Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Paper 93 computed one number for the mass ledger's surface term: the wave leaks past the wall with penetration depth fm at the physical well depth. Paper 86, on a different observable, recorded the sharp radius law's misses honestly: the whole light end runs large (Li-7 by 27%) and even the heavy end sits ~3% under. If the leakage is real matter, the same must stretch the radii — more for small A, less for large. This paper takes fixed from Paper 93, adds the tail with no new number anywhere, and re-scores the fourteen benchmark radii. With the physical bookkeeping, it works: mean error 7.70% → 4.99%, light end 16.56% → 11.62%, heavy 3.03% → 2.12%, Li-7's 27% miss collapses to 1% — and the the radii themselves demand, fitted freely, comes out at 1.10 fm, 13% from the predicted 1.263. This record holds one paper on its own and is refreshed every couple of months. The complete deposit, 10.5281/zenodo.21788037, holds every paper with its code and data and is updated first; for the newest version of this paper, go there.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
James Norman Ibbotson (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: