The hundred, version one

The final spreadsheet still has one hundred rows. That is the least interesting thing about it.

Every row now points to a full evidence dossier. Every dossier contains outside-lineage scrutiny. The portfolio represents all twenty-two capabilities and all thirty IoV questions through inspected evidence. The final Empty-Chair Test found no unexplained seat.

This is IoV100 v1.0: evidence-audited, unranked and provisional.

It is not an advisory board. Nobody is represented as participating, endorsing, advising or agreeing to help the Foundation.

What changed

The portfolio changed when the evidence required it. Four evidence-comparable revisions were applied across the stabilization process. The final one replaced an unresolved dossier with Ellis Ballard, whose inspected work strengthened the fragile ontology question and implementation-feedback capability. The displaced candidate remained a reserve rather than becoming an eligibility rejection.

That distinction is the point. Portfolio selection asks what the room needs. Eligibility asks whether the person’s work meets the evidence threshold. A replacement can answer the first question without reversing the second.

What ran—and what did not

Eight implementation and adversarial checks passed against the canonical synthetic casebook: rate blindness, value/wellbeing non-monotonicity, negative wellbeing under high value, routine no-transition, occurrence deduplication, correction supersession, chronological replay and Genesis exclusion.

Those are useful checks of implementation invariants. They are not observed empirical tests of wellbeing, value, causality, construct validity or measurement invariance.

Observed empirical IoV tests: zero.

The result is therefore a research instrument, not a victory claim. It tells us whom to read, what to ask, which assumptions need pressure and where the evidence still stops.

The hundred is ready to help us formulate better tests. The proposition still has to survive them.