There is no more important universal problem in the Standard Model of elementary particles than the problem of mass and mixing flavor hierarchies.

The mainstream theoretical approach for treating it is to probe different group-symmetry flavor models. For decades, this math approach has not led to established flavor theory.

Is seems reasonable at this time to view flavor concept as related to new physics fundamental paradigm that should be firstly approached by simple means of semi-empirical phenomenology as exampled by physics history of e.g. quantum mechanics (Plank, Einstein, De-Broglie, Rutherford, Bohr, ...).

Then, the main empirical common fact of SM flavor phenomena is the known lepton and quark mass and mixing special hierarchy patterns of two relatively close levels plus a relatively far shifted one level -- neutrino mixing angles, up- and down- quark and charged lepton mass hierarchies. Those facts are considered here as the main SM regularity experimental indications toward new semi-empirical flavor phenomenology.

   The most important Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 supporting experimental evidences (a total of at least ten) of the represented research are  

1) The empirical mass spectra of all three types of Dirac particles in the SM – charged lepton, up- and down-quark – are hierarchical with only one large dominant mass value: tau-lepton, top and bottom quarks.

2) The empirical neutrino mixing angles are bimaximal (not biminimal…) at leading approximation.

3) The color quark masses at fixed flavor value are degenerate.

4) The numbers of lepton and quark flavors, and lepton and quark mixing angles, and quark colors are all equal three - the number of 3-space dimensions.

5)  The only unknown at present time SM hierarchy is for neutrino mass structure. This Model predicts quasi-degenerate or normal ordering neutrino masses verifiable by coming accurate neutrino experiments.         

  Note that every one of the named very favorable empirical facts could have falsified the model if having disagreeing quantitative numbers, but interestingly no one of the facts does it.