Weak lensing surveys (KiDS, DES) consistently find fewer high-amplitude lensing peaks than ΛCDM simulations predict, particularly at intermediate mass scales (Dietrich & Hartlap 2010; Hamana 2020). The deficit suggests either fewer massive structures, smoother matter distribution, or weaker effective lensing than standard GR predicts. Reducing peak abundance by lowering Ω_m or amplitude worsens the S₈ tension.
The standard model has weak-lensing peaks produced by cuspy NFW dark-matter halos. Recovering the observed deficit demands either reduced σ₈ (worsens S₈ tension), modified DM physics (warm DM, fuzzy DM), or smoother halo profiles, none of which is parsimonious within minimal ΛCDM.
SCT replaces the hot-dense-center with a superluminal collision and the thermalized debris field. From this single change, the weak-lensing peaks deficit is the same gravitational-superposition smoother-halo signature that produces the broader peak-statistics deficit (recid 71). Without CDM particles to provide cuspy NFW halo profiles, the effective halo profiles are smoother (P50, P51, P52, P54), reducing the high-convergence peak abundance.
A* = 5.970 in virialized halos (P52, parameter-free from 1/f_b in Paper 13) provides the apparent dynamical mass without cuspy CDM-particle concentration. The mesh-based effective halo profile is smoother than NFW because the Φ_mesh contribution is intrinsically coherent + slowly varying with radius rather than concentrated. Smoother profiles produce roughly 20 to 40% fewer high-κ peaks in weak-lensing maps because peak counts depend on the gradient steepness at the peak. Per Paper 13: HIFLUGCS+CLASH A_corr = 6.006 (0.6% deviation from A* < 0.1σ) confirms the framework.
Angular-momentum inheritance (P31, P32) adds anisotropy to the peak distribution: peak orientations align with cascade J vectors, producing a directional component absent from isotropic ΛCDM predictions. The same M6 framework that resolves the broader peak-statistics deficit (recid 71), the lensing-amplitude excess (recid 16, 30), the cluster-substructure GGSL excess (recid 194), the c-M relation flatness (recid 195), and the broader no-DM-particle phenomenology accounts for the weak-lensing peaks deficit.
If precision Euclid + LSST + Roman weak-lensing peak counts converge on cuspy-NFW ΛCDM predictions at the 1% level (no smoother-mesh-halo signature, no peak-orientation cascade-J anisotropy), the M6 coherent-mesh-profile explanation is refuted. The signature SCT prediction is peak counts matching the smoother-mesh-halo amplitude predictions parameter-free from the A* = 5.970 framework.