Imagine you run a library where every book has an author, a citation trail, and a shelf location. Now imagine someone decrees that all books with the same content are literally the same physical object — you can't tell who wrote which copy or how it got there. That's proof irrelevance in standard type theory: once a proposition is established, the system forgets the derivation. Eigenius is a library that keeps the catalog. The core claim is architectural: you can build a dependent type theory where proofs of the same proposition are provably equal (so logical reasoning isn't broken) yet remain distinct terms in the store (so you can track who established a fact, by what derivation, and under which assumptions). The trick is making proof irrelevance an axiom with an explicit witness rather than baking it into the conversion rule. This is not a new idea in isolation — the insight is executing it cleanly inside a full kernel with cumulative universes, inductive families, and intensional identity types, then proving the whole thing consistent. The technical machinery is substantial. Definitional equality is handled by an orthogonal rewriting system — confluent, injective on type formers, decidable without type information. A separate subsumption judgment handles universe cumulativity, covariant function types, and class inclusions. The paper then layers a justification logic over the kernel's propositions for evidence tracking, organizes environments as an institution (in the Goguen-Burstall sense) so that store extensions are signature morphisms and external verdicts enter via comorphisms, and builds a typed knowledge-graph theory with records, classes, and refinements on top. Consistency is proved via a set-theoretic model. Correctness results cover conversion, normalization by evaluation, and bidirectional type checking — all relative to a termination assumption. A Lean 4 formalization accompanies the volume, which is the strongest integrity signal here: the metatheory isn't just stated, it's machine-checked. Where does this sit in the landscape? The nearest relatives are the Calculus of Inductive Constructions (Coq/Lean's kernel), Observational Type Theory (which also navigates proof irrelevance carefully), and institutional model theory (Goguen-Burstall). Eigenius is distinctive in combining all three concerns — dependent types, proof-relevant knowledge tracking, and institutional organization — in a single coherent system. No prior system integrates these at this level of metatheoretic rigor. The ladder question is harder to answer because this isn't a benchmarkable result. There's no accuracy number to beat. The comparison is structural: does Eigenius's design solve a problem that existing type theories (CIC, HoTT, OTT) cannot? The answer is conditionally yes — if your use case is a persistent knowledge store where provenance matters, none of those systems preserve derivation identity at the kernel level. But if you just need verification, the existing systems are simpler and battle-tested. The obvious experiment not run: a serious implementation beyond the Lean formalization. The paper is a metatheoretic volume, not a systems paper. There's no prototype knowledge store, no performance evaluation, no demonstration that the design survives contact with real-world scale. The honest read is that this is by design — the author chose to get the theory right first. The next step is engineering, and that's a different paper entirely.
