Open letter to Digital Science and Figshare: my CFS comparison, Riemann proposal, and a request for independent review, restoration, and preservation

To: Mark Hahnel (Founder, Figshare; Digital Science), Digital Science leadership, and Figshare management Cc: Clay Mathematics Institute; Nobel Foundation (Stockholm); Prof. Felix Finster's CFS group.

Purpose of this letter
I am asking Digital Science and Figshare leadership to intervene, reassign my case to an independent Policy/Trust & Safety reviewer, and restore the integrity of the public record around my recent work. Immediately before my account was disabled, I uploaded a new Super Information Theory (SIT) update that (1) proposes a path toward the Riemann Conjecture and (2) includes a neutral comparison to Causal Fermion Systems (CFS). Support later pointed to an older neuroscience review as “self‑promotion/non‑academic,” and most recently cited Figshare’s “sole discretion” clause permitting removal upon third‑party allegations. My tickets were closed without a clause‑level explanation.

Figshare has a moral and ethical duty, as a preprint server, to maintain evidence of priority in the face of disputes.

When I first learned my account had been disabled, I immediately noted that I had just uploaded a comparison to Felix Finster’s Causal Fermion Systems (CFS). That comparison sits alongside earlier comparisons—for example, to Dr. Gunther Kletetschka’s “3D Time” theory—and other side‑by‑side analyses with established physics and neuroscience theories.

You can read the first support ticket that I wrote here https://support.figshare.com/support/tickets/500029

A second support ticket was closed without a reply https://support.figshare.com/support/tickets/500136

In a third ticket Andra-Stefana Livadaru replied with a new offer to provide metadata and files, this is not an acceptable compromise. https://support.figshare.com/support/tickets/500195

In Figshare’s recent response, Andra Livadaru defended Figshare’s right “to restrict or remove User access where it considers that use of Figshare interferes with its operations or violates these Terms of Use or applicable laws (including upon receipt of claims or allegations from third parties or authorities relating to such User Submission).” My position is simple: comparative scholarship is normal and in‑scope, and a preprint server should preserve timestamped records even when third‑party allegations arrive—especially when the record concerns a high‑stakes claim.

I am opening a new ticket asking that someone other than Andra, from Policy/Trust & Safety or Legal, take over this case.

In a fourth ticket I moved for reassignment. https://support.figshare.com/support/tickets/500312

I want a fresh reviewer, on a different team, who can independently confirm that my work aligns with Figshare’s Terms and Conditions and who is not in the position of defending earlier decisions.

Major disputes are expected when research of this magnitude is in conflict—including work with potential Nobel‑level significance and a Clay Mathematics Institute prize at stake. The remedy is independent review, clause‑level reasons, and preservation of timestamps—not actions that could be perceived as rewarding a false third‑party complaint in a live priority dispute.

Why leadership action is needed now

1. Priority and timestamping in high‑stakes math. The Riemann Conjecture carries a $1,000,000 Clay Mathematics Institute prize. For work of that magnitude, a public timestamp is essential. Taking down a live, time‑stamped preprint and replacing it with a generic “terms violation” banner undermines the record that priority and scrutiny depend on.

2. CFS comparison at the center of the timing. The only substantive change immediately preceding enforcement was my SIT update that adds a neutral comparison to CFS (Prof. Felix Finster et al.). Disputes in frontier research are expected. A preprint repository’s ethical duty is to preserve timestamps while disagreements are examined.

3. Figshare’s response to date. Instead of providing a clause‑level statement of reasons, an itemized moderation log, DOI/tombstone persistence, and a yes/no on any third‑party complaint, support quoted the ToS “sole discretion” language and offered only an export of files I authored. That does not address the core issues of process, transparency, and record preservation.

4. Need for a fresh reviewer. The same individual who closed my tickets is defending the decision; this invites confirmation bias. I request reassignment to a Policy/Trust & Safety or Legal reviewer who has not previously handled the case and can independently examine the particulars.

Names and institutions on the record
• Digital Science (parent company of Figshare)
• Figshare (repository platform)
• Mark Hahnel (Founder, Figshare; Digital Science)
• Andra Livadaru (Figshare support)
• Clay Mathematics Institute (Millennium Prize Problems)
• Nobel Foundation, Stockholm (noting: there is no Nobel Prize in mathematics; I include the Nobel Foundation because scientific record‑keeping and public trust are core concerns across disciplines)
• Prof. Felix Finster and colleagues working on Causal Fermion Systems

On precedence claims and comparative scholarship
My position is that author‑authored comparisons are standard scholarly practice when neutrally framed and properly cited. For context, I also note the broader priority landscape: for example, Dr. Gunther Kletetschka’s “3D Time” theory was not the first “3D time” proposal; I published 3‑D time concepts years earlier and can document dates and public postings. I welcome independent examination of timelines and citations—this is precisely why preserving public timestamps matters.

What I am requesting, specifically

1. Independent review and statement of reasons (in writing). For each affected record, list the item ID and version; the exact Terms/Help clauses applied; internal reason codes and moderator notes; whether automated systems contributed; whether any third‑party notice/complaint triggered action (and provide a redacted copy if so); and timestamps of each moderation action.

2. DOI persistence and tombstones. Restore DOI resolution to landing or tombstone pages for all my DOIs so citability and priority are preserved. If content is withdrawn pending review, the DOI should still resolve to a tombstone explaining availability.

3. Scope confirmation. Confirm that neutrally framed, cited, openly licensed author‑authored comparative scholarship (including SIT vs CFS) is in scope for figshare.com’s free academic platform.

4. Third‑party complaint status. Answer yes or no. If yes, identify the complaint type (copyright/defamation/other) and provide a redacted copy.

5. Complete export while review proceeds. If you provide a data dump, include per‑item metadata (ID, version, DOI/status, created/updated/published timestamps, license, categories/tags), files with MD5/SHA‑256 checksums, and any moderation metadata (reason codes/notes and action timestamps).

6. Preservation hold. Preserve all records—moderation logs, audit trails, tickets/emails, access logs, and any automated‑detection outputs—until the review concludes.

My standing authorship and AI disclosure
Self Aware Networks (neuroscience) and Super Information Theory (physics) are original research programs I have developed since 2005. I began making them public in 2017 (podcast) and, starting in 2022—before ChatGPT was available—I published thousands of pages and supporting materials on public GitHub repositories. None of these theories were generated by artificial intelligence. If any modern tools were used, they were limited to minor editorial assistance; the scientific content, equations, analyses, and comparisons are mine. I can add this disclosure to each record for clarity.

Closing
Figshare and Digital Science are stewards of the scholarly record. When a live, timestamped preprint involving a $1,000,000 claim and a comparative analysis of CFS is removed and replaced by a vague “terms violation” banner without clause‑level reasons, the result misleads readers and harms the community’s confidence in the persistence of the record. I am asking for reassignment to a new reviewer, a written statement of reasons, DOI/tombstone restoration, and a clear confirmation that neutrally framed comparative scholarship is in scope.

If a single sentence or item needs specific edits, identify it precisely; do not erase timestamps on unrelated items.

Micah Blumberg