The complete body of work underlying Principia Fractalis is publicly available and machine-verifiable at: https://github.com/FractalDevTeam/Principia-Fractalis The canonical corpus includes: • Full manuscripts in L A T E X (801 pages, 35 chapters) • Formal proofs in Lean 4 (663+ lines, 11+ theorems) • Formal proofs in Coq (557+ lines, 23+ theorems, 0 axioms) • Lean4Lean bootstrap verification All definitions, theorems, and notational conventions used in this review are derived directly from that corpus. Any scientific challenge to claims discussed herein must engage the formal proofs and codebase directly. Abstract Background: Principia Fractalis (PF) proposes the Fractal Resonance Ontology framework, making specific, falsifiable predictions across neuroscience, quantum physics, cosmology, and computational complexity. This systematic review assesses post-publication evidence (2023-2026) for alignment with, corroboration of, or falsification of PF claims. Methods: PRISMA-2020 guidelines. Databases: PubMed, arXiv, Web of Science, Google Scholar, MathSciNet. Search conducted November 2025-January 2026. Inclusion: peer-reviewed primary research or preprints with quantitative data relevant to PF predictions. Exclusion: opinion pieces, reviews without new data, studies predating PF, secondary journalism, duplicate reports. Certainty assessment via modified GRADE framework. AI systems used exclusively for literature discovery and screening assistance-no AI-originated claims. Results: From 847 initial records, 23 studies met inclusion criteria after screening. Of 12 formally assessed PF claims, 5 received HIGH corroboration ratings, 4 received MODERATE-HIGH ratings, 2 received MODERATE ratings, 1 received LOW rating. Zero studies provided direct falsification of core PF predictions. Three studies identified limitations requiring framework refinement. Conclusions: Post-publication evidence shows pattern-level alignment with PF predictions, particularly in consciousness metrics, quantum coherence scales, and complex systems criticality. However, alignment is not confirmation; most corroboration is indirect. The absence of falsification, while notable, does not constitute proof. Preregistered empirical tests are recommended.
Pablo Solorzano Cohen (Thu,) studied this question.