AKASHICNET · HISTORICAL RESEARCH REVIEW · 24 OCTOBER 2026

A null target result.
An open follow-up.

A claim-level application of the AkashicOMNI v0.5.0 Public Review Specification. AI-assisted editorial assessment awaiting independent human methods review. No raw-data reanalysis or complete execution of constituent frameworks is claimed.

The study and the measured result

Assessing correspondence between subjective reports and visual targets during attempted out-of-body experiences · Marina Weiler, Damon Abraham, David J. P. Acunzo and Niffe Hermansson; UVA, Entangled Labs and Auckland. Online 12 August 2026; assigned November–December issue. PMID 42617381.

Twenty-one participants attempted to perceive concealed random images; 13 descriptions were analysed against 100 candidate targets per trial. Participants and researchers were blind to targets. Neither individual nor combined rank tests showed significant above-chance correspondence. Synthetic semantic controls did not establish sensitivity to naturalistic descriptions. Two environmental reports were outside predefined outcomes.

Small analysis population and unverified exclusions limit inference. Effect sizes, intervals, prospective registration, code and data were not verified. PubMed/current publisher abstract reports ten OBEs; indexed pre-proof abstract/results reports nine. Reconciliation is pending, not a verified correction. No conflicts declared; UVA reports an undisclosed donor gift.

Sources: PubMed, publisher, UVA account, 8 September 2026. Scope: abstract, indexed publisher excerpts and institutional account; full-text retrieval returned 403. Raw data and independent replication unreviewed. Reuse rights unverified; link rather than reproduce participant narratives.

What changes, and what does not?

Exact claim	Editorial assessment	Boundary
Attempted OBEs enabled above-chance concealed-image identification in this experiment.	Not supported by the reported target analysis.	A nonsignificant result is not proof of zero effect or an equivalence test.
Unexpected environmental descriptions establish anomalous perception.	Not established; exploratory follow-up lead.	Prospective scoring, a comparison rate and information-pathway controls are needed.
Consciousness continues after death.	Not tested by this experiment.	Participants attempting OBEs do not constitute a postmortem population.

DISCERN → DEEPEN → synthesis

DISCERN: assign the neutral OBE lane before contextual mapping to BQ001. Keep target accuracy, lived experience and survival interpretation as distinct claims.

DEEPEN: examine scorer sensitivity, all enrolled participants, missing descriptions, selection rules, ordinary information routes and version differences. Chance correspondence, contextual inference, leakage or recording ambiguity remain alternatives for exploratory reports; none is established as the explanation here.

Synthesis: retain a limited null result against the tested target claim. Replace the earlier shorthand “downward shift” with this precise scope: no Bayesian odds, universal disproof or new BQ verdict has been calculated. Relevance 5/5 for the perception claim; provisional quality 2/5 at this access scope; confidence moderate in the reported null, limited in causal interpretation.

Perspective coverage

Perspective	Status	Contribution or limit
AWAKEN	APPLIED	Separate felt disembodiment from information accuracy.
HIERATIC	APPLIED	Preserve the distinction between OBE reports and survival interpretations.
HOMESENSE	APPLIED	Respect experience without assigning it unmeasured accuracy.
ADAPT	APPLIED	Specify a blinded, prospective environmental-target follow-up.
REGENERATE	NOT_RELEVANT	No ecological or regenerative outcome assessed.
TRANSCEND	APPLIED	Keep unusual reports open to competing explanations.
#METAD	APPLIED	Distinguish self-report, scoring and model interpretation.
ACTC	APPLIED	Communicate the null result alongside exploratory observations.
CUT · PAST	INSUFFICIENT_INFORMATION	Original analysis-plan timing and complete version history unverified.
CUT · PRESENT	APPLIED	Record actual access scope and unresolved source mismatch.
CUT · FUTURE	APPLIED	State revision conditions before any new data.
UMASC	APPLIED	Do not extrapolate a laboratory outcome to cosmic mechanisms.

What would justify another shift?

Recover the full paper, corrections/version history, complete participant flow and analysis-plan timestamps. Resolve nine versus ten before subgroup interpretation.
Validate scoring against blinded human ratings and realistic descriptions, including known-match positive controls. Fix scoring rules before testing a new sample.
Preregister randomised environmental targets, conceal allocation, record every report before unblinding, retain misses and audit sensory/information routes.
Use an adequately powered independent team, report uncertainty and publish null outcomes. A reproducible information effect would still require a separate mechanism test.

These are proposed revision conditions, not a preregistration, an executed study or an invitation to contact participants.

Governance and receipt

Record OBE-CLAIM-REVIEW-20261024-01 · version 1.0 · reviewed 24 October 2026. Historical study, already discussed in this conversation; this adds a public framework assessment, not a new discovery or independent replication.

DOI/PMID/title searches in corpus ledger v241 returned no exact match for this study. Global cross-task/PRISM deduplication was not completed. The vNDE scale and UVA intermission-time study were identified as existing lineages and not counted again. Source dates are separate from this review date; first-discovery date unknown.

BQ001 remains UNRESOLVED at its existing 8/10 research-maturity label. supports_models=[]; no accepted graph edges, canonical ingestion or evidence-status promotion. Public editorial integration only; independent human review remains pending.

Download the editorial review receipt · JSON