USR-2026-0029 · CMB
Conditional forecast, ratios only: in this computation σ_i = 2.5 × √(F_i/F_T), so the four quoted sensitivities are one calibration and three mode-count ratios — E-modes are 84% independent of temperature at low ℓ, giving LiteBIRD E ≈ 2.5σ and T+E ≈ 3.4σ relative to a Planck-T value that is an INPUT, not a result.
PROVISIONAL
ratios only: σ_i = 2.5 × √(F_i/F_T); the 2.5 is an input
re-run & confirmed 2026-07-09 (R0 — founder CI; independence pending)
CORRECTED 2026-07-26: the registered 'T (Planck) = 2.5σ' is the calibration constant, not a forecast; the assumed modulation amplitude A = 0.07 cancels exactly and has no effect on any output; and all four numbers scale strictly with that 2.5, which contradicts this registry's own optimal-estimator value of 2.0σ (USR-2026-0020).
Falsify-box — how to kill this claim
UNTESTED
Named experiment: LiteBIRD (launch ~2032). First fix what is testable. In run_litebird_forecast.py, kappa = (SIG_T_PLANCK/A_OBS)^2 / F_T and sigma_i = A_OBS/sqrt(kappa F_i), so sigma_i = SIG_T_PLANCK * sqrt(F_i/F_T) exactly: A_OBS = 0.07 cancels, and all four quoted sigmas are the hardcoded 2.5 multiplied by a Fisher ratio. The ABSOLUTE 3.4 sigma is therefore not a forecast and no LiteBIRD result can test it; the RATIOS are the claim's falsifiable content. (1) DEAD if LiteBIRD's published or delivered low-l EE noise curve, pushed through the identical Fisher weight [C_l/(C_l+N_l)]^2 summed over 2 <= l <= 64, gives sigma(A)_E(LiteBIRD) / sigma(A)_T(Planck) > 1.4 - i.e. LiteBIRD low-l E delivers less than 0.7x the temperature-only significance instead of the ~1.0x claimed. Concretely this fires if N_l^EE is not below C_l^EE across 2 <= l <= 64: the run hand-enters 2.2 uK-arcmin at a 30 arcmin beam, i.e. assumes cosmic-variance-limited E, and at N_l = C_l each Fisher weight falls by a factor 4, sigma(A) doubles and E-alone drops to ~0.5x T. (2) DEAD if the T+E-to-T-only ratio implied by LiteBIRD's delivered low-l E noise falls below 1.15. The claim's own four numbers force that ratio to 3.4/2.5 = 1.36, which requires E to be 1.36^2 - 1 = 85 percent independent of T at l <= 64; below 1.15 means under 32 percent independence, i.e. T+E adds essentially nothing and the 'a fluke cannot fake T and E at once' argument fails. (3) DEAD if the LiteBIRD collaboration publishes its own low-l dipole-modulation forecast whose E-alone and T+E sensitivities differ from 1.0x and 1.36x the temperature-only value by more than 30 percent. Do NOT put an absolute 3.0 sigma floor in the criterion - see note.
Verification record — every quoted number, re-run 2026-07-09
| quantity | measured | verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Planck T | 2.5σ — an INPUT (the calibration), not a result | MATCH |
| LiteBIRD E | ≈2.5σ — a ratio off that calibration | MATCH |
| LiteBIRD T+E | ≈3.4σ — E is 84% independent of T at low ℓ | MATCH |
| assumed amplitude A = 0.07 | cancels exactly — has no effect on any output | MATCH |
| internal inconsistency | the 2.5 calibration contradicts USR-2026-0020's optimal-estimator 2.0σ | MATCH |
Provenance
script: tilt_seam/run_litebird_forecast.py
script status: PRESENT
datasets: LiteBIRD noise model · Planck · claim-scripts (downloadable from /data — run it yourself)
re-run: 2026-07-09
script status: PRESENT
datasets: LiteBIRD noise model · Planck · claim-scripts (downloadable from /data — run it yourself)
re-run: 2026-07-09
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 tilt_seam/run_litebird_forecast.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.
§ Reproduction
run_litebird_forecast.py
The founder's own run of this script, captured verbatim. A match proves the result is reproducible; it is still R0 on this registry's independence rings — same code, so it cannot move a status. Only an outside run does that.
A · Recorded
founder's machine · 2026-08-02
MODULATION-AMPLITUDE FORECAST (A=0.07, coherent to l=64):
mean T-E redundancy r^2 = 0.16 (E is ~84% independent of T)
T (Planck) 2.5 sigma ##########
E (Planck) 0.2 sigma #
E (LiteBIRD) 2.5 sigma ##########
T+E (LiteBIRD) 3.4 sigma ##############
wrote litebird_forecast.png
THE FORECAST — what breaks the tie:
* TODAY, T (Planck): 2.5 sigma. One sky, cosmic-variance-capped. This is the
ceiling for temperature; it cannot grow.
* TODAY, E (Planck): 0.2 sigma. Planck's low-l polarization is
systematics-limited — it literally cannot see the modulation. This is why the
asymmetry has NEVER been confirmed or killed in polarization.
* LiteBIRD, E alone: 2.5 sigma — a genuinely INDEPENDENT channel
(E is ~84% independent of T at these scales, sourced partly by reionization).
Either it lights up in the SAME southern direction -> the asymmetry is a real
feature of the initial conditions, not a temperature fluke; or it shows
nothing -> the asymmetry dies as a ~2 sigma coincidence. Decisive either way.
* LiteBIRD, T+E joint: 3.4 sigma. Not 5 (the asymmetry is intrinsically a
few-large-scale-mode effect, so no instrument makes it a slam dunk), but a
cross-observable ~3 sigma is far harder to dismiss than a temperature-only
~2.5, because a fluke cannot fake T and E in the same direction at once.
* BOTTOM LINE: LiteBIRD (launch ~2032) is the one machine that converts the
asymmetry from 'unfalsifiable ~2 sigma curiosity toward Lepus' into a yes/no.
It is the receipt this entire thread has been waiting for.
B · Yours
not runnable in-browser
This script needs data files, a heavy dependency, or more time than a browser tab should take. Download it from /data and run it locally.