Outcomes, with their limits attached

The result: Preregister a message-structure-only replay of the dry/open versus wet/enclosed hypothesis, anchored on the existing Marian negative result and excluding entity-affect endpoints.

What it means: A planned replay of the idea that dry, open landscapes produce different vision reports than wet, enclosed ones was specified and then parked: it only runs if two independent report collections can fill its cells.

What it is NOT: Not a result, because the test never ran. Not abandoned, because the frozen design sits ready and names exactly what data would trigger it.

Next test that could settle it: Before replay, freeze message-structure labels, four setting cells, corpus/era/tradition/source-length controls, and a holdout corpus. Run only if at least two practice-independent corpora can populate every comparison cell.

Open question: Do the broad climate/environment formulations survive current matched controls?

The result: Repeat the broad humid-climate/lower-trickster and blinded 120-row entity-affect analyses as a new wonder item.

What it means: An older analysis linking humid climates to "trickster" entity reports is formally retired: no rerun unless a genuinely new measurement-grade dataset appears, because the old material cannot separate writing style from actual exposure.

What it is NOT: Not a null result, because the question was closed as untestable with current data rather than answered. Not censorship of the idea, because the reopening condition is written down.

Next test that could settle it: No replay. Reopen only if a materially new measurement-grade exposure dataset appears and a preregistered matched design distinguishes source style from exposure.

Open question: Do the broad climate/environment formulations survive current matched controls?

The result: No shared brain signature appeared in the tested DMT EEG data; stronger test needs high-density paired data.

What it means: The tested brain recordings show no specific shared signature between DMT experiences and near-death states beyond what shared vocabulary and generic altered-state effects already explain. The popular "DMT model of the NDE" gets no support at this resolution.

What it is NOT: Not a disproof of any DMT-NDE connection, because the available recordings are low-density and a stronger test needs paired high-density data with validated NDE scoring. Not a claim about chemistry, because only electrical brain data was tested.

Next test that could settle it: High-density DMT/ketamine EEG with validated NDE scoring.

Open question: Do DMT and NDE reports share a specific signal beyond vocabulary and generic altered-state content?

The result: Dry/open prophetic-vision reframe kill test: use the Marian arid/semi-arid negative result as the anchor falsifier and only test setting-by-message-structure interactions after separating dry/open, dry/enclosed, wet/open, and wet/enclosed contexts.

What it means: The strongest version of the landscape-vision idea got a preregistered kill test: four setting types, message-structure labels frozen before looking, and the arid Marian negative as the built-in falsifier. It waits on data.

What it is NOT: Not evidence for or against the idea, because this object is a frozen test design. Not redundant with the other vision questions, because this one fixes the exact kill rule.

Next test that could settle it: Pre-register message-structure labels before looking at setting bins; compare prophetic/revelatory, instruction, warning, healing, and place-sanctification markers across the four environmental cells.

Open question: Do the broad climate/environment formulations survive current matched controls?

The result: Does the dry/desert prophetic-vision hypothesis survive after the Marian-apparition arid/semi-arid negative result is treated as a potential disconfirmation rather than a weak exception?

What it means: The idea that prophetic visions favor desert settings must now face the strongest counter-evidence first: Marian apparitions in arid regions came out negative. Any future test starts from that disproof, not around it.

What it is NOT: Not a kill of the desert idea, because the decisive matched comparison has not run. Not support either, because the one anchor result points the other way.

Next test that could settle it: Identify the exact matched prophetic/revelatory variables, compare arid/semi-arid versus humid strata by corpus and source channel, and define a kill rule for the dry/desert prediction.

Open question: Do the broad climate/environment formulations survive current matched controls?