A subset of Hamburg transient candidates exhibits the coma aberration pattern expected for off-axis point sources imaged through the telescope optics — a signature that plate-surface artifacts should not naturally reproduce.

Potentially the highest-information positive result in the case, and exactly the kind of discriminant that must be blind-validated before it can carry weight (TRN-R003).

A subset of Hamburg candidates reportedly exhibits coma aberrations characteristic of light passing through the telescope optics, a potentially powerful physical discriminant against plate-surface artifacts. The strongest opposing consideration is that the single-author preprint has not yet blind-validated the classifier against known defects that might mimic directional optical asymmetries.

Busko’s coma-aberration preprint presents candidates from a Hamburg telescope chosen for its strong off-axis coma and reports that these candidates exhibit coma patterns consistent with off-axis point sources imaged through the optics (TRN-E014). If correct, this would be strong evidence that at least some marks are produced by light entering the telescope, because plate-surface artifacts should not systematically encode the optical-axis geometry. However, there has been no blind validation of the coma classifier against well-labeled sets of known defects and controlled flashes, and the possibility that some defect morphologies mimic coma-like asymmetries has not yet been excluded. Given that this is a single-author preprint and the discriminant’s performance has not been independently tested, the claim is only provisionally supported with low confidence. The strongest opposing consideration is exactly the lack of blind, ground-truth validation (TRN-R003), which could reveal that the apparent coma signature is not a reliable indicator of incident light.

On Hamburg 0.6-m plates chosen for strong off-axis coma, Busko reports that candidate images carry the directional aberration expected of light through the optics, a discriminant plate-surface chemistry should not naturally know; the author states the data do not establish physical origin. This is a single-author preprint, not blind-validated, and defect classes that mimic coma-like asymmetry have not been excluded. The strongest opposing consideration is that without a frozen-label corpus of known stars, known flashes, and known defects, analyst knowledge of which images are candidates remains a live failure mode.

A single preprint reports that a subset of Hamburg candidates carries the off-axis coma pattern expected of light that passed through the 0.6-m telescope's optics — a signature plate-surface artifacts should not naturally reproduce, and the case's only candidate physical incident-light detector short of the original negatives. The strongest opposing consideration is that the discriminant is unvalidated: no blind test against known defects and deliberately produced short flashes exists, defect classes mimicking directional asymmetry have not been excluded, and analyst knowledge of which images were candidates has not been ruled out. The author's own statement that the data do not establish the physical origin of the light is the correct epistemic posture. Everything here awaits the blind corpus test (TRN-R003).

This is the highest-diagnosticity positive line in the case and also its thinnest: a single unblinded single-author preprint, on a telescope selected because its coma is strong, with no published confusion matrix against known stars, deliberately generated flashes, or the defect bestiary, and with the author himself stating the data do not establish the light's physical origin. The physical logic is sound — an off-axis optical fingerprint is something photons through the telescope have and surface chemistry has no reason to imitate — which is why I rate it supported at all rather than unresolved. The strongest opposing consideration is that directional asymmetry is a common failure mode of scratches, dust shadows, drying marks and scan artifacts, and that an analyst who knows which images are candidates can find comet-shaped asymmetry in noise; until TRN-R003 freezes the labels, this cannot bear the weight the case would like to put on it.

Unchanged evidentially (TRN-E014, still un-blind-validated), but its diagnostic importance rose: with single-source microscopy shown unable to separate flash from emulsion defect (TRN-E024), the coma signature is now the leading physical discriminant left standing.

The coma signature (TRN-E014) remains the highest-information positive result available and remains un-blind-validated against defect classes that could mimic directional asymmetry. Unchanged.

TRN-E014 offers the most diagnostic discriminant in the case — coma is a light-through-the-optics signature — but it is a single-author preprint whose classifier has not been blind-validated against defect classes that could mimic directional asymmetry.

The coma signature (TRN-E014) remains the highest-information positive result on offer and remains un-blind-validated against defect classes that could mimic directional asymmetry; it carries weight only conditionally.

Busko's preprint reports that transient candidates in the Hamburg archive exhibit off-axis coma, an optical aberration that physically distinguishes light passing through a telescope from surface chemistry. If validated, this represents the most important physical discriminant for incident light in the case. The strongest opposing consideration is that the coma classifier has not yet been blind-validated against a frozen corpus of known flashes and deliberate defects, leaving open the risk that scratches, smears, or emulsion artifacts might naturally mimic directional optical asymmetries.

A preprint reports that Hamburg candidates exhibit the coma aberration pattern characteristic of off-axis point sources passing through the telescope optics, offering a potential physical discriminant between incident light and plate artifacts. The strongest opposing consideration is that the classifier has not yet been blind-validated against known defects and deliberately produced flashes, and the data do not definitively establish the physical origin of the light.

Busko’s coma-aberration study reports that Hamburg transient candidates on a strongly comatic telescope exhibit PSF shapes matching expected optical coma, which plate-surface artifacts should not naturally reproduce (TRN-E014). This is a plausible physical discriminator and, if validated, would be powerful evidence that at least some candidates are true astronomical point sources. However, the work is a single-author preprint with no blind validation against known defects or engineered flashes, and the author explicitly states that the data do not establish physical origin. The strongest opposing consideration is the lack of a confusion-matrix test: without showing that no common defect classes mimic coma under the analysis, and that the classifier performs well on blinded data, its discriminating power remains conjectural.

Busko’s coma-aberration study reports that Hamburg transient candidates on a telescope with strong off-axis coma exhibit the expected directional coma signatures of light passing through the optics, which plate-surface defects are argued not to replicate naturally (TRN-E014). This provides a plausible physical discriminant between incident-light images and post-exposure artifacts. Nevertheless, the analysis is single-author, preprint stage, and has not been blind-validated against a labeled corpus of known defects and engineered short flashes (TRN-R003), so its specificity and sensitivity remain unknown. The strongest opposing consideration is that, absent such validation, it is not yet proven that no class of plate or copy defects can mimic coma-like asymmetry, nor that analyst expectations did not bias candidate selection and classification.

On the Hamburg 0.6-m Doppel-Reflektor, chosen for strong off-axis coma, Busko reports that candidate transient images carry the directional aberration expected of light that passed through the optics — a signature chemistry and scratches should not know how to mimic (TRN-E014). If the discriminant survives a blind corpus test it would move specific candidates onto TRN-C020 without Palomar originals. The strongest opposing consideration is that the classifier has not been frozen and tested against known defects and deliberately produced flashes, nor has anyone shown that emulsion flaws never produce coma-like asymmetries, and the author states the data do not establish origin.

Busko reports that candidates on the Hamburg 0.6-m Doppel-Reflektor, chosen for strong off-axis coma, show the coma pattern expected of light through the optics — a signature chemistry and scratches should not naturally know. The paper itself states the data do not establish the physical origin of the light, and the classifier has not been blind-validated against known defects and deliberately produced short flashes. Strongest opposing consideration: nobody has shown that emulsion or handling defects never mimic directional coma-like asymmetries, nor that the analyst was blinded to candidate status when scoring morphology.

On 532 Hamburg plate pairs from a telescope chosen for strong off-axis coma, Busko reports that candidate transient images carry the directional coma signature of light that passed through the optics — a pattern scratches and chemistry should not naturally reproduce (E014) — and the author himself states the data do not establish the light's origin. If validated, this is the case's only portable incident-light detector and the strongest remaining positive line after the microscopy ceiling (E024). But the discriminant is single-author, unblinded, and unvalidated: no one has shown that emulsion or copy defects never mimic coma-like asymmetry, nor that the analyst was insulated from knowing which images were candidates — the two failure modes TRN-R003 exists to test. That missing confusion matrix is the strongest opposing consideration. Provisionally supported as a reported measurement, low confidence.

This is the highest-information positive development in the case: on a telescope chosen for strong off-axis coma, across 532 Hamburg plate pairs, a single researcher reports that candidate transient images carry the directional aberration signature of light that passed through the optics — which scratches and chemistry should not naturally reproduce — while himself stating the data do not establish the light's origin. The strongest opposing consideration is that the discriminant is unvalidated: no blind test against known defects and deliberately produced short flashes exists, defect classes with directional asymmetry (scratches, development streaks) have not been excluded as coma mimics, analyst blinding is undemonstrated, and the journal acceptance is reported but unconfirmed. A genuine physical mechanism claim from one unblinded preprint warrants provisional support at low confidence; the blind corpus test (TRN-R003) either certifies or closes this line, and with it much of the positive case for TRN-C020.

The physical logic is genuinely strong — an off-axis coma pattern is something incident light stamps and surface chemistry has no reason to know about — and this is the only proposed test that could establish TRN-C020 without touching the Palomar originals. But the evidence is a single-author preprint on a telescope selected for strong coma, with no blind validation against known defects and deliberately produced short flashes, no demonstration that defect classes never mimic directional asymmetry, and no protection recorded against the analyst knowing which images were candidates; the author himself states the data do not establish the light's physical origin (TRN-E014). The strongest opposing consideration is that classifier-style results in exactly this configuration — chosen instrument, unblinded labels, no confusion matrix — have a poor track record, so the claim should be treated as a promising hypothesis awaiting TRN-R003, not as a result.

A single unreviewed single-author preprint reports coma patterns in candidate images from a 0.6-m telescope selected because its off-axis coma is strong, and the author himself states the data do not establish the physical origin of the light (TRN-E014). The mechanism is exactly the right idea — plate chemistry has no knowledge of the optical axis — which is why this is the highest-value open line in the case. But the discriminant has not been blind validated against known defects and deliberately produced short flashes, the analyst was not shielded from knowing which images were candidates, and no confusion matrix exists; classes of defect that mimic directional asymmetry have not been excluded. I grade below the dossier's provisionally_supported because an unblinded, uncalibrated classifier applied by its own designer is precisely the configuration that historically produces retracted discriminants.

Evidentially unchanged: a single-author preprint whose coma classifier has not been blind-validated against defect classes that mimic directional asymmetry (TRN-E014). Structurally it is now the leading physical discriminant, since microscopy of originals cannot separate flash from emulsion flaw (TRN-E024).

Unchanged evidentially (TRN-E014, still un-blind-validated), but structurally promoted: with microscopy of originals now shown unable to separate flash from emulsion defect (TRN-E024), the coma signature is the leading remaining physical discriminant in the case.

Evidentially unchanged — a single-author preprint whose coma classifier has not been blind-validated against defect classes that mimic directional asymmetry (TRN-E014). Structurally it is now the leading physical discriminant, since microscopy of originals cannot separate flash from emulsion flaw (TRN-E024).

Evidentially unchanged: a single-author preprint whose coma classifier has not been blind-validated against defect classes that mimic directional asymmetry (TRN-E014). Structurally it is now the leading physical discriminant, since microscopy of originals cannot separate flash from emulsion flaw (TRN-E024).

A preprint reports coma aberration signatures in Hamburg transient candidates, providing a potential physical discriminant for actual incident light that chemical defects should not possess. The strongest opposing consideration is that the classifier has not been blind-validated against a corpus of known defects to rule out artifacts mimicking directional asymmetry.

Busko’s coma-aberration preprint reports that some Hamburg candidate images carry the expected off-axis coma pattern for real point sources imaged through a telescope with strong optical aberrations (TRN‑E014), plausibly beyond what symmetric surface defects would mimic. This is a physically grounded idea and, if validated, would be powerful evidence for incident light. The strongest opposing consideration is that no blind validation has yet been done: the same analyst who defined the discriminant also selected candidates, and no systematic test against known defects and artificially generated flashes has been reported, leaving ample room for confirmation bias or defect classes that mimic coma-like asymmetry.

On Hamburg 0.6-m plates chosen for strong off-axis coma, Busko reports that candidate transient images carry the coma pattern expected of point sources recorded through the optics — a signature scratches and chemistry should not naturally reproduce — and the paper itself states the data do not establish the physical origin of the light. If the discriminant survived blind validation it would be the closest thing this case has to an incident-light detector and would move specific candidates onto TRN-C020 without the Palomar originals. The strongest opposing consideration is that nobody has shown defects never mimic directional asymmetry, the classifier has not been frozen against a labeled corpus of known flashes and known defects, and a single unblinded preprint cannot yet carry the weight the case is tempted to place on it.

The coma signature — candidate images reportedly carrying the off-axis aberration pattern of light through the optics, which scratches and chemistry should not reproduce — is the case's most promising physical discriminant, reported in a single-author preprint (532 plate pairs on a telescope chosen for strong coma), with the author himself stating the data do not establish the light's origin. It cannot yet carry more: the classifier has never been blind-validated against a labeled corpus of known stars, known flashes, and known defects (TRN-R003), and nobody has shown that no defect class mimics directional asymmetry, nor that the analyst was blind to which images were candidates. The strongest opposing consideration is that this failure mode — a plausible discriminant that dissolves under blind testing — is the standard history of image-analysis claims in contested literatures; the discriminant's logic is sound, but its performance is unmeasured. Reported, not validated: provisional at low confidence.

This is potentially the highest-information line in the case — chemistry does not know where the optical axis is — but the evidence is a single unblinded, single- author preprint (reported accepted, unconfirmed against the journal) using an instrument selected because its coma is strong, with no published confusion matrix against known stars, known defects, and deliberately produced short flashes. The author himself states the data do not establish the physical origin of the light. The strongest opposing consideration is that no one has yet shown emulsion or handling defects cannot mimic directional asymmetry, and the analyst was not protected from knowing which images were candidates — both failure modes the blind corpus test (TRN-R003) exists to close. I grade this below TRN-C010 because the claim's content is an interpretive signature rather than a detection, and signatures of this kind are exactly where unblinded analysis fails.

Evidentially unchanged: a single-author preprint whose coma classifier has not been blind-validated against defect classes that mimic directional asymmetry (TRN-E014). Structurally it is now the leading physical discriminant, since microscopy of originals cannot separate flash from emulsion flaw (TRN-E024).

The detection of off-axis coma aberration in Hamburg candidates provides a compelling physical fingerprint of light passing through telescope optics (TRN-E014), a signature that plate chemistry should not naturally reproduce. This is the strongest diagnostic evidence for incident light in the case. The strongest opposing consideration is that the classifier relies on a single-author preprint and has not been blind-validated against a corpus of known defects and deliberately induced short flashes.

Busko’s coma-focused study on a strongly aberrated telescope (TRN-E014) reports that some Hamburg transient candidates exhibit the expected off-axis coma pattern of light passing through the optics, a signature plate-surface artifacts should not naturally mimic, and explicitly frames coma as a potential discriminant between real images and defects. This provides a plausible, physically motivated route to identifying incident-light events without original Palomar negatives. The strongest opposing consideration is that the classifier and selection have not been blind-validated against a corpus of known defects and engineered flashes (TRN-R003), so it remains uncertain whether certain defect types could produce similar asymmetries or whether analyst expectations have biased candidate identification.

On the Hamburg 0.6-m, chosen for strong off-axis coma, Busko reports that candidate transient images carry the coma pattern expected of off-axis point sources recorded through the optics, a signature plate-surface artifacts should not naturally know; the paper itself states the data do not establish the physical origin of the light. This is the highest-information positive line in the case if it survives, and it has not been blind-validated. Strongest opposing consideration: nobody has shown that emulsion defects never mimic directional asymmetry, and a single-author preprint whose classifier was not protected from the analyst knowing which images were candidates cannot yet carry this weight.

The reported coma signature is potentially the case's physical incident-light detector: telescope optics stamp direction-dependent asymmetry that surface chemistry should not know about. The strongest opposing consideration is that the discriminant has never been run blind against a frozen corpus of known defects and deliberately produced flashes — defect classes mimicking directional asymmetry are unexcluded, and the analyst knew which images were candidates. It is a single-author preprint, applies only to Hamburg candidates, and the author himself states the data do not establish the light's origin. Provisionally supported as a reported measurement with strong physical rationale; everything rides on blind validation (TRN-R003).

The design is physically sound — a scope chosen for strong off-axis coma, 532 plate pairs — and if candidate images carry the optics' directional fingerprint, that is the closest thing in this case to a detector for light-through-the-telescope (TRN-E014). But the evidence is one unreviewed single-author preprint whose author states the data do not establish the light's physical origin, the classifier has not been blind-validated against a defect bestiary and deliberately produced flashes, and no one has shown that emulsion, copy or scanner defects never mimic directional asymmetry — which is precisely the second half of the claim as stated. That unvalidated discriminant assertion is the strongest opposing consideration and it is why I grade below the observational half. Unblinded analysis of images the analyst knew to be candidates is a live failure mode; TRN-R003 exists because it is.

Single-author preprint; the coma classifier has not been blind-validated against asymmetric defect classes (TRN-E014). Structurally it is now the leading physical discriminant, since microscopy cannot separate flash from flaw (TRN-E024).

Single-author preprint; the coma classifier is not blind-validated against asymmetric defect classes (TRN-E014). Structurally the leading physical discriminant now that microscopy cannot separate flash from flaw (TRN-E024).

Single-author preprint; the coma classifier is not blind-validated against asymmetric defect classes (TRN-E014). Structurally it is now the leading physical discriminant, since microscopy cannot separate flash from flaw (TRN-E024).

Single-author preprint; the coma classifier is not blind-validated against asymmetric defect classes (TRN-E014). Structurally it is now the leading physical discriminant, since microscopy cannot separate flash from flaw (TRN-E024).

Single-author preprint; the coma classifier is not blind-validated against asymmetric defect classes (TRN-E014). Structurally it is now the leading physical discriminant since microscopy cannot separate flash from flaw (TRN-E024).

Single-author preprint whose coma classifier has not been blind-validated against asymmetric defect classes (TRN-E014). Structurally it is now the leading physical discriminant, since microscopy cannot separate flash from flaw (TRN-E024).

Single-author preprint; the coma classifier is not blind-validated against directionally asymmetric defect classes (TRN-E014). Structurally it is now the leading physical discriminant, since microscopy cannot separate flash from flaw (TRN-E024).

Single-author preprint, coma classifier not blind-validated against asymmetric defect classes (TRN-E014). Structurally it is now the leading physical discriminant since microscopy cannot separate flash from flaw (TRN-E024).

The reported presence of coma aberration in Hamburg candidates provides the most powerful physical discriminant for incident light in the entire case. However, it remains a single-author preprint whose optical classifier has not yet been subjected to a blind validation test against known plate artifacts that could mimic asymmetric distortion.

Busko’s second preprint presents candidate images from a 0.6-m telescope with strong off-axis coma and reports that transient candidates show the expected coma pattern for off-axis point sources, arguing this indicates light passed through the optics rather than surface defects. This is plausibly a powerful discriminant and is at least consistent with optical expectations. Yet no blind validation against a labeled corpus of known flashes and known defects has been done, and the author explicitly cautions that the data do not by themselves establish physical origin. The strongest opposing consideration is that without such blind tests, one cannot exclude subtle defect types or selection biases that may also produce coma-like asymmetries, leaving this as a promising but not yet decisive line of evidence.

On a 0.6-m Hamburg reflector chosen for strong off-axis coma, Busko reports that candidate transient images exhibit the coma pattern expected of light that passed through the optics — a discriminant plate-surface artifacts should not naturally reproduce. The result is a single-author preprint, the classifier has not been blind-validated against known defects and deliberately produced flashes, and the author states the data do not establish physical origin. The strongest opposing consideration is that emulsion or copy defects have not been shown never to mimic directional asymmetry, and the analyst was not protected from knowing which images were candidates.

The physical logic is the strongest in the case: coma is stamped by the optics at a known angle from the axis, and chemistry does not know where the axis is — a genuine incident-light discriminant that needs no Palomar negatives. The execution, however, is one researcher's single preprint on 532 Hamburg plate pairs, with a classifier never blind-validated against known defects and manufactured flashes, and the author himself states the data do not establish the light's origin (TRN-E014). The strongest opposing consideration is that defect classes mimicking directional asymmetry have not been excluded and the analyst's knowledge of candidate status was not controlled — exactly the failure modes TRN-R003 exists to test.

This is potentially the highest-value discriminant in the case and currently the thinnest record supporting it: one unreviewed single-author preprint (TRN-E014), no blind validation, no published confusion matrix against known defects and deliberately generated flashes, no demonstration that emulsion or handling defects never mimic directional asymmetry, and a telescope selected because its coma is strong — a selection that helps detectability and hurts independence. The author himself states the data do not establish the physical origin of the light. I grade below the case's own provisional label because I weight the absence of analyst blinding heavily for a classifier applied to images the analyst had already flagged as candidates; that weighting is a general methodological prior, not something the records themselves measure. The strongest opposing consideration is that the physical logic is sound — optics stamp coma, chemistry does not know where the axis is — so blind validation (TRN-R003) could move this claim, and with it TRN-C020, very fast.

Single-author preprint; the coma classifier has not been blind-validated against asymmetric defect classes (TRN-E014). Structurally it is now the leading physical discriminant since microscopy cannot separate flash from flaw (TRN-E024).

Single-author preprint; the coma classifier has not been blind-validated against asymmetric defect classes (TRN-E014). Structurally it is now the leading physical discriminant, since microscopy cannot separate flash from flaw (TRN-E024).

A single preprint by one researcher, using a 0.6-m telescope chosen precisely because its coma is strong; the discriminant has not been blind-validated against known defects and deliberately produced short flashes, and the author states plainly that the data do not establish the physical origin of the light.

A study of 532 plate pairs from the Hamburg 0.6-m Doppel-Reflektor reports that a subset of transient candidates exhibits off-axis optical coma characteristic of point sources imaged through parabolic optics, an optical aberration that plate surface defects should not naturally emulate. If confirmed, this provides a vital physical test separating incident light from chemical defects. The strongest opposing consideration is that the study is an unreviewed single-author preprint whose coma-classification algorithm has not been validated through blind trials against known artifact bestiaries.

TRN-E014 reports the coma pattern expected for off-axis point sources through the Hamburg optics — the most physically diagnostic positive test in the case, since after-the-fact marks should not naturally carry the optics' aberration. Strongest opposing consideration: the discriminant has never been blind-validated against a defect corpus or deliberately produced flashes, defect classes mimicking directional asymmetry have not been excluded, and the author himself states the data do not establish the light's physical origin.

TRN-E014 directly reports that Hamburg candidates show the off-axis coma expected from the telescope's parabolic optics, a potentially diagnostic signature of incident light. The source appropriately stops short of establishing the light's physical origin. The strongest opposing consideration is that the coma classifier has not been blindly validated against directional defects or deliberately generated flashes, leaving its false-positive rate unknown.

Busko reports that candidates on the Hamburg 0.6-m Doppel-Reflektor (strong off-axis coma) exhibit the coma pattern expected for point sources imaged through the optics—a signature plate-surface artifacts should not naturally reproduce. The classifier is unvalidated, not blinded, and single-author; the paper itself declines to claim physical origin. Strongest opposing consideration: directional defect classes or scanning artifacts that mimic coma asymmetry have not been excluded by a frozen confusion-matrix test.

If it holds, this is the highest-information positive line in the case: coma is a field-angle-dependent optical signature that surface defects have no reason to reproduce, and it needs no access to the Palomar originals. But the sole record (TRN-E014) is an unreviewed single-author preprint whose classifier has not been blind-validated, and the paper itself states the data do not establish the physical origin of the light. The strongest opposing consideration is that defect classes with directional asymmetry — scratches, drag marks, emulsion flow — have not been excluded, so the claimed exclusivity of the signature is asserted rather than demonstrated (TRN-R003).

TRN-E014 (moderate): on the Hamburg 0.6-m Doppel-Reflektor, chosen for strong off-axis coma, candidate images reportedly show the coma pattern of point sources through the optics. Single-author preprint, no blind validation, defect classes mimicking directional asymmetry not excluded; the paper states the data do not establish the light's physical origin.

One moderate record (TRN-E014): coma pattern reported on Hamburg candidates from a telescope chosen for strong off-axis coma; single author, not blind-validated, defect classes mimicking directional asymmetry not excluded; the paper says the data do not establish the light's physical origin.

Busko analyzed 532 plate pairs from the Hamburg 0.6-m reflector and reported that several transient candidates display off-axis coma aberration matching the telescope's optical characteristics. If confirmed, this provides a compelling physical discriminator separating light traveling through the optical train from after-the-fact plate defects. Strongest opposing consideration: The coma classifier was published in a single-author preprint and has not been validated in a blinded experiment against known defect varieties that might mimic directional distortion.

TRN-E014 is potentially the highest-information positive record in the case: a coma pattern expected for off-axis light through the optics, which plate-surface artifacts should not naturally reproduce, on an archive outside the Palomar genealogy. It is a single-author preprint whose classifier has not been blind-validated, and the paper itself states the data do not establish the physical origin of the light. Strongest opposing consideration: defect classes that mimic directional asymmetry have not been excluded, and nothing here validates any Palomar event.

TRN-E014 reports that candidates on 532 Hamburg plate pairs display the off-axis coma pattern expected from the telescope's parabolic optics, which would be an informative incident-light signature. The observation is independent of the Palomar plate lineage and therefore cannot be explained by its shared copying stage. The strongest opposing consideration is that the coma classifier has not been blind-validated against the full defect population, so directional or field-dependent artifacts have not yet been excluded.

On the Hamburg 0.6-m Doppel-Reflektor, chosen for strong off-axis coma, candidate images are reported to exhibit the expected coma pattern that surface artifacts should not reproduce (E014). The classifier is unblinded and unvalidated against known defects or controlled flashes; the paper itself states the data do not establish physical origin. Strongest opposing consideration is the absence of the confusion-matrix test (TRN-R003) that would turn the signature into a reliable discriminant.

One single-author preprint reports coma patterns in candidates on the Hamburg 0.6-m Doppel-Reflektor (E014). The design is right and nothing contradicts it. However, the classification is not blind-validated, and defects that mimic asymmetry are not excluded. The paper itself says the data do not establish the light's origin. Strongest opposing consideration: if it holds, it is the case's only physical test of light versus defect, and it comes from an independent archive. That is a reason to run TRN-R003, not to treat the result as settled.

TRN-E014 reports coma patterns on Hamburg candidates from a telescope chosen for strong off-axis coma. Its author states the data do not establish the light's origin. It is a single-author preprint with an unvalidated classifier, and defect classes that mimic asymmetry have not been excluded. The grade is provisional because a careful method reports the observation, not because anyone has checked it.