptor and energy gaps;
• shows that projector classification and physical isolation are not identical;
• does not create locality, mass, local fields, or an intersector physical mechanism.
12.2. Technical Elaboration 2
Specifies a fifteen-component typed operator-local interface contract, scopes of applicability, compatibility schemes, an error budget, and criteria for joint realization.
• the contract defines tasks and types of correspondences;
• it does not prove nonemptiness of a full realization;
• it does not establish unique local data;
• it does not turn a local mathematical map into a physical procedure.
12.3. Technical Elaboration 3
Investigates the local variational and balance side: shared geometry, local actions, complete nonoverlapping sources, covariant balances, possible portals, and the two intersector constraints.
• distinguishes classical, semiclassical, and quantum regimes and analyzes conditions for stability of the constraints without establishing their full quantum stability;
• distinguishes the total balance, separate balances, and the exchange current;
• does not derive a unique fundamental mechanism for the exact zeros;
• does not complete quantum gravity and does not provide a confirmed prediction of its own.
12.4. Joint Result of the Corpus
Taken together, TE-1–TE-3 form a consistent set of operator, interface, and local contracts. They allow concrete physical realizations to be formulated without hidden mixing of levels or elevation of statuses, but they do not replace the realization itself.
13. Principal Debts and the Prohibition of Status Overreach
13.1. Principal Technical Debts
1. A concrete nonempty realization of the fifteen-component operator-local interface.
2. Local degrees of freedom, actions, spectra, and processes of the two physical realizations.
3. A mechanism for the physical stability of local sector membership.
4. Implementation mechanisms and quantum stability for each of the two intersector constraints.
5. Local dynamics of b±, composite Pa states, and collective negative states.
6. Matching of composite and effective field descriptions with control of binding energy and the accuracy domain.
7. Complete energy-momentum functionals, variational sources, and a concrete ledger without double counting.
8. Concrete geometric and cosmological dynamics.
9. Observationally distinguishable consequences of at least one closed module.
13.2. Principal Phenomenological Debts
• calculated masses, spectra, widths, and lifetimes;
• cross sections, amplitudes, transport coefficients, and experimental limits;
• quantitative cosmological evolution;
• geometric influence, perturbation growth, and structure formation;
• quantitative identification of a dark-matter-admissible component;
• statistically defined comparison with independent data.
13.3. What Must Not Be Claimed Before
the Debts Are Closed
• that the operator language or spacetime has been physically derived from F;
• that β± are independent physical entities;
• that β± ⇢ b± is a completed mechanism;
• that a full joint realization of the interface has been proved nonempty;
• that local actions, masses, spectra, and processes have been derived;
• that the two exact intersector constraints have been proved to hold under quantum and RG corrections;
• that the negative realization already reproduces dark matter or the observed cosmology;
• that the model is empirically confirmed or has a confirmed prediction of its own.
14. Criteria for Local
and System-Level Revision
14.1. Failure of a Concrete Realization
A concrete realization is rejected or reworked if it violates its own mathematical assumptions, lacks consistent dynamics, produces incomplete or double physical accounting, fails to reproduce the stated quantity, conflicts with data beyond the error budget, or requires undefined objects solely to rescue the result.
14.2. Revision of an Individual Module
A module is revised if its principal working hypothesis, map type, stability mechanism, variational structure, or matching method proves mathematically impossible or physically incompatible with data throughout the stated scope. If the required function admits another realization, the revision remains module-level.
14.3. Revision of Dependent Modules
After an input element is changed, only those results that use the changed definition, assumption, scope, normalization, or computable quantity are rechecked. Similar terminology and proximity of sections do not create automatic dependence.
14.4. System-Level Revision
Grounds for system-level revision may include:
• a fundamental impossibility of constructing at least one internally consistent interface between the conditional operator input and the local side;
• an unavoidable violation of complete balance or the prohibition of double counting;
• a demonstrated impossibility of constructing at least one admissible internally consistent branch in which both intersector constraints hold simultaneously;
• the absence of any consequence that can in principle be constrained after the required modules have been made concrete.
A system-level conclusion requires proof of fundamental impossibility, not the failure of a single example.
14.5. Editorial Changes
Correction of typographical errors, mathematical styles, references, numbering, terminology, and formal notation does not require a repeated system-level audit if it does not change meaning, status, model type, formal role, scope of applicability, or dependencies.
15. Final Status of Version v1.0
15.1. Final Formulation
Version v1.0 is a pretheoretical normative framework consistent in both status and structure. It fixes the normative architecture, status discipline, object types, claim boundaries, rules of physical balances, the operator contract, interface requirements, working physical modules, debts, and revision criteria.
Version v1.0 is not a completed physical theory, does not contain a concrete nonempty physical realization, and does not claim empirical confirmation. Its current status permits further mathematical and physical development within the fixed architecture; the need for local, module-level, or deeper revision is determined by the criteria of Section 14.
15.2. Conditions for Elevation of Status
The status can be elevated only after at least one closed physical module has been constructed that contains:
• specified states or degrees of freedom;
• a dynamical law, action, generator, or equivalent rule;
• domains, constraints, and conserved quantities;
• complete nonoverlapping physical accounting;
• a computable observable or a quantity that can in principle be constrained;
• separation between fitting data and independent testing data;
• an outcome capable of excluding at least part of the realization space.
15.3. Canonical Order for Using the Package
1. NSM v1.0 defines the normative content and priority statuses.
2. The Technical Elaborations specify mathematical and physical modes of realization without altering NSM.
3. The present Model Passport is used for rapid overview and navigation.
4. A concrete physical realization must be issued as a separate version with its own assumptions, parameters, data, and rejection criteria.
