Context· weakCCC-E062
Creswell et al. 2017: the premise Penrose adopted — LIGO noise correlations maximized at the event's own time lag — part 1
- what the source states
- For GW150914, correlations in the detector noise at the time of the event "happen to be maximized for the same time lag" as that found for the event itself.
- what we infer
- This is the empirical premise of CCC-C505, recorded so the chain is on the ledger; it says nothing about CCC or erebons, and its residual-correlation result was not reproduced by Nielsen et al. 2019 (CCC-E067). Zero diagnosticity for CCC on its own.
- limitations
- Uses the illustrative numerical-relativity template from the LIGO discovery paper rather than a maximum-likelihood waveform (per Nielsen et al.).
- Direction set to "supports" (from "context") by the second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-10, run 2026-09-10-verify-ccc-192550, verify-v5) at intake: The quoted phrase and cited locators (abstract, §3.2, Fig. 7) accurately reflect Creswell et al.'s own finding that noise correlations peak at the same time lag as the GW150914 event, and this is a fair, non-inflated summary. However, for a proposed claim not admitted at intake ('Creswell et al. (2017) reported that the residual noise…') the passage is not merely 'context': it is the primary source directly asserting the very finding the claim describes, so the correct direction toward the proposed claim not admitted at intake is 'supports.' Toward CCC-C505 (Penrose's proposal), 'context' is reasonable since this paper does not discuss Penrose or erebons but merely supplies the empirical premise he later used. Both claims are still borne on by the passage, and the statement is a single, atomic proposition with no independence concerns since this is the original data-analysis paper, not a derivative report.