Outcomes, with their limits attached

The result: Preregister a message-structure-only replay of the dry/open versus wet/enclosed hypothesis, anchored on the existing Marian negative result and excluding entity-affect endpoints.

What it means: A planned replay of the idea that dry, open landscapes produce different vision reports than wet, enclosed ones was specified and then parked: it only runs if two independent report collections can fill its cells.

What it is NOT: Not a result, because the test never ran. Not abandoned, because the frozen design sits ready and names exactly what data would trigger it.

Next test that could settle it: Before replay, freeze message-structure labels, four setting cells, corpus/era/tradition/source-length controls, and a holdout corpus. Run only if at least two practice-independent corpora can populate every comparison cell.

Open question: Do the broad climate/environment formulations survive current matched controls?

The result: Repeat the broad humid-climate/lower-trickster and blinded 120-row entity-affect analyses as a new wonder item.

What it means: An older analysis linking humid climates to "trickster" entity reports is formally retired: no rerun unless a genuinely new measurement-grade dataset appears, because the old material cannot separate writing style from actual exposure.

What it is NOT: Not a null result, because the question was closed as untestable with current data rather than answered. Not censorship of the idea, because the reopening condition is written down.

Next test that could settle it: No replay. Reopen only if a materially new measurement-grade exposure dataset appears and a preregistered matched design distinguishes source style from exposure.

Open question: Do the broad climate/environment formulations survive current matched controls?

The result: Dry/open prophetic-vision reframe kill test: use the Marian arid/semi-arid negative result as the anchor falsifier and only test setting-by-message-structure interactions after separating dry/open, dry/enclosed, wet/open, and wet/enclosed contexts.

What it means: The strongest version of the landscape-vision idea got a preregistered kill test: four setting types, message-structure labels frozen before looking, and the arid Marian negative as the built-in falsifier. It waits on data.

What it is NOT: Not evidence for or against the idea, because this object is a frozen test design. Not redundant with the other vision questions, because this one fixes the exact kill rule.

Next test that could settle it: Pre-register message-structure labels before looking at setting bins; compare prophetic/revelatory, instruction, warning, healing, and place-sanctification markers across the four environmental cells.

Open question: Do the broad climate/environment formulations survive current matched controls?

The result: Does the dry/desert prophetic-vision hypothesis survive after the Marian-apparition arid/semi-arid negative result is treated as a potential disconfirmation rather than a weak exception?

What it means: The idea that prophetic visions favor desert settings must now face the strongest counter-evidence first: Marian apparitions in arid regions came out negative. Any future test starts from that disproof, not around it.

What it is NOT: Not a kill of the desert idea, because the decisive matched comparison has not run. Not support either, because the one anchor result points the other way.

Next test that could settle it: Identify the exact matched prophetic/revelatory variables, compare arid/semi-arid versus humid strata by corpus and source channel, and define a kill rule for the dry/desert prediction.

Open question: Do the broad climate/environment formulations survive current matched controls?

The result: In the full-date Hessdalen event corpus, dated observations behave as an observation-ecology result rather than a physical explanation: event days are not elevated on same-day Kp against matched +/-7/14/21/28 day controls, while precipitation and wind-gust metrics are lower than controls. This claim does not explain what the Hessdalen lights are, does not claim weather causes the phenomenon, and does not refute geomagnetic hypotheses generally; it only says same-day Kp is not elevated in this bridge. Weather evidence is Open-Meteo reanalysis-grid data, not direct station instrument logs for every event.

What it means: On days people report the Hessdalen lights, the geomagnetic index is no higher than on matched nearby days, but the weather is drier and calmer. Sighting days look like good-viewing days, which says the reporting record tracks when people can see, before it tracks anything about the lights.

What it is NOT: Not an explanation of the Hessdalen lights, because the analysis only tested day-matching against indexes and reanalysis weather. Not a refutation of geomagnetic ideas generally, because it covers same-day Kp in this one dated corpus with grid weather, not station instruments.

Next test that could settle it: Replicate with direct station data and independent observation dates.

Open question: Does the matched weather/Kp result replicate on direct station data and held-out dates?

The result: UAP report corpora appear to differ from official/fireball controls not just in visual-light frequency but in the bundle of light, motion, and shape proxies, consistent with reporting-ecology and observer-opportunity mechanisms.

What it means: UFO reports do not differ from official aviation and fireball reports on just one feature. They differ as a package of light, motion, and shape wording at once, which is what you would expect if who reports and how they get to report shapes the stories.

What it is NOT: Not evidence about what UAP are, because the pattern tracks reporting channels, not objects. Not confirmed, because the coding needs one shared instrument applied to matched sources before it can be trusted.

Next test that could settle it: Replicate with matched official and eyewitness sources under one coding instrument.

Open question: What survives when the exploratory uap reporting ecology pattern is tested on validated held-out labels?

The result: Across the full registry, UAP rows separate instrument-backed cases from generic light/motion narratives, suggesting that evidence modality should be modeled as an independent axis rather than blended into phenomenological features.

What it means: UAP reports with instrument evidence (radar, camera, sensor) look different from purely narrative reports, which means "what kind of evidence exists" deserves to be its own axis instead of being blended into what the report says happened.

What it is NOT: Not a verdict on any case, because the evidence-channel labels have not been validated on held-out reports. Not a claim that instrument cases are more real, because better instruments may simply travel with different reporting channels.

Next test that could settle it: Validate evidence-channel labels and outcome differences on held-out cases.

Open question: What survives when the exploratory uap evidence channel pattern is tested on validated held-out labels?