Listening Beyond Four Dimensions: Higher‑Dimensional Blast — GEN5 Last‑Mile Mini‑Kit (v5.8.1)

PurposeThis package is a referee‑ready, reproducibility mini‑kit for the “higher‑dimensional blast” hypothesis. We keep Einstein’s 4D gravity intact where it is tested and let four public gates decide whether a faint higher‑D/UV channel exists: (1) Bayes/ΔBIC, (2) CMB parity (TIS), (3) cross‑PTA knee coherence (PCI), and (4) ringdown leakage (ε). Each gate reduces to tiny input files and a one‑line command. What’s in this release (v5.8.1)• Updated status scoreboard (PNG) showing all four gates.• Machine‑readable status JSON (single source of truth).• Ringdown ε summary (pooled median + 68% CI) with full uncertainty propagation.• PCI stub summary (explains why PCI was not recomputed here).• Run‑cards (exact inputs → one‑liner → interpretation) + knee‑file QA checklist.• Paste‑ready abstract. Current status (auto‑built from the status JSON)• Gate‑1 (Bayes/model choice): log10BF = 2.606 (≈ 403:1) — PASS.• Gate‑2 (CMB parity, TIS): 0.732 — PASS.• Gate‑3 (Cross‑PTA coherence, PCI): not recomputed here; requires common‑prior knee draws. Last locked value: median ≈ 0.427 (PASS rule ≥ 0.80).• Gate‑4 (Ringdown leakage, ε): pooled median ≈ 0.0288 with 68% CI [−0.017, 0.075] — GR‑consistent at 68% (uncertainties propagated). How to finish the last mile (PCI, fairness check in knee space)Provide three CSVs with posterior draws under the same prior and units (Hz), each one‑column named exactly f_br_Hz: NG15_knee_COMMON_PRIOR.csv EPTA_knee_COMMON_PRIOR.csv PPTA_knee_COMMON_PRIOR.csvThen run the included one‑liner: python pci_from_knee_samples_GEN5.py NG15_knee_COMMON_PRIOR.csv EPTA_knee_COMMON_PRIOR.csv PPTA_knee_COMMON_PRIOR.csv --col f_br_Hz --nboot 2000 --out PCI_from_knee_summary.jsonPASS rule: median PCI ≥ 0.80 (fixed a priori). Reproducibility posture• Fixed rules; small public inputs; one‑line commands; no goal‑post moves.• Cosmology safety via the standard ΔN_eff bound.• If future data pass all gates (and independent teams reproduce), the “higher‑D blast” gains empirical footing; if not, the hypothesis is rejected cleanly. ContactRicardo Maldonado (corresponding author).