The abundance and heights of peaks in smoothed matter or weak-lensing convergence fields should be predicted from an almost-Gaussian initial density field evolved under gravity (Bardeen 1986; Coles 2002). Several analyses of peak statistics in galaxy and shear maps report fewer high peaks or different peak-height distributions than standard ΛCDM tuned to CMB and cluster counts (Peacock & Dodds 1996; Hoekstra 2001).
The standard model assumes NFW dark-matter halo profiles produce peak counts that match the halo-mass function under standard structure-growth physics. A persistent peak deficit at high signal-to-noise demands missing physics, nontrivial baryonic effects, or a breakdown of the simplest halo-based description.
SCT replaces the hot-dense-center with a superluminal collision and the thermalized debris field. From this single change, what looks like dark-matter halos are actually the constructive interference of comoving baryonic matter throughout the parent hierarchy: Φ_eff = Φ_local + Φ_mesh (P50, P51). The coherent Φ_mesh contribution gives A* = 5.970 in fully virialized halos (P52, derived parameter-free from 1/f_b in Paper 13), not from NFW dark-matter particles.
The mesh-based effective halo profile is smoother than the cuspy NFW profile because the Φ_mesh contribution is intrinsically coherent and slowly varying with radius rather than concentrated by collisionless N-body relaxation around a CDM particle. Smoother profiles produce roughly 20 to 40% fewer high-κ peaks in weak-lensing maps because peak counts depend on the steepness of the gradient at the peak. The same coherent-mesh framework that produces the A_lens = 1.18 CMB lensing excess (recid 16, recid 30) produces the peak-statistics deficit.
Angular momentum inheritance (P31, P32) adds anisotropy in the peak distribution: peak orientations should align with the cascade J vector, producing a directional component in the peak-statistics deficit that is absent from isotropic ΛCDM predictions. Structure without dark-matter particles (P54) is the keystone insight; the peak deficit is one more observational projection of the no-DM-particle coherent-mesh framework. There is no need for new baryonic physics or survey-systematic explanations.
If precision Euclid + LSST + Roman weak-lensing peak counts converge on the ΛCDM NFW prediction at the 1% level (no 20 to 40% high-peak deficit), the M6 coherent-mesh-profile explanation is refuted. Equivalently, if peak orientations are confirmed to be isotropic at greater than 3σ (no J-axis alignment), the M6 + M3 predictions fail.