Operational Criteria for Evaluating Speculative Theories in Modern Physics

This paper develops an operational methodology for assessing the empirical content of speculative theories in modern physics. The approach is built around a systematic distinction between ontological, dynamical, and interpretive claims, and a corresponding rubric that evaluates whether such claims generate identifiable observable channels, impose nontrivial constraints on free parameters, engage existing experimental bounds, and admit decisive falsification conditions. These criteria are organized into a progressive theory sieve that enables comparative assessment across heterogeneous theoretical proposals without appealing to aesthetic or program-dependent heuristics. The sieve is designed to clarify where empirical accountability is introduced, weakened, or absent as speculative frameworks evolve. In addition to the conceptual framework, the paper outlines a passive, human-centered support architecture intended for use in editorial and referee workflows. This architecture operates by surfacing correlated methodological patterns in manuscripts while avoiding automated verdicts or normative enforcement. Applications to representative cases in unification research and modified gravity illustrate how the framework distinguishes substantive physical commitments from interpretive reformulations. The methodology provides practical tools for evaluating speculative theory development under conditions of increasing formal productivity, while preserving the central role of human scientific judgment.