Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Final audit evaluates Planck CMB likelihoods and SPARC rotation curves, indicating PMONDR2's viability.
This package presents the V3 final audit of the MEON-R2 model against two independent observational regimes: Planck-2018 CMB likelihoods and SPARC galaxy rotation curves. The CMB part uses Planck PR3 low-l TT, low-l EE, high-l Plik-lite TTTEEE, and lensing likelihoods together with CAMB/Cobaya and direct clik checks. The MEON-R2 Level-2 construction is tested as a small closed residual deformation around the LCDM CMB limit. In the direct Planck delta-chi2 scan, the combined MEON-R2 residual mode remains below Delta chi2 = 1 up to a coupling scale of approximately 750 in this implementation. The SPARC part uses a deduplicated rotation-curve sample with 3391 data points from 175 galaxies. Earlier unbounded beta fits that produced beta values near 18–20 are rejected as non-reportable runaway solutions. The V3 audit therefore uses only beta-guarded or beta-fixed models: beta = 0.3 fixed, globally bounded beta, and closure-based bounded beta. In this run, the best SPARC model by AIC is MEON_closure_beta_guarded with chi2 = 46771.61, AIC = 46789.61, BIC = 46844.77, and beta = 0.15976. The MOND/RAR one-parameter benchmark gives chi2 = 50510.59 on the same deduplicated data set. The results indicate that MEON-R2 is not ruled out by the previous beta runaway; that runaway was a nonphysical fit freedom or implementation artifact. The reportable candidate is the closure/beta-guard version of MEON-R2. The CMB sector is Planck-compatible in the small Level-2 residual regime, while the SPARC sector shows competitive performance against a MOND/RAR benchmark under the stated effective-error and nuisance-model assumptions. Weak-lensing spin-shear tests are not claimed here because a real spin-signed lensing data set was not included in this audit.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Asil Karahan (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: