Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Technical note corrects previous claims on the Hubble tension and presents new predictions, indicating implications for cosmic measurements.
This technical note complements Vázquez González (2026e) (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20171261). (1) We correct an error in earlier versions of the COCM corpus: the claim that the oscillatory parametrisation explains ~87% of the Hubble tension was based on inflated parameters (A0=0.177). With the correct DR1 best-fit (A0=0.091, φ=-0.956), the modulation at z=0 is -1.52% and COCM does not resolve the Hubble tension. (2) We derive a new falsifiable prediction: the COCM oscillatory structure produces crossings H_COCM=H_ΛCDM at z=0.015, 0.156, and 0.296, with amplitude ~3-5% at the peaks — testable with existing DESI BGS data. (3) We report five additional robustness analyses: power spectral density of residuals (no significant peak at ω_z with n=14), cosmic-chronometer-only fit (signal vanishes without BAO, Δχ²=0.08, p=0.96), BAO acoustic scale (r_d unaffected, D_H varies ±4.5% point-by-point), large-scale structure (k_COCM≈0.003 Mpc⁻¹, ℓ_COCM≈46), and DR1 vs DR2 parameter comparison (phase differs by 106°, crossings shift). Related works:P1: DOI 10.5281/zenodo.19950582P2: DOI 10.5281/zenodo.19991607P3: DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20090596P4: DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20096465NT: DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20104113P5: DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20171261 (conceptual: 10.5281/zenodo.20123140)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vázquez González José Luis (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: