Could these selective failures explain why certain modified gravity theories resist any holographic description entirely?

Your question asks whether observational failures of modified gravity theories at certain scales could explain why some resist holographic descriptions. This is a sophisticated question about the interplay between theory-building constraints and foundational principles.

The preprints suggest something more nuanced: it's not that failures *explain* resistance to holography, but rather that different theories fail at different scales for structural reasons that may be independent of holographic viability.

Start with the core problem. Modified gravity theories often face a scale-dependent consistency crisis. Teleparallel and Symmetric Teleparallel gravity can reproduce late-time cosmic acceleration, but "fail to meet Solar System observational bounds, particularly through deviations in the predicted Eddington parameter" [AG-2025.11-174]. This isn't a minor tuning issue—it's a breakdown in the theory's self-consistency across regimes. Similarly, modifications proposed from the Barrow hypothesis (fractal black hole entropy) can generate new gravitational theories, but it's still unclear whether such theories cohere with quantum gravity constraints [AG-2024.03-342].

Now, does this *prevent* holographic description? Not necessarily. Horndeski gravity—a scalar-tensor modification—*does* admit a holographic boundary theory within braneworld scenarios [AG-2024.10-920]. The Horndeski scalar field alters the Page curve and information distribution compared to GR, but the holographic structure persists; in fact, "holographic consistency can be used reversely to impose constraints on Horndeski gravity itself" [AG-2024.10-920]. This means holography can become a *diagnostic tool* even when the modified theory fails locally.

The deeper pattern: some modified theories fail observationally because they violate gauge invariance, Lorentz invariance, or the equivalence principle at certain scales [AG-2025.02-126]. Those violations are often *incompatible with* the boundary conformal field theories required for holographic duality—not because the theory is wrong, but because holography demands very specific symmetry structures. Conversely, theories that preserve enough symmetry (like Horndeski) can sometimes be holographically embedded, though they still face other observational constraints.

What the archive doesn't address: these preprints don't directly explain why certain *specific* modified gravity theories would resist *all* holographic descriptions. You would need papers analyzing which symmetry-breaking mechanisms are fundamentally incompatible with holographic correspondence.