Audit status: what we tested, how, and what came out

What is this page?

This page is the account Yan Yana gives of its own work: what we read, what we tested, what we could not test, and which pairings failed the audit. The numbers are generated automatically from our working files; the page is refreshed as the work moves forward. Nothing here is a verdict on Dost; it only shows how sound our own reading is.

Scope of the reading

• Futuhat: 226 sections were read. We flagged 2788 veiled passages; 1154 of them are "the hardest" (difficulty 3). Hard passages that overlap with quotations already on the form pages: 157. That is, most of the Dost side has not yet entered the pages; the densest eight sections among them are on the Pages left out page.
• Futuhat, second reading: it was read again through the eyes of two new forms (Multiplicity, Reciprocal transformation); 763 passages and 44 other patterns were flagged.
• Fusus: all 27 chapters (fass) were read through sixteen forms, 641 passages (the listing).
• What was read, in both works, is the site's Turkish summaries; not the Arabic original.

Soundness of the quotations

• Every Dost quotation on the pages is searched for verbatim in our source notes; a quotation that cannot be found cannot enter a page. In the last audit there was no quotation that could not be found.
• Translation check: the quoted passages of the hard items were compared automatically with the text of Ekrem Demirli's translation. Found 937, partly 71, not found 79 (not found does not mean the translation or the summary is wrong; it may be OCR damage or the summary's own wording).
• Arabic check: the 30 quotations at the front were searched for in the Arabic text of the Futuhat (OpenITI digitization, a single edition): matches 23, partly 3, not found 4, different 0. Details are on the Translation check page. Those outside the thirty quotations were not compared with the Arabic.

Physics sources

• All 104 sources were verified against a Crossref, arXiv or Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy record.
• If a source's summary was written from general knowledge because we could not reach its own abstract, it is marked "uncertain". Currently 11 sources are like this: Bailey 1977, the saying attributed to Bohr, Dieks 1982, Fein 2019, Heisenberg 1927, The Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 (press release), Petrosky 1990, Rubino 2017, Copenhagen Interpretation, Philosophical Issues in Quantum Theory, Wootters 1982.
• We found and corrected one error: the page of a Stanford entry in our list turned out not to exist (the source was an address derived from its title) and its "summary" had been fabricated. We removed the source and the two sections that rested on it; we tightened the verifier so that it rejects a "page not found" title.

Independent audit of the pairings

We turned every pairing on the pages into a record one by one (107 records; each requires an answer to "on what grounds might this similarity be wrong?"). Then we had the records audited by a separate reader who had not seen the pages.

• Audit decision: keep 52, downgrade one step 36, reject 19.
• Class: A (counterpart in the same technical sense) 0, B (structural) 0, C (conceptual) 11, D (figurative) 28, E (superficial or rejected) 41, divergence 4, unclassified door 23.
• Today there is no pairing counted as A or B. The strongest are in class C.

Blind pairing trial

We stripped each form's description of its subject and reduced it to structure; a separate reader, looking only at this structure, picked six sources each from among a hundred and one physics sources. Overlap with the sources on our pages: 29 of 96 picks (about 6% is expected from random picking). The forms with no hits at all: Indistinguishability, Bewilderment, Both-and, Inside-outside, Continuity. This is not solid evidence (a single run, both readers are AI models, the descriptions could not be fully stripped of their subject); but it shows which pairings can be read from structure and which cannot.

Adversarial reader round

We had the pages read by three separate readers: someone who knows nothing, a Maghrebi objector looking for decorum and care with sources, and a skeptical academic. Most of the findings were worked into the pages: suggestive verbs such as "transforms into" were removed, the names of a narration whose chain of transmission we have not examined were taken out, all the "stand close" labels were lowered by one step, Ibn Arabi, the Futuhat and section numbers were introduced on the entry page, and a glossary was added.

Language scan

We opened the pages in English and Portuguese and looked for Turkish in the visible text. The real error found: some menu descriptions showed all three languages at once; it was fixed. Titles of works, names of verses and Turkish edition details are deliberately left as they are. The Yan Yana pages themselves are in Turkish only.

Rejected pairings and pairings proposed for downgrade

We also want to show which similarities are not valid, and why. Below are the titles and grounds of the pairings called "should be rejected" in the audit, or set aside on the pages as "tempting, but we did not do it".

• The heart's containing the Real ("the small takes in the great") ↔ the holographic principle (not done) (Reason) — It rests only on the word "containing"; the physics side is speculative and unsourced; the Dost side has no section number (the chain of transmission of the hadith qudsi was not examined either). The rejection is right; E is appropriate.
• "Neither is nor is not" ↔ superposition ("neither A nor B") (not done) (Reason) — Only the wording "neither A nor B" resembles; superposition is an amplitude sum of "both A and B", that is, technically the opposite. The Dost side has no section. The rejection is right.
• Superposition = knowledge is a veil (Knowledge) — Only a similarity of wording; superposition is a sum of states, the veil is an obstacle to knowledge. Reading superposition as a state of ignorance also causes problems for the epistemic interpretation. The rejection is fitting.
• Knowledge is subordinate to the known = observer effect (Knowledge) — The observer effect is the result of an interaction, not a relation between consciousness and knowledge; a category error. The direction of Bil-04 is also reversed and gives no support. The rejection is fitting.
• The human being as the epitome of the world, the small human–the great human ↔ holographic boundary (Wholeness) — The similarity rests only on the image of "the small contains the great"; the holographic principle is a theory not tested by experiment and its subject is an information bound, whereas in Dost it is levels of being. Class E and the label "tempting, but we did not do it" do not exceed the evidence,…
• The report of "an Adam in each of the seven earths" ↔ many worlds / parallel universes (Multiplicity) — The report cannot be shown from Dost, the Dost side is empty; the basis is only the words "parallel/other world". Moreover, tying the Everett/Tegmark sources to the report of the seven earths goes beyond the source. It stays rejected.
• "Neither is nor is not" and the intermediate level ↔ superposition ("neither A nor B") (Both-and) — The record itself writes its common structure as "only a similarity of wording"; there is no physics source and no Dost section; superposition is not "neither A nor B" but an amplitude sum. The rejection is right; class E and the label are fitting.
• "Neither inside nor outside" ↔ superposition (tempting but not done) (Inside-outside) — The common structure is only at the level of wording; in superposition two options are both counted, in Dost there is the negation "neither the one nor the other", and there is no moment of measurement. The ground for rejection is sound and the record does not exceed its physics source.
• Self-disclosure according to the receiver's capacity ↔ quantum contextuality (Relation) — The Dost side has no section number or quotation; the basis cannot be verified. In physics the context is the measurement setup (compatible measurements), in Dost it is the receiver's state/belief; the Kirchmair/SEP summaries speak of dependence on the measurement, not on the receiver…
• "Had He not been, we would not be; had we not been, He would not be" ↔ light and the electron-positron pair turning into one another (Reciprocal transformation) — Tying the existential dependence between the Real and creation to the light-pair conversion is both a category error and a matter of decorum (setting the Real beside a form of energy seems to make the two sides equal). The label "two-way"…
• Necessity and choice standing in the same sentence ↔ the assumption of free choice of measurement setting in Bell tests (Cause) — In its own "common structure" field the record says that only the word "choosing" is common: wording level. The choice of measurement setting (Bell's side assumption) and the question of compulsion/free will (jabr/ikhtiyar) are different concepts; there is no specificity, anachronism…
• "The matter is a cycle": the impossibility of choosing the before-after order ↔ experiments with indefinite causal order (Cause) — Dost's sentence "the matter is a cycle" states mutual conditionality; it does not state the indefiniteness of the order or that "there is no order"; the "which comes first is not said" in the record is a silence, not a claim. Procopio/Rubino, on the other hand, a single…
• Containment in the heart, the great entering the small ↔ holographic principle (Containment) — What is common is only the word "containing" and the image of "carrying much more than expected": in holography the information upper bound is proportional to the area (theory, no experiment), in Dost it is the heart's receiving the Real and, in self-disclosure, the great and the small not losing their state;…
• Constancy in the change of states ↔ Zeno effect (a frequently observed system staying in its initial state) (Continuity) — The quotation does not speak of "constancy"; it says that the Real differs in the states while the states do not differ upon Him, and "constancy" comes from the context sentence. The Zeno effect is freezing by measurement and treats the Real like a measured system…
• In teleportation the original state vanishing and appearing elsewhere ↔ "He does not destroy, He removes" (Non-repetition) — Vanishing and appearing is at the level of wording; teleportation is a by-product of the no-cloning result of tek-01, not an independent closeness. Dost's "removing" is a change of level, in physics a state disturbed by measurement; also on the page "death is a…
• Not vanishing and return ↔ (the idea of conservation, unsourced) (Non-repetition) — There is no physics source; no pairing was established, the record is empty. The idea of conservation cannot be written without a source. It is enough for it to stay as "not looked at"; the record should not count as a pairing.
• Before and after creation, the circle and endless return ↔ (cosmology, geometry) (Non-repetition) — No section and no physics source; cosmology is speculative, the geometry of the circle/having no end is a bare resemblance. Not a pairing, but a field deliberately not looked at.
• Bewilderment, incapacity and knowledge ↔ (left to the Bewilderment page) (Non-repetition) — No content; it is handled in the Bewilderment form, repeating it here would lead to double counting. Not a pairing, a referral record.
• Rejected comparisons: "fifty thousand years fit in a day" ↔ time dilation; circular time ↔ cosmic cycle (Time) — The time dilation and cosmic cycle comparisons are at the level of wording/image, with no quantitative criterion and no basis; the rejection is right, the record should stand with its ground.

Open work

• The Arabic check is limited to thirty quotations; testing the hundred or so hardest passages may be the next step.
• Commentator layer: verified sources are needed for Konuk, Affifi and Chittick readings to be cited by name in the relevant places; for now there is only the Stanford entry.
• Trying the pairings in the same way against a text outside Dost (Eckhart, Nagarjuna, Heraclitus) has not been done.
• The English and Portuguese translation of Yan Yana, after the reading and revision round.