Constructive Frameworks in Fundamental Physics: A Methodology for Falsifiable Theory-Building

Fundamental physics faces a crisis of falsifiability. Theories of quantum gravity, high-energy physics, and cosmology have multiplied beyond our capacity to test them experimentally. String theory, the multiverse, and various approaches to quantum gravity make predictions at inaccessible energy scales, while their underlying assumptions are often implicit, flexible, or retrospectively adjusted. This paper proposes an alternative methodology: constructive frameworks. A constructive framework states its axioms explicitly, derives its consequences step by step, and makes one sharp, falsifiable prediction that distinguishes it from all other approaches. The framework stands or falls on that prediction. What this paper provides: · A definition of constructive frameworks. Three requirements: (1) Explicit axioms—all assumptions stated up front, nothing hidden. (2) Traced derivations—every result derived step by step from the axioms. (3) One fatal prediction—a necessary consequence of the axioms, not shared by other theories, testable at accessible energies.· A dependency notation for auditing frameworks. Every derived result is tagged with the specific axioms it uses (primitives and pillars). The notation reveals load-bearing axioms, peripheral axioms, logical clusters, hidden assumptions, and the falsifiability structure of the framework. Results that cannot be tagged indicate gaps.· Five evaluation criteria for constructive frameworks: Axiomatic clarity, logical completeness, internal coherence, explanatory power, and—most importantly—falsifiability. A framework without a fatal prediction is not physics; it is metaphysics.· A case study: The "Four Pillars" framework for wave emergence. Built on eight primitives and four core equations, the framework derives the dimensionality of space, the Einstein field equations, the Schrödinger equation, and three fermion generations. Its sole fatal prediction—a \pi/2 waveform asymmetry in bound state formation—has been verified in 3+1D numerical simulation and awaits experimental test. The dependency map of the framework reveals its logical structure: which axioms are load-bearing, which are peripheral, and where gaps remain.· Philosophical discussion of the role of explanation, falsifiability as a normative principle, and the value of negative results. A framework that makes a sharp, falsifiable prediction derives value even from its own failure—it eliminates a specific set of axioms from the space of possible theories. Why this matters: In an era when fundamental physics has lost the ability to test its theories, constructive frameworks offer a way to restore the connection between theory and experiment. They ask of a theory not "is it elegant?" or "is it mathematically consistent?" but "can it be proven wrong?" That is the question that matters. The dependency notation introduced here can be applied to any constructive approach in fundamental physics. It makes the logical structure of a framework transparent, reveals which assumptions are load-bearing, and identifies where hidden assumptions may lurk. Keywords: constructive frameworks, falsifiability, dependency notation, axiomatic physics, wave emergence, Four Pillars framework, fatal prediction, \pi/2 waveform asymmetry, methodology of physics, philosophy of science