Hessdalen sighting days track observing conditions, not geomagnetics
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?
Receipts (exact limits and evidence records)
Claim ceiling (the strongest sentence this evidence supports): Bounded corpus/measurement result; no mechanism or universality.
Novelty: Aletheia applies matched +/-7/14/21/28-day controls to dated reports and separates same-day Kp non-elevation from lower reanalysis precipitation/gust observation ecology.
Question: Q-HESSDALEN-ECOLOGY
Evidence grade: G2_SUPPORTED_EQUIVALENT
Evidence records: ART-071, ART-070