The nine April 1950 detections are systematically sharper and more concentrated than stellar images of comparable brightness on the same plate, with all nine falling on the sharp side of the plate's profile-statistic distribution.

The measurement is solid and undisputed; its meaning is the case's pivotal ambiguity — sharp-because-artifact versus sharp-because-flash awaits a calibration experiment (TRN-R002).

Morphological measurements from both camps agree that the nine canonical marks are significantly sharper than typical stellar profiles on the same plate. The strongest opposing consideration is interpretive: while proponents argue this indicates a sub-second flash, automated classifiers explicitly identify this exact sharpness regime as characteristic of spurious emulsion artifacts.

Hambly & Blair’s analysis of SuperCOSMOS profile statistics shows all nine 1950 candidates lying in the sharp tail of the stellar distribution, with a very low joint probability of arising from the same distribution as comparison stars, and this is corroborated by microscope inspection (TRN-E003). Proponents accept this measurement and instead offer a different physical interpretation (TRN-E006). Thus the empirical statement—that the nine are systematically sharper and more concentrated than comparable stars—is secure. The strongest opposing consideration is that these statistics are measured on digitized copies, not the original negative, leaving a theoretical possibility that copy or scan processes altered profiles, but there is no specific evidence of such distortion here.

SuperCOSMOS profile statistics place all nine 1950 marks on the sharp side of the stellar distribution, with a vanishing joint probability of drawing nine such values from stars; microscope inspection agrees, and proponents do not dispute the measurement. Direction is the entire remaining fight: skeptics read sharpness as the known neighborhood of spurious detections, proponents as the expected look of a sub-second flash. The strongest opposing consideration is that, without a flash-profile calibration on period Schmidt emulsions, the same number is morphologically consistent with artifacts by construction of the SuperCOSMOS classifier.

All nine 1950 marks fall on the sharp side of the SuperCOSMOS profile-statistic distribution (jointly of order 0.1⁹ under the stellar null), consistent with microscope inspection, and the proponents accept the measurement while reversing its interpretation. The strongest opposing consideration cuts at meaning, not measurement: in the SuperCOSMOS vocabulary "sharper than stellar" is the known artifact neighborhood — yet sub-second flashes should also land there, and no calibration of flash profiles on period emulsion exists. Well supported rather than established because the measurement derives from one team's pipeline on the digitized copy lineage and has not been independently re-measured, though it is undisputed.

The measurement is explicit — all nine profile statistics in the sharp tail, roughly −3 ≲ η < −1, with a joint draw probability of order 0.1⁹ from the stellar distribution — corroborated by direct microscope inspection, and accepted by the proponents, who dispute only its interpretation. Rare agreement across a hostile divide is strong evidence that the measurement itself is sound. The strongest opposing consideration is that it comes from a single group using one digitization's profile statistic on copy material, with no equivalent measurement from the original negative and no independent re-measurement in the record; note also that the 1952 triple's isolated source reportedly looks stellar, so the sharpness property is not general to the canonical events.

The profile measurement (TRN-E003) remains common ground, and TRN-E022's microscopy independently describes the marks as marginally sharper than stars. The interpretive split — artifact signature (TRN-E004) versus flash physics (TRN-E006) — is unchanged and uncalibrated by any flash-exposure experiment.

The profile-statistic measurement (TRN-E003) is common ground between camps; the interpretive split between artifact morphology (TRN-E004) and flash physics (TRN-E006) remains uncalibrated by any controlled flash-exposure experiment. Unchanged.

The profile measurement (TRN-E003) is common ground; only its interpretation is contested between artifact-like morphology (TRN-E004) and flash physics (TRN-E006). A credible observation with low diagnosticity until flash-vs-defect profiles are calibrated.

The profile-statistic measurement (TRN-E003) is common ground; its interpretation — artifact signature (TRN-E004) versus flash physics (TRN-E006) — remains the pivotal ambiguity, uncalibrated by any flash-exposure experiment.

Both skeptical critics and proponents accept the morphological measurement that the 1950 marks are systematically sharper and more concentrated than standard stellar images of comparable brightness. The dispute lies entirely in the interpretation of this shared measurement: skeptics read the sharpness as the signature of an emulsion artifact, while proponents argue it perfectly matches the physics of a sub-second flash on a long exposure. The strongest opposing consideration is that automated morphological classifiers, trained on confirmed sources and artifacts, map this specific "sharper than stellar" space directly to spurious detections.

Profile statistics confirm that all nine marks fall on the sharp extreme of the stellar distribution, a measurement agreed upon by both camps. The marks are distinctly more concentrated than ordinary star images of similar brightness. The strongest opposing consideration is interpretative rather than observational: automated classifiers group this sharpness with artifacts, while proponents argue it is the expected signature of sub-second flashes.

Hambly & Blair measure all nine April 1950 candidates to be sharper than stars of comparable brightness, lying in the sharp tail of the SuperCOSMOS profile-statistic distribution, with microscope inspection corroborating their unusually concentrated, round appearance (TRN-E003). Proponents accept this measurement and argue on physics grounds that sub-second flashes are expected to be sharper than long-exposed stars (TRN-E006). Thus the numerical and qualitative statement of sharpness is common ground. The strongest opposing consideration is not to the measurement but to its interpretive value: in the existing classifier, this morphology is also characteristic of known artifacts (TRN-E004), and without flash calibration on historical emulsions the observation cannot distinguish flash from defect.

Hambly & Blair’s quantitative profile analysis using SuperCOSMOS shows all nine 1950 marks in the sharp tail of the stellar profile distribution, with a vanishingly low probability of being random star draws; this is supported by microscope inspection noting their high concentration and roundness (TRN-E003). Proponents accept this measurement and instead dispute its interpretation, arguing that sub-second flashes should also be sharp (TRN-E006). The strongest opposing consideration is that the measurement is taken from the digitized copy lineage, not the original negative, so subtle profile changes introduced during copying or scanning cannot be entirely excluded.

SuperCOSMOS profile statistics place all nine 1950 marks on the sharp side of the stellar distribution, with a joint draw probability of order 0.1 to the ninth, and microscope inspection shows them more concentrated and circular than stars of like brightness (TRN-E003). Proponents accept the measurement and read it as the expected morphology of a sub-second flash (TRN-E006); the claim asserts only the measurement. The strongest opposing consideration is interpretative: in SuperCOSMOS vocabulary this is the morphological neighborhood of spurious detections, and no period-emulsion flash calibration exists to split the two readings.

Hambly and Blair measured SuperCOSMOS profile statistics placing all nine in the sharp tail, with joint stellar-draw probability of order 0.1 to the ninth, consistent with microscope appearance; proponents do not dispute the measurement and instead reinterpret it. The observation cleanly rules out ordinary continuously exposed stars and nothing else. Strongest opposing consideration: in the SuperCOSMOS classification vocabulary, sharper-than-stellar is the known neighborhood of spurious detections, and no period-emulsion flash-calibration curve exists to split flash from artifact.

The measurement is common ground: Hambly & Blair's SuperCOSMOS profile statistics put all nine marks on the sharp tail of the stellar distribution (joint draw of order 0.1⁹), consistent with microscope inspection (E003), and the proponents do not contest the numbers — they embrace them under the opposite reading (E006). Both camps accepting the same observation is as close to established as a contested-literature measurement gets. The strongest opposing consideration is that profile statistics exist only for the digitized copy lineage; E022 describes the marks on the original glass as only "marginally sharper" than stars, a possible softening, though from a different instrument and scale. As stated, the claim concerns the plate's profile-statistic distribution, and that is established. High confidence.

The measurement is common ground: SuperCOSMOS profile statistics put all nine marks in the sharp tail (roughly η between −3 and −1), consistent with microscopic inspection, and the proponents embrace rather than contest the numbers — the camps fight over the interpretation, not the data. As a measurement claim it is well supported. The strongest opposing consideration is that it rests on one team's profile statistics measured on the digitized copy lineage, never re-measured on original material, and its diagnostic value is nil until the flash-profile calibration (TRN-R002) exists — sharpness currently cannot separate flash from artifact. That limits what the claim implies, not whether it is true as stated.

The measurement is quantitative (SuperCOSMOS profile statistics, all nine in the sharp tail, joint probability of order 0.1^9 under the stellar distribution; TRN-E003), consistent with the same team's microscope inspection, corroborated qualitatively by independent microscopy of the original glass describing the features as point-like and marginally sharper than stars with sharp edges (TRN-E022), and explicitly accepted by the proponents who dispute only its interpretation. It is held below "established" because it comes from a single measurement team on a single digitization lineage and no independent re-derivation of the profile statistics has been published. The strongest opposing consideration is that "sharper than stellar" is the SuperCOSMOS classifier's known artifact neighbourhood, which makes the measurement's direction, though not its validity, contestable.

The measurement is quantitative and specific — all nine candidates at roughly −3 ≲ η < −1 on the sharp side of a zero-mean stellar distribution, joint probability of order 0.1⁹ — and is corroborated by microscope inspection (TRN-E003); crucially, the proponents accept the measurement and contest only its interpretation (TRN-E006). The strongest opposing consideration is provenance: profile statistics exist only for the digitized copy lineage, never the original negative, so the measured sharpness could in principle be a property of the copying and scanning chain rather than of whatever is on the glass at the top of it. I stop short of "established" for that reason and because it is a single team's measurement of a single field.

The profile-statistic measurement (TRN-E003) is common ground between the camps and is corroborated descriptively by the microscopy in TRN-E022. Only its interpretation is contested, and no controlled flash-exposure calibration exists to arbitrate.

The sharpness measurement (TRN-E003) remains common ground and TRN-E022's microscopy independently describes the marks as marginally sharper than stars with sharp edges. Its interpretation — artifact signature (TRN-E004) versus flash physics (TRN-E006) — remains uncalibrated by any controlled flash-exposure experiment.

The profile-statistic measurement (TRN-E003) is common ground between the camps and is corroborated descriptively by the microscopy in TRN-E022. Only its interpretation is contested, and no controlled flash-exposure calibration exists to arbitrate.

The profile-statistic measurement (TRN-E003) is common ground between the camps and is corroborated descriptively by the microscopy in TRN-E022. Only its interpretation is contested, and no controlled flash-exposure calibration exists to arbitrate.

Both skeptics and proponents agree on the measurement itself: the marks are systematically sharper and more concentrated than typical stellar images. The conflict lies strictly in interpretation, with proponents citing sub-second flashes and critics citing artifacts. The strongest opposing consideration is that in automated morphology classification, this exact sharpness profile is the known signature for spurious plate defects.

Hambly & Blair’s SuperCOSMOS profile measurements show all nine 1950 marks in the sharp tail relative to stars (TRN‑E003), and this qualitative sharpness is acknowledged by proponents who reinterpret it as flash-consistent (TRN‑E006). No source disputes the underlying numbers or the visual impression; only the causal reading differs. The strongest opposing consideration relates to diagnostic value: in the SuperCOSMOS system, that sharp region is populated by spurious detections, so without a flash-profile calibration, the same measurement supports “not an ordinary star” but does not by itself distinguish flash from artifact.

SuperCOSMOS profile statistics place all nine 1950 candidates on the sharp side of the stellar distribution (roughly −3 ≲ η < −1), with a joint draw from the stellar profile population of order 0.1⁹; microscope inspection agrees they are more concentrated and circular than stars of similar brightness. Proponents do not dispute the measurement; they dispute only its meaning, arguing that a sub-second flash on a fifty-minute exposure should look exactly this sharp. The strongest opposing consideration is interpretive, not observational: in the SuperCOSMOS classification vocabulary, “sharper than stellar” is the known neighborhood of spurious detections, and no one has yet exposed period-appropriate emulsion to controlled flashes to draw the calibration curve that would split flash from artifact.

The measurement — all nine 1950 marks on the sharp side of the stellar profile distribution, jointly vanishingly unlikely as stellar draws, microscopically more concentrated than stars — is common ground: measured by the skeptics (TRN-E003) and embraced by the proponents (TRN-E006), who need it to be true for their flash physics. Diagnosticity is moderate by design: sharpness separates "steady star" from "flash or artifact" but cannot split flash from artifact. The strongest opposing consideration is the classifier circularity (TRN-E004's training set defines "spurious" by absence of a modern counterpart — the very property defining transients), which weakens the artifact reading but does not touch the measurement itself; the claim as stated is a measurement, and it is solid.

The measurement is quantitative (SuperCOSMOS profile statistics, all nine in the sharp tail, joint draw probability of order 0.1^9), was made by the skeptical side, is accepted by the proponents, and is corroborated qualitatively by the original- plate microscopy, which describes the features as point-like and marginally sharper than stellar images with sharp edges and no elongation. The claim as stated is about morphology, not about cause, and is not seriously contested. The strongest opposing consideration is calibration scope: the profile statistics come from the digitized copy lineage rather than the original negative, and the microscopy's "marginally sharper" is a weaker phrasing than "systematically sharper and more concentrated," so the magnitude of the effect is better established than its exact form. Note also the internal tension the case is honest about — the 1952 isolated source profiles like a comparison star, so the canonical events are not morphologically uniform.

The profile-statistic measurement (TRN-E003) is common ground between the camps and is corroborated descriptively by the microscopy in TRN-E022 and the microscopist's own 'not stellar in appearance' note in TRN-E024. Only its interpretation is contested, and no controlled flash-exposure calibration exists to arbitrate.

Profile statistics definitively show the nine canonical marks are sharper and more concentrated than stellar images of similar brightness, a measurement agreed upon by both sides (TRN-E003). Proponents argue this matches the physics of sub-second flashes on long exposures (TRN-E006). The strongest opposing consideration is that in standard automated classification pipelines, this extreme sharpness is the recognized morphological signature of spurious artifacts (TRN-E004).

Hambly & Blair’s profile-statistic analysis (TRN-E003) shows all nine 1950 sources lying in the sharp tail of the stellar distribution, with an extremely low joint probability under the star hypothesis, and this sharpness is confirmed microscopically (TRN-E002) and echoed in Yang & Villarroel’s description (TRN-E022). Proponents explicitly accept the measurement and only dispute its interpretation, arguing that sub-second flashes should also be sharp (TRN-E006). The main opposing consideration is that the same profile domain is known to be populated by artifacts in SuperCOSMOS, making sharpness itself non-diagnostic of physical origin, but this does not undermine the correctness of the measurement.

SuperCOSMOS profile statistics place all nine 1950 marks on the sharp side of the stellar distribution, with a vanishing joint probability of drawing nine such values from stars; microscope inspection and the Yang description of sharp edges and no elongation agree. Proponents accept the measurement and dispute only its meaning. Strongest opposing consideration: in the SuperCOSMOS classification vocabulary, "sharper than stellar" is the known neighborhood of spurious detections, so the conservative reading is artifact until a flash-calibration curve exists.

The measurement is common ground: all nine fall in the sharp tail of the SuperCOSMOS profile distribution, jointly improbable as stellar draws, and the proponents embrace the same numbers with the opposite interpretation. The strongest opposing consideration is that the statistic exists only on the digitized copy lineage and that, in the SuperCOSMOS vocabulary, "sharper than stellar" is the known artifact neighborhood — but that disputes the measurement's direction, not its reality. As a measurement claim it stands; its diagnosticity awaits the flash-calibration experiment (TRN-R002).

Hambly & Blair's SuperCOSMOS profile statistics put all nine on the sharp side of the stellar distribution with a joint probability of order 10⁻⁹ (TRN-E003), their microscope inspection agrees, and the proponents adopt the same measurement while contesting its meaning (TRN-E006). Independent corroboration on different physical material comes from TRN-E022, which describes the features as point-like, sharp-edged, marginally sharper than stars, and unelongated. The strongest opposing consideration is calibration rather than contradiction: the digitized measurement descends from the copy lineage, and the microscopy wording ("marginally sharper") is softer than the statistical extremity implied by η ≈ −3 to −1, so the magnitude of the effect is less firmly pinned than its direction. Note that this claim is direction-ambiguous by design and carries no weight for or against TRN-C020 until TRN-R002 supplies a flash-profile curve.

The profile measurement (TRN-E003) is common ground between camps and descriptively corroborated by microscopy (TRN-E022, TRN-E024). Credible as an observation but weakly diagnostic: flash and defect interpretations (TRN-E006 vs TRN-E004) both accommodate it absent controlled flash calibration.

The profile measurement (TRN-E003) is common ground between camps and corroborated descriptively by microscopy (TRN-E022, TRN-E024). Credible but weakly diagnostic: flash and defect profiles remain uncalibrated against each other (TRN-E006 vs TRN-E004).

The profile measurement (TRN-E003) is common ground between camps and descriptively corroborated by microscopy (TRN-E022, TRN-E024). Credible as an observation but weakly diagnostic: no controlled flash-vs-defect calibration exists, so both readings (TRN-E004, TRN-E006) remain open.

The profile measurement (TRN-E003) is common ground between camps and descriptively corroborated by microscopy (TRN-E022, TRN-E024). Credible but weakly diagnostic: no controlled flash exposure has calibrated whether sharpness separates flash from defect (TRN-E004 vs TRN-E006).

The profile measurement (TRN-E003) is common ground and descriptively corroborated by microscopy (TRN-E022, TRN-E024), but its interpretation is contested (TRN-E004 vs TRN-E006) and uncalibrated by controlled flash exposures — credible, weakly diagnostic.

The profile measurement (TRN-E003) is common ground between camps and corroborated descriptively by microscopy (TRN-E022, TRN-E024). Credible as an observation, but weakly diagnostic: no controlled flash exposure exists to show whether sharpness separates flashes from defects (TRN-E006 vs TRN-E004).

The profile measurement (TRN-E003) is common ground between camps and descriptively corroborated by microscopy (TRN-E022, TRN-E024). Credible but weakly diagnostic: both flash (TRN-E006) and artifact (TRN-E004) readings fit absent controlled flash calibration.

The profile measurement (TRN-E003) is common ground and corroborated descriptively by microscopy (TRN-E022, TRN-E024). Interpretation remains contested and uncalibrated by any controlled flash exposure, so the claim is credible but weakly diagnostic.

Profile statistics universally confirm the nine marks are sharper and more concentrated than comparison stars. The dispute is entirely interpretive: skeptics classify this sharpness as the hallmark of spurious emulsion artifacts, whereas proponents argue it is the exact expected physics of a sub-second flash on a 50-minute exposure.

Hambly & Blair’s SuperCOSMOS profile statistics show all nine 1950 sources in the sharp tail of the stellar distribution, with joint probability ~0.1⁹ if they were drawn from stars, and their microscope inspection confirms they appear more concentrated than stars of similar brightness. Proponents explicitly accept this measurement and reinterpret its meaning, not its factuality, and Yang & Villarroel also describe the 1950 features as sharp-edged and compact. While its implications are disputed, the underlying fact that the nine are systematically sharper than stars is robust. The strongest opposing consideration is that profile measurements are taken from digitized copies, not the original negative; subtle systematic PSF differences across generations could, in principle, influence sharpness metrics.

SuperCOSMOS profile statistics place all nine 1950 marks on the sharp side of the stellar distribution, with a vanishingly small joint probability of such a draw from stars, and microscope inspection agrees they are more concentrated and circular than comparison stars. Proponents do not dispute the measurement; they dispute only its meaning. The strongest opposing consideration is that the measurement was made on the digitized copy lineage and that, in SuperCOSMOS classification vocabulary, "sharper than stellar" is the known neighbourhood of spurious detections — a point about interpretation that does not undo the observation.

The measurement is common ground: all nine fall on the sharp side of the stellar profile distribution, jointly vanishingly unlikely as stellar draws (TRN-E003), consistent with microscope inspection, and embraced rather than disputed by the proponents (TRN-E006). The claim as stated is the measurement, not its meaning, and both camps agree on it. The strongest opposing consideration is that the profiles were measured on the digitized copy lineage, not the original negative — true, but no party contests the numbers, and the claim does not reach beyond them.

TRN-E003 reports SuperCOSMOS profile statistics with all nine on the sharp side of the stellar distribution and a joint probability of order 1e-9, corroborated by microscope inspection, and the proponents accept the measurement while contesting only its meaning (TRN-E006). TRN-E022 independently describes the features as point-like and "marginally sharper" than stellar images, which supports the direction while hinting the magnitude may be softer than the original framing. The strongest opposing consideration is that the measurement was made on the digitized copy lineage rather than the original negative, and that TRN-E007 reports the 1952 isolated source has a near-stellar profile — so the canonical events are not morphologically uniform, which limits how far a single sharpness story can generalize.

The profile measurement (TRN-E003) is common ground and corroborated descriptively by TRN-E022 and TRN-E024. Credible but weakly diagnostic: without controlled flash exposures (per TRN-E006's limitation), sharpness cannot discriminate flash from defect.

The profile measurement (TRN-E003) is common ground and descriptively corroborated by microscopy (TRN-E022, TRN-E024). Credible but weakly diagnostic: without controlled flash exposures on period emulsion, sharpness discriminates nothing between flash and defect.

Measured by Hambly & Blair from SuperCOSMOS profile statistics (all nine in the sharp tail; jointly vanishingly unlikely draws from the stellar distribution), consistent with their microscope inspection, and not disputed by the proponents — who embrace the same measurement with the opposite interpretation.

Measurements of SuperCOSMOS profile statistics confirm that all nine April 1950 candidate sources are more concentrated and sharper than stellar images of equivalent magnitude on the same plate, falling on the negative extreme of the stellar distribution with joint probability ~0.1^9. Both proponents and skeptics accept this empirical measurement as factual. The strongest opposing consideration is not over the measurement itself, but over its physical interpretation: whether it signifies emulsion defects or unresolved sub-second flashes that accumulated no seeing blur.

The measurement comes from the skeptical camp itself (TRN-E003: all nine profile statistics on the sharp side, joint probability of order 0.1⁹, plus microscopic concentration), and the proponents accept the measurement while disputing its meaning (TRN-E006). Strongest opposing consideration to treating it as settled common ground: the profile statistics exist only on the digitized copy lineage, so a copy-stage contribution to the measured sharpness cannot be fully excluded — though the original-plate microscopy (TRN-E022) reports the same marginal sharpness physically.

TRN-E003 directly reports that all nine profile statistics occupy the sharp side of the stellar distribution and that microscopy finds them more concentrated and circular than comparable stars. The measurement is accepted by both interpretive camps. The strongest opposing consideration is TRN-E004's artifact classification, but it challenges what sharpness means rather than whether the sharpness difference was measured.

Hambly & Blair SuperCOSMOS profile statistics place all nine 1950 candidates on the sharp side of the stellar distribution (joint probability ~0.1^9); microscope appearance is more concentrated and circular. The measurement is common ground; only the flash-versus- artifact interpretation is disputed (addressed under C102/C020). Strongest opposing consideration: sharpness is expected both for sub-second flashes and for certain emulsion defects, so the statistic alone does not decide origin.

The measurement is supplied by the sceptics (TRN-E003): all nine SuperCOSMOS profile statistics fall on the sharp side of the zero-mean stellar distribution, joint probability of order 0.1^9, corroborated visually under the microscope. Both camps accept the number and dispute only its direction (TRN-E004 versus TRN-E006). The qualification is that the measurement exists only for the digitized copy lineage and that the July 1952 triple's most isolated member has a nearly stellar profile (TRN-E007), so the canonical events are not morphologically uniform — a problem for any single-mechanism account, defect or flash.

TRN-E003 (strong): all nine profile statistics fall on the sharp side, joint odds of order 0.1^9 under the stellar distribution; TRN-E022 independently reports the marks marginally sharper with sharp edges. TRN-E004 and TRN-E006 dispute only the interpretation. Note TRN-E007: the 1952 triple's isolated member has a star-like profile, so the canonical events are not morphologically uniform.

TRN-E003 (strong) reports the measurement; TRN-E004 and TRN-E006 dispute only its interpretation. The measurement is common ground.

SuperCOSMOS profile measurements by Hambly and Blair demonstrate that all nine 1950 marks have negative sharpness parameters falling well outside the normal stellar distribution, with a joint draw probability of order 10^-9. Proponent analyses fully concede this morphological concentration, making the measurement common ground. Strongest opposing consideration: Atmospheric seeing and tracking blur do not accumulate during sub-second flashes, meaning a real astronomical flash might theoretically exhibit an unusually sharp profile.

The measurement was performed by the skeptics (TRN-E003): all nine profile statistics fall on the sharp side of the zero-mean stellar distribution with joint probability of order 0.1^9, and the marks look more concentrated than matched stars under the microscope. Only the interpretation divides (TRN-E004 vs TRN-E006), which does not touch the measurement claim as stated. Strongest opposing consideration: the profiles were measured on the digitized copy lineage, not the original negative.

TRN-E003 reports that all nine candidates fall on the sharp side of the comparison-star profile distribution and appear more concentrated and circular under microscopy. TRN-E004 and TRN-E006 disagree about whether this indicates artifacts or brief flashes, but neither disputes the measured sharpness. The strongest opposing consideration to extending the measurement beyond the digitized lineage is that equivalent profile statistics have not been reported from the original negative.

SuperCOSMOS profile statistics place all nine 1950 marks on the sharp side of the stellar distribution with joint probability ~0.1^9; microscope inspection confirms more concentrated, circular morphology (E003). The measurement is common ground. Strongest opposing consideration is that the same statistics are read as artifact-like by a classifier (E004), but that is interpretation, not denial of the sharpness fact.

The measurement comes from the skeptics. All nine SuperCOSMOS profile statistics fall on the sharp side (η ≈ −3 to −1; joint probability ~0.1^9; E003). The proponents accept it (E006), and original-plate microscopy agrees (E022). E004 concerns interpretation, not the measurement. Strongest opposing consideration: the statistic exists only for the copy lineage, and the original-plate reading calls the difference "marginal". The degree of sharpness is therefore less secure than its direction.

TRN-E003 (strong) gives the profile statistics. All nine fall on the sharp side of the stellar distribution, with joint odds of order 0.1^9 if they were stars, and they look more concentrated under the microscope. The measurement is common ground; TRN-E004 and TRN-E006 dispute only what it means.