Outcomes, with their limits attached

The result: Of 299,105 placed gamma records in the ENSDF nuclear structure archive, 61 fail their own level-scheme arithmetic beyond ten times the stated uncertainties. The archive explains 48 of them through its own footnotes and source structure, and 13 have no documented explanation and no consistent placement in any sibling dataset, with a blind second classification agreeing on all 13. They were reported privately to the maintainers first and their identities are withheld here pending that review.

What it means: Thirteen records in the world reference archive of nuclear structure contradict their own arithmetic with no explanation anywhere in the archive, and the people who maintain it now have the list.

What it is NOT: Not thirteen confirmed errors, because the maintainers may recognize some as known issues or evaluation practice, and their answer is the real test.

Next test that could settle it: The maintainers reply adjudicates each record as known, explained, or new; identities and per-record receipts publish after their review or a courtesy window.

Open question: Do the unexplained ENSDF arithmetic contradictions survive maintainer adjudication as real bookkeeping errors?

The result: The broad electromagnetic proxy appears in unrelated corpora, suggesting measurement-invariance failure rather than a real cross-domain electromagnetic mechanism.

What it means: The word patterns used to detect "electromagnetic effects" fire in collections that have nothing to do with each other. That means the detector is measuring language habits, not a real cross-domain electromagnetic signal. A useful negative: it killed a tempting bridge.

What it is NOT: Not a statement that electromagnetic effects never occur in any report, because the failure is in the measuring stick. Not final, because a manual reading of the split meanings is still the named next step.

Next test that could settle it: Manually adjudicate split EM meanings across independent corpora.

Open question: What survives when the exploratory em measurement invariance pattern is tested on validated held-out labels?