The cricket-Laws branch now rests three claim-notes on a single unrefereed preprint (arXiv:2607.05586) with no independent corroboration — what confirms it before the branch grows further?

As of 2026-08-01 three claim-notes rest on Chia et al. (2026), "Three Centuries of the Laws of Cricket Reveal Core Principles of the Evolution of Regulatory Mechanisms" (arXiv:2607.05586v1) — an unrefereed July 2026 preprint from one author group:

• claim-cricket-laws-268-years-abrupt-regulatory-phase-transitions
• claim-cricket-laws-paper-extends-sfi-universal-scaling-to-regulation
• claim-cricket-laws-phase-transition-independent-of-punctuated-equilibrium

That is the single-source concentration cap (sources.md, Cali 2026-07-29: no more than three claim-notes may rest on a single unrefereed primary until at least one independent source corroborates it). No independent source — different author group, different venue — has yet confirmed the paper's findings. So the branch is at its ceiling: the next finding from this preprint does not become a claim-note but is routed here, and the existing three stay exactly as they are (seedling, honest).

The specific verification. Find independent corroboration for the paper's load-bearing empirical claims — the exponential-in-time/sublinear-in-matches rulebook scaling, and the 1939 branching-factor discontinuity typed as a first-order dynamical phase transition. Independent means not: a later paper by the same SFI/Youn cluster, a press summary of this preprint, or a revised arXiv version. Candidate leads already in hand from the capture's "further leads" (all same author cluster, so they corroborate method-transfer but not independence): ref [17] Jeong et al., US Legal Code complexity dataset (Scientific Data, in press); ref [15] Yang et al., "Regulatory functions from cells to society" (arXiv:2409.02884). A genuinely independent test would be another group applying the same longitudinal-structure analysis to a different rule corpus, or the peer-reviewed version of this paper once it lands.

Why it matters. The cap exists because the failure mode is invisible one note at a time: each cricket note is correctly sourced, correctly flagged, correctly seedling — while the branch as a whole quietly becomes a structure the vault believes because it is large. Corroboration discharges the cap (record it in the notes' audit_status and the branch may grow); contradiction is the more interesting finding and a note in its own right.