Section 113 of 440
APPENDIX AA: CANDIDATE LAB AND RESEARCH OBSERVATORY
Wave 1 Adjudication Register
Wave 1 was adjudicated against the sixteen operational modules, seven existing Candidate Lab records and fourteen Observatory entries in Revision 4. Revision 5 independently checked the eight Wave 1 evidence records against identified primary publications. Revision 6 carries those bounded states forward: four worked exemplars remain accepted within existing modules; one candidate remains non-scoreable; two Observatory items remain research-only; and one maturity-vector record is supported only as a bounded cue-integration example. Structural admission and empirical support remain separate decisions.
Proposal | Duplication finding | Lifecycle decision | Reason / boundary |
|---|---|---|---|
Calendar Engine | No duplicate module; bounded procedural-learning pathway. | Accepted as worked exemplar under MOD-LEARNING-TRANSFER; cross-link MOD-FORECASTING. | Objective, low-risk and testable; no general-intelligence or savant claim. |
Visual Hyperacuity | No duplicate; narrower than general sensory discrimination. | Accepted as worked exemplar under MOD-SENSORY-DISCRIMINATION. | Task-specific threshold learning only; no optical or clinical claim. |
Olfactory Landmark Navigation | Cross-domain overlap, but no duplicate record. | Accepted as worked exemplar under MOD-SENSORY-DISCRIMINATION with MOD-SPATIAL-SIMULATION cross-link. | Only controlled tabletop, seated or cleared-room routes; no independent-navigation claim. |
Auditory Spatial Remapping | No duplicate; distinct from ordinary localization training. | Accepted as worked exemplar under MOD-SENSORY-DISCRIMINATION. | Stationary virtual transformation only; native-function interference must be tested. |
Synthetic self-motion cue | Overlaps Observatory wearable sensory augmentation. | Remain Candidate Lab research record; merge by cross-reference rather than duplicate entry. | Requires direct task benefit, cue-integration, device-off retention and non-interference evidence. |
Pupil biofeedback | Duplicates Observatory voluntary pupil control. | Merged into existing Observatory entry; not promoted. | Instrumented modulation is not proof of unaided control of a specific brain structure or broad autonomic mastery. |
N1 insight capture | Adjacent to lucid-dream interaction but not identical. | Add as Research Observatory sub-entry; not promoted. | Bounded discovery effects require replication, adverse-event review, delayed benefit and transfer evidence. |
Future Candidate Lab record: Synthetic Self-Motion Cue
Status: Candidate — not scoreable. Primary evidence verified: Karni and Zaidel (2026) tested 20 healthy adults on a motion platform. Adding a synthetic auditory self-motion cue improved heading-discrimination thresholds relative to vestibular stimulation alone, but integration was suboptimal and the synthetic cue was underweighted. This supports immediate combined-cue benefit in one controlled discrimination task; it does not establish training, automaticity, device-off retention, clinical benefit or safe navigation.
Promotion blockers remain: a training study rather than a single-session cue-combination study; safe stationary replication; predeclared conflict tests; delayed device-off retest; adverse-event and accessibility review; trial-level provenance; and evidence of benefit beyond the original heading-discrimination task. Evidence grade: Emerging for direct combined-cue benefit; Insufficient for operational promotion.
Observatory clarification: Voluntary Pupil Control and Biofeedback
Primary evidence verified. De Gee et al. (2024) randomly assigned healthy adults to veridical pupil biofeedback or control conditions and reported acquisition of pupil up- and down-regulation across three days, with no-feedback trials at the end of training. Additional experiments linked regulation to brainstem, cardiovascular and task measures. Titan therefore retains pupil biofeedback as an evidence route inside the existing Observatory entry, not as a scored capability or clinical intervention. Evidence grade: Moderate for instrumented pupil self-regulation in the studied protocol; Limited for durable unaided control, transfer and clinical value.
Observatory addition: N1 Insight Capture
Primary evidence verified. Lacaux et al. (2021) studied 103 participants on a hidden-rule numerical task. Among analysed post-break groups, 20 of 24 participants who entered N1 discovered the rule, compared with 15 of 49 who remained awake and 2 of 14 who reached N2. The effect concerned one laboratory insight task and did not establish general creativity, reliable self-induction or safe consumer use. This remains research-only. Evidence grade: Emerging–Moderate for bounded insight facilitation; Insufficient for promotion because replication, transfer, retention and practical safety remain unresolved.