GREAT EXPERIMENT 001 · PILOT 1 · ACTUAL EVIDENCE RUN

First result: no positive Name–Life correspondence detected.

NOT SUPPORTED IN PILOT 1

This pilot tested whether citizens who are structurally similar in Roman-letter Name Space are also similar in the current Museum Life Space. It did not find evidence for that prediction.

100citizens

4,950citizen pairs

r = -0.04725520591559849437057749810264795087277889252Name ↔ Life similarity correlation

p = 0.211two-sided permutation test

Frozen Pilot 1 method

Romanized name→26 normalized letter counts→pairwise cosine similarity ↔ Purpose + Great Question + Capability→TF-IDF→pairwise cosine similarity

The 4,950 pairwise similarities were correlated. Then Life Space identities were shuffled 5,000 times to generate a random-label null distribution.

What Reality returned

Observed correlation: -0.0473. Randomized null mean: 0.0004. 95% random interval: -0.0718 to 0.0756. Two-sided permutation p: 0.211.

The observed value is slightly negative and comfortably inside the shuffled-name distribution. Under this preregistered-style Pilot 1 test, the simple claim that letter-structure similarity tracks Life-Space similarity is not supported.

What this does NOT prove

It does not prove that names can never influence lives. It does not test documented name meaning, parental intention, social response to names, phonetics, culture, or Chinese-character structure. It also uses prototype Museum Life labels whose source validation is still incomplete. Therefore the broader claim remains open to better-specified tests, while this tested version has failed to show support.

Why the negative result matters

No story rescue

We preserve the result rather than reinterpret letters until the claim looks true.

Representation lesson

Romanized letter structure may be a weak or irrelevant representation for this question.

Next falsification

Run shuffled-name narrative tests and held-out prediction before adding richer features.

Pilot 2 candidates

1) blind held-out domain/capability prediction; 2) counterfactual name swaps; 3) documented etymology as a separate feature family; 4) Chinese-name replication; 5) larger external population after the Museum prototype labels are evidence-reviewed.