Admissibility frontier · Edition 3

Expanded claim page · assertion 2 of 3

the second gauge detector needs a phase reference

Experiment / protocolBuilder

Defines a measurement, sensitivity calculation or empirical decision rule. constructs a model, mechanism, calculation, protocol or intervention.

Exact assertion

Two event counts are not yet those two amplitudes. Production and decay rates retain squared magnitudes, leaving two relative-sign branches after a common reversal is removed. A diphoton branching fraction also depends on the total ALP width. The minimal successful detector therefore needs calibrated interference, a coherent phase reference or a third signed response, together with the complete width and acceptance model.

What this commits us to

The claim concerns a protocol, sensitivity or decision rule. It must be kept separate from a prediction that a nonzero signal exists.

Logical anatomy

Scope

Chapter “The admissibility frontier”, section “the second gauge detector needs a phase reference”. This is assertion 2 of 3 in that section.

Evidence posture

Separate predicted signal from sensitivity, calibration and decision protocol.

Research move

constructs a model, mechanism, calculation, protocol or intervention.

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

Specify the apparatus, calibration, null distribution, preregistered threshold and independently predicted effect size.

Source map

Controlling documents