USR-2026-0013 · CMB
Planck SMICA independently confirms the large-angle missing power seen in WMAP (C₂ = 200 µK², p = 0.030). The quadrupole–octopole alignment does NOT independently confirm: the registered 3.0° came from an unmasked full-sky transform, while this seam's own masked estimator reports 23.8° (p = 0.085).
PROVISIONAL
C₂ = 200 µK² (p = 0.030) confirms missing power; alignment is 23.8° masked, not 3.0°
reproduced ≠ discovered
re-run & confirmed 2026-07-09 (R0 — founder CI; independence pending)
CORRECTED 2026-07-26: the missing-power half stands; the alignment half was refuted in-house. run_boundary_angles.py has reported 23.8° from a galaxy-masked estimator on the same PR3 SMICA map since 2026-07-09 — the 3.0° figure should never have been the headline.
Falsify-box — how to kill this claim
UNTESTED
ALIGNMENT - ALREADY DEAD, no new data required: run_boundary_angles.py (same seam, same PR3 SMICA map) has already recomputed the SMICA quadrupole-octopole axes with a galaxy-masked estimator and got 23.8 degrees against the 3.0 degrees this claim quotes from an unmasked full-sky anafast (figures/angles_alignment.png: WMAP 12.8 -> 16.1, SMICA 3.0 -> 23.8, COMMANDER 10.9 -> 24.5, NILC 29.7 -> 27.4 deg). In the claim's own isotropic null p = 1 - cos(angle), 23.8 deg is p = 0.085, not 0.001; and under the IDENTICAL full-sky estimator Planck's own three cleanings give 3.0 / 10.9 / 29.7 deg, i.e. p = 0.001 / 0.018 / 0.131. So '3.0 degrees, p = 0.001' is one cleaning under one estimator and the alignment clause must be struck or restated as estimator-specific and cleaning-specific. THE LIVE KILL TEST is therefore the quadrupole clause: recompute the Planck SMICA D_2 with a mask-deconvolved QML/MASTER estimator on the Planck galaxy mask, replacing the current full-sky unmasked hp.anafast at nside 32 (run_boundary_compare.py lines 55-59). The quoted 'C_2 = 200 uK^2 (p = 0.030)' is DEAD if the masked mode-deconvolved D_2 exceeds 240 uK^2, which is p > 0.05 in the claim's own plateau null (D_2 ~ 1050 x chi^2_5/5); and the broader assertion that Planck independently shows the same missing-power anomaly as WMAP is DEAD if it exceeds 650 uK^2 (p > 0.317, inside the LambdaCDM bulk). The null cannot be blamed for either outcome: swapping the flat 1050 plateau for CAMB (D_2 ~ 1200 uK^2) makes 200 uK^2 MORE anomalous, so that variation is not a valid escape.
Verification record — every quoted number, re-run 2026-07-09
| quantity | measured | verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Planck SMICA C₂ | 200 µK², p = 0.030 — confirms the WMAP missing power | MATCH |
| quad-oct alignment, masked estimator | 23.8° (p = 0.085) — the load-bearing number | MATCH |
| quad-oct alignment, unmasked full-sky | 3.0° — registered in error; an unmasked artifact | MATCH |
| in-house refutation date | 2026-07-09, in this seam's own output | MATCH |
Provenance
script: boundary_seam/run_boundary_compare.py
script status: PRESENT
datasets: Planck SMICA · WMAP 9-yr ILC · claim-scripts (downloadable from /data — run it yourself)
re-run: 2026-07-09
script status: PRESENT
datasets: Planck SMICA · WMAP 9-yr ILC · claim-scripts (downloadable from /data — run it yourself)
re-run: 2026-07-09
Edges
REPRODUCES
→ Planck collaboration's confirmation of the WMAP low-ℓ anomalies
Status, honestly
CORRECTED 2026-07-26 by the kill-test sweep; the audit flag it carried is resolved. Status here is computed from evidence — the author cannot set it, and neither can we. Independent reproduction would move it; nothing else will.
§ Figures
1 from boundary_seam/run_boundary_compare.py
What this claim's own script draws. These are the founder's committed outputs — the same plots the script regenerates on any machine that runs it.
