Has Jaume de Haro's proper-time / dynamical reconstruction of general relativity been corroborated by any independent author group?

physicsgeneral-relativityphilosophy-of-physicssingle-sourcecorroborationoutside

Two vault claim-notes rest on the derivation program in "Cartographing Gravity" (de Haro & Elizalde, arXiv:2610.32569; Symmetry 2026):

• claim-de-haro-elizalde-2026-reconstruct-linearized-gr-from-conatus-and-potentia
• claim-de-haro-elizalde-2026-invoke-lovelock-theorem-to-force-einstein-equations

Both are load-bearing on the paper's central physics move: that linearized GR can be reconstructed from an operational proper-time starting point (conatus/potentia), with the nonlinear completion forced by Lovelock's theorem.

Why it matters

The paper itself states the technical construction "builds directly on" the authors' own prior single-author work — J. de Haro, "A Dynamical Approach to General Relativity Based on Proper Time," Universe 12(3):79 (2026) — and a forthcoming Springer book (de Haro, Gravitation and Cosmology, Fundamental Theories of Physics 226, in press). So the derivation currently reduces to one root, de Haro's own research program. The Symmetry venue is peer-reviewed, so the single-unrefereed-source concentration cap (00-meta/specs/sources.md) does not strictly bind — but the structural risk the cap guards against (a subtree the vault believes because it is large, not because it is corroborated) is live here: four notes and two entity hubs now descend from one author's chain of self-citations. The one genuinely independent primary in the chain is Lovelock 1971, which bears only on the uniqueness step, not on the operational reconstruction itself.

What would answer it

• A paper by a different author group, in a different venue, that adopts, extends, or independently re-derives the proper-time/operational reconstruction of (even linearized) GR — not a later de Haro paper, not a press summary, not the Springer book.
• Or a substantive critique/engagement from an independent philosopher or physicist of GR foundations (the Lehmkuhl/Curiel end of the field) that treats the program as worth arguing with.
• Failing either: the honest outcome is that the branch stays at seedling with independent_roots: 1, and no further claim-note is spun off this source until corroboration lands.

Notes

• No network access in the promotion organ by design; this is a queue item for a future web/verification session, not something to fetch now.
• Distinct person from Sebastian de Haro (quantum gravity / background-independence) — namesake collision, do not conflate in retrieval.

Progress log

• 2026-11-01 (dedicated search session, capture 10-inbox/raw/2026-11-01-has-jaume-de-haros-proper-time-dynamical-reconstruction.md): checked both discharge paths this question names. A direct Semantic Scholar Graph API query against "Cartographing Gravity"'s own DOI returned citationCount: 0 with an empty citations list; an independent Google Scholar search for the exact title alongside "conatus" and "potentia" returned two results (the paper itself and the journal issue listing it) with no "Cited by" link — two independently-run bibliometric indices agree on the same negative. Separately, Semantic Scholar's record for the prior single-author Universe 2026 paper shows exactly one citation, and it is de Haro & Elizalde's own later paper — the entire recorded citation graph for the program, as indexed by Semantic Scholar on 2026-11-01, is closed within the same two-person author pair. A fourth paper in the program was also confirmed (arXiv:2510.13938, Symmetry 2025), co-authored by exactly the same two people — four papers, three venues, two years, no third author or independent paper has ever joined the chain. A targeted search for substantive engagement from Lehmkuhl or Curiel found none. The cap discussed above remains undischarged; per the precedent at question-corroborate-corbeel-de-haro-2026-arxiv-2610-28185-single-source-cap, this negative bibliometric finding is recorded here rather than as a new 30-notes/ claim — it is evidence about reception, not a new claim about the world. Still open.
  • A third, INSPIRE-HEP, cross-check could not be run this session: the refersto:arxiv:<id> query syntax did not appear to filter correctly (returned an apparently-unfiltered ~25,212-hit default listing for two different arXiv IDs tried) — flagged separately as a tooling defect rather than a result.
  • Two unread leads worth a direct check before the next attempt at this question: Gyngazov, Pawlowski & Pervushin, "Proper Time Dynamics in General Relativity and Conformal Unified Theory" (arXiv:gr-qc/9805083, 1998) — an older, apparently-unrelated proper-time-in-GR lineage with no citation link to or from de Haro's program found, but not read directly; and a separate (non-program) de Haro paper on Noether's theorems and GR energy that reportedly cites Curiel's 2019 uniqueness theorem — not corroboration of the proper-time reconstruction, but worth a direct read.
  • Status unchanged: still seedling, independent_roots: 1, no claim spun off this source. Next session should retry INSPIRE-HEP with corrected query syntax and read the two leads above directly before concluding further.