Author here. TL;DR: I published a consciousness-as-fundamental theory on Nov 5. Ten days later, a Uppsala professor published something remarkably similar and won Best Paper of the Year. This article compares them on scientific merit. Key differences: - Mine has experimental tests (3 EEG datasets, 10k simulations) - Mine makes falsifiable predictions (σ + ε ≥ 1 → collapse) - Mine has practical applications (AGI safety, NPC behavior, diagnosis) - Hers is philosophically elegant but currently untestable I'm not claiming "better" - I'm asking: shouldn't we evaluate theories on testability rather than institutional prestige? DOI timestamps are public record: - Mine: Nov 5, 2025 (10.5281/zenodo.17537160) - Hers: Nov 15, 2025 (10.1063/5.0290984) The code and data will be open-sourced soon. Everything is reproducible. I'm 24, from Turkey, no PhD, no institutional backing. But I have data. Happy to answer technical questions about the framework or experimental methodology.