We ask whether future flare times can separate accumulated period changes from a common emission delay in ASASSN-14ko. We use two fixed kick fits from prior peak times. After a free cubic clock is removed, forty consecutive future peaks with 3-day independent errors have power at most 0.2404 or 0.1945 at test size 0.05 against delay families that include selected historic fits with SD below 10 days. The bounds follow from Gaussian KL divergence and Pinsker's inequality. They apply to any test of these future-only timing contrasts with size controlled for the allowed family, not only to our likelihood-ratio test. They do not cover joint use of historical times or external orbital markers. We also give uniform contrast tests under an assumed delay SD cap. A sharp stationary spectral variance bound does not require a memory law. Their power tends to one under continued kicks as the span increases at fixed peak count, but can remain low over decades. We supply fixed-pair power, an explicit frequency-grid bound, code, aggregate inputs, contrast vectors, proof and validation. The kick parameters are treated as known; the physical delay cap is not measured. No new observations or physical clock identification are claimed.
We test whether correlated flare times can identify random orbital-period kicks in ASASSN-14ko. A stationary Gaussian delay with a double-root autoregressive response approaches the exact discrete kick law on any finite cycle grid after the unknown epoch and period are removed. The result allows gaps and additional polynomial clock terms. The delay standard deviation grows as the memory to the power 3/2 at fixed kick scale. We compare both laws using 30 prior peak times with two peak definitions and quadratic or cubic clock trends. The best tested stationary delays have standard deviations of 3.19-4.00 days and raw likelihoods at least as high as the kick model, with one extra memory parameter. A 3-day SD cap also retains that fit. At 40-cycle memory, fixed delay and kick laws have total-variation upper bounds below 0.033, but require much larger delay amplitudes. We provide likelihood profiles, amplitude constraints and distribution bounds. This is a reanalysis and a scoped application of an established unit-root limit. It adds no observations and does not show that a positive physical emission delay follows this model. Independent limits on delay amplitude or memory, or a pericentre marker, are needed to assign timing noise to orbital kicks.
We test whether precession of a fixed Schwarzschild orbit can explain the flare times of ASASSN-14ko. The disc plane and mean delay from crossing to peak are fixed. Gaussian timing scatter is fitted. A clock with one emitting disc node fits 29 optical peak times through 2024 about as well as a cubic timing curve. Adding the January 2026 TESS peak changes its AICc score from 1.52-3.30 units below the cubic to 12.22-18.68 units above it. Higher scores are worse. The earlier fits predict this peak 17.28-19.30 days too late. These point predictions omit parameter uncertainty. Adding a separate SPHEREx peak without TESS gives a smaller score loss of 3.43-6.00 units, if infrared and optical peaks have zero offset. A clock in which both disc nodes emit fits poorly. Higher black-hole masses, a wider orbit search, and source light travel time do not rescue the full-record fit. Adding a three-day error floor retains the preference. Conditional simulations at the fitted one-node null give tails of 0.0050 and 0.0025 for two peak definitions that share observations. These are not uniform tests over all nuisance values. The package contains new orbit code, mass profiles, subset fits, simulations and numerical checks. This is a reanalysis, not new photometry. The result depends strongly on the latest TESS epoch. Moving discs, black-hole spin, changing delays and correlated noise remain possible. No orbital decay or common clock is established.
We test whether the 2024 non-detection of a forecast flare in eRASSt J0456-20 excludes a period change proportional to flare fluence. We reuse signed cycle times, fluences and aperture-count products. We add a finite flare duration and compare onset and floor-crossing clocks for a 32-day rise and a grid of amplitudes and plateau lengths. The floor-crossing marker has no physical solution when the flare peak is below the faint-state floor. The published half-amplitude forecast assigns about 31 percent probability to that regime. A finite flare also permits an early, completed event, so a non-detection need not give a one-sided timing limit. We give aggregate fit results and a general evidence bound for a shared probability of a dark passage. This is a sensitivity study with fixed background, floor and instrument calibration. It does not infer a dark-passage probability, establish an orbital clock or provide new observations.
Question: do the flare clocks of the three best-timed periodic nuclear transients (ASASSN-14ko, eRASSt J0456-20, AT2023uqm) follow one law in which the orbit loses energy in proportion to the radiated flare energy? Approach: we measured the five AT2023uqm flares again in public ZTF data-release light curves (2018-2025), with a seeing-dependent host model and two-Gaussian flare fits. For each source we fitted timing models with free jitter, including an energy-coupled clock (each passage changes the period by -k times its flare energy). A Monte Carlo over black-hole mass, stellar mass and bolometric energy converted k to Q, the orbital energy lost per passage over the radiated energy, and a simulation-calibrated likelihood-ratio test checked one common Q. Results: our AT2023uqm markers agree with the published markers within 0.0-2.7 d. The fluence grows by 1.59 +/- 0.07 per flare (r), but the period change per passage is +0.03 +/- 0.80 d (first peak) or +0.8 +/- 1.1 d (dip), and k is consistent with zero. The first peak moves earlier relative to the dip by 1.3 +/- 0.4 d per flare, so the period depends on the marker (524.45 to 527.06 d). For J0456-20 the energy-coupled clock fits cycles 1-5 as well as the best broken clock and forecasts cycles 6-7 with |z| <= 1.7 (X-ray weights). For ASASSN-14ko it is worse than a break in the period derivative. Q is 0.025 (95%: 0.003-0.21) for ASASSN-14ko and 0.023 (0.001-0.47) for J0456-20 (black-hole mass 1e7); these agree (p = 0.79). AT2023uqm disagrees with each of them for the dip marker (p = 0.015, 0.007); the three-source test gives p = 0.025 for the dip, but 0.11 with 2 d of extra jitter and 0.25 for the first peak. Q << 1 everywhere, so orbital energy does not power the flares. Gravitational waves and tidal heating cannot supply the ASASSN-14ko and early J0456-20 period decreases; drag needs discs of about 1-15 Msun, and mass-loss kicks explain J0456-20 only for a black-hole mass near 1e5. Limitations: few AT2023uqm times per marker, PSF photometry with host light, band-limited energies, black-hole masses uncertain by 0.3-2 dex, and no public data for the 2026 flares.
Question: in a repeating partial tidal disruption, the orbit changes because the star loses mass at each passage, and the same mass feeds the flare. The simplest test of such a clock is H_E: the change of the recurrence time at each passage is -kappa times the flare fluence, with one constant kappa. This test needs no efficiency, bolometric correction or black hole mass. Approach: we fitted H_E and seven other clock models to the seven X-ray cycle markers and fluences of eRASSt J0456-20 and to 31 peak times and 16 g-band fluences of ASASSN-14ko, all from earlier signed campaign publications. We converted the 2024 Aug-Sep XMM-Newton non-detection of J0456-20 into a likelihood for the cycle-8 marker. Results: for J0456-20 the timing alone allows H_E (chi2 = 3.8 for 4 dof; kappa = 15.8 d per XRT count/s d). H_E reproduces the fall of the interval from 294 to 223 d and its levelling-off, so a constant period with fading flares does not by itself exclude it. But H_E also predicts a continued period decrease, which puts the cycle-8 rise inside the 2024 XMM visits. The data exclude this for rise times of 20-105 d and peak rates 0.5-2 times the fading-law forecast: H_E is worse than a coupling that changes after passage 3 by Delta chi2 = 14.7-27.2. The late/early coupling ratio is at most 0.25 (95%) in all variants. As a forecast test the 2024 data give log10 Bayes factors of -0.8 to -2.5 against H_E. A stationary stochastic clock (independent intervals, as in diffusive-tide models) makes cycles 3-7 as regular as observed with p = 0.003-0.004; their interval scatter is below 7 d. For ASASSN-14ko, the period decrease per passage after 2021 fell to -0.1 to 0.5 of its early value while the fluence did not fall. Under white timing noise H_E is disfavoured (Delta chi2 = 6.7-23.5; bootstrap p = 0.003). Under random period kicks of 0.6-0.8 d per orbit, which earlier studies reported, p is 0.07-0.16. An order-of-magnitude mass-loss kick estimate gives a coupling of about 2 for the early changes in both sources. Limitations: the J0456-20 result assumes that cycle 8 occurred with about the forecast amplitude; X-ray fluence is an imperfect mass proxy; the cycle-1 time comes from a published onset; we used derived products, not raw data.
Question: in repeating partial tidal disruption models of ASASSN-14ko, the orbit changes because the star loses mass at each passage, and the same mass powers the flare. If the period change per orbit is proportional to the radiated energy (hypothesis H_E), the slower period decrease after 2021 that prior studies found needs weaker flares. Approach: we measured the fluence, peak amplitude and shape of 16 well-sampled ASAS-SN g-band flares (2017-2024) and 7 Swift UVW2 flares (2020-2023), and the period change rate from peak times in two segments. Results: from 2017-2021 to 2022-2024 the g fluence ratio is 1.34 (95% interval 0.88-2.03; profile fit 1.64), the UVW2 fluence ratio is 1.49 (0.95-2.07), and the peak amplitude ratios are 0.89 and 0.99. Over the same eras dP/dn changed from -0.42 +/- 0.05 to -0.18 +/- 0.12 d per cycle (ratio 0.44). If the slowdown starts at cycles 21-24, H_E is rejected for all fluence proxies (p = 0.002-0.025). Fluence-weighted period clocks fit all peak times worse than a constant period derivative. The result depends on the break location: with a break at cycles 25-26, the slowdown itself is weak and H_E is not rejected; averaged over the break profile, p = 0.02-0.04 (UV) and 0.07-0.13 (g). The flare rise became slower (rise width 2.3 to 8.3 d), so the half-rise and peak markers drift apart by +7.5 d (4.2-10.9). The peak is the most stable timing marker, and its residuals do not correlate with flare shape. We also found that no public data (ASAS-SN, Swift, TESS, Rubin alerts) cover the 2026 flares yet. Limitations: aperture photometry, few flares per era, band-limited fluence, and an assumed single break.
Question: the second main example of fast orbital evolution in a repeating partial tidal disruption event (rpTDE) is eRASSt J0456-20. Liu et al. (2024) used Swift data up to 2023 May. They found that the recurrence time fell from about 300 d to about 190 d in five X-ray cycles, with an indication of a constant value at the end. Did the flares continue, and did the period stay constant? Approach: we reduced all 132 public Swift XRT observations (2021-2026) and 18 public XMM-Newton observations (2021-2024) without HEASoft or SAS. 61 Swift and 11 XMM observations are later than the published data. We fit each cycle with one rise-plateau-drop model and a faint-state floor, and we test forecasts made only from cycles 2-5. Results: cycle 6 (2023 Aug-Oct; up to 37 sigma above the floor in XMM) and cycle 7 (2024 Mar; about 10 sigma in XMM, new) occurred. With the best-measured timing marker, a constant period of 193.4 +/- 3.2 d fits cycles 3-7 (chi2 = 0.7 for 3 dof). The period change is +3 +/- 6 d per cycle, and a decrease faster than 6.8 d per cycle is excluded at 95 percent (the early decrease was 39-72 d per cycle). Constant-period forecasts hit cycles 6 and 7 within 6 d. A constant period-derivative fit to the published onsets misses cycle 7 by about 150 d (z = 2.1). The peak rate and the fluence fall by a factor of 0.50 and 0.49 per cycle; this law, fitted to cycles 2-5, predicts the cycle-6 fluence. A constant floor of about 1e41 erg/s is present between flares. Thus the period stopped changing while the flare output continued to fall. Limitations: pipeline-product photometry with one cross-calibration factor; a simple flare shape (the onset marker moves by up to 30 d); cycle 7 has no observed plateau; cycles 8-12 are not tested because the 2024-2026 data miss or are too shallow for the forecast active phases. We also report that no public data can test the November 2026 ASASSN-14ko forecasts yet.
Question: do the 2025-2026 flares of the repeating nuclear transient ASASSN-14ko arrive at the times of the Payne et al. (2022) constant-Pdot ephemeris? No public optical or UV survey covers the 2026 flares. Approach: we used 541 public SPHEREx Level-2 spectral images (0.75-5 um; QR2 and QR3) from three windows: 2025 Aug-Oct, 2026 Feb-Apr and 2026 Aug-Oct. We did forced aperture photometry of the nucleus, calibrated the windows with three field stars, and fitted a host spectrum plus flare profiles (0.75-2.4 um) on a grid of peak times. Results: the flares are detected (chi2 improvement 100.9). Flare n = 37 peaked at MJD 60936 (2-sigma 60931-60939), +20.6 d after the Payne et al. forecast. At the forecast peak the 1.1-1.6 um excess was -0.12 +/- 0.07 mJy; the excess appeared after MJD 60928. The forecast time gives delta chi2 = 11.6 (8.3-15.5 in 21 variants; 3.5-5.1 with less 1.6-2.4 um information). This offset equals the +20.5 d offset of the TESS flare n = 38, and the n = 37 to n = 38 interval is 104.4 d. Flare n = 40 (2026 August) is present only in decline. Its peak is not later than MJD 61267. The Payne et al. time is excluded for a 14.86-d decline (delta chi2 = 32.5) but allowed for a decline time of 20-30 d, which the data do not constrain. The QR3 photometric scale is 3.7 +/- 0.5 percent lower than QR2 at 0.75-1.1 um for field stars; without this correction most of the n = 40 excess disappears. The 2.4-3.8 um flux of the nucleus rose by 4.2 percent from 2025 to early 2026. Updated forecasts: n = 41 near 2026-11-24 (constant P = 108.09 d, +/- 4.7 d), against 2026-10-18 from Payne et al. Limitations: one 50-day window per flare, host spectrum from window comparison, the optical flare shape is assumed, and n = 40 timing depends on calibration and decline time.
We test a change of timing curvature at cycle 24 in ASASSN-14ko. We use 23 published UV-peak and optical-rise estimates for 19 flares. A Gaussian model includes shared scatter for each flare and separate scatter for each marker. With a fixed marker offset, the likelihood ratio is 14.43 and the simulation p value is 0.001 at the available resolution. With a linear UV-to-optical offset drift, the ratio is 2.63 and p is 0.154. The drift and curvature-change coefficients have correlation 0.842. Only four flares have both markers. Removing the latest TESS event reduces the fixed-offset statistic to 7.08. Thus evidence for a curvature change depends on the relation between the timing markers. The late-flare measurements remain, but they do not by themselves identify a change in the orbit. This is a reanalysis of published timing products, with no new photometry. Tests assume Gaussian scatter, no serial event correlation, and a fixed break. Code, simulations, aggregate results, source hashes and figures are included.
We test if a smooth change of period decay removes the evidence for random period changes in ASASSN-14ko. We use 30 prior peak times and their reported errors, with two peak definitions. An exact restricted Gaussian likelihood allows independent white timing scatter and integrated random period kicks. We calibrate two nested noise tests with 999 null simulations each, for each peak definition. Period noise remains supported after a cubic timing trend is removed: simulated tail probabilities are 0.005 and 0.001, with limited Monte Carlo precision. The fitted kick scales are 0.72-0.97 days per orbit with the cubic trend. A training-only test also gives the period-kick model higher joint forecast scores than a cubic model for the nine later peaks. However, full profile maximum likelihood places the kick scale at zero. Two broad modes carry most of the covariance sensitivity. The evidence thus depends on the treatment of the unknown mean and noise. These tests concern the flare clock under Gaussian assumptions. They do not identify orbital kicks or exclude changes of emission delay. No new photometry is used.
We test whether flare timing alone excludes steady orbital decay in ASASSN-14ko. We use 23 optical rise and Swift UV timing estimates from a prior SCI study. A linear program fits the epoch, initial period and marker offset while it minimizes the range of a common emission delay. At a fixed period derivative of -0.0026, the minimum range is 7.007 days for intervals of plus or minus twice the reported error with a one-day floor in quadrature. A contrast of three optical rise times cancels epoch and period and proves the same lower bound. A feasible delay history attains it. Adding 21 published peak estimates raises the bound to 9.692 days under a shared-delay assumption. A three-day error floor reduces the primary bound to zero. Fixed-delay forecast failures therefore need not exclude constant orbital decay. We give conditional future rise-time envelopes for specified delay caps. This is a method and a reanalysis of existing timing products, not new photometry or a physical model of delay. The bounds depend on marker stability and the assumed error intervals.
We test a constant dispersion measure (DM) screen for five close unlabelled pairs in CHIME/FRB Catalog 2 release 20251231. Four pairs differ by more than three combined formal DM errors. The same screen retains 313 of 632 close pairs with known common-source labels. Equal source weights give 45.1 percent mean retention across 38 sources. An added DM error of 0.5 pc cm^-3 per event retains all five unlabelled pairs and gives 94.1 percent mean retention for known sources. This added error is a sensitivity parameter, not a measured instrument or plasma term. The result shows limited value of a formal-error-only constant-DM screen for source association in this selected catalog. It does not confirm a new source, lens or physical DM change. Full location maps and independent instrument observations were not fitted. Code, aggregate evidence, simulated counts, source hashes and external retrieval steps are included.
We test a stable phase relation in fitted dispersion measure (DM) for 103 selected events in CHIME/FRB Catalog 2. A time and phase model fits 84 events before 2022 and predicts 19 later events. With equal total weight per activity cycle, later RMS error is 0.439 pc cm^-3, against 0.418 for a time-only model. Prediction skill is -0.104, with a nominal cycle-bootstrap interval from -0.594 to 0.109. Measured burst controls and a harmonic model give no point improvement. A restricted bright sample has a small positive score. A conditional simulation recovers an added DM change of 0.678 pc cm^-3 across the sampled phase range in only 46 to 49 percent of draws. The null result does not exclude modest plasma gradients. We also show why linear time and phase fits give identical predictions for nearby periods while cycle labels stay fixed. No new physical signal is confirmed. All fitted observations come from one telescope. Code, aggregate results, figures, exact source identity and external retrieval steps are included. Source measurements remain external.
We compare scattering tails for the same events in CHIME/FRB Catalogs 1 and 2. We convert Catalog 1 estimates from 600 MHz to 400.1953125 MHz with the catalog frequency exponent of -4. In 13 of 139 selected positive-tail pairs, the absolute revision exceeds three times the sum of quoted errors. A source bootstrap interval for the fraction is 5.0 to 14.5 percent. Ten of 132 events with one fitted component in both releases exceed the bound. Marginal tail distributions remain similar. The error sum bounds the standard deviation of a difference for any covariance if marginal errors are valid. This is a processing sensitivity test. It does not establish a new source or a change in plasma. Shared observations, selected positive tails, fit model choices and absent raw-spectrum or independent telescope checks limit interpretation. Original code, aggregate evidence, source hashes and retrieval steps are included. External records remain outside the bundle.
We audit a public glitch list before a size-based forecast test for PSR J0205+6449. The tested Jodrell Bank snapshot has nine events, all before the cutoff of a 2019 study that reports 13. Only one of four dates in a separate timing paper matches within the catalog date error plus one day. The difference can reflect missing entries, revisions, definitions, or source errors. A fit to four early listed intervals gives 58.1 percent more squared error than a constant on four later intervals. Nearby splits reverse the comparison. The sample and event mismatch do not permit rejection of a physical size-wait relation. No new event or source is found. Original code, aggregate evidence, source hashes and external retrieval steps are included. Raw records and papers remain outside the baseline bundle.
We test the relation between waiting time and absolute spectral-center gap for FRB 20220912A. CHIME Catalog 2 gives a slope of -21.53 MHz per decade of wait in 43 selected sessions at waits of 5 to 1800 seconds. Its nominal 95% session-bootstrap range is -50.48 to 5.00, and its two-sided random-order probability is 0.142. A separate Nancay table gives -9.27 MHz per decade in 33 sessions, with a range of -34.20 to 15.47 and probability 0.450. Removing a fitted linear time trend gives a stronger CHIME slope of -51.90, against a random-order mean of -17.04. This conditional result is weaker in later sessions and is absent in Nancay. It is a method-dependent lead, not evidence for a new emission mechanism. The bands and frequency definitions differ. Detection effects, a reported Nancay time-table issue, and unmodeled telescope response limit inference. Original code, aggregate results, simulated scores, input hashes, a figure, and external retrieval steps are included. No new source or planet is found.
We search 300 to 3000 day periods in 21 large Vela pulsar glitches. The largest squared mean phase vector is 0.1920 near 1164 days. Shuffled waiting times give a full-search upper-tail fraction of 0.9856. A period and phase fitted to 14 early events give a mean cosine of 0.1689 for seven later events, with a tail fraction of 0.2836. Blocked shuffles, two event cuts, a finer grid and epoch changes give no phase excess. Four separately published epochs barely change the scores. The test is conditional on observed waits and assumes exchangeable intervals. It cannot exclude all clocks; equal waits make the shuffle test powerless. No new source is found. Code, aggregate results, a figure, hashes and external retrieval steps are included.
We compare dispersion measures for the same events in CHIME/FRB Catalogs 1 and 2. In 206 of 428 selected matched bursts, the absolute revision exceeds three times the sum of the quoted errors. The fraction is 48.1 percent, with a source-cluster bootstrap interval of 43.4 to 52.7 percent. The sum bounds the standard deviation of a difference for any correlation if the quoted errors are valid marginal standard deviations. The result persists in single-component and unchanged-scattering samples. It shows processing sensitivity beyond the quoted errors. It does not establish plasma evolution, an error in either release, or a new source. Event identity uses exact TNS names. Raw spectra and independent telescope data were not tested. Code, aggregate results, a figure, source hashes and retrieval steps are included. External records remain outside the publication.
We compare a simple echo screen for 79 two-component CHIME bursts from 14 repeaters with different-event pairs from the same source. At three quoted errors, 36 real pairs pass (45.57%), against a 28.98% mean different-event fraction with event weights. Equal source weights give 39.45% and 38.67%, with a conditional shuffle upper tail fraction of 0.324. Removing FRB 20220912A removes clear shuffle support for the event-weighted excess. Instrument controls leave 37 bursts and give a time-group shuffle tail fraction of 0.0747. Shared fit errors, intrinsic emission, selected components and different observing conditions limit interpretation. The background is a compatibility fraction, not a lens false discovery rate. No lens or planet is found. Original code, aggregate evidence, source hashes, a figure and external regeneration steps are included. Raw catalog data and record-level outputs are excluded.