Living Evidence Compendium

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.

What if the same structures that organize your thoughts also organize the world? Explore the hypothesis

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.

DS RP
DistinctionsSystemsRelationshipsPerspectives
Identity ↔ OtherPart ↔ Whole Action ↔ ReactionPoint ↔ 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?

Try a demonstration yourself Why is this convergent evidence compelling? See why independent convergence is one of science’s strongest forms of evidence.

independent opportunities for the theory to fail.

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.

Discipline
Field

No studies match your search

Try a different term or clear the filters.

About this collection

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.

Cabrera, D., Cabrera, L., & Cabrera, E. A Literature Review of the Universal and Atomic Elements of Complex Cognition. Journal of Systems Thinking. · Cornell University & Cabrera Research Lab.

How to cite this collection

APA
BibTeX

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.

About this record

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.

How to cite the counterexamples and resolutions

APA
BibTeX

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.

Know of work that belongs here?

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.

 

DSRP Evidence

Gendered exit and displacement: Social reproduction and automation in Bangladesh's garment industry

Deb and Rahman, 2026, Current Sociology — Sociology

Patterns: Systems, Relationships

In short

One macro outcome is decomposed into two sub-mechanisms — a part–whole move — and each is then given a direction of effect on the outcome.

What they found (results)

From a survey of 285 former women garment workers plus interviews, Bangladesh's ready-made-garment workforce has defeminised from about 80% women in the 1980s to about 50% today, attributed to two mechanisms: gendered exit, where care-work devaluation pushes women out, and gendered displacement, where automation channels new machine-adjacent roles to men through exclusionary training.

Abstract

Women have long underwritten the global garment industry while disproportionately bearing the burden of its coercive labor regimes. In Bangladesh—the world’s second-largest apparel exporter after China—this feminization was widely celebrated as a development success that incorporated millions of women into formal employment. Yet the narrative is fraying: women’s share of the ready-made garment workforce has fallen from roughly 80% in the 1980s to about 50% today. What explains this retreat from an industry once framed as a conduit to empowerment? Drawing on a survey of 285 former women garment workers, five focus-group discussions, and 16 key informant interviews, we theorize defeminization as the outcome of two analytically distinct yet mutually reinforcing mechanisms. First, gendered exit reflects the institutional devaluation of social reproduction: care burdens, scarce childcare provision, and stringent factory discipline render women’s employment precariously contingent. Second, gendered displacement and resegregation accompany technological upgrading as machine-adjacent and supervisory pathways expand, while exclusionary training and patriarchal narratives channel these roles toward men. The article presents evidence from former workers to show how export-oriented restructuring under technological intensification reorganizes gender hierarchies within global production networks.

These researchers were not testing DSRP. The finding is theirs; the correspondence to DSRP is drawn by this site.

Source