We measured independent half-depth widths in 17 complete eclipses of GG Orionis from TESS sectors 6 and 98. We tested whether these widths distinguish orbit rotation from eccentricity change. Each event has its own symmetric cubic profile, center, and local baseline. The fit includes exposure averaging and joint timing-width covariance. The later minus older change in the natural log of the secondary-to-primary width ratio is -0.00226 +/- 0.00188. The eclipse gap decreases by 274.3 +/- 4.0 seconds. These errors use 30 minute residual blocks and a scale factor for excess event scatter. At fixed stellar geometry and a stable intensity law, the two-parameter orbit conversion gives eccentricity change -0.00044 +/- 0.00071 and angle change +0.313 +/- 0.127 degrees. Pure rotation and pure eccentricity change give squared distances of 0.38 and 6.05 from the measured contrast. Analysis variations give fixed-direction distances from 1.92 to 3.43 reported errors. Regressions with width trends within each visit give distances near 3.2. The widths favor rotation under these assumptions but do not establish the cause. Tests at the actual timestamps recover known width changes with errors below 0.00009. The contribution is the joint event dataset and its tested limits. Earlier work already reported the timing change. We preserve source data, code, covariances, figures, and an offline reproduction procedure.
Filters: arxiv: astro-ph.IM (Instrumentation and Methods for Astrophysics) ×
Kepler and TESS eclipse gaps test a common orbit model for KIC 4544587 from 2009 to 2024. We measure symmetric eclipse cores in public source data. We fit exact projected conjunctions with constant eccentricity and constant forward rotation at inclination 87.9 degrees. The fitted rate is near 27 milliradians per year. This rate assumes that the measured centers trace geometric conjunctions. We test the published rate of 42.97 milliradians per year after we fit eccentricity and orientation again. It leaves residuals of several minutes. Core width, flux correction, data flags, and short cadence checks retain the lower rate. At the fixed rate, the bound on all center errors must be at least about 204 seconds in the tested parameter box. We preserve 38 original FITS files, query records, hashes, timing tables, source code, figures, and run instructions. This extends a prior SCI TESS study to the earlier Kepler data. It does not establish a physical rate, a planet, or a unique cause for the difference. Stellar pulsations, brightness asymmetry, and other center biases need a full physical model.
We test whether one depth correction can match six GG Orionis eclipses in the TESS Sector 98 QLP small aperture flux. We compare QLP v01 flux with direct image flux at the same exposures. A free linear fit uses the observed image eclipse profile. The small aperture to image amplitude ratio rises from 0.21635 to 0.29843 between the first and last complete secondary eclipses. This is a 37.94% increase over 39.79 days. Changes to the baseline, window, and reference aperture give increases of 37.1% to 38.8%. A separate center median estimate gives 37.23%. The ratios are not monotonic. For these six measured ratios, any common positive correction leaves at least 15.94% error in one event against the image reference. The main aperture ratio rises by 4.36% between the same secondary events. The large aperture ratio changes by -0.52%. An earlier SCI study found QLP depth errors after Sector 94. This work adds a test of separate events within one sector. The result applies to one binary, six complete events, and the saved QLP version. The image sum is a reference and is not exact total stellar flux. Conditional residual errors omit full reference and pipeline errors. The cause remains unknown. The result does not show a change in the stars. The package preserves exact data, source records, code, figures, controls, and checks for a repeat without network access.
Disintegrating planets lose dust, so their transit depth changes from orbit to orbit. We searched all 1,473 TESS objects of interest (TOIs) with an orbital period below 2 d for this type of change. We used 11,396 TESS light curves from MAST (SPOC, TESS-SPOC and QLP). For each TOI we measured the depth of each transit and the depth at control times a quarter period before and after each transit, in the same sectors. An F-test compares the scatter of the transit depths with the scatter of the control depths. We injected constant-depth transits into the light curves of each star and set the threshold (log10 p_F <= -6.5) so that none of the 1,472 null injections passes it. Variable-depth injections measure the sensitivity. Seven objects passed the threshold. One is the known disintegrating planet BD+05 4868 Ab (positive control). The other six are eclipsing binaries, or have a wrong period, or have a wrong transit time. We found no new disintegrating-planet candidate. TOI-2593.01 has a period of 4.4107334 +/- 0.0000077 d, three times the ExoFOP period: in sector 33 the transit occurs at only one of three predicted times, and a joint fit of sectors 33 and 87 rejects the other cycle counts by delta chi2 >= 231. We give predicted transit times for 2026 and 2027. TOI-5769.01 is an eclipsing binary with a period of 5.26467 d. Kepler-1520 b is not detected because its median per-transit SNR in TESS is only 0.57. For 1,332 TOIs we give a 95 % upper limit of the fractional rms of the transit depth (median 0.34; 386 TOIs below 0.2). We also show two method errors that give false detections (a noise factor for each sector, and different exclusion zones in transit and control windows) and their corrections. Limits: the injections calibrate the false-alarm rate only up to a per-transit SNR of approximately 7, many TOIs have a per-transit SNR below 1, and the test does not examine depth changes between sectors. The package has the code, the per-transit depth tables, the injection tables and the reproduction instructions.
We test three weak radial velocity curves in HD 10180 with later public HARPS data. We learn their amplitudes and phases from 240 early exposures at periods of 1.17766, 9.655, and 67.55 days. We test the fixed curves on 96 later exposures from July 2010 to August 2017. We fit six larger periodic signals and instrument offsets separately in each set. The primary noise model adds 1.5 m/s of independent noise to the quoted errors. The three fixed curves together increase later weighted squared error by 27.03. Each of the six larger curves improves later error in a separate control. We then include early coefficient uncertainty and average over the published period bounds with early-data weights. The predictive log density ratio for all three weak curves is −5.80 relative to no weak curve. The 67-day component changes from −2.12 at its central period to +0.84 with the period average. An early-only period fit near 66.67 days also improves its later score. Thus period uncertainty changes the 67-day result. The smaller test set after July 2012 also changes the sign for the 9.655-day curve. These are conditional curve tests under specified linear signal and noise models. They do not establish or exclude planets. We preserve the source data, requests, row split, code, results, period samples, figures, and reproduction steps.
Ground observations can make signals at different periods give similar velocities. We compare the reported 19.6791-day signal of HD 111232 with eight specified daily and annual aliases in 26 public ESPRESSO measurements from 2024 and 2025. Each fit has free sine amplitude and phase, a separate seasonal background, and fitted independent Gaussian scatter. With cubic backgrounds, the reported period gives a gain of 12.47 in twice the log likelihood over the best fixed alias, at 1.0505 days. A search through three continuous frequency ranges gives a gain of 10.90 over the best daily solution. The reported-period range remains first with quadratic backgrounds, pipeline offsets, or a first harmonic. Removing any one observation also keeps the reported period first. The seasons differ: 2024 alone prefers a daily alias, while 2025 alone prefers 19.68 days. Separate seasonal scatter reduces the joint gain to 7.46. In 16 fixed exponential-noise controls, the gain ranges from 0.62 to 14.32. Conditional Gaussian simulations select the reported period in 1018 of 1024 draws from its fitted model. We preserve the 26 ESO headers, source records, all fits, simulated data, figures, and code. The reported period gives the best fit within the tested models. It does not establish a planet, cover all aliases, or provide a global false-alarm probability.
We tested the 57 candidate signals of the HARPS-RVBank v2 search sci:sha256:17e2629023ac1bcbb507eb643afc93a73a34d8a9d1ba2357cc22bd7bc4f108cb with radial velocities (RVs) that the search did not use: the California Legacy Survey (CLS), the HIRES RVs of Tal-Or et al. 2019, CARMENES DR1 VIS, and ESO archive DRS CCF RVs of HARPS and ESPRESSO spectra taken after 2022-01-01. For each signal, we fixed the HARPS orbit and its covariance. The model of the independent data has one offset per instrument group, one linear trend per source, the other HARPS signals of the star, and jitter. We computed the amplitude ratio alpha of the HARPS template, a predictive Bayes factor B over 4000 HARPS posterior draws, and a free-phase sinusoid test. 29 signals on 25 stars have usable data, 28 signals have none, and 4 signals have a predicted S/N less than 3. Of the 25 testable signals, 13 are rejected (log10 B < -2). Only 3 of them stay rejected if the HARPS errors are doubled: GJ 699 58.7 d, GJ 9527 71.4 d and GJ 9592 38.7 d. 5 signals are supported. The strongest is HD 111232 at 19.68 d (K = 1.93 m/s, minimum mass about 7.7 Earth masses): 26 ESPRESSO and 6 HARPS nights from 2024-2025 give alpha = 0.94 +/- 0.11 and log10 B = 16.1. 8 of 8 model variants give the same class, and the ESO activity indicators have no power at this period. We did not find this period in the literature or in SCI. The other supported signals are HD 32564 at 2.56, 11.06 and 49.21 d, which use the same ESPRESSO spectra as sci:sha256:8d629ee537837cd7f7f4b3d9b0f34219daafeddd643fd324a7f50b410f7559cb, and HD 176986 at 297.8 d. The HD 176986 support depends on the nuisance model: FWHM decorrelation gives alpha = -0.07 +/- 0.33, and the ESO FWHM has strong power near this period. 3 signals are incoherent: HD 32564 23.6 d (phase offset -65 degrees), GJ 825 39.8 d (phase offset -78 degrees, with activity power) and GJ 776 62.2 d (e = 0.96, uncertain). 4 signals are inconclusive. Limitations: linear trends and white jitter only; one ESPRESSO programme and short spans for HD 32564 and HD 111232; the test does not separate 1-day aliases, for example 2.56 d and 1.635 d for HD 32564. The package has the code, the extracted data, all results and the reproduction steps.
We test selected public TESS light curves of HD 111232 near an unconfirmed 19.68-day radial-velocity period. Five SPOC or TESS-SPOC sectors give 17,219 ten-minute bins. We search 19.6661–19.6921 days, all phases at finite resolution, and box durations of 1.5–8 hours. No observed peak passes the empirical noise threshold: the largest score is 6.542 and the threshold is 9.727. We add physical transit models to the archived PDC flux before our running-mean filter. The main model uses a circular orbit, stellar radius 0.923819 solar radii, mass 0.96 solar masses, and quadratic limb darkening (0.4,0.2). At each radius, 500 random draws have uniform phase, period across the search range, and impact parameter 0–0.8. We recover 288/500 trials at one Earth radius, 495/500 at 1.25 Earth radii, and 500/500 at 1.5 Earth radii. The 95% Monte Carlo interval at 1.25 Earth radii is 97.68–99.67%, conditional on the observed noise and model. Changing only the stellar radius to 1.0338088 solar radii lowers recovery there to 465/500. We also test other filters, two eccentric geometries, and uniform stellar brightness. All 200 native-cadence checks give the same full recovery decision as the ten-minute approximation. This work extends an earlier fixed-period test of larger central transits. Injections occur after archive pipeline correction, so they cannot measure signal loss in that step. These are conditional recovery results. They do not establish a planet or a universal radius limit. The package includes code, original FITS data, provenance, all trial results, figures, and offline reproduction steps.
We tested the reported 155.624-day HD 205536 signal with two velocity methods, DRS and SERVAL. Both methods use the same 94 HARPS spectra. These spectra give 75 nights from 2003 to 2021. We fit three frequency bands around the source period and its annual aliases. We used common relative weights and two instrument offsets. We tested eccentricity limits of 0.6 and 0.9, with and without linear correction terms. SERVAL favors the short period in all six settings. For DRS with offsets alone, the score changes from +2.484 to -5.878 when the eccentricity limit increases. The score is 75 ln(Q_long/Q_short), where Q is the weighted sum of squared residuals. Positive scores favor the short period. With a trend and two Earth-velocity terms, the DRS scores are -0.793 and -3.678. The long-period DRS fits reach the eccentricity limit in every setting. Under the trend model, the paired scale difference for the fixed source curve is -0.297. Its conditional 95 percent interval, based on ten observing seasons, extends from -0.731 to +0.138. The period choice depends on the measurement method and model. The amplitude difference is not secure across the tested models. The measurements share spectra and noise. These tests do not confirm a planet or select the true period. The package includes data, code, figures, source hashes, repeat instructions, and 8000 conditional noise trials.
We tested how correlated noise changes the fitted support for the reported 19.7-day radial-velocity signal of HD 111232. We reused 85 HARPS-RVBank nights and 32 later ESO nights from two SCI publications. We fitted two long Keplerian orbits, separate instrument offsets and white jitter, and a circular candidate. The primary model fixes the outer period at 26472.44623 days. With white noise, the candidate has period 19.68138 days and semi-amplitude 1.963 m/s. Its fitted natural log likelihood gain is 54.171. We then added a shared quasi-periodic Gaussian process near 39.36 days, which permits a second harmonic near the candidate period. We fitted both hypotheses again at each fixed noise lifetime. The gains are 40.886, 25.296, 13.968, 11.342, and 11.296 for lifetimes of 100, 1000, 5000, 30000, and 1000000 days. The last lifetime gives almost periodic noise over the 7830-day span. The candidate amplitude remains 1.907 m/s. At this lifetime, a free outer orbit and a fourth-order outer trend give gains of 11.156 and 11.411. Resetting the noise between instrument groups raises the gain to 25.271. Thus the strongest reduction requires long coherence across time and instruments. A separate white-noise fit to the 26 ESPRESSO nights gives an amplitude of 1.99 m/s at the original HARPS period. Activity spectra do not establish a shared 39.36-day rotation period. These are local fitted likelihood comparisons, with no false-alarm or Bayesian calibration. The signal model has the higher fitted likelihood in every reported comparison. This result neither confirms nor rejects a planet. It measures sensitivity to an explicit harmonic noise assumption in existing data. The package preserves code, selected data, direct ESO headers, source records, figures, numerical checks, and reproduction instructions.
A second star can change a measured radial velocity and imitate a planet. We test small motion of a faint copy of the HD 111232 mean cross-correlation profile. We reuse 26 public ESPRESSO exposures from 2024 and 2025. We remove continuum, depth, translation and width changes. We then measure the remaining shape at the fixed 19.6793-day candidate period, with free phase. The grid has 27 separation and width pairs. An identical copy at zero separation is blind to this test. No other cell has a detected signal; a shared wild bootstrap gives p=0.825 for the maximum statistic. With independent exposure errors, approximate 95% bounds corrected for the 26 measurable cells are 0.81 to 1.32 m/s for separations of minus or plus 2 km/s and width ratios of 0.8, 1.0 or 1.25. The bounds describe equivalent apparent velocity. The same-width bounds at minus and plus 0.5 km/s are 46.62 and 19.19 m/s. At the six 2 km/s cells, removal of single exposures gives bounds up to 1.64 m/s. A narrower profile window gives a bound up to 1.87 m/s. Specified Gaussian time-correlation controls give bounds up to 1.51 m/s. Finite injections check the local motion approximation. These are conditional limits on specified profile copies. They do not exclude all blends or stellar activity, and they do not confirm a planet. The package contains the original FITS files, source records, code, measurements, figures and offline instructions.
We test whether the reported 39.76-day velocity signal of GJ 825 acts as a rigid shift of its combined spectral profile. We use 82 public ESPRESSO cross-correlation functions from 28 observing nights in 2022. The observations were used by an earlier SCI study that raised concerns about stellar activity. We measure apparent shifts in fixed core and wing windows. At the fixed HARPS period of 39.7602567152476 days, a mean, linear trend, and sine fit gives a semi-amplitude of 0.571 m/s for wing shift minus core shift. The HC3 standard error is 0.092 m/s if errors on different nights are independent. No null wild-bootstrap draw out of 19,999 reaches the measured statistic; the plus-one probability is 0.00005. Approximate sign tests with 20-day blocks give weaker probabilities of 0.031-0.063 from only six blocks. A translated fixed template gives differences below 0.00014 m/s over the observed velocity range. Fixed spectral-row continuum weights retain an amplitude of 0.575 m/s. Changes in those weights with fixed row shapes give 0.007 m/s. U1 data alone give 0.593 m/s. The result supports earlier concerns about profile changes near this period. It does not separate stellar and instrument effects or exclude a planet with additional profile changes. The 128-day span does not establish a unique period. The package preserves the original files, source hashes, code, results, figures, and reproduction instructions.
We test how the reported 19.679-day HD 111232 velocity curve depends on the noise model. We use the same 26 public ESPRESSO nights from 2024 and 2025 as the earlier SCI test. We add no new observations. We fix the period, phase, and eccentric shape from the original HARPS search. We fit a signed amplitude scale. Separate quadratic or cubic seasonal curves remove slow velocity changes without fixed giant-planet orbits. We test white, exponential, Matern, and quasi-periodic Gaussian noise. The controls add processing-version offsets, three linear line-shape terms, and a wider rotation range of 10 to 100 days. When signal and noise are jointly fitted, the scale ranges from 0.914 to 1.005 across these models. With cubic curves and white noise, the refitted likelihood statistic is 32.14. It falls to 16.54 with long-lived quasi-periodic noise and processing offsets. In the latter model, a scale profile has a likelihood support set of 0.713 to 1.140. This set permits twice the log-likelihood loss to be at most 3.84. This set has no calibrated confidence coverage. Fixing the covariance from the no-signal fit instead gives a scale of 0.297 with conditional standard error 0.191. Fixing the covariance from the signal fit gives 0.914 with conditional standard error 0.081. Thus, stable joint-fit amplitudes and small conditional errors do not establish a planetary origin. We preserve verified ESO headers, source provenance, code, fit audits, likelihood profiles, and conditional null simulations. The work supports further study of the existing candidate. It does not confirm a new planet.
We test whether the known-planet period branch changes the evidence for a selected 62.21-day radial-velocity candidate of GJ 776 (HD 189567). We use all 252 HARPS nightly means from the prior SCI search and 30 public ESPRESSO observations from its later validation. Changing the second planet from its 37-day annual alias to its published 33.6-day branch does not remove the third-orbit fit gain. On the published branch, with eccentricity limited to 0.95, the BIC change for a third orbit is -29.0 with white scatter. It is +0.2 after we add a cubic time trend and a defined filtered line-width term. Negative values favor the third orbit. The later ESPRESSO data do not favor the two fixed candidate curves from these fits when the known planets have free phases. A free 62-day sinusoid improves the base ESPRESSO fit, but loses that gain with line width. We also reproduce the prior validation scales and show that its base and line-width clipping variants remove different observations. The nuisance model also changes the result. Unger et al. (2021) already reported the 61.9-day line-width signal and its possible activity relation. Our contribution is a reproducible model and selection audit of the later SCI candidate. Local optimization, high eccentricity, short ESPRESSO coverage, and conditional errors limit these tests. They do not prove a stellar cause or exclude all planets near 62 days.
We test 12 fixed HARPS velocity curves with public HIRES data. We remove nuisance terms within time blocks. We then invert all sign changes of independent symmetric block scores. Each test has finite-sample error control under a correct fixed location model and the stated block assumptions. We use 180, 365.25, and 730 day blocks at two origins. The base yearly layout gives upper limits of 5.901 m/s for GJ 9527 and 1.965 m/s for GJ 95. These limits are below the fixed source amplitudes of 8.976 and 2.012 m/s. The two-year layouts give higher limits. No curve fails all six tests. The largest limits across layouts are 14.459 and 4.495 m/s for those two stars. The other ten largest limits are infinite because at least one layout has too few retained blocks. At least eight blocks are needed at the per-star error limit of 0.05/12. The upper envelope has at least 95% family coverage if each star has one valid layout. Simulations with independent Gaussian or Cauchy blocks give 1.11% family false rejections in 8192 trials per model. The discrete design expectation is 1.19%. Controls that break independence or symmetry exceed the error bound. These experiments do not verify the real stellar noise assumptions. The contribution is this HIRES application of established sign methods, its exact score implementation, and its reproducible results. It does not exclude all planet orbits. The package contains input rows, source hashes, code, proofs, figures, and offline instructions.
We test the wavelength dependence of the 19.679-day velocity signal in HD 111232. We reuse 26 public ESPRESSO spectra from an earlier candidate study. We measure Gaussian centers in two detector bands. We fit their difference at the fixed period. The model has a separate offset and trend for each of two seasons. The fitted differential amplitude is 0.22 m/s. The approximate 95% HC3 upper bound is 0.87 m/s. We then add offsets for three pipeline versions. The amplitude becomes 0.18 m/s and the bound becomes 0.86 m/s. The wild bootstrap p values are 0.62 and 0.65. A second test fixes the published orbit shape and phase. It gives a differential amplitude of 0.02 plus or minus 0.20 m/s. The extraction recovers 99.95% of artificial shifts in the blue band. No tested extraction gives a significant color signal. Fits to narrower profile ranges give weaker bounds, up to 1.92 m/s. The full-profile bound assumes the stated extraction, time model and error model. Activity with a small wavelength dependence can pass this test. The shared observations prevent independent planet confirmation. The package contains all FITS inputs, hashes, measurements, code and figures. It includes instructions that reproduce all outputs without network access.
We tested whether fits from earlier years to Earth's listed radial velocity predict later differences between HARPS DRS and SERVAL velocities. We used the corrected April 2026 CDS release of HARPS-RVBank. Each year had a free mean. Linear fits reduced later squared loss by at least 10% in 11 of 74 selected series before an adopted 2015 boundary. The median gain was -0.00252. Fits from before the boundary reached this level in 2 of 32 series tested after it. Neither retained the level after every possible deletion of one test year. A source audit separated NZP restoration from the planned sum of four fields. A separate control that restores only NZP reached the 10% level in 37 of 74 and 14 of 32 series. The planned sum of four fields is retained as a different perturbation. No series after the boundary met the planned five-usable-year rule for a test within that era. Extreme training differences caused very large later losses. We preserve all failures, source rows, code, 1,329 planned fits, 318 supplemental fits, predictions, controls, and figures. The test measures contrasts within years and is conditional on published templates and calibration. It cannot establish a planet or a unique physical cause.
We searched four public TESS sectors of GJ 1239 for transits near a reported radial velocity period of 19.84 days. We used 12,139 ten-minute bins from sectors 13, 27, 67, and 94. The search tested 401 periods from 19.82528094 to 19.86204678 days and durations from 1 to 6 hours. The largest simple aperture flux box score was 24.45. The threshold from 256 shifted-data controls was 36.80. In 73 controls, the score was at least as large as the observed score. This threshold is not a calibrated false-alarm probability. We tested sensitivity with 1536 synthetic circular transits before trend removal. We used six radii, two impact parameters, fixed stellar properties, and assumed limb darkening. Each trial received the full period, duration, and phase search. Recovery required the threshold score, timing agreement, and well sampled events in at least two sectors. At 3 Earth radii, we recovered 124 of 128 central transits and 104 of 128 transits at impact parameter 0.8. At 4 Earth radii, the counts were 126 and 125. These rates apply to the stated input distribution and analysis. The result does not confirm or reject the radial velocity candidate. The package contains the source light curves, provenance, all trial results, code, figures, and reproduction instructions.
HD 220689 has a reported 180.6023-day candidate curve and a known giant planet. We test how an explicit long orbit changes the interpretation of the candidate. We use 34 old HARPS nights and 46 later public ESO nights. An earlier SCI test used the later velocities. These are reused observations. We first fit a circular orbit only to the later data. We fix its period at 2266.4 days and omit the short curve. At the old dates, the long-orbit prediction has a coefficient of 0.901 along the source curve. The coefficient of the observed data is 1.000. We remove a separate constant for each old HARPS era. The conditional standard error is 0.072 with fitted noise held fixed. This coefficient is not a fraction of variance explained. At fixed eccentricity 0.054, the coefficient is 0.814. The later data cover only 703 days. Thus, the assumed long orbit strongly affects the old prediction. Four joint orbit families give short-curve scales near zero. A broader family gives a scale of 0.584 and only a weak BIC preference over zero. Its long orbit has a period of 2017 days, eccentricity 0.700, and amplitude 6.27 m/s. This alternative limits a general rejection of the candidate. We preserve source inputs, fitted parameters, noise tests, figures, code, and offline reproduction checks. The result establishes a conditional overlap of the sampled orbit curves. It does not establish a new planet or exclude all planets near 180 days.
We tested 57 fixed HARPS candidate periods in the velocity difference between DRS and SERVAL. Both reductions use the same spectra. Each linear fit used paired rows, common weights, and exposure-averaged bases. We predicted complete groups of omitted nights. At the reference setting, 10 of 33 scored candidates had lower difference prediction loss with a circular target term. Only 28 candidates had scores at all 12 main settings. GJ9527_1 at 71.446577 days and GJ3187_2 at 374.072010 days gave gains of at least 44.61% and 38.83% across those settings. The GJ9527 reference gain was 55.95%. One early group supplied 74.70% of baseline loss. Without its saved test losses, the pooled gain was -72.02%. We then added controls from prior case studies. We added sine and cosine terms at the reported 1417-day cycle to both GJ9527 models. The target gain changed to -151.62% on the same 29 test nights. A 365.25636-day pair reduced the GJ3187 gain from 39.52% to 8.24% on the same 56 test nights. These case controls were added after the complete screen. The package includes 251 known-label comparison records, exact source rows, signed input records, all folds, code, figures, and offline checks. Periods, selection, and quality rules use the full historical record. The scores are conditional prediction losses, not blind detection probabilities. The result shows sensitivity to the stated nuisance terms and test groups. It does not identify a physical cause or confirm or reject a planet.