Artistic pyramid inside a luminous sphere inside a larger transparent pyramid, with five translucent planes suggesting higher-dimensional perspectives

AKASHICOMNI · STUDY PROTOCOL SAMPLE · 26 SEPTEMBER 2026

Can a claim about consciousness make a testable prediction?

Specify the difference first. Measure it under blinded conditions. Then ask what the result actually supports.

5D+ as artistic perspective · no physical dimension or field inferred

THE CORE DISTINCTION

Two questions.
Two separate tests.

We can infer an unseen cause only through a distinctive effect specified in advance. A match or a sensor reading does not identify its cause on its own. This protocol keeps a physical model, an information-access hypothesis and the philosophical interpretation in separate records.

TRACK A · CONDITIONAL

Physical prediction

A named theory must say which calibrated sensor readout changes, by how much, where and when. It must predict a different result from a concrete rival account and state what observation would challenge the proposed coupling.

Current gate: no instrument or sample size until that prediction is supplied.
TRACK B · OPTIONAL, SEPARATE

Future-target matching

A participant commits one of four symbol choices. Only then does a separate audited service draw a random target. This tests a future-target information claim only if a proponent explicitly predicts it beforehand.

It does not directly test panpsychism or cosmopsychism.

TRACK B · ONE TRIAL PER PERSON

The order matters.

A target drawn after the locked choice closes one ordinary route for advance knowledge. Signed event order, separated services and a complete failure log remain essential.

  1. 01

    Consent

    An adult volunteer reads the approved information and makes one choice from four neutral symbols.

  2. 02

    Lock

    The choice receives a durable signed receipt. A second attempt cannot replace it.

  3. 03

    Draw

    Only afterward, an isolated service generates a target from two cryptographic random bits.

  4. 04

    Audit

    Independent reviewers check the event order, receipts, duplicate attempts and missing data.

  5. 05

    Analyse

    A masked analyst scores the frozen dataset with code and exclusions locked beforehand.

LOCKED BEFORE DATA

What would count as a result?

1,200valid first attempts per stage, split across two recruitment channels
25%match probability if later targets are uniform and independent
340matches needed in each independent stage

The primary test is a one-sided exact binomial test. A count of 340/1,200 has an exact null tail of about 0.00463. At a true 30% match probability, the chance of reaching that threshold is about 90.2% in one stage. A second 1,200-person stage must repeat the criterion with a new cohort, team and target service. A pooled result cannot rescue a failed stage. The statistician must independently verify the calculation before registration.

THEORY CARD TC-B01 · UNSIGNED CANDIDATE

Make the prediction answerable.

The proposed claim is a match rate of at least 30% under this exact future-target procedure. A named proponent must explain why their model predicts that rate and why the target being drawn after the choice matters. The card is ready for adversarial review; it carries no signatures or approvals.

Download the full theory card ↓

The proposed decision rules

Supportive criterion
At least 340 matches in each separate 1,200-person stage, with clean audits.
Challenge to the 30% minimum
At most 662 matches across two clean stages of 1,200. The exact lower tail under 30% is about 0.00496. This additional rule still needs independent statistical review before registration.
Neither region
Report an unresolved estimate and interval. A missed supportive threshold on its own does not refute the model.

INTERPRETATION GATE

What the outcomes would mean

A stage misses the threshold

The strict two-stage success rule is not met. A well-run null challenges the specific 30% prediction under these conditions, not every account of consciousness.

Both stages pass, audits clean

Report replicated above-chance matching in this future-target task. Investigate software, selection, ordinary information routes and alternative mechanisms before making any further claim.

An audit finds a failure

Mark the affected result as compromised, disclose the incident and register a clean rerun. Do not remove unfavourable trials after viewing outcomes.

No outcome here alone establishes a cosmic consciousness field, panpsychism, cosmopsychism, survival after death or a change to BQ001’s unresolved status.

BEFORE RECRUITMENT

The study still needs people, review and registration.

  • A named proponent signs the precise prediction this task is meant to test, or the task stays independent of the ontology.
  • Institutional ethics review approves consent, recruitment, accessibility, privacy and data retention.
  • Independent engineers test the target service, signed receipts, interruptions and leakage routes.
  • A statistician verifies the test and sample size; the full protocol, exclusions and code receive a public timestamp.
  • Resources for an independent replication are secured before stage one begins.

READ THE MATERIALS

Inspect the proposal.

This is an AI-assisted methodological draft for independent investigator review. It is not a participant invitation or a report of findings.