Admissibility frontier · Edition 3

Expanded claim page · assertion 2 of 3

ask for the likelihood, not the plot

Obstruction / no-goAuditor

A stated candidate class or identification has been ruled out under explicit assumptions. checks assumptions, certificates, counterexamples and stopping rules.

Exact assertion

An exact public recast requires six machine-readable objects: each mode's mass grid and profile likelihood, efficiency versus mass and lifetime, the correlated nuisance model, the background and resolution response, and the map from production and decay parameters to accepted yield. No such complete packet was found on the official publication, paper and HEPData search surfaces inspected on 25 October 2026. This is a public-availability boundary, not a claim that the collaboration lacks the information.

What this commits us to

A specified candidate class fails under explicit assumptions. The conclusion does not automatically extend to mechanisms outside that class.

Logical anatomy

Scope

Chapter “The admissibility frontier”, section “ask for the likelihood, not the plot”. This is assertion 2 of 3 in that section.

Evidence posture

Check the assumptions defining the ruled-out candidate class; the no-go does not automatically extend beyond that class.

Research move

checks assumptions, certificates, counterexamples and stopping rules.

Verification route

  1. Recover the declared objects and assumptions from the controlling documents.
  2. Check the calculation, construction, obstruction or stopping rule on those same objects.
  3. Compare the source conclusion with the exact assertion above; do not strengthen its verbs or enlarge its domain.
  4. Apply the status rule and retain every named external dependency.

What would move or defeat this claim

Break one of the no-go assumptions in a controlled construction, or show that the alleged obstruction does not follow within its stated class.

Source map

Controlling documents