From Fields to Strings: A Field-Stack and Circle-of-Equivalence Program for String Theory

From Fields to Strings: A Field-Stack and Circle-of-Equivalence Program for String Theory  — Admissible Transforms, Replayable Invariants, and Transport-Ready Proofpacks for Duality Claims

String theory is often defended through internal consistency, mathematical elegance, and a network of dualities that suggest multiple descriptions encode the same physics. Yet the same properties that make the program powerful also make it difficult to audit: redescription is abundant, regimes are subtle, and “equivalence” can drift into rhetoric when invariants, scope, and replay conditions are not pinned down. This paper proposes a Field-Stack and Circle-of-Equivalence (CoE) program that reframes duality claims as governance objects: each claim is packaged with admissible transforms, replayable invariants, falsifiers, regime stamps, and a verification budget. Our central move is to treat “same physics” as an operational contract rather than an interpretive stance, and to require route-independent closure under declared transforms as the default promotion criterion. We introduce Transport-Ready Proofpacks for duality claims, designed to travel across teams, tools, and time without silently changing the claim. We argue that progress in fundamental theory can be made cumulative by publishing typed non-closure (HOLD/INFEASIBLE) as first-class scientific outputs, rather than treating it as failure. We position the program as a minimal, modular spine that can host multiple technical subprograms (anomaly certificates, dictionary regression suites, regime corridors) without assuming a single final formulation. The approach does not claim to prove string theory, nor to deliver novel empirical predictions in isolation. Instead, it proposes a discipline for making the strongest parts of the string program promotable under adversarial redescription. The result is a pathway to reduce interpretive degrees of freedom by turning equivalence talk into executable commitments. Finally, we outline how this methodology supports productive disagreement by converting debates into replayable disputes over receipts, invariants, and scope, rather than authority or narrative coherence.