Listening Beyond Four Dimensions: Higher‑Dimensional Blast — GEN5 Addendum & Preregistration Mini‑Kit (v5.8.1)

Purpose
This package is a referee‑ready, reproducibility mini‑kit for the “higher‑dimensional blast” hypothesis. We keep Einstein’s 4D gravity intact where it is tested and let four public gates decide whether a faint higher‑D/UV channel exists: (1) Bayes/ΔBIC, (2) CMB parity (TIS), (3) cross‑PTA knee coherence (PCI), and (4) ringdown leakage (ε). Each gate reduces to tiny input files and a one‑line command.

What’s in this release (v5.8.1)
• Updated status scoreboard + machine‑readable status JSON (single source of truth).
• ΔN_eff guardrail auditor output (with checkpoints at 3 mHz and 25 Hz).
• PCI demo summary (why PCI “official” is not recomputed here).
• Run‑cards (exact inputs → one‑liner → interpretation) + knee‑file QA checklist.
• Paste‑ready abstract.

Current status (from the included JSONs)
• Gate‑1 (Bayes/model choice): log10BF ≈ 2.606 (≈ 403:1) — PASS.
• Gate‑2 (CMB parity, TIS): 0.732 — PASS.
• Gate‑3 (Cross‑PTA coherence, PCI): DEMO pipeline PASS (median ≈ 0.87 with 68% CI ≈ [0.868, 0.876]) using demo knees; official PCI awaits three common‑prior knee posterior CSVs with equalized draws.
• Gate‑4 (Ringdown leakage, ε): pooled ε is GR‑consistent at 68% when per‑event uncertainties are propagated (0 lies inside the 68% CI).

How to finish the last mile (PCI fairness; shared prior and equalized draws)
Provide three CSVs with posterior draws under the same prior and units (Hz), each one‑column named f_br_Hz:
  NG15_knee_COMMON_PRIOR.csv
  EPTA_knee_COMMON_PRIOR.csv
  PPTA_knee_COMMON_PRIOR.csv
Then run the included one‑liner (or the published minimal script). PASS rule: PCI median ≥ 0.80.

Reproducibility posture
• Fixed rules; small public inputs; one‑line commands; no goal‑post moves.
• Cosmology safety via the standard ΔN_eff bound; multiband Ω_gw checkpoints at 3 mHz (LISA band) and 25 Hz (LVK band).
• If future data pass all gates (and independent teams reproduce), the “higher‑D blast” gains empirical footing; if not, the hypothesis is rejected cleanly.

Contact
Ricardo Maldonado (corresponding author).