Corbeel & De Haro (2026) treat the black hole "central dogma" as an unproven modelling assumption, not an established result

Corbeel & De Haro's review of quantum-information-theoretic approaches to the black hole information paradox identifies a single background assumption underlying the entire research programme: the "central dogma" of black hole physics (a term the paper attributes to Almheiri et al. 2021, tracing to 't Hooft 1985 and Page 1993b) — that, viewed from outside, a black hole is an ordinary finite-dimensional quantum system whose full evolution, including its coupling to the environment, is unitary.

"As seen from the outside, a black hole can be described as an ordinary quantum system whose number of available microstates, at specified macroscopic parameters, is determined by its thermodynamic entropy. The full evolution, including its coupling to the environment, is unitary."

The paper treats this explicitly as a modelling assumption supplying the physical basis for applying quantum-information tools to black holes, not as an established physical fact — one of nine total modelling assumptions it enumerates (the central dogma plus eight specific to the Hayden–Preskill model). The authors state plainly that the central dogma "has passed non-trivial consistency tests, but it has not been established conclusively to this day." Both the Hayden–Preskill "information mirror" mechanism and the Page-time paradox analysis presuppose this assumption rather than independently establish it.

Independent corroboration (2026-10-22). A direct read of Almheiri, Hartman, Maldacena, Shaghoulian & Tajdini's "The entropy of Hawking radiation" (arXiv:2006.06872) — very likely the paper Corbeel & De Haro cite as "Almheiri et al. 2021" for this term, though the year discrepancy is not independently resolved — confirms the central dogma's statement and status in the primary's own words: "As seen from the outside, a black hole can be described in terms of a quantum system with Area/(4GN ) degrees of freedom, which evolves unitarily under time evolution," and, separately, "We can view it as an unproven assumption about the properties of a full theory of quantum gravity." The paper also names Stephen Hawking's own historical objection explicitly: "In fact, Hawking famously objected to it." This is a second, independent root (Tier 1, different author group and venue from the review) confirming both the technical content and the Hawking attribution; it strengthens the note's grounding but, per question-corroborate-corbeel-de-haro-2026-arxiv-2610-28185-single-source-cap, does not discharge the single-source cap on Corbeel & De Haro (2026) itself, since Almheiri et al. is a work the review cites and summarizes rather than a third party assessing the review.