Miyachi, Namba, Omiya and Oshita (arXiv:2512.18631) showed with exact WKB that parametrized corrections δV = f Σj αj r−j to the Regge–Wheeler potential change the high-overtone asymptotics of Schwarzschild quasinormal modes. For j = 4, Re ωN grows as N1/5 once α42|ω| ≫ 1, and the Schwarzschild value ln3/4π is recovered only in the opposite limit. Their published Leaver spectra for α4 = −1 also show two sharp dips of Re ω towards zero, near N ≈ 357 and N ≈ 1.02×104, which the N1/5 law does not describe. We give a leading-order description of the whole crossover. Near r = 0 and at large |ω|, the problem reduces to a local equation with the single parameter κp = αp ω(p−3)/2, and a Motl–Neitzke monodromy argument gives e4πω = C(κ), where C is a connection coefficient computed numerically. C(0) = −3 recovers Schwarzschild. For α4 < 0, |C| dips repeatedly and the N1/5 law is only an envelope. For α4 = −1, |C| < 1 for N ∈ (347.3, 370.7); the full spectrum has no genuine complex root for 357 < n < 375. |C| nearly touches 1 again at N ≈ 10647.4; the full spectrum has a matching near-touch at n ≈ 10182, 4.4% earlier. These fixed-α comparisons are exploratory. We tested the quantization condition against Leaver spectra following an internal written protocol whose timestamps are self-recorded. On a grid of 162 resolved modes up to N = 3136, residuals at fixed y = α4(N+½)1/2 fall as N−1/2 for both signs of α4, but at the largest N they are still 7–28% for α4 < 0, so the protocol's 1% criterion fails and that hypothesis is not confirmed (a post-hoc extrapolation brings them to within 1.6% of zero). For α4 > 0, tracked modes reach the imaginary axis at a point that extrapolates to y = 3.79–3.83, depending on a fit window chosen after review, against the predicted 3.7936. For j = 5 the registered exponent test is met (e = 0.321 ± 0.090 against 1/3), with an uncertainty three times its tolerance. Our original fixed-α roots all coincide with the published ones; near the dips our root search also finds genuine roots the published data omit. Note on versions. Version 2 supersedes version 1, which stays available. Version 1 did not state that Miyachi et al. had already published both α4 = −1 dips, and presented the second as an out-of-sample prediction; version 2 credits the dips and the N* ∝ α4−2 scaling to them and credits axis crossings at a crossover to Daghigh et al. Validation 3 is now done against their public data (Zenodo record 20020134), and fixed-α series are relabelled by overtone counting. Both dips are re-analysed (the second dip of C had been sampled too coarsely). Protocol outcomes are stated by the rules as written (H1 for α4 > 0 not confirmed; H2 not confirmed; H3 confirmed by its rule; precision doubling partial), and "pre-registered" is replaced by "internal protocol". Full list in the paper's Note on versions. Files: paper (PDF) and source bundle (code, data, internal protocol and amendment log, README and build script). Computations and drafting were assisted by an AI system (Claude).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dat Tan Nguyen (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: