Supports· strongCCC-E023
Study table: every CCC signature search invented its own signal model; the one derived fragment is a 2025 unrefereed preprint
- what the source states
- Across twelve search rows spanning 2010-2024, on both sides, the operative signal model — statistic, size window, thresholds, expected abundance — was supplied by the searchers, never derived from CCC (Hajian 2011 states the gap outright; Bodnia et al. 2024 make it the methodological synthesis). Each proponent significance (up to 6-sigma circles; 99.7% and 99.4% rings; 99.98% Hawking points) met an independent reanalysis that reproduced the features and dissolved the significance by varying a free choice the claim had fixed (ring radii, ellipticity procedure, spot-size marginalization: 99.98% falling to 87%). The only CCC-derived signal fragment — a mass-temperature relation — appears in a 2025 unrefereed preprint no search has yet used.
- what we infer
- CCC-C011 is the literature's own record, not an editorial judgment: no reported significance on either side was produced under a protocol fixed before the data were examined. The table neither establishes nor refutes the circles or Hawking points; it establishes that the dispute's recurring mechanism is an under-specified signal model, and that the preregistered search this case proposes (CCC-R001) now has exactly one derived fragment to bind to.
- limitations
- Two rows rest on ledger verification notes that characterize results partly through later papers of the same program, as those notes record.