Two working documents that the deposited paper (Draft 4, v1.0; DOI 10.5281/zenodo.22678044; printed title The Asymmetric-Loss Equal-Born Test: a pre-registered search for record-information-dependent optical loss) cites and undertakes to deposit alongside it. They are deposited here as they stood on September 7, 2026, the day Draft 4 was completed, each with a dated deposit note at its head; nothing beneath the note is altered. Supplement 1 — Pre-Bench Closure (September 4, 2026), with postscript layers of September 6 and 7. The arithmetic companion to the paper. Part A runs the no-signalling check on the programme's surviving statement, finds that the normalised form permits superluminal signalling and is excluded, and records the single repair — a loss channel — that leaves the bench prediction numerically unchanged and converts the hypothesis from a nonlinear modification of the Born rule into a linear one. Part B carries the consequences into the protocol: the turnover of −p ln p at p = 1/e and the extended scan that would see it, a fourth signature, the cost of the high-loss points, the total-rate observable, the absorber control with its prediction stated in advance, and the consolidated protocol amendments. Part C makes the structural repairs: locating the branching event, the J-conservation contradiction, and the cost functional, with both candidates carried and the location of the peak left to decide between them. Part D drafts the pre-registration and scores the open tasks. The September-6 layer, headed "Postscript — September 5–6", records the two independent referee passes (one blind, one adversarial), the photon-number-dependent loss map, the derivation of the record criterion put to a third referee instructed to kill it and killed on twelve counts, the pre-registered arms and the correction of a handover error; the addendum of September 7 records the closing of the high-loss row. 17 pages. Supplement 2 — The high-p row: proposal, adversarial pass, and the row as costed (September 7, 2026). The error-budget row for the extended scan (p = 10%, 36.8%, 60% and 70%) that the paper's §9 named as the single item blocking pre-registration of the extended points, kept in the three steps by which it was reached. Appendix A is the first-pass proposal exactly as written for review, errors included. Appendix B is the report of an independent adversarial referee instructed to kill it, verbatim: eight errors and six systematics the first pass had not carried. Appendix C is the row as costed after every finding was re-derived and accepted, with the seven pass criteria written into the pre-registration. Its findings: the reach at the turnover (5σ at λ* ≥ 0.0039, 95% exclusion to 0.0016) stands only under the seven criteria; the bright-phase thermal family has the sign of the predicted anomaly and is bounded by a power-dependence test stated in advance; the far point of the scan moves from 70% to 60%; and the extended scan is research-group metrology, not teaching-laboratory work. 25 pages with its deposit note. The coloured highlights in Supplement 1 are its dated layers (rose, September 6; periwinkle, September 7; sky, the deposit note of September 16, 2026), each explained at its head. The line "Not for deposit" on the cover of Supplement 2 recorded the authors' working practice on September 7 and is superseded by the deposit note above it; the paper's Draft-4 note undertakes to deposit the document. The reconciliation document the paper also cites is the programme's working record, still being expanded, and is available from the authors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cecil et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: