Protocol critic
Test whether the frozen rules can distinguish a correspondence from hindsight, cueing, selective reporting or ordinary information exposure.
BQ001 · LEVEL 9 CANDIDATE AUDIT PACK · v0.1.0
Freeze the method.
Invite the challenge.
This pack converts the six-case comparison into a reviewable protocol. Review Round 1 is now open for external protocol critique; case coding has not begun.
Purpose and boundary
A candidate audit,
not a conclusion.
This pack is a frozen method, recovery register, reviewer-role definition, blank coding surface and explicit promotion rule.
This pack is not completed dual coding, independent replication, proof of reincarnation, evidence promotion or support for a survival model.
Safeguarding Public outputs use minimum necessary case labels. No child imagery, contact details or expanded identifying narrative belongs in reviewer packets. Rights, privacy and live Reddit access remain behind their existing HOLD gates.
External Review Round 1 · open
Challenge the protocol
before the cases.
Source-recovery verifier
Check whether every claimed primary record has a precise locator, custody status and explicit missing-record entry.
Methods reviewer
Assess the blinding, alternative-candidate pool, agreement plan, denominator and adjudication procedure without scoring the cases.
Independence rule: reviewers disclose relevant authorship, collaboration, advocacy, institutional and financial ties. A worldview is not an automatic exclusion; undisclosed conflicts are. Reviews must address method rather than demand a metaphysical conclusion.
Proposed route to Level 9 · 19 September 2026
Recover the records.
Build an independent collaboration.
Begin with a small, clearly defined feasibility enquiry about existing data. Establish whether the records needed for the six-case audit can be accessed and independently analysed before deciding whether a new study is necessary.
UVA Division of Perceptual Studies
Proposed first contact for relevant reincarnation and near-death-experience records. Ask the research team to identify the custodian of each requested record and whether a limited, anonymised independent reanalysis is feasible. Do not assume UVA holds every item in the register.
Visit UVA DOPS →Institute of Noetic Sciences
Ask about relevant IONS-owned datasets or introductions to investigators. IONS is a possible contact, not a confirmed partner or a gateway to unrestricted third-party data. Its published FAQ notes limited capacity for unsolicited research proposals.
Read the IONS research FAQ →Corresponding authors and custodians
For each selected study, request the original dated records, anonymised data, protocol, coding rules, analysis code where available, and the complete accounting of exclusions, unsuccessful matches and missing items.
See the proposed deliverables →Proposed first deliverable: a data-access and methods assessment
- Prepare a short brief defining the research question, selected records, intended analyses and independent reviewer roles.
- Confirm record custody, availability, provenance, participant consent, privacy restrictions and permitted reuse. Record unavailable items explicitly; access does not imply permission to publish.
- Assess whether the existing records support independent dual coding, alternative-candidate matching, agreement reporting and a complete outcome ledger.
- If feasible, agree a bounded reanalysis with qualified independent reviewers under the frozen protocol. Any method or cohort change needs a new version before analysis.
- If essential records or controls are absent, specify a prospective study with a research partner, including preregistration and applicable ethics review. A new study is a separate route requiring its own approved protocol; it does not replace unmet conditions in the current audit.
Advancement boundary: enquiries, access agreements and partnerships do not themselves qualify BQ001 for Level 9. Advancement still requires the five public conditions below and an explicit governance review. No contacts have been made through this proposal. Accepted edges remain 0, model support remains empty, and all research-promotion gates remain closed.
Frozen protocol · seven gates
Every gate must leave
an auditable trace.
Version 0.1.0 is fixed for the first review round. Any later change creates a new protocol version and cannot be applied retrospectively without disclosure.
- 01
Protocol freeze
Version the inclusion rules, coding dictionary, exclusions and promotion rule before review begins.
- 02
Primary-record recovery
Log original notes, interviews, medical or legal records, dates, custody and every unavailable item.
- 03
Blind dual coding
Two reviewers code identity-masked packets independently; disagreements remain visible and are adjudicated separately.
- 04
Alternative-candidate test
Score the nominated identity beside plausible alternatives using the same fixed rules.
- 05
Full denominator
Publish passes, failures, ambiguous results, exclusions and missing packets—not only striking correspondences.
- 06
Independent critical review
Attach a method-focused review by a critic who did not prepare or code the packets.
- 07
Reproducible public release
Publish the frozen protocol, de-identified ledger, agreement statistics, decisions and versioned machine-readable outputs.
Source-recovery register · six unique cases
What exists.
What is still missing.
Publication lineage is not the same as record custody. “Reported” means the accessible paper describes the item; it does not mean AkashicNET possesses or has independently authenticated the original.
| Case | Accessible lineage | Currently reported | Recovery target | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KA | Keil & Tucker 2005 | Investigator notes reportedly preceded identification. | Original audio/full interview record, complete archival chain and a closed ordinary-exposure audit. | HOLD |
| PM / KC | Pasricha et al. 2005 | Medical records support parts of the physical history; statements were reconstructed retrospectively. | Independent pre-identification statement record, provenance-complete medical chain and alternative candidates. | HOLD |
| NK / Babu | Pasricha et al. 2005 | Police or postmortem documentation supports part of the injury history. | Prospective statement record, exposure closure, complete anomaly denominator and alternative matching. | HOLD |
| DG / LS | Pasricha et al. 2005 | Medical or autopsy documentation supports part of the comparison. | Prospective statement record, separation from close-family exposure and complete documentary chain. | HOLD |
| Kumkum Verma | Keil & Tucker 2005 summary / Stevenson 1975 | Extracts from an aunt’s notebook are reported as pre-identification material. | The complete original notebook, custody history, unselected statements and independently recoverable comparison records. | HOLD |
| Jagdish Chandra | Keil & Tucker 2005 summary / Stevenson 1975 | A newspaper account and magistrate record are reported in the published lineage. | Original records, full statement set, custody chain, exposure audit and alternative-candidate comparison. | HOLD |
Keil & Tucker 2005 · primary PDF ↗Pasricha et al. 2005 · primary PDF ↗
Candidate Cohort B · discovery register · v0.1.0
Find stronger records.
Admit nothing yet.
These cases were selected for screening because their published lineages may offer unusually useful timing records, documentary comparisons, independent reanalysis or active methodological criticism. Discovery inclusion means “worth auditing”—not “supports reincarnation.”
| ID | Candidate | Reason to screen | Required next work | State |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C-B01 | Swarnlata Mishra | Written pre-identification records are reported in the published lineage. | Recover the originals, custody chain, complete statement set, mismatches and exposure history. | SCREEN |
| C-B02 | Imad Elawar | An investigator reportedly recorded testimony before the proposed identity was established. | Recover field notes, interpreter chain, candidate-search history, unselected statements and mismatches. | SCREEN |
| C-B03 | James Leininger | A published case report is accompanied by a substantial public critique-and-response record. | Reconstruct the dated chronology; test prior exposure, selection, changed statements and alternative identities. | SCREEN |
| C-B04 | Purnima Ekanayake | The report compares birthmarks and memories with a deceased person’s injuries. | Recover the full statement ledger, timing record, medical custody, false or unverifiable items and alternative matches. | SCREEN |
| C-B05 | Chatura Karunaratne | A companion birthmark case is described in the Society for Psychical Research literature. | Recover the full publication and primary records before any substantive coding begins. | SCREEN |
| C-B06 | Ravi Shankar Gupta | A classic case links a neck birthmark and claimed memories to a reported decapitation. | Audit the old-source chain, contemporaneous records, exposure routes, complete denominator and alternative matching. | SCREEN |
| R-B01 | Gnanathilaka Baddevithana | A 2024 reanalysis compares two investigations and reports written and taped pre-verification records. | High-priority reserve: obtain both investigators’ materials and test independence, agreement and custody. | RESERVE |
| R-B02 | Battleship Yamato case | A 2022 Japanese report describes written records made before verification. | Recover the exact primary paper, translations, complete record set, exposure analysis and comparison pool. | RESERVE |
Admission gates
- Exact publication and stable source locator recovered
- Pre-identification material independently locatable
- Ordinary exposure pathway can be scored
- Unselected statements and mismatches can be recovered
- Privacy and publication rights are safe
- Case adds methodological diversity without duplicating a lineage
Separation rule
Cohort B cannot enter the frozen six-case audit retrospectively. A case that clears discovery screening requires a new, versioned protocol and a disclosed cohort change before coding.
Download discovery register · JSONNear-Death.com extraction ledger · v0.1.0
Follow each claim
back to the study.
Near-Death.com is treated as a secondary discovery catalogue. This pass resolved the strongest relevant leads to original papers, separated informative nulls and counter-models, and collapsed repeated manifestations onto their existing underlying works.
| ID | Underlying source | Study design | Governed interpretation | State |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NDX-001 | van Lommel et al. · 2001 | Prospective cardiac-arrest cohort | Incidence, correlates and longitudinal change; no hidden-target verification. | SCREEN |
| NDX-002 | Klemenc-Ketis et al. · 2010 | Prospective physiological correlates | CO₂ and potassium associations; small observational sample limits causal inference. | SCREEN |
| NDX-003 | Ring & Cooper · 1997 | Retrospective blind-participant interviews | Important qualitative reports; limited independent event verification. | SCREEN |
| NDX-004 | Greyson, Holden & Mounsey · 2006 | Induced-cardiac-arrest null study | Constrains claims that cardiac arrest alone reliably produces an NDE. | SCREEN |
| NDX-005 | Holden & Joesten · 1990 | Hidden-target feasibility attempt | No completed eligible target test; preserves operational failure modes. | SCREEN |
| NDX-006 | Batthyany & Greyson · 2021 | Retrospective paradoxical-lucidity study | Systematic description; sparse physiology cannot discriminate competing models. | SCREEN |
| NDX-007 | Blanke et al. · 2002 | Neurological OBE counter-model | Brain stimulation altered bodily self-location; not a reproduction of every NDE feature. | COUNTERSOURCE |
| NDX-008 | Timmermann et al. · 2018 | Placebo-controlled DMT analogue | Underlying paper already represented in CQ-005. | DUPLICATE |
| NDX-009 | AWARE · 2014 | Prospective multicentre cardiac arrest | Underlying paper already represented in BQ001. | DUPLICATE |
| NDX-010 | AWARE II · 2023 | Prospective cardiac arrest + monitoring | Underlying paper already represented in BQ001. | DUPLICATE |
What this adds
- Two prospective cardiac-arrest cohorts
- Blind-participant qualitative evidence
- Two informative null or feasibility records
- A paradoxical-lucidity dataset
- A neurological OBE counter-model
What it does not add
No paper here establishes consciousness after irreversible death. SCREEN means ready for claim-level methods review. Duplicates add provenance, not evidential weight.
Download extraction ledger · JSONIndependent review architecture
Separate recovery,
coding and criticism.
The public case names above belong to the recovery register. The coordinator must generate new random identifiers for identity-masked reviewer packets. The downloadable worksheet is deliberately blank: it is a schema, not completed review.
Propose an independent review →- 01
Coordinator
Recovers records, removes direct identifiers, randomises packets and never scores outcomes.
- 02
Reviewer A
Codes every masked packet independently under protocol v0.1.0.
- 03
Reviewer B
Repeats the same coding without seeing Reviewer A’s decisions.
- 04
Adjudicator
Resolves documented disagreements after agreement is calculated; cannot rewrite the frozen rule.
- 05
External critic
Tests leakage controls, candidate selection, denominator completeness and reproducibility from outside the preparation team.
Coding and adjudication
Score first.
Interpret second.
Reviewer fields
Source locator, timing class, specificity, ordinary-exposure pathway, document support, three candidate scores, outcome class, confidence and short rationale.
Agreement report
Publish raw agreement and an appropriate chance-corrected statistic for categorical fields. Report disagreements before adjudication and never discard “unclear.”
Candidate comparison
The nominated identity receives no privileged scoring rule. Candidate A, B and C use the same statement-level rubric and the alternative pool must be documented.
Outcome ledger
Include matches, mismatches, unverifiable statements, excluded items, missing documents and packets that could not be completed.
Exact Level 9 promotion rule
Level 9 only when all five conditions are public.
- All six cases are independently dual-coded.
- Inter-rater agreement and pre-adjudication disagreements are reported.
- Alternative-candidate matching is attempted under the frozen rule.
- The full outcome ledger and denominator are published.
- An independent external critical review is attached.
Current governed state
Prepared for scrutiny.
Still unresolved.
BQ001 remains Level 8/10. Accepted edges remain 0. Model support remains empty. Reddit live access remains HOLD. Truth, scientific-evidence, rights and private-data promotion remain off.