BKT–40A is a standalone satellite annex to BKT–40. The document explains how the public model-agnostic Belle II likelihood for the B⁺ → K⁺νν̄ channel can be used as a shape test for the phenomenological BKT–40 benchmark. The aim is not to claim the discovery of a new particle or to validate the global USC framework empirically, but to define a controlled interface between the Belle II result, the WET description and the hypothesis of a local invisible component B⁺ → K⁺X_inv. The test point is the two-body hypothesis: B⁺ → K⁺X_inv, with the invisible-state mass: mₓ = 2.10 (+0.20, −0.10) GeV, corresponding to the generator-level location: qₓ² = mₓ² = 4.41 (+0.88, −0.41) GeV². The effective invisible normalization of the benchmark is: B(B⁺ → K⁺X)Pₓ,inv = 9.2 (+1.8, −3.4) × 10⁻⁶. The formal test is defined as a deformation of the differential spectrum relative to the SM description: dB_test/dq² = dB_SM/dq² + Δ_BKT40(q²; λ), and as a reweighting of the Belle II templates: ν₁,ₓ = Σⱼ ν₀,ₓⱼ wⱼ,wⱼ = σ₁,ⱼ / σ₀,ⱼ. BKT–40A emphasizes that the decisive observable is not only the total branching fraction, but the reconstructed q²-shape. In the minimal benchmark, the signal is expected to concentrate in the region 4 < q²_rec < 8 GeV², with a strongly suppressed high-q² tail. This shape condition distinguishes a local two-body invisible contribution from smooth WET-like deformations of the b → sνν̄ transition. The document follows the BK/BKA standard: empirical result, hypothesis, calibrated parameter, derived quantity, detector approximation, model interpretation and falsification condition are kept separate. Agreement of a future q²-shape test may support only the sectoral BKT–40 benchmark; it does not constitute proof of the broader PJM–GTWSSF–USC–GTCW interpretation. Failure to reproduce the localized q² pattern, conflict with direct B → hX_inv limits, or correlated tauonic enhancement outside the minimal control conditions falsifies the minimal BKT–40 benchmark.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Robert Kupski (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: