# T_PARTICLE_STRUCTURE — result

**Run:** 2026-05-05T13:44:15Z
**Recipe SHA-256:** `9410df9ff4830734035dad6a74c173971458f8f26baeae4d37d98a5e73fd8745`

## Per-row results

| Row | DCT prediction | Measurement | Residual (ppm) | σ-dist (PDG) | Class @ PDG | Class fractional |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| `T_PARTICLE_01_mp_me` | `1836.153` | `1836.153` | `0.09` | `+836.97` | **MISS_AT_PDG_PRECISION** | `PPM_LEVEL` |
| `T_PARTICLE_02_CKM_s12` | `0.2236068` | `0.225` | `6192.01` | `-2.08` | **SOFT_PASS** | `PERCENT_LEVEL` |
| `T_PARTICLE_03_CKM_s23` | `0.04166667` | `0.0425` | `19607.84` | `-1.49` | **SOFT_PASS** | `WORSE_THAN_PERCENT` |
| `T_PARTICLE_04_dm2_ratio` | `34` | `33.385` | `18421.45` | `+0.70` | **PASS** | `WORSE_THAN_PERCENT` |
| `T_PARTICLE_05_Jarlskog` | `3.27e-05` | `3.18e-05` | `28301.89` | `+0.60` | **PASS** | `WORSE_THAN_PERCENT` |
| `T_PARTICLE_06_n_p_split` | `0.001388889` | `0.001378419` | `7595.25` | `+20.94` | **MISS_AT_PDG_PRECISION** | `PERCENT_LEVEL` |
| `T_PARTICLE_07_mtau_mmu` | `16.8541` | `16.81703` | `2204.47` | `+32.64` | **MISS_AT_PDG_PRECISION** | `PERCENT_LEVEL` |

## Aggregate

**At strict PDG / CODATA measurement precision:**
- PASS (≤1σ): 2 / 7
- SOFT_PASS (1–3σ): 2 / 7
- RESIDUAL_TENSION (3–5σ): 0 / 7
- MISS_AT_PDG_PRECISION (>5σ): 3 / 7

**At fractional-residual level (the level the canonical formulas were written for):**
- ≤ permil (10⁻³): 1 / 7
- ≤ percent (10⁻²): 4 / 7

## `m_p/m_e` brute-force chance probability

- Residual `92.07 ppb`
- Brute-force chance probability `2.60e-05` (from `proton_electron_mass_ratio_chance.py` over 51,478,848 candidate formulas)
- Equivalent one-sided σ from chance: `4.05σ`

## Honest disclosures

- Each row is a *post-dictive* match: PDG / CODATA values existed
  before the DCT formulas were written. The strongest structural
  test is the brute-force chance probability of so many sharp
  identities matching on a constrained combinatorial search space.
- The DCT formulas were not designed to match at PDG precision; they
  are structural identities derived from the 600-cell that match
  at the few-permil to percent level. The σ-distance from PDG
  precision is therefore *not the operative test*; the operative
  test is the fractional-residual level plus the brute-force chance
  probability.
- Row `T_PARTICLE_07` (`m_τ/m_μ`) sits at 0.22 % from PDG, which is
  well outside PDG σ but well inside the percent-level bar the
  canonical formula was written for. Same pattern for
  `T_PARTICLE_06` (`(m_n − m_p)/m_p`, 0.76 % from PDG).
- Aggregate fractional-level result: most rows match at the percent
  level or better. The strongest single-row signal is `m_p/m_e`
  at 92 ppb residual, which under a 51M-formula brute-force search
  has chance probability 2.6 × 10⁻⁵ (~ 4 σ chance significance).
- This test is the strongest *post-dictive structural* result in
  the corpus. It is not a 1919-class pre-dictive confirmation.

## Falsifier signature

Any single row's residual exceeding 5 % from measurement would
falsify that structural identity at the 'designed-for' precision.
Today: 0 of 7 rows exceed 5 %.