Every claim in Survivor Field Theory carries an explicit status tag — nothing is presented as settled that isn't. Below is the aggregate picture, then a breakdown across each of the theory's eight postulates. This is a simplified public read of a much more detailed technical record; nothing here is hidden, just distilled.
Computed as a simple average across the eight postulates' own status breakdowns below — the same method used on the full Derivation Dashboard. Treat it as a compass, not a scoreboard; the eight breakdowns below are the more meaningful read.
S = a discrete, non-spatial set of algebraic configurations, prior to space, time, or Hilbert space.
Before there is space or time, there's just a bare collection of abstract mathematical objects. Everything else in the theory — including space and time themselves — has to be built up from this set.
C_ij = W_ij + iΓ_ij: complex-Hermitian coupling between substrate elements.
Elements of the substrate influence each other through a two-part coupling number. This coupling is what eventually looks like a force once the theory is coarse-grained into recognizable physics.
A second-order, damped-oscillator equation, plus a stabilizing correction term.
Each part of the substrate behaves like a damped oscillator, decaying unless something stabilizes it. Which correction actually makes stable "survivors" possible is still an open, actively-tested question.
May's stability criterion + random matrix theory: coupling must be sparse and bounded-degree.
Each element can only meaningfully couple to a limited number of neighbors, not the whole substrate. Without this limit, the dynamics would be chaotic rather than settling into any stable structure.
Clifford-algebra classification (Bott periodicity) selects real signature (3,1) over (2,2).
Of all the ways the substrate's internal algebra could split into space-like and time-like pieces, one split — three space directions, one time direction — is the one this theory's math points to. That conclusion currently rests on a choice made elsewhere in the theory (Postulate 8) that hasn't itself been derived, which is why the tag below reads conditional rather than derived.
Vortex/homotopy and chirality-parity constraints jointly force a dimensional floor of n ≥ 4.
Stable topological defects and a working notion of handedness both need room to exist in. The algebra derives a floor of at least four dimensions — the case for exactly four is real but still conditional, not a separate, stronger result.
Algebraic triads of substrate elements rotating through an internal 8-dimensional space.
If the strong nuclear force shows up in this theory, it has to come from triplets of elements twisting together in a specific internal space. Most of this sector is on firm footing; the piece that isn't is flagged accordingly.
A bipartite, Clifford-algebra-valued chiral coupling recovering Dirac-type dispersion and signature-selection.
To get particle-like behavior with a built-in left/right handedness (fermions), an extra layer of algebraic structure is needed on top of the basic coupling — whether it's truly required, or a well-motivated addition, is still open.
Deriving how the substrate is connected — its adjacency structure — already presupposes some notion of "nearness," which is exactly the thing space is supposed to explain. This is a structural circularity, not a fine-tuning gap, and it's one SFT shares with other pre-geometric approaches to physics, including causal set theory.
It's been attacked from many directions across dozens of sessions — most recently through v53, using techniques borrowed from holography, the octonion algebra's own internal geometry, causal-set theory, string theory, condensed-matter physics, and a growth rule that actively steers outward using the algebra's own core quantity, plus a direct proof that the algebra's own symmetry group can never single out a preferred direction by itself, on any construction (the substrate keeps coming back looking like an ordinary expander graph rather than a genuinely local one, under every construction tried so far — nine independent versions now, and counting). One round added something qualitatively different: a proof, not another construction, showing that no rule built only from the relationship between two points — respecting the algebra's own symmetry — can ever escape this pattern, and that the same argument holds for any number of points. That closes off an entire category of approaches at once. The classification round narrowed the field to just two candidates that could possibly explain the unusual behavior already seen in one known case — that known case, and one brand-new candidate, which was then built and run through the numbers directly and found to behave the same qualitative way, though the two don't yet agree on the details. The most recent round pushed that new candidate's own test one scale further — the single longest computation the project has run — and the same flat pattern held there too; a related literature check found a second, independent way of sorting the surviving candidates, complicating rather than settling which one to test next; and a direct hunt for the actual mechanism behind the pattern, rather than just confirming it exists, tried five different explanations from the wider literature and ruled out all five — extended the very next round by a sixth, still negative. That next round, though, finally landed a positive result: a test built specifically to confirm or kill one particular idea came back confirming it, the first time in this entire search that's happened, pointing to a specific structural cause rather than just another correlation. It still doesn't explain why the underlying pattern holds, only what tracks it. It's logged as a permanent open entry, not quietly dropped between versions.
The breakdown above is deliberately simplified. The physicist layer has the full postulate wording, the complete status history addendum-by-addendum, and the theory's falsifiable predictions — the technical detail this page leaves out.