No CCC-signature search on either side has used a preregistered or blind-analysis protocol: every reported significance, positive and negative, reflects choices of statistic, null ensemble, mask, and search parameters made after inspecting the data.

Visible on the face of the record (in-sample ring-size choice, response-driven statistics on both sides, no preregistered protocol anywhere). Confidence is moderate because the claim is an editorial synthesis — a universal negative over the literature — rather than a statement any single source makes, and it is labeled as such in the claim record.

The historical record of the 14-year dispute reveals a continuous pattern of post-hoc statistical adjustments by both sides, from selecting optimal ring sizes in-sample to inventing new ellipticity metrics in response to criticism. The strongest opposing consideration is that critics who tested the exact, frozen parameters of the proponents (e.g., DeAbreu et al.) effectively conducted a prespecified test and still found a completely null result.

The record shows that all published CCC-signature analyses, on both sides, chose their test statistics and parameter ranges after inspecting the data: Gurzadyan & Penrose introduced the original variance criterion and later the sky-twist test in response to critiques; An et al. optimized the Hawking-point ring size on the real maps; Jow & Scott’s re-evaluation and DeAbreu et al.’s Planck analysis were designed specifically to address those prior claims, not as precommitted protocols. There is no indication in any paper or source here of preregistered or blinded analyses being used, and the editors’ synthesis notes this explicitly as a meta-level property of the literature. The strongest opposing consideration is that DeAbreu et al. effectively froze their analysis to the proponents’ published parameters, approximating prespecification and making their null result more robust than a generic post-hoc exploration; but that is still not full preregistration in the sense of committing to the statistic and decision rule before seeing the data.

The record shows no preregistered or blind CCC-signature search: the Hawking-point radius was optimized in-sample, the sky-twist and anisotropy tests arrived after the first critiques, each critical reanalysis was built in response to a published claim, and the 2025 Meissner–Penrose paper continues to interpret the unrehabilitated 2020 detection. The strongest opposing consideration is the asymmetry objection: DeAbreu et al. froze parameters to the proponents' own published choices, which is a form of prespecification, and a null under the claimant's criteria carries more weight than a post-hoc positive. That asymmetry is real and means the claim slightly overstates symmetry of sin; it does not invent a preregistered protocol that the literature does not contain.

The post-hoc character of the entire exchange is visible on the face of the record: the Hawking-point ring size was optimized in-sample (the defect CCC-E010 corrects), the sky-twist and anisotropy arguments were introduced in response to criticism (CCC-E006), every critical reanalysis was constructed after the claim it tested, and the 2025 paper absorbs a factor-of-two angular discrepancy by introducing a new epoch after the observation (CCC-E022). No party has published a preregistered or blinded protocol. The strongest opposing consideration is the asymmetry objection: post-hoc design is far more corrosive to detection claims than to nulls, and DeAbreu et al. deliberately froze their parameters to the proponents' own published choices. That is a real qualification, but the proponents' underlying choices were themselves made after inspecting the data, so the claim survives — it is kept at well_supported rather than established because it is an editorial synthesis of the exchange, as the case file honestly labels it, with the DeAbreu nuance attached.

The record shows the pattern on its face: the Hawking-point ring size was optimized in-sample (the precise defect Jow & Scott corrected), the sky-twist and anisotropy arguments appeared in response to criticism, the 2025 preprint absorbs a factor-of-two angular-diameter discrepancy by introducing a new epoch after the observation, and each critical reanalysis was built after the claim it tested. No preregistered protocol appears anywhere in the ledger. Confidence is moderate rather than high because this is an editorial absence claim synthesized across the exchange rather than a finding any single source states, and because the strongest opposing consideration has real force: DeAbreu et al. deliberately froze the proponents' own published parameters, which functions as prespecification, and post-hoc choice is far more corrosive to a detection claim than to a null found under the claimant's criteria.

Still visible on the face of the record, and CCC-E022 extends the pattern (a factor-of-two discrepancy absorbed by a new epoch after the observation) while also supplying the first piece of the quantitative model that could enable a preregistered test. Confidence stays moderate because the claim is an editorial universal negative over the literature rather than any single source's statement.

Visible on the face of the record — nulls answered with new statistics, new statistics with new nulls (CCC-E013) — and CCC-E022 extends the pattern with a post-hoc factor-of-two fix while also supplying the first piece of a quantitative model that could enable a preregistered test. Confidence stays moderate because the claim is an editorial universal negative over the literature rather than any single source's statement.

Visible on the face of the exchange — nulls answered with new statistics, new statistics with new nulls (CCC-E013) — and CCC-E022 extends the pattern with a post-hoc factor-of-two fix while supplying the first fragment of a quantitative model that could enable a binding preregistered test. Confidence is moderate because it is an editorial universal negative over a literature rather than a single source's assertion.

Visible on the face of the exchange — nulls answered with new statistics, new statistics with new nulls (CCC-E013) — and CCC-E022 extends the pattern with a post-hoc factor-of-two fix while also supplying the first fragment of a quantitative model that could enable a binding preregistered test. Confidence stays moderate because it is an editorial universal negative over a literature rather than any single source's assertion.

Visible on the face of the exchange — nulls answered with new statistics, new statistics with new nulls (CCC-E013) — and CCC-E022 extends the pattern with a post-hoc factor-of-two fix while supplying the first fragment of a quantitative model that could enable a binding preregistered test. Confidence is moderate because it is an editorial universal negative over a literature, not a single source's assertion.

The entirety of the evidence record showcases a reactive, post-hoc exchange where search criteria, ring sizes, and specialized statistics (like the sky-twist test) were introduced after data inspection or in response to critiques. No preregistered methodology exists from either camp. The strongest opposing consideration is the inherent asymmetry in this flaw: null results found by critics using the proponents' own frozen criteria carry fundamentally more epistemological weight than post-hoc positive detections.

The record shows a consistent pattern: Gurzadyan & Penrose’s initial variance statistic and ring-size choices came after exploratory analysis; the sky-twist and anisotropy tests were introduced only after criticism; the Hawking-point ring size in An et al. was chosen to maximize the signal; and each critical reanalysis was explicitly crafted in response to prior claims, not under a preregistered protocol. Jow & Scott’s specific demonstration of a look-elsewhere inflation of significance makes the post-hoc nature of the original Hawking-point claim concrete. The strongest opposing point is that some critics, notably DeAbreu et al., effectively froze their analyses to the proponents’ own published parameters, which is a limited form of prespecification; nonetheless, no party has conducted a genuinely blinded or preregistered search, so the claim as stated holds.

The Hawking-point ring size was optimized in-sample, the sky-twist and anisotropy tests were introduced after criticism, and every critical reanalysis was constructed because of the claim it tested; no party has published a preregistered protocol. The 2025 mass–temperature relation is a first quantitative fragment but arrived after the contested detection it is used to interpret. The strongest opposing consideration is the asymmetry objection: DeAbreu et al. froze parameters to the proponents' published choices, which is a form of prespecification, and a null found under the claimant's own criteria carries weight that a post-hoc positive does not.

Visible on the face of the record: the Hawking-point ring size was optimized in-sample (CCC-E010), the sky-twist and ellipticity statistics were introduced in the same papers that report their success (CCC-E006), each critical reanalysis was constructed after the claim it tested, and no party has published a preregistered protocol; the proponents' rejoinder passage documents the pattern from their own side (CCC-E013). The 2025 Meissner–Penrose preprint, by supplying the first fragment of a quantitative signal model, confirms rather than refutes the diagnosis — it is the thing the claim says was always missing (CCC-E022). The strongest opposing consideration is the asymmetry objection: DeAbreu et al.'s freezing of the proponents' published parameters is a form of prespecification, and post-hoc construction is far more corrosive to positive claims than to nulls. That objection qualifies how the methodological fact should be weighted, but does not dispute the fact itself, which is all this claim asserts.

The absence of preregistration is visible on the face of the record rather than inferred: the Hawking-point ring size was optimized in-sample (the precise defect Jow & Scott corrected), the sky-twist and centre-anisotropy statistics were introduced in response to criticism, each critical reanalysis was constructed after and because of the claim it tested, and the proponents' rejoinder (CCC-E013) treats nulls as indicating "that a more sophisticated analysis is needed" — the signature of an unfrozen protocol. No party has published a preregistered design. The strongest opposing consideration is that the claim's flat symmetry is misleading: post-hoc choice is far more corrosive to detection claims than to nulls, and DeAbreu et al.'s adoption of the proponents' published parameters functions as prespecification. That qualifies the claim's implications for who is right, not its accuracy as a description of practice.

The pattern is visible on the face of the exchange — nulls answered with new statistics, new statistics with new nulls (CCC-E013) — and CCC-E022 extends it with a post-hoc factor-of-two fix while offering the first fragment of a quantitative model that could enable a binding test. Confidence is moderate because this is an editorial universal negative over a literature rather than a single source's assertion.

The historical record shows that the entire dispute has unfolded through post-hoc methodological adjustments, from the optimization of ring sizes to the reactive introduction of the sky-twist test. Neither proponents nor critics have ever published a formally preregistered, blinded protocol for these searches. The strongest opposing consideration is the asymmetry of post-hoc analysis: finding a null result using the claimant's own frozen, post-hoc criteria carries significantly more epistemic weight than finding a post-hoc positive.

The record shows that the Gurzadyan–Penrose circle statistic, the Hawking-point ring size, the sky-twist test, and subsequent proponent refinements were all introduced after exploration of the data; conversely, each critical reanalysis was explicitly designed in response to those claims, not from a precommitted protocol (CCC-E001, E005–E008, E009–E013). Jow & Scott’s need to retrospectively marginalize over ring sizes and Bodnia et al.’s post-hoc choice to investigate anomalous pixels exemplify this pattern. The strongest opposing point is that DeAbreu et al. do adopt the proponents’ previously published parameters as fixed when moving to Planck (CCC-E008), which is a limited form of prespecification; still, no analysis on either side freezes the full set of choices (statistic, masks, null, artifact handling) before first application to the relevant dataset, so CCC-C011 stands.

No published CCC-signature search on either side deposits a frozen protocol before unblinding: the Hawking-point size was optimized in-sample, the sky-twist and anisotropy arguments arrived after the first critiques, and each critical reanalysis was built in response to a specific proponent claim. The 2025 Meissner and Penrose preprint continues the pattern by introducing a new gravitational-wave epoch to absorb a factor-of-two angular-diameter discrepancy after the spots had already been claimed. The strongest opposing consideration is the asymmetry objection: DeAbreu et al. froze their parameters to the proponents' published choices, which is a de facto prespecification, and a null found under the claimant's own criteria is less corrosive than a post-hoc positive.

The post-hoc character of the entire exchange is visible on its face: the Hawking ring size was optimized in-sample (the specific defect CCC-E010 corrected), the sky-twist and anisotropy arguments arrived after earlier ones were answered (CCC-E006, CCC-E013), and every critical reanalysis was constructed in response to the claim it tested. No preregistered or blinded protocol appears anywhere in the ledger. Strongest opposing consideration: DeAbreu et al. deliberately froze their parameters to the proponents' published choices — a de facto prespecification — and post-hoc design corrodes detection claims more than null results; but freezing to choices made after the proponents inspected the data is still post-hoc in the relevant sense, so this qualifies the claim's moral asymmetry rather than its factual content. The claim is an editorial synthesis and is labeled accordingly.

The record shows the specific failure mode directly rather than by assertion: the Hawking-point ring size was optimized in-sample, which is exactly the defect Jow & Scott corrected (CCC-E010); the sky-twist and anisotropy arguments were introduced after the first nulls (CCC-E006, CCC-E013); and each critical reanalysis was constructed in response to a specific proponent claim. No preregistered protocol from any party appears anywhere in the ledger. The strongest opposing consideration is asymmetry plus one partial exception: DeAbreu et al. deliberately froze their parameters to the proponents' published choices, which is a meaningful form of prespecification, and post-hoc analysis is far more corrosive to a detection claim than to a null found under the claimant's own criteria. The claim is an editorial synthesis rather than any single source's statement, which is a provenance caveat, but the underlying facts are visible on the face of the exchange.

CCC-E023 upgrades this from an inferred pattern to a documented inventory: across twelve searches on both sides, the signal model was supplied by the searchers, and the only CCC-derived fragment is an unrefereed 2025 mass–temperature relation no search has used. Confidence rises to high accordingly; CCC-E013 and the post-hoc epoch in CCC-E022 corroborate.

Visible on the face of the record: the Hawking-point ring size was optimized in-sample (the specific defect Jow & Scott corrected), the sky-twist and ellipticity tests were introduced in response to criticism, and each critical reanalysis was constructed after — and because of — the claim it tested. No party has published a preregistered protocol. The claim is an editorial synthesis of the exchange rather than a statement any single source makes, and is labeled accordingly.

Across more than a dozen published searches and reanalyses spanning 2010 to 2024, neither proponents nor critics operated under a prospective, preregistered protocol. Search radii, variance thresholds, angular scales, and filtering masks were repeatedly adjusted after preliminary map inspection. This absence of prespecification allowed look-elsewhere effects and post-hoc tuning to distort reported significance values on both sides. Strongest opposing consideration: Independent teams like DeAbreu et al. (2015) deliberately froze their search parameters to the exact values published by proponents, providing a disciplined post-hoc replication.

The study table across twelve searches on both sides finds every operative signal model — statistic, size window, thresholds, expected abundance — supplied by the searchers rather than derived from CCC, and Jow & Scott independently conclude the prediction could only have escaped marginalization if it had been much more precise before looking. The proponents' rejoinder (critiques show need for better analysis, not absence) documents the same post-hoc pattern from their side. Confidence stays at moderate because a universal negative over an entire literature cannot be verified exhaustively, though no counterexample appears anywhere in the record.

The twelve-search synthesis finds no protocol whose statistic, signal model, thresholds, and search range were fixed before examination of the relevant sky data. The repeated sequence of a claimed optimum followed by loss of significance after varying a free choice is consistent with that finding. The strongest opposing consideration is that DeAbreu et al. reused the proponents' published parameters, a de-facto prespecification relative to Planck, but it was not a preregistered or blind adversarial protocol.

The study table across twelve searches (2010–2024) and the primary papers themselves show that statistic, size window, mask, thresholds and null were chosen after data inspection on every side; the sole CCC-derived signal fragment appears only in a 2025 unrefereed preprint unused by any search. Strongest opposing consideration is that some later critical works froze proponent parameters (e.g. DeAbreu), which is still not prospective preregistration of a joint protocol.

This is an absence claim, and the study table (CCC-E023) surveys twelve searches from 2010 to 2024 on both sides, finding the operative signal model — statistic, size window, thresholds, expected abundance — supplied by the searchers in every case; Jow & Scott say the marginalization could only have been escaped if CCC's predictions had been made precise beforehand (CCC-E055), and Bodnia et al. call for refined quantitative predictions. No counter-instance of a deposited protocol appears anywhere in the ledger. Strongest opposing consideration: DeAbreu et al. froze the proponents' own published parameters, which functions as a de facto prespecification even though it was not a preregistration, and the claim's editorial framing means it rests on a synthesis rather than a single primary statement.

The study table (CCC-E023) documents twelve searches from 2010–2024 in which the signal model was supplied by the searchers; the proponents' rejoinder (CCC-E013), Jow & Scott's counterfactual (CCC-E055) and Bielewicz et al.'s note that CCC gives no established ring-width prediction corroborate it; the incompatible proponent and critic readings of what CCC predicts for ring-centre distribution (CCC-E058–E060 versus CCC-C504) illustrate the under-specification.

As synthesized in study CCC-S001 and noted throughout the reanalysis literature, every search parameter—including angular radius ranges, variance thresholds, concentricity criteria, and filter choices—was selected post hoc after map inspection. No team on either side operated under a preregistered protocol or blind-analysis framework prior to downloading and scanning the public WMAP and Planck data releases. The strongest opposing consideration is that DeAbreu et al. (2015) adhered strictly to the proponents' previously published parameter values, providing an informal external replication protocol, though the parameters themselves originated post hoc.

The study table (CCC-E023) shows every search on both sides supplied its own signal model — statistic, size window, thresholds, expected abundance — with none preregistered; Jow & Scott note only an a-priori precise prediction could have escaped their marginalization. The strongest opposing consideration is that a negative universal over a whole literature rests on a synthesis: DeAbreu's use of the proponents' published parameters functions as partial de facto prespecification, and the 2006 priority of the framework (though not of the specific signatures) softens the charge of pure post-hoc fitting.

The twelve-search workpaper finds no blinded or preregistered protocol, and records that the operative statistics and signal models were supplied by analysts rather than quantitatively derived from CCC beforehand. Jow and Scott independently emphasize that only a more precise a-priori prediction could avoid the required marginalization. The strongest opposing consideration is that DeAbreu et al. froze parameters to the proponents' published choices, providing a de facto prespecified replication even though it was not a formally blinded or preregistered study.

The study table of twelve searches (2010–2024) and the sequence of papers show that every reported significance, positive or negative, was obtained with statistic, size window, mask, and null choices fixed after the data had been examined; no preregistered or blind protocol appears on either side. Jow & Scott explicitly note that only an a-priori precise CCC prediction could have escaped the look-elsewhere correction. The strongest opposing consideration is that the 2025 Meissner–Penrose mass–temperature relation supplies a first quantitative fragment, yet it post-dates all existing searches and remains unrefereed.

The study table (CCC-E023) finds that across twelve search rows on both sides the operative signal model — statistic, size window, thresholds, expected abundance — was always supplied by the searchers and never derived from CCC; Jow & Scott say the conclusion could only have been avoided had the predictions been made precise beforehand (CCC-E055); Bodnia et al. make the missing signal model their methodological synthesis; and the proponents' own rejoinder answers nulls with new statistics (CCC-E013). Strongest opposing consideration: DeAbreu et al. froze the proponents' published parameters, which functions as de facto prespecification, and the 2025 mass–temperature relation is a first derived fragment (CCC-E022) — so the claim's "every" is nearly rather than perfectly exceptionless. Note this is an editorial synthesis over the literature rather than a single measured result.

Every positive detection and negative critique across the fourteen-year history of CCC CMB searches was conducted post hoc, adjusting search filters, ring radii, variance thresholds, and test statistics after examining the data. Study CCC-S001 and Jow & Scott (2020) document that no search protocol was preregistered or executed blindly against a derived, a-priori signal model. The strongest opposing consideration is that DeAbreu et al. (2015) strictly froze all analysis parameters to Gurzadyan and Penrose's published values before analyzing Planck data, providing a quasi-prespecified replication.

The study table built under frozen criteria documents twelve searches on both sides, each inventing its own signal model, with no preregistered or blind protocol anywhere in the fourteen-year exchange (CCC-E023); Jow & Scott note only an a-priori precise prediction could have escaped their marginalization (CCC-E055). The strongest opposing consideration is the 2025 Meissner–Penrose mass–temperature relation as a first move toward a derived signal model, but it is an unreviewed preprint that no search has yet used, so it does not disturb the claim as stated.

The evidence inventory finds no blind or preregistered CCC-signature search, and it documents that each study supplied its own statistic, size range, thresholds, or signal model. Repeated changes in those choices materially alter the reported significance. The strongest opposing considerations are that CCC itself predates the searches and that CCC-E008 reused the proponents' published parameters, but neither constitutes formal preregistration of a quantitatively derived signal and complete analysis protocol.

The study-table synthesis and the sequence of published papers show that every reported significance on both sides—proponent and critic—used statistics, size windows, masks, and ensembles chosen after data inspection; no blind or preregistered protocol appears in the ledger. The strongest opposing consideration is that some later reanalyses froze the proponents’ published parameters, which is a partial but incomplete step toward prespecification.

The study table under frozen criteria (E023) covers twelve search rows from 2010 to 2024. In every row the operative signal model — statistic, size window, thresholds, expected abundance — was supplied by the searchers, never derived from CCC or fixed before the data were examined. Jow & Scott's account of repeatedly revised predictions (E055) and the proponents' own rejoinder answering nulls with new statistics (E013) fit the same pattern. The first CCC-derived quantitative fragment appears only in the unrefereed 2025 preprint (E022), which no search has yet used. Strongest opposing consideration: the claim's symmetry hides an asymmetry — DeAbreu et al. froze the proponents' published parameters before analysing Planck (a de facto prespecification, E008), and a look-elsewhere correction (E010) removes forking-path inflation rather than exploiting it, so post hoc choice compromises the positive significances more than the nulls. The universal negative also rests substantially on this site's own secondary workpaper, hence moderate confidence.

The study table finds that across twelve searches (2010–2024) the signal model was supplied by the searchers, and no significance came from a protocol fixed in advance (CCC-E023). Jow & Scott note that only a precise prior prediction could have escaped their correction (CCC-E055). The proponents treat nulls as calls for better analysis (CCC-E013), and the 2025 preprint offers the first derived fragment of a signal model (CCC-E022). Held short of established against two seats: this is a universal negative resting on one table, and DeAbreu et al.'s frozen parameters were a partial prespecification.