Model Comparison and Global Phase Coherence of CMB Birefringence Rotation Field V2.33

Summary This release documents two analyses of the structured standing-wave birefringence rotation field alpha(n) identified in Planck 2018 polarization data at NSIDE=16. The first is a full computed model comparison. The second is a comprehensive phase topology test suite characterizing the global coherence of the dominant harmonic periodicity at Delta-ell=109.15 across the sky. The alpha map used throughout is alpha_lowL_combined_v141.fits — the original uncalibrated EB cross-correlation proxy in arbitrary units, used for continuity with the v2.0-v2.2 analysis chain. Calibration verification conducted in this release confirms all phase coherence results are calibration-independent: the calibrated v2.30 map gives R=0.9886 vs R=0.9861 uncalibrated, with cross-map phase agreement R_cross=0.9987 and mean per-patch phase difference of -1.0 degrees across 40 independent patches. This dataset contains two upload files: a scorecard package (ZIP) containing 35 JSON result files and a README, and a FITS binary table containing the canonical 48-patch phase map. SERIES CONTEXT The 22 Blue series documents a structured standing-wave CMB birefringence rotation field alpha(n) at NSIDE=16 in Planck 2018 polarization data. Key prior releases: v2.13 (anchor publication, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17693540): Established the core detection — dual-domain boundary structure, dominant harmonic Delta-ell~109, phase drift ~15.47 degrees/shell (R2~0.94), complex propagation coefficient q=-0.755-0.270i. Validated across SMICA/NILC, half-mission splits, mask variations, and 500+ surrogate tests. v2.30 (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20755330): Calibrated map published. NSIDE=512, internal EE/BB normalization, global std~1.36e-4 rad, Z~38 dipole null confirmed. v2.31 (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20777435): Physical origin established. Every analyzed shell consists of two antipodally-paired connected components (6-9 sigma null significance). Cyclic cross-correlation 0.97-0.99 across shell pairs. v2.32 (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20787307): Antipodal topology partially explains phase prediction (r~-0.286). Low-frequency spectral organization within Domain 1/8 depends on value ordering not window geometry (Null C). Standardized null effect sizes: 36.9, 32.6, 21.3, 8.6. v2.33 (this release): Full computed model comparison and global phase topology test suite. Note on file path: scorecard files are stored internally under a v2_2_universe_eval directory because this release originated as an extension of the v2.2 model comparison audit. The path is historically correct and does not indicate a version mislabeling. MODEL COMPARISON Six universe models were evaluated against the observed alpha field structure using BIC comparison and 10-fold cross-validation with permutation null (n=1000). BIC comparison results (normalized scores, 1.000=best):• Anisotropic-DE/Gaussian-damped: 1.000 (winner)• Axion/scalar field: 0.934• Domain/topological: 0.537• Holographic: 0.537• Simulation/emergent: 0.537• LCDM: 0.000 The raw ΔBIC between the top two models is 184.6, far exceeding the threshold of 10 conventionally considered very strong evidence in favor of the winner. Cross-validation MSE ranking:• Anisotropic-DE: 1.54e-06 (best)• Axion/scalar: 2.26e-06• Domain/topological: 4.20e-06• LCDM: 1.07e-05 All periodic models beat white noise at p=0.000 under permutation null. LCDM is definitively last in both BIC and CV rankings. The Anisotropic-DE/Gaussian-damped model is physically interpreted as a rotation field with a preferred coherence length, possibly from a finite-epoch process or boundary condition at a scale larger than the observable universe. PHASE MAP METHOD The canonical 48-patch phase map (patch_phase_map_v3_20260623.fits) uses the following fully reproducible method: • Input: alpha_lowL_combined_v141.fits downgraded to NSIDE=128• Sky mask: mask_qmaskproxy_fsky0467_apod1deg_NSIDE512 (fsky=0.467)• Patch grid: NSIDE=2 (48 patches total, 40 with sufficient coverage)• Per-patch pseudo-Cl spectrum via hp.anafast, lmax=512• fsky correction applied per patch• Linear detrend over ell=50-500• FFT phase at nearest bin to Delta-ell=109.15 (bin lands at Delta-ell=112.8 due to frequency resolution; Delta-ell=109.15 is established from the global ACTIVE residual spectrum at much higher resolution)• Reliable filter: SNR>1.0 (all 40 patches pass)• Zero pairwise pixel overlap confirmed between all 40 patches PHASE TOPOLOGY RESULTS Global phase coherence (headline result):• R = 0.9861• n = 40 independent patches (zero pairwise pixel overlap confirmed)• Mean phase = -30.3 degrees• Circular std = 9.6 degrees• Rayleigh Z = 38.90, p = 3.51e-16• Null test: p < 1e-5 (zero hits in 100,000 random phase draws, null max R = 0.524) Calibration independence:• Calibrated map (alpha_lowL_v230_calibrated_rad.fits): R=0.9886• R_cross vs uncalibrated = 0.9987• Mean per-patch phase difference = -1.0 degrees, std = 2.9 degrees• Pixel-by-pixel ratio between maps is non-uniform (CV=58) but phase coherence is preserved because pseudo-Cl FFT phase is sensitive to spatial periodicity structure, not absolute scale Frequency independence (TEST 6):• F100_HM1: R=0.9898, p=2.73e-16• F143_HM1: R=0.9866, p=3.41e-16• F217_HM2: R=0.9888, p=2.92e-16• F100 vs F217: R_cross=0.9992, mean delta-phi=0.1 degrees, std=2.3 degrees• F100 vs F143: R_cross=0.9957, mean delta-phi=-0.1 degrees, std=5.3 degrees• F143 vs F217: R_cross=0.9931, mean delta-phi=0.1 degrees, std=6.7 degrees• Note: 100 and 143 GHz second half-mission maps not used in this version. Mask independence (TEST 7):• Standard proxy mask (fsky=0.467): R=0.9861, std=9.6 degrees• Galactic cut 30 degrees (fsky=0.500): R=0.9998, std=1.1 degrees• Dust quantile 50 percent (fsky=0.500): R=0.9944, std=6.1 degrees• Cross-mask R_cross > 0.986 for all pairs• Mean cross-mask phase difference < 1.2 degrees Physical scale (TEST 12 — Limber mapping):• At last scattering (z=1090, chi_*=13866 Mpc, Planck 2018 cosmology)• Delta-ell=109.15 maps to physical periodicity L=798 Mpc (comoving)• k = 0.00787 Mpc^-1• 5.3x the BAO sound horizon (~150 Mpc) — not a BAO harmonic• For L=150 Mpc (BAO scale match): would require source at z=0.71• Note: the angular period of the Cl oscillation theta_0=1/Delta-ell =0.525 degrees=31.5 arcmin is a distinct quantity from the Limber- mapped physical scale L=798 Mpc. These measure different things and should not be conflated. Value ordering null (TEST 16/17):• Global value shuffle (n=200): mean R=0.573, p<1e-5• Local value shuffle within each patch (n=200): mean R=0.596, p<1e-5• Both destroy coherence; dominant signal is global not local• Phase coherence is carried by the spatial ordering of alpha values globally, consistent with v2.32 Null C finding• Geometry shuffle (patch relabeling) leaves R identically invariant for any map — confirmed as a mathematical property of the method, not a physical finding (TEST 16b) Spatial isotropy (TEST 18/19):• Dipole fit p=0.321, quadrupole fit p=0.197 — no spatial gradient• No excess angular power at any ell 1-8 (p>0.71 for all)• Phase map has less angular structure than random phases• Signature of perfectly uniform global phase field with no detectable spatial modulation at any angular scale Bootstrap confidence intervals (TEST 8/9 v3):• Global: R=0.9861, 95% CI [0.976, 0.995]• Domain 1/8 patches (n=24, f_d18>0): R=0.999, 95% CI [0.998, 0.999]• Outside patches (n=16, f_d18=0): R=0.967, 95% CI [0.949, 0.990]• Partition is exhaustive and non-overlapping (24+16=40)• Boundary group not reported: NSIDE=2 patches too coarse to overlap boundary pixels at NSIDE=16 EXPLORATORY FINDINGS Domain 1/8 phase difference (TEST 2b): Observed |delta-phi|=173.5 degrees between D1+8 and outside patches under NSIDE=4 pixel-index FFT method, permutation p=0.020. Based on n=8 D1+8 patches; sits just below 99th percentile (175.9 degrees); not supported by TEST 3 or TEST 4 null results. Domain 1/8 amplitude enhancement (TEST 15): Patches with greater Domain 1/8 overlap show higher Delta-ell=109 amplitude (Spearman r=0.380, p=0.017). One significant result among four correlations tested; not corrected for multiple comparisons. NULL AND INCONCLUSIVE RESULTS The following tests were run and are documented as part of the complete scientific record: Tests 1, 1b, 1c: Partial-sky FFT approaches for domain-scale phase extraction. All found to be unreliable due to the pixel-index FFT not mapping to angular spacing. Method exhausted after three variations. Tests 2, 3: NSIDE=4 patch phase map using pixel-index FFT. Phases noise-dominated (R~0.01-0.07 within groups, mean absolute phase difference ~90 degrees at all angular separations). Same fundamental limitation as Tests 1, 1b, 1c. TEST 4: No coherence drop at Domain 1/8 boundary (slope=-0.0025/degree, p=0.853). R slightly higher near boundary than far. TEST 11: Gaussian damping envelope not robustly extractable. Non-Gaussian envelope with secondary structure; single Gaussian fit R2=0.633. E-folding scale estimate unreliable. TEST 14: Shell pairs predict phase map — only 4 of 40 patches overlap shell pixels. Insufficient sky coverage for meaningful test. Method retired. TEST 5 revised / TEST 5b: Independent map validation partial. 100 and 143 GHz second half-mission maps not used in this version. F100_HM1 vs F217_HM2 residual cross-correlation r=0.985 confirms periodicity present in independent maps, but formal half-mission split validation is incomplete. FILE CONTENTS v233_scorecard_20260623.zip contains: Canonical files:• README.txt• patch_phase_map_v3_20260623.json — 48-patch phase map (v3 method)• test8_9_v3_20260623.json — Rayleigh test and bootstrap CI (v3 method)• v233_final_summary_v4_20260623.json — complete results summary Model comparison:•model_scorecard_BIC_computed_20260623.json• model_cv_permutation_20260623.jsonPhase map (versioned, for provenance):• patch_phase_map_20260623.json — pixel-index FFT (superseded)• patch_phase_map_v2_20260623.json — sinusoidal fit attempt (superseded) • patch_phase_map_v3_20260623.json — pseudo-Cl FFT (canonical) Supporting data:• antipodal_phase_check_20260623.json• deltaL_profile_likelihood_v2_1.json Test results (by test number):• test1_region_phase_20260623.json• test2_nside4_patch_phase_20260623.json• test2b_permutation_20260623.json• test3_phase_gradient_20260623.json• test4_boundary_R_drop_20260623.json• test5_revised_indep_maps_20260623.json• test5b_hm_spectrum_diagnostic_20260623.json• test6_frequency_channels_20260623.json• test7_mask_variation_20260623.json• test8_rayleigh_20260623.json (superseded by test8_9_v3)• test9_bootstrap_R_ci_20260623.json (superseded by test8_9_v3)• test8_9_v3_20260623.json (canonical)• test10_R_null_test_20260623.json• test11_gaussian_physical_size_20260623.json• test12_limber_mapping_20260623.json• test14_shell_phase_predict_20260623.json• test15_boundary_coherence_20260623.json• test16_null_C_connection_20260623.json• test16b_null_B_diagnostic_20260623.json• test17_null_A_regional_20260623.json• test18_phase_gradient_20260623.json• test19_phase_power_spectrum_20260623.json• test_calib_verification_20260623.json•test6_vs_combined_supplemental_20260623.json — R_cross for F143_HM1 and F217_HM2 vs combined map (computed separately from test6) after the test6_frequency_channels_20260623.json line Summary files (versioned, for provenance):• v233_analysis_session_summary_20260623.json• v233_final_summary_20260623.json (superseded)• v233_final_summary_v2_20260623.json (superseded)• v233_final_summary_v3_20260623.json (superseded)• v233_final_summary_v4_20260623.json (canonical) patch_phase_map_v3_20260623.fits contains:• FITS binary table, 40 rows x 8 columns• Columns: PATCH_IDX, LON, LAT, PHASE_RAD, PHASE_DEG, AMPLITUDE, SNR, N_PIX• Header contains full provenance and method metadata PROVENANCE NOTE Absolute amplitude values reported in this dataset (amplitude column in the FITS file, amplitude fields in JSON) are in arbitrary units of the uncalibrated proxy map and should not be interpreted as physical rotation angles. PUBLICATION RECORD PREDECESSOR PUBLICATION (Separate Record) Sep 20, 2025 (v1.0) — Harmonic Phase Alignments in Planck 2018 CMB — DOI:10.5281/zenodo.17167268 MAIN RESEARCH SERIES Concept DOI:10.5281/zenodo.17317397 Oct 10, 2025 (v1.0) — Scale-Dependent Anisotropic Birefringence: Initial Detection — DOI:10.5281/zenodo.17317398 Oct 20, 2025 (v1.1) — Scale-Dependent Anisotropic Birefringence: Validation Dataset — DOI:10.5281/zenodo.17396428 Oct 21, 2025 (v1.2) — Two-Harmonic Extension — DOI:10.5281/zenodo.17410764 Oct 28, 2025 (v1.3) — Two-Harmonic Dipole Verification — DOI:10.5281/zenodo.17468988 Nov 1, 2025 (v1.4) — MASTER-Calibrated Dipole — DOI:10.5281/zenodo.17500791 Nov 1, 2025 (v1.41) — Extended MASTER Calibration and Robustness — DOI:10.5281/zenodo.17508908 Nov 7, 2025 (v1.42) — Dependence-Aware Joint Validation — DOI:10.5281/zenodo.17553829 Nov 8, 2025 (v1.43) — Phase Model Validation — DOI:10.5281/zenodo.17561313 Nov 8, 2025 (v1.44) — Axis + Frequency + Half-Mission Validation — DOI:10.5281/zenodo.17561768 Nov 9, 2025 (v1.5) — Multipole Structure and Model Selection — DOI:10.5281/zenodo.17562965 Nov 9, 2025 (v1.6) — Phenomenology and Physical Interpretation — DOI:10.5281/zenodo.17566197 Nov 9, 2025 (v1.7) — Prediction and Experiment Overlays — DOI:10.5281/zenodo.17566870 Nov 9, 2025 (v1.8) — Model Rejection and Δℓ Persistence — DOI:10.5281/zenodo.17567241 Nov 10, 2025 (v2.0) — Intrinsic Periodicity in ℓ-Space — DOI:10.5281/zenodo.17574048 Nov 10, 2025 (v2.1) — Physical Origin of Δℓ Modulation — DOI:10.5281/zenodo.17577086 Nov 11, 2025 (v2.2) — Universe-Model Evaluation — DOI:10.5281/zenodo.17585419 Nov 12, 2025 (v2.3) — Domain Geometry and Topological Inference — DOI:10.5281/zenodo.17594157 Nov 13, 2025 (v2.4) — Real-Space Correlation of the Birefringence Field — DOI:10.5281/zenodo.17597537 Nov 13, 2025 (v2.5) — Spectral Surgery on the Δℓ ≈ 109 Harmonic — DOI:10.5281/zenodo.17604982 Nov 14, 2025 (v2.6) — Angular Locality of the Δℓ = 109 Standing Wave — DOI:10.5281/zenodo.17613348 Nov 15, 2025 (v2.7) — Sky-Local Origin of the Δℓ ≈ 109 Standing Wave — DOI:10.5281/zenodo.17620029 Nov 15, 2025 (v2.8) — Domain Topology of the Δℓ ≈ 109 Standing Wave — DOI:10.5281/zenodo.17620605 Nov 16, 2025 (v2.9) — Dual-Domain Coherence and Boundary Geometry — DOI:10.5281/zenodo.17621871 Nov 17, 2025 (v2.10) — Boundary Sequence Structure on the Dual-Domain Loop — DOI:10.5281/zenodo.17635811 Nov 19, 2025 (v2.11) — Boundary Standing-Wave and Phase-Structure Analysis — DOI:10.5281/zenodo.17648033 Nov 21, 2025 (v2.12) — Boundary Universality and Standing-Wave Fingerprints — DOI:10.5281/zenodo.17676377 Nov 23, 2025 (v2.13) — Interior Propagation and Boundary-Driven Structure — DOI:10.5281/zenodo.17693540 Jun 18, 2026 (v2.29) — Rotation Field of the Cosmic Microwave Background — Interior Propagation Audit & Harmonic Normalization — DOI:10.5281/zenodo.20753037 Jun 19, 2026 (v2.30) — Calibrated Interior Propagation Validation — DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20755330 Jun 20, 2026 (v2.31) — Rotation Field of the Cosmic Microwave Background — Physical Origin of Boundary-to-Interior Propagation — DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20777435 Jun 21, 2026 (v2.32) — Rotation Field of the Cosmic Microwave Background — Antipodal Specificity, Boundary Ordering, and Cross-Scale Spectral Organization — DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20787307 RELATED PUBLICATIONS Feb 23, 2026 (v2.14) — Urgent Whistleblower Update: Rotation Field of the Cosmic Microwave Background – Interior Propagation and Boundary-Driven Structure — DOI:10.5281/zenodo.18749560 Feb 24, 2026 (v2.22) — Emergency Public Health Whistleblower Statement: Seizure of the Cosmic Propagation Constants and Their Weaponization in the Starlink Defense Architecture — DOI:10.5281/zenodo.18764980 May 23, 2026 (v2.26) — CMB Birefringence Rotation Field: FCC Regulatory Correlations, Satellite Architecture Alignments, and Standing Wave Discovery — DOI:10.5281/zenodo.20361488 May 26, 2026 (v2.27) — Longitudinal Persistence, Timing Purity, and Biological-Plausibility Screening of a Phase-Stable Starlink Scheduler Envelope — DOI:10.5281/zenodo.20398946 May 28, 2026 (v2.28) — Interior Propagation of CMB Birefringence Field α(n̂) Anomalies: Planck Legacy Data Correlation, In Vivo Nanoscale Signal Grounding, and Covert Bio-Electronic Weapon Deployment — DOI:10.5281/zenodo.20424381 Contact email: [e-mail] 22 Blue - The Heartbeat of the Universe