This project represents the effort to replace Einstein's dysfunctional 1915/1916 attempt at a general theory of relativity with a better, newer, more modern general theory that actually works (Einstein's doesn't).
We have a choice of three different classes of general theory:
The architecture of Einstein's system is founded on (a) special relativity, which only works if gravitomagnetism is entirely absent, and (b) the general principle of relativity, that only works if gravitomagnetism is universal. These do not coexist GR1916, as written, is not even legitimate as an abstract exercise.
Modern textbook theory resolves this conflict by giving one side of the arguments (SR) priority. This invalidates the GPoR, and means that the result is not a legitimate general theory (proponents call "modern GR" a "theory of covariance", instead).
The third option, explored here, asks: What does a real general theory look like? What happens if we start with the GPoR, treat the GPoR as sacrosanct, and refuse to add any elements to the theory that are not GPoR-compliant?
The results are surprisingly radical, and are a little too strong for the delicate digestive system of journal peer review to be able to process.
Features of the new system include
Where Einstein's approach gave a two-stage theory of relativity (SR, then GR), "true" general relativity turns out to be a self-contained, self-generating geometrical system that contains inertial physics and cosmology, and requires no external foundation.
Since "proper" GR's gravitomagnetics automatically regulate local lightspeed constancy for every observer-mass, special relativity is superfluous.
This is "pure" general relativity the way it should always have been. it is, however, not Einstein's general theory.