Summary:
Our research currently operates beyond the scope of modern scientific validation methods. While it aligns with known scientific effects, it explores foundational structures that cannot yet be directly tested, measured, or experimentally probed.

Key reasoning:
Modern peer review is designed to evaluate testable models, physical evidence, and experimental results. At this stage, our work focuses on conceptual structure, mathematical consistency, and alignment with observed effects rather than direct experimentation. Submitting this work to peer review now would likely frame it as speculative science, not because it lacks rigor, but because the necessary tools to validate it do not yet exist.

Position:
We have therefore decided to postpone peer review until the research produces one or more of the following:

• testable predictions

• physical evidence

• computational validation

• or practical implementations derived from the framework

Outcome:
This decision allows the work to mature without being prematurely judged by standards that are not designed for research at this level. Peer review remains a future step, contingent on the emergence of verifiable outputs rather than conceptual alignment alone.