Nine star-like point sources are present at the reported positions on surviving glass copy material of the POSS-I red plate exposed on 12 April 1950 (field E0070), and are absent from the overlapping plate exposed six days later and from deeper modern surveys.

Confirmed by proponents, critics (physical inspection), and an independent pipeline; the rare claim in this literature that all parties accept.

The physical existence of the nine marks on the 1950 POSS-I glass copy plates is physically confirmed by both proponents and critical inspectors, and recovered by independent software. The strongest opposing consideration to their uniqueness is that similar single-plate marks are found on neighboring fields, suggesting a broader artifact population rather than a singular celestial event.

The existence and basic properties of the nine April 1950 marks are documented by the original discovery paper (TRN-E001), physically confirmed on the Edinburgh glass copy by skeptics (TRN-E002), and recovered independently by Hayes’s detection pipeline (TRN-E008). Their absence from overlapping plates and deeper surveys is reported consistently across these sources. No evidence contradicts the observational statement; disputes concern origin, not existence. The strongest opposing consideration is Hambly & Blair’s finding of similar one-plate-only detections in a neighbouring field, which suggests such features may be common plate phenomena, but that does not undercut the factual claim here.

Existence of the nine marks on surviving glass is independently settled: the discovery paper reported them, Hambly and Blair physically confirmed them on the Edinburgh copy at the stated positions and their absence from the overlapping plate six days later, and Hayes recovers eight of nine. Absence from deeper modern surveys is likewise uncontested. The strongest opposing consideration is not to existence but to uniqueness — Hambly and Blair found similar one-plate-only detections on neighboring field E0086, which fits a defect population at least as well as a sky population.

Reported by the proponents, physically confirmed on the Edinburgh glass copy by the case's principal critics under the microscope, and recovered by an independent pipeline (8 of 9), with absence from the overlapping plate and from deeper modern surveys documented. When the opposition walks to its own archive and verifies the marks, the lowest rung is as secure as this kind of fact gets. The strongest opposing consideration is Hambly & Blair's finding of similar one-plate-only detections on the neighboring field E0086 — but that bears on what the marks are (a generic plate phenomenon), not on whether they exist. The verdict applies strictly to existence on surviving copy material; the original negative has never been examined.

This is the rare adversarially confirmed observation: the marks were reported by the proponents, then physically located under a microscope on the Edinburgh glass by the case's principal critics at the stated positions, then recovered 8/9 by an independent from-scratch pipeline with benchmarked false-positive rates. Absence on the six-days-later overlapping plate and in Pan-STARRS/Gaia-depth surveys is likewise multiply attested. The strongest opposing consideration is a small qualifier on the absence conjunct: the discovery paper's own r~26 GTC imaging shows possible counterparts that could be chance projections, so "absent from all deeper imaging" is not quite exact — and Hambly & Blair found similar one-plate-only marks on the neighboring field, which bears on the event's significance rather than on its existence.

Now confirmed at every level of material: critics' physical inspection of the Edinburgh copy (TRN-E002), independent pipeline recovery (TRN-E008), and microscopy of the original Caltech negative finding all nine at the published positions (TRN-E022). The marks' existence on plate material is no longer contested by anyone.

Confirmed by proponents (TRN-E001), by critics' physical inspection of the Edinburgh copy (TRN-E002), and by an independent pipeline (TRN-E008). Nothing in the new material touches it.

Confirmed by proponents (TRN-E001), by critics' physical inspection of the Edinburgh copy (TRN-E002), and by independent pipeline recovery (TRN-E008); the one claim all parties accept. Note the copy is still a descendant of the shared intermediate, not the original negative.

Confirmed by proponents (TRN-E001), by critics via physical inspection of the Edinburgh copy (TRN-E002), and by an independent pipeline (TRN-E008). Nothing in the new material touches it.

There is universal agreement across proponents, independent pipelines, and skeptical critics that the nine marks physically exist on the surviving plate material at the reported positions. Recent microscopy of the original 1950 glass plate at Caltech confirms their presence on the original emulsion, decisively proving they are not scanning glitches or software artifacts. The strongest opposing consideration is not about their existence but their uniqueness; similar single-plate marks are found in neighboring fields, suggesting the phenomenon may be a general property of the photographic plates rather than a unique celestial event.

The physical existence of the nine marks on the surviving plate material is undisputed. They were reported in the discovery paper, visually confirmed under a microscope on the Edinburgh glass copy by skeptical critics, and independently recovered by a separate software pipeline. The strongest opposing consideration is that similar marks appear on neighboring plates, suggesting a systemic plate phenomenon rather than a unique sky event, but this does not dispute their physical presence.

The nine April 1950 marks are reported by the discovery paper (TRN-E001), independently confirmed on a physical Edinburgh glass copy by skeptics (TRN-E002), and recovered by Hayes’s independent detection pipeline (TRN-E008). Yang & Villarroel further show that all nine are present on the original Caltech negative at the catalogued positions (TRN-E022), ruling out scanner-only or copy-only origins for their existence as plate features. No source disputes the presence or uniqueness of these marks; disagreement is confined to their origin. The only substantial adverse point is that similar one-plate-only marks exist on a neighboring field (TRN-E002), suggesting such features may be common plate phenomena.

The existence of nine star-like marks at the reported positions on the April 1950 POSS-I red plate copies is confirmed by the discovery paper (TRN-E001), by independent physical inspection of the Royal Observatory Edinburgh copy (TRN-E002), and by an independent detection pipeline that recovers eight of nine on the digitized data (TRN-E008). Both critics and proponents agree these marks are real features of the plate material and absent from overlapping and deeper-survey images. The strongest opposing consideration is not about their existence but about interpretation: similar one-plate marks on neighboring fields and a rich defect population suggest a defect process may be responsible rather than astrophysical events.

Villarroel et al. 2021 reported the nine; Hambly and Blair physically confirmed them on the Edinburgh glass copy at the published positions and their absence from the overlapping plate six days later (TRN-E002); Hayes's from-scratch pipeline recovers eight of nine (TRN-E008). An unpublished microscopy of the original Caltech negative finds all nine on the emulsion that was in the telescope (TRN-E022), which is more than the claim requires. The strongest opposing consideration is not to existence but to uniqueness: the same inspection found similar one-plate-only marks on neighboring field E0086, which is expected if the phenomenon is a property of plates.

Villarroel et al. reported the nine; Hambly and Blair physically confirmed them on the Edinburgh glass copy at the stated positions, absent from the overlapping plate six days later; Hayes independently recovered eight of nine. Critics and proponents agree the marks exist on plate material and are gone from later imaging. Strongest opposing consideration: the same inspection found similar one-plate-only detections on neighboring field E0086, and the confirmed material is itself a copy descendant, so existence on surviving glass does not locate the marks on the original exposure.

The lowest rung is about as secure as anything in archival astronomy gets: reported by the proponents (E001), physically confirmed on the Edinburgh glass by the case's principal critics (E002), recovered eight-of-nine by a from-scratch independent pipeline with ~0.2 false positives per control field (E008), and — per the 2026-08-24 manuscript — present on the original Caltech negative itself (E022). Absence from the overlapping plate six days later and from deeper modern surveys is uncontested. The strongest opposing consideration targets uniqueness, not existence: Hambly & Blair found similar one-plate-only detections on neighboring field E0086, suggesting a general plate phenomenon — which bears on interpretation, not on whether these nine marks are where reported. The E022 layer is unpublished and unblinded, but existence is independently corroborated by the critic-side inspection. Established, high confidence.

This is the case's secure floor by adversarial convergence: reported by the proponents, physically confirmed on the Edinburgh glass copy by the principal critics, and recovered eight-of-nine by an independent pipeline. The claim is carefully scoped to surviving copy material, which is exactly what was inspected. The strongest opposing consideration is not to existence but to uniqueness and absence: Hambly and Blair found similar one-plate-only marks on the neighboring field E0086, suggesting a general plate property, and deep GTC imaging turned up possible counterparts attributable to chance projection, mildly softening "absent from deeper modern surveys." Those caveats bear on interpretation, not on the presence of the marks, so the claim stands well supported — just short of "established" because the absence clauses carry residual wrinkle and the original negative has never been examined.

This is the rare claim in a contested case confirmed by the opposing camp: Hambly and Blair put the Edinburgh glass under a microscope and found the nine at the reported positions (TRN-E002), an independent pipeline recovers eight of nine (TRN-E008), and microscopy of the original Caltech negative reports all nine at their published coordinates (TRN-E022). Absence from the six-days-later overlapping plate and from deeper modern surveys is reported consistently across proponent and critic. The strongest opposing consideration is not to existence but to significance: the same inspection found comparable one-plate-only marks on the neighbouring field E0086, which is what a defect population would also produce — but that bears on TRN-C020, not on this claim as stated.

This is adversarially confirmed: the proponents reported the nine (TRN-E001), the principal critics put the Edinburgh glass under a microscope and found them at the reported positions while confirming their absence from the six-days-later E0086 plate (TRN-E002), and an independent from-scratch pipeline recovers eight of nine (TRN-E008). The strongest opposing consideration concerns the claim's tail: deep GTC imaging shows possible faint counterparts near some positions that could be chance projections (TRN-E001), so "absent from deeper modern surveys" is very slightly softer than stated. Note also Hambly and Blair's finding of similar one-plate-only marks on E0086 — which does not threaten this claim but strips it of diagnostic value for anything above it.

Confirmed at three levels: critics' inspection of the Edinburgh copy (TRN-E002), independent extraction (TRN-E008), and microscopy of the original Caltech glass (TRN-E022). Existence as physical emulsion features is settled; cause is not.

Now confirmed physically at three levels: on the Edinburgh copy by critics (TRN-E002), by independent extraction (TRN-E008), and on the original Caltech glass by microscopy (TRN-E022). The marks' existence as physical emulsion features is no longer contestable, even though their cause is.

Physical confirmation at three levels — critics' inspection of the Edinburgh copy (TRN-E002), independent extraction (TRN-E008), and microscopy of the original Caltech glass (TRN-E022). Existence as physical emulsion features is settled; cause is not.

Confirmed at three levels: critics' inspection of the Edinburgh copy (TRN-E002), independent extraction (TRN-E008), and microscopy of the original Caltech glass (TRN-E022). Existence as physical emulsion features is settled; cause is not.

The physical presence of the nine marks on the plate material is agreed upon by proponents and critics alike, having been confirmed via independent inspection of copy plates and unpublished microscopy of the original telescope negative. The strongest opposing consideration is that similar anomalous marks appear on neighboring plates, suggesting a systemic defect issue rather than a unique sky event.

The nine April 1950 sources are reported by the proponent team (TRN‑E001), independently confirmed on the Edinburgh glass copy (TRN‑E002), and recovered by Hayes’s separate detection pipeline (TRN‑E008), with Yang & Villarroel additionally locating them on the original Caltech plate (TRN‑E022). Both critics and proponents agree these marks exist and are absent from comparison epochs and modern deeper surveys. The strongest opposing consideration is not to existence but to interpretation: similar one-off detections on neighboring fields and visible plate blemishes suggest a general defect population that could also produce such features.

The nine marks exist on surviving glass at the reported positions, are absent from the overlapping plate exposed six days later, and have no counterparts in deeper modern surveys. Villarroel et al. 2021 reported them; Hambly and Blair physically confirmed them on the Edinburgh copy under a microscope; Hayes’s independent pipeline recovers eight of the nine. Skeptics and proponents agree on this floor and disagree only about what made the marks. The strongest opposing consideration is not to existence but to uniqueness: Hambly also found similar one-plate-only detections on neighboring field E0086, which fits a defect population at least as well as a sky population, but that does not unmake the nine marks on E0070.

Triple-convergent: reported by the proponents, physically confirmed on the Edinburgh glass by the case's principal critics, and recovered (8 of 9) by a from-scratch independent pipeline — and now reported present on the original Caltech negative itself (TRN-E022), pending review. Every party in the dispute agrees the marks exist on plate material at the published positions, absent from the overlapping plate six days later and from deeper modern surveys. The only live objection targets uniqueness, not existence: similar one-plate-only detections recur on the neighboring field (TRN-E002), which fits a general defect population — but that bears on interpretation (TRN-C020), not on this observation claim as stated.

This is the best-attested proposition in the case: reported by the proponents, physically confirmed on the Edinburgh glass by the principal critics, recovered by a from-scratch independent pipeline (8 of 9), and now located on the original Caltech negative. Adversarial confirmation on physical material is the strongest form of support available here, and no record contests it. Two minor qualifications keep it from being trivial: the independent pipeline recovers eight rather than nine, and the deep GTC imaging shows possible faint counterparts that the discovery paper itself says could be chance projections, so "absent from deeper modern surveys" is true at survey depth but not absolutely. The strongest opposing consideration is not to existence but to significance — Hambly & Blair found similar one-plate-only marks on the neighbouring field, which fits a defect population as comfortably as a sky population.

Confirmed at three levels: critics' inspection of the Edinburgh copy (TRN-E002), independent extraction (TRN-E008), and microscopy of the original Caltech glass (TRN-E022). Existence as physical emulsion features is settled; cause is not.

Both proponents (TRN-E001) and skeptics (TRN-E002) agree the physical marks exist at the reported locations, and independent pipelines reliably recover them (TRN-E008). Recent unreviewed microscopy confirms all nine sources are on the original 1950 glass plate (TRN-E022). The strongest opposing consideration is not about their existence, but their uniqueness, as critics note similar anomalous detections exist on neighboring plates (TRN-E002), suggesting a systemic plate-level phenomenon rather than a localized sky event.

The existence and one-plate-only nature of the nine April 1950 sources are documented by the discovery paper (TRN-E001), physically confirmed on the Edinburgh glass copy by skeptics (TRN-E002), recovered independently in digitized data by Hayes (TRN-E008), and now further confirmed on the original negative by Yang & Villarroel (TRN-E022). These independent, cross-team verifications leave little doubt that nine such marks exist, appear together once, and are absent from other epochs. The strongest opposing point is not about their existence but about their representativeness: similar one-plate-only detections on neighboring fields (TRN-E002) suggest a broader defect population, which affects interpretation but not this observational claim.

Villarroel et al. reported the nine; Hambly & Blair physically confirmed them on the Edinburgh glass copy at the published positions; Hayes recovers eight of nine from scratch; Yang & Villarroel find all nine on the original Caltech negative. Absence from the overlapping plate six days later and from deeper modern surveys is uncontested by critics. Strongest opposing consideration is not to existence but to uniqueness: similar one-plate-only marks on neighboring field E0086 show the phenomenon is a property of plates generally, which fits defects at least as well as a sky population.

Confirmed on the Edinburgh glass by the case's principal critics (TRN-E002), recovered by an independent pipeline (TRN-E008), and now reported on the original negative itself (TRN-E022). Even discounting the unpublished manuscript entirely, the first two records suffice, since the claim as stated concerns surviving copy material, which the skeptics verified. The strongest opposing consideration targets uniqueness rather than existence: similar one-plate-only marks recur on the neighboring field E0086, fitting a general plate-defect population. That bears on interpretation (TRN-C020), not on the marks' presence.

This is the rare rung where adversarial confirmation exists: the case's principal critic inspected the Edinburgh glass and found all nine at the reported positions (TRN-E002), an independent from-scratch pipeline recovered 8 of 9 with quantified control false-positive rates (TRN-E008), and microscopy of the original Caltech negative reports all nine on the physical emulsion (TRN-E022). Absence from the six-days-later overlapping plate is confirmed by the same critical inspection. The strongest opposing consideration is the caveat inside TRN-E001 itself — deep GTC imaging shows possible counterparts that could be chance projections — which slightly qualifies "absent from deeper modern surveys"; and TRN-E002 notes similar one-plate-only marks on the neighbouring field, which bears on uniqueness rather than existence. Neither touches the claim as stated.

Confirmed at three independent levels: critics' physical inspection (TRN-E002), independent software extraction (TRN-E008), and microscopy of the original glass (TRN-E022). Existence is settled; cause is not, and that distinction carries the whole case.

Confirmed at three independent levels: critics' physical inspection (TRN-E002), independent extraction (TRN-E008), and microscopy of the original glass (TRN-E022). Existence is settled; cause is not.

Confirmed at three independent levels: critics' physical inspection (TRN-E002), independent extraction (TRN-E008), and microscopy of the original glass (TRN-E022). Existence is settled; cause is not.

Confirmed at three independent levels: physical inspection by critics (TRN-E002), independent extraction (TRN-E008), and microscopy of the original glass (TRN-E022). Existence is settled; cause is not.

Confirmed at three independent levels: critics' physical inspection (TRN-E002), independent extraction (TRN-E008), and microscopy of the original glass (TRN-E022). Existence is settled; cause is not.

Confirmed at three independent levels: critics' physical inspection (TRN-E002), independent software extraction (TRN-E008), and microscopy of the original glass (TRN-E022). Existence is settled; cause is not.

Confirmed at three independent levels: physical inspection by critics (TRN-E002), independent extraction (TRN-E008), and original-plate microscopy (TRN-E022). Existence is settled; cause is not.

Confirmed at three independent levels: critics' physical inspection (TRN-E002), independent extraction (TRN-E008), and microscopy of the original glass (TRN-E022). Existence is settled; cause is not.

The physical existence of the nine marks on the 1950 plate material is universally accepted, confirmed by both the proponents and the principal skeptical critics during glass inspection. The strongest caveat is that similar, non-repeating marks were also found on a neighboring field plate, suggesting a plate-wide susceptibility to defects rather than a unique celestial event.

The nine 1950 sources are reported in the discovery paper, physically confirmed on an Edinburgh glass copy by skeptics, and recovered by an independent detection pipeline; Yang & Villarroel add that all nine are visible on the original negative at the catalog positions. Independent groups on opposing sides agree on the marks’ presence and on their absence from overlapping plates and deep modern imaging. The only real challenge is not to existence but to uniqueness: similar one-plate-only features are seen on neighboring fields, which argues for a general plate phenomenon rather than a singular astrophysical event.

The nine marks are reported by the discovery paper, physically confirmed at the published positions on the Royal Observatory Edinburgh glass copy by the case's principal critics, recovered by Hayes's from-scratch pipeline (eight of nine), and reported present on the original Caltech negative. Absence from the overlapping plate six days later and from deeper modern surveys is part of the same multiply attested record. The strongest opposing consideration is not to existence but to uniqueness: Hambly and Blair found similar one-plate-only detections on neighbouring field E0086, which fits a defect population at least as well as a sky population.

Existence is confirmed from both directions: the proponents' discovery report (TRN-E001), the critics' physical inspection of the Edinburgh glass (TRN-E002), and an independent pipeline recovering eight of nine (TRN-E008); absence from the overlapping plate and deeper modern surveys is undisputed. TRN-E022 now extends presence to the original negative, exceeding what this claim requires. The strongest opposing consideration targets uniqueness rather than existence: Hambly & Blair found similar one-plate-only detections on neighboring field E0086, suggesting a general plate phenomenon — which bears on interpretation, not on this claim as stated.

Adversarial confirmation is the gold standard and it exists here: TRN-E002 records the critics putting the Edinburgh glass under a microscope and finding the nine at the reported positions, absent from the six-days-later overlapping plate; TRN-E008 recovers eight of nine with an independently written pipeline; TRN-E022 finds all nine on the original negative. The strongest opposing considerations are minor and do not touch existence: one source escapes Hayes's pipeline, and TRN-E001 notes deep GTC imaging shows possible counterparts that could be chance projections, mildly qualifying "absent from deeper modern surveys." Note the claim's low diagnosticity — every hypothesis in the case predicts it, which is precisely why it can be graded this strongly without helping the featured hypothesis.

Confirmed at three independent levels: critics' physical inspection (TRN-E002), independent extraction (TRN-E008), and microscopy of the original glass (TRN-E022). Existence is settled; cause is not.

Confirmed at three independent levels: critics' physical inspection (TRN-E002), independent extraction (TRN-E008), and microscopy of the original glass (TRN-E022). Existence is settled; cause is not.

Unusually solid for this literature: reported by the proponents (Villarroel et al. 2021), physically confirmed on the Royal Observatory Edinburgh glass copy by the case's principal critics (Hambly & Blair 2024), and recovered by an independent detection pipeline (Hayes 2026). Skeptics and proponents agree the marks exist; they disagree about what made them.

The physical presence of nine point-like marks at the specified coordinates on surviving glass copy material of field E0070 has been visually confirmed by independent researchers and skeptics alike. It is undisputed that these sources are absent from the overlapping plate taken six days later and from modern deep surveys down to 26th magnitude. The strongest opposing consideration is that visually similar point-like blemishes were also identified on adjacent plates and throughout the plate material, pointing to a persistent ambient defect population.

The claim is carefully worded about surviving copy material, and it is confirmed at that level by the critics themselves (TRN-E002, strong: nine detections on the Edinburgh glass at the reported positions, absent from the plate exposed six days later), independently recovered by a from-scratch pipeline (TRN-E008, 8 of 9), and extended to the original negative by microscopy (TRN-E022). Strongest opposing consideration: the same inspection found similar detections on the neighboring plate and visible blemish populations, which does not touch the presence/absence pattern the claim asserts but frames the interpretive dispute above it.

TRN-E001 reports the nine positions and later non-detections, TRN-E002 independently confirms all nine on physical Edinburgh copy material, and TRN-E008 recovers eight with an independent pipeline. TRN-E022 additionally reports all nine at the corresponding positions on the original negative. The strongest opposing consideration is the presence of similar detections and blemishes on neighboring plates, but that affects attribution rather than the stated presence and subsequent absence of these nine marks.

Discovery imaging, independent visual confirmation on Edinburgh glass copies, SuperCOSMOS profile measurements, Hayes independent extraction, and Yang microscopy of the original negative all place nine point sources at the published E0070 positions, absent on the overlapping plate and modern deep surveys. Strongest opposing consideration: similar marks appear on neighboring plates, showing the phenomenon is not unique to one field, but that does not erase the detections.

Confirmed by physical inspection from the sceptical side (TRN-E002), recovered 8/9 by a fully independent from-scratch pipeline (TRN-E008), and reported present on the original negative (TRN-E022). The absences — from E0086 six days later and from deeper modern imaging — are independently corroborated. The strongest opposing consideration is that the same inspection found comparable point-like detections on E0086 that are absent from E0070, plus a visible blemish population on both plates, which bears on interpretation but not on the truth of this observational claim as worded.

TRN-E001 (discovery), TRN-E002 (critics' physical confirmation on the Edinburgh copy, strong), TRN-E008 (independent pipeline recovers eight of nine), TRN-E022 (reported on the original glass). Absence from the six-day-later plate and from deeper surveys is common to all records.

TRN-E001 (discovery), TRN-E002 (strong; critics' physical confirmation on the Edinburgh copy), TRN-E008 (strong; eight of nine recovered independently), TRN-E022 (present on the original). Uncontested by any record.

The physical presence of nine star-like marks on the April 1950 plate material (field E0070) has been verified independently by both proponent teams and skeptical investigators, as well as recovered by independent software pipelines. They are demonstrably absent on overlapping plates taken six days later and in deep modern CCD surveys. Strongest opposing consideration: The marks exhibit non-stellar profile sharpness and lie near the plate edge, characteristics frequently shared with localized emulsion flaws.

TRN-E002 provides strong physical confirmation on the Edinburgh copy glass, including absence from the overlapping six-days-later plate, and TRN-E008 independently recovers eight of nine from the digitized lineage; the discovery report (TRN-E001) is peer reviewed. The claim is stated about copy material and is fully met at that rung. The strongest opposing consideration is that the ROE copy is itself downstream of the shared intermediate positive, so this claim alone cannot rule out copy-stage origin — which is why TRN-C024 exists.

TRN-E001 reports the nine April 1950 detections and their absence from later imaging, while TRN-E002 independently confirms all nine on a physical Edinburgh copy and their absence from the plate exposed six days later. TRN-E008 recovers eight independently, and TRN-E022 reports all nine on the original negative. The strongest opposing consideration is that these observations establish physical marks and non-recurrence, not that the marks record astronomical or near-Earth light.

Multiple independent inspections confirm the nine marks at the published positions on glass copy material and their absence from the overlapping plate six days later and from modern surveys (E001, E002, E022). Strongest opposing consideration is that the early reports used digitized copies, but subsequent physical inspection removed that limitation for the copies themselves.

The opposing side confirmed this. The critics' inspection of the Edinburgh copy finds nine point-like marks at the published positions, absent from E0086 six days later (E002). An independent pipeline recovers eight (E008), and original-plate microscopy agrees (E022). Strongest opposing consideration: "star-like" is loose, since the marks are sharper than stars (E003), and GTC imaging to r~26 shows possible faint counterparts (E001). Neither point touches presence on the plate or absence elsewhere.

Four concordant records support it. They are the discovery report (TRN-E001), the critics' physical inspection of the Edinburgh copy (TRN-E002, strong), an independent pipeline recovering eight of nine (TRN-E008), and the microscopy study on the original (TRN-E022). The critics' confirmation is the decisive one, because it comes from the side with reason to doubt.