Public evidence record for the taste lane. Negative-reference boundary and audit limits define the claim surface.

The finding for this lane is a bounded negative: the current taste lane object is not geometry-bearing under the evaluation committed here. Identity controls score 1.0 across all four geometry metrics, confirming the evaluation machinery discriminates correctly before the lane object is tested. The lane object scores well below every pass threshold — that result is what this repository preserves and publishes.

This repository does not claim that biological taste coding is impossible. It claims one narrow thing: the committed object did not pass.

Source: proofs/artifacts/taste_negative_reference.json

This repository does not claim that biological taste coding is impossible.; This repository does not settle disputed models of cortical taste organization.; This repository does not claim that a different native taste object could never support a geometry-bearing representation.

• The committed reference packet preserves the narrow negative verdict for the current taste lane object.
• The evaluation machinery discriminates (identity control 1.0), so the lane object scores are meaningful, not noise.

• This repository does not claim that biological taste coding is impossible.
• No comparative benchmarks are published for this lane. This is a no-comp lane by design.

python3 -m venv .venv
. .venv/bin/activate
python -m pip install --upgrade pip
pip install .
python -m zpe_taste.verify
python -m unittest discover -s tests -v

See docs/SCOPE.md for the explicit public claim boundary, and PUBLIC_AUDIT_LIMITS.md for the outsider audit boundary.

This section captures the active lane priorities — what the next agent or contributor picks up, and what investors should expect. Cadence is continuous, not milestoned.

• Taste lane object — conceptual rethink — Zero-Base Scientific Thinking — GPD Research and Planning Pending. Current lane object is not geometry-bearing (metric_fit 0.207 vs threshold 0.6, topology_fit 0.156 vs 0.5) — published as falsification. Active rethinking: what is the actual encodable taste object? Receptor-space (parallel to ZPE-Smell), psychophysical-space, or something else? No new engineering until the conceptual model resolves.