ESS-MAI — Independent Technical Review Requested

[gjatalegacy-create]

ESS-MAI is requesting independent technical criticism of the public POC 003–006 evidence. Agreement with Gjata Collapse Law or the project's terminology is not required. A precise counterexample, failed reproduction, narrower interpretation, or recommendation to remove a claim is a valuable result.

Start with:

• Hypothesis registry
• Theory-to-materialization registry
• Negative-results register
• Reviewer entry points
• Executable POC collection

Please identify the exact public claim, source/tag/DOI, method, observation, and boundary of your conclusion. Maintainer runs are not independent replication. A green build is not scientific validation; a failed build is not automatically falsification.

Questions we actively want disagreement on

1. What claim do you think is unsupported?
2. What architecture assumption appears unnecessary?
3. What invariant can you break?
4. What terminology is inconsistent with established research?
5. What part of the system cannot be reproduced?
6. What component is overengineered?
7. What component is under-specified?
8. What evidence would change your conclusion?
9. What should be removed?
10. What should be formally proven?
11. What should be benchmarked?
12. What should be rewritten?

Security-sensitive findings should follow SECURITY.md, not be posted with exploitable details here. Everything else may be supportive, critical, mixed, or inconclusive as long as the evidence is inspectable.