The Universal & Atomic Elements of Organization
A falsifiable scientific theory proposing that the same irreducible structures organize both thought and reality — from the quantum to the social scale.
O-Theory proposes that four irreducible structures — Distinctions, Systems, Relationships and Perspectives (DSRP) — form the universal grammar of organization. Rather than being merely useful ways of thinking, these structures are hypothesized to be the atomic elements from which every organized phenomenon emerges, whether in cognition, biology, physics, mathematics, society, or the cosmos.
| D | S | R | P |
| Distinctions | Systems | Relationships | Perspectives |
| Identity ↔ Other | Part ↔ Whole | Action ↔ Reaction | Point ↔ View |
| D := (i ↔ o) | S := (p ↔ w) | R := (a ↔ r) | P := (ṗ ↔ v) |
This is a living scientific evidence compendium: an open, continually evolving collection of independent empirical research, formal theory, mathematical proofs, cross-disciplinary analyses, applications, critiques, and proposed falsifications. Every entry is included because it supports, refines, challenges, or attempts to falsify the theory.
Scientific theories are strengthened not only by evidence that confirms their predictions, but also by surviving attempts to falsify them. This compendium brings both together: independent evidence from researchers who were not testing DSRP and proposed counterexamples evaluated against the formal theory.
One counterexample is enough to falsify O-Theory. Until then, the question remains: do the same four structures organize everything from quantum systems to human thought?
Independent convergence is one of the strongest forms of scientific evidence because researchers arrive at the same conclusion while investigating different questions for different reasons.
The number is not the point. Researchers in different fields, studying different questions with different methods, repeatedly arrived at the same structural predictions—almost always without testing DSRP or using its language.
Try a different term or clear the filters.
This compendium began as the peer-reviewed literature review “A Literature Review of the Universal and Atomic Elements of Complex Cognition,” published in the Journal of Systems Thinking with 109 studies. That paper is the peer-reviewed foundation. What you see here is its living, continuously updated version . New studies are checked before they are added, and the collection now holds and keeps growing. Open any card to see what the researchers found, why it bears on DSRP, and where the original review discusses it, the fuller account.
The collection is updated continuously, so the citation carries the date you consulted it rather than a study count — the count changes weekly, and putting it in the reference would make the same collection look like a different work to everyone who cites it. To cite a single claim or study, use its own address: every one has a permanent link.
This is the adversarial half of the compendium. Where the evidence track asks what converges on DSRP, this one asks what would end it: a single organized phenomenon whose structure needs a fifth pattern, a ninth element, or a fifth structural dynamic. It holds written up from candidates across territories, and resolutions — the general answers those cases settle against. Every case is published whether it held or failed, including the ones still open.
Cite this rather than the evidence collection when the point is what survived attack. The two are separate works with separate addresses: one asks what converges on the theory, the other asks what would end it, and a reference to the first does not support a claim about the second. Case and resolution numbers change when the record is revised, so cite a case by its own permanent link rather than by number.
This collection is meant to keep growing. Send us a study, paper, book or critique that bears on DSRP, whether it supports the theory or cuts against it, and we will read it and decide whether it belongs.
Krejbich et al., 2026, Journal of Consumer Policy — Law & Jurisprudence
Patterns: Distinctions
Which legal category a hazardous substance is assigned to is an act of drawing a distinction, and which side of that boundary it falls on determines its entire regulatory identity and consequence.
Analyzing 910 RASFF notifications on EU food e-commerce, a decision-tree classification of 178 identified hazards found 89.3% could be sorted into existing EU regulatory categories while 10.7% fell outside all established frameworks and escaped oversight.
The continuous growth of food e-commerce increasingly reveals food safety concerns and public health risks amplified by regulatory and enforcement challenges. Yet, systematic assessment of the associated hazards remains limited. This study characterises food safety hazards in the EU online food market, assesses the extend to which they are addressed by current regulatory frameworks, and identifies gaps that undermine effective risk management. We conducted a secondary analysis of publicly available RASFF notifications related to e-commerce and performed a structured legal classification to determine the regulatory status of hazards associated with food supplements. To enable systematic analysis, we developed a decision tree incorporating international, European and national decision bases. We identified 910 RASFF notifications related to e-commerce submitted between November 2017 and June 2023. These included 786 notifications on food, which were mostly related to the presence of specific substances or ingredients (82.1%) and reported 210 distinct hazards – most commonly 2,4-dinitrophenol, cannabidiol and yohimbine. Food supplements reported in 689 notifications mainly contained “other substances”, notably botanicals. Applying the decision tree, two thirds of the 178 distinct hazards identified in food supplement notifications could be classified using food-related decision bases. Together, these results demonstrate the wide range of hazards in food and especially food supplements traded online and highlight substantial gaps in the European regulatory framework. Based on our findings, we recommend strengthening consumer health protection through more coherent and effective risk management measures for food supplements and propose our decision tree as a practical tool for their evaluation and (automated) monitoring in e-commerce.
These researchers were not testing DSRP. The finding is theirs; the correspondence to DSRP is drawn by this site.