Outcomes, with their limits attached

The result: Two separate implementations reconstructed the public July 2025 quantum-switch counts and obtained 1.8328528, matching the paper's rounded 1.8328 against a fixed-order bound of 1.75. The paper's stated uncertainty of 0.0045 is larger than every count-only model tested here. This checks the released arithmetic. It cannot close the experiment's acknowledged detection, setting-choice, spacetime, or time-linked drift loopholes.

What it means: The released data behind a headline quantum-causality experiment checks out: two independent reconstructions of the public counts land exactly on the published score, comfortably above the classical bound. The arithmetic holds.

What it is NOT: Not confirmation of the experiment's big claim, because the acknowledged loopholes (detection, setting choice, drift) live upstream of the released counts. Not a replication, because no new data was collected.

Next test that could settle it: Release or collect repeated time blocks with randomized settings so time-linked drift and setting-order effects can be measured directly.

Open question: Does the quantum-switch inequality remain above 1.75 when settings are randomized and analyzed in repeated time blocks?

The result: Aletheia identified eight internally inconsistent NASA/JPL close-approach records. JPL confirmed an issue affecting pathological cases with close approaches to multiple bodies within a short time window and fixed it for 367943, saying the other cases should be fixed as well. Aletheia's live check confirmed all eight reported records now satisfy the distance-order invariant.

What it means: Eight records in NASA/JPL's asteroid close-approach database contradicted themselves, the error report was sent in, and JPL confirmed the software issue and corrected the data. An outside one-person check improved a flagship public dataset.

What it is NOT: Not a sign of broader JPL unreliability, because the issue hit a narrow class of unusual multi-body cases. Not an astronomical discovery, because the errors were bookkeeping inconsistencies, not new objects.

Next test that could settle it: Re-run the public live checker after future JPL data releases and investigate any recurrence before making a broader reliability claim.

Open question: Do the eight corrected JPL close-approach records remain internally consistent after future data releases?