Physicist review: zzz-Unknown ("The Subquantum Plenum", R. N. Boyd)

Reviewer: PhD physicist (Step 2). Inputs read: facts.json, claims.md, deep/Subquantum-Plenum-623ba4.md, sites.md "Leads for review", research notes (Piggott, Dehmelt, Silvertooth/Marett, Irvine Ranch, Wayback/Boyd pages, Scholar, Mendeleev), and the saved Boyd 2001 uncertainty page and Dehmelt lecture PDF (grep'd myself). Tags: [read] document/deep read, [web] URL, [memory] with confidence. Numbers marked "computed here" were calculated in the project venv.

Source note: there is no source gap (text available). The one equation was not seen as a rendered image; its symbols are garbled in the extraction.

Terms used once: "statvolt" = CGS unit of voltage, 1 statvolt = 299.79 V. "Zero Group" = Mendeleev's column of chemically inert elements (today's noble gases), which he extended in 1904 with hypothetical lighter ones.

Corrections to Step 1

1. Authorship. facts.json says the author is "not stated". The Investigator established it is Robert Neil Boyd: the identical text sits on noosphere.princeton.edu and on Boyd's own rialian.com copy (2007 RTF, title differs by one word), and Klein and Boyd cite it as "Boyd, The Subquantum Plenum" [web: research/2026-10-04-wayback-rialian.md, google-scholar.md]. Update facts.json author.
2. Mendeleev (facts.json claim 1 and claims.md 1). Step 1 records the essay's numbers (1e-8 of H; 2.5e6 m/s; "1869 table") as Mendeleev's. The primary text (1904, OCR) gives about 1e-6 of H at about 2,250 km/s, bounds 9.6e-7 to 5.3e-11 from an escape-velocity argument, and says in 1869 he "dared not put forward such a proposal" [web: archive.org/details/cu31924012371096; research/2026-10-04-archive-org-mendeleev.md]. Check I made (computed here): a gas of mass 1e-6 u at 300 K has v_rms = sqrt(3kT/m) = 2.7e6 m/s, matching Mendeleev's order of magnitude; the essay's 1e-8 u would give 2.7e7 m/s at 300 K. So the essay's pair (1e-8, 2.5e6) is not self-consistent kinetic theory, and misstates Mendeleev. The Step 1 statement that Mendeleev's Zero Group "is not in standard accounts" should read: the zero group is the noble gases; the lighter-than-hydrogen "x" is a real 1904 conjecture of Mendeleev's, later abandoned.
3. Dehmelt. facts.json says "Paul trap"; Dehmelt's lecture describes a Penning trap, and the stored time he cites is 10 months (Gabrielse 1985), not "three months" [web: research/files/dehmelt-1989-nobel-lecture.pdf; I confirmed the "10 months" line]. The lecture contains no claim of refuting uncertainty (my grep found none).
4. Boyd's own earlier page contradicts the essay. His 2001 "Refutation of Heisenburg Uncertainty Regarding Photons" says of the electron: "For these, the Uncertainty Relation holds" [read: research/files/boyd-wayback-heisenburg-refute.htm, line 22]. The essay (2002 or later) claims the opposite. Step 1 should note this.
5. Piggott. facts.json repeats "France", "half-inch", "statvolts", "grounded plate". Piggott's own 1920 article (transcription) gives 11 mm balls, about 500,000 volts, ground "can be entirely eliminated", about 1.25 s retention, and a Chicago address on his 1911 patent [web: rexresearch.com/piggott/piggott.htm]. Units: 500,000 statvolts = 1.5e8 V; 500,000 V = 1,668 statvolts (computed here). Boyd's own 2006 page says 400,000 statvolts.
6. "Planck's constant varies" (claim 7). The cited Webb et al., PRL 87, 091301 (2001) is a quasar-absorption-line study of the fine-structure constant alpha, with Delta-alpha/alpha = -0.72 +/- 0.18 x 10^-5 [web: https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0012539, https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.87.091301]. It is not a measurement of Planck's constant. Also ref 26 is Haisch-Rueda-Dobyns on inertia and the zero-point field, not a PEAR paper.

Mainstream baseline in brief (for the reader)

Gravity is described by general relativity (GR): mass-energy curves spacetime, and light follows the curved geometry. Tested by solar light bending (1.75 arcsec at the limb), Mercury's perihelion advance, Shapiro delay, gravitational redshift, gravitational waves. Light speed in vacuum is c, the same in all inertial frames; the 1887 Michelson-Morley null result and its modern successors fix this. The Heisenberg uncertainty relation, dx dp >= hbar/2, is a theorem about the spread of measurement outcomes of identically prepared systems, not a statement about disturbance by measurement alone. Bell-test violations plus the no-signalling theorem show that quantum correlations carry no usable information faster than light.

Claim 1: A real aether exists as a gas of extremely light, very fast "subquantum" (Zero Group) particles, as Mendeleev and Tesla described.

a. Mathematics. The essay gives none for this claim. It states properties: mass about 1e-8 H, v = 2.5e6 m/s, "negligible mass", "any velocity from zero to infinite", Planck's constant "perfectly vanished" for them. These are mutually inconsistent as a gas: kinetic velocity 2.5e6 m/s (0.8% of c) in one place, "superluminal expanding shells" in another. Internally the numbers fail the check above. [read: deep read; computed here] b. Experiment. Mendeleev's x was a conjecture, never detected, and the noble-gas zero group was filled with helium to radon, none lighter than hydrogen. A gas of 1e-6 u particles would be so light that the periodic table has no place for it: elements are defined by nuclear charge, and nothing lighter than hydrogen carries one. Modern limits on any preferred frame are in claim 4. [memory, high for the periodic table; Mendeleev text read via the Investigator's OCR] c. Tested. No detection by anyone is cited. The essay's Tesla evidence is secondary (Vassilatos); Boyd's own "Tesla" page is mostly a long quotation from Vassilatos, so Tesla's own texts do not appear [web: research/2026-10-04-wayback-rialian.md]. Replication: none found. d. If true. Special relativity's no-preferred-frame result would need an exact dynamical explanation (a Lorentz-ether form), and the Standard Model would need a new sector with particles of mass 1e-6 u (about 1e-33 kg) interacting with nothing detected. The ether idea is not logically excluded in the Lorentz form (Lorentz-ether theory is empirically equivalent to special relativity); what is excluded is a measurable ether wind. Verdict: Historically superseded but instructive (Mendeleev's 1904 conjecture, a reasonable guess for its time) for the historical part; Not testable as stated for the modern "subquantum gas" (no couplings, masses or cross-sections that could be measured; the properties are rewritten as needed). The essay's attribution to Mendeleev of 1e-8 and a 1869 date is wrong (see Correction 2).

Claim 2: Gravity and inertia are pressure effects of that gas (La Sage, Laplace); light bending is refraction in its density gradient, with no space-time curvature.

a. Mathematics. No derivation. The claim that La Sage "generates the same results as General Relativity using only 3-D geometry" is asserted [read]. Two checks I did: - Light bending. A refractive index n = 1 + 2GM/(rc^2) reproduces the 1.75 arcsec deflection (computed here: 4GM/(Rc^2) = 8.49e-6 rad = 1.75 arcsec; n-1 = 4.2e-6 at the limb). So the arithmetic of "refraction" can be matched. The essay supplies no profile or formula, so it neither matches nor fails this. - La Sage drag. A body moving at speed v through an isotropic flux of speed u meets a head-on excess, giving a drag of order F_grav x v/u (Poincare, Feynman's discussion, [memory, high]). For Earth: F_grav (Sun) = 3.5e22 N, v = 3e4 m/s. With the essay's u = 2.5e6 m/s, drag ~ 4e20 N and Earth's momentum would be lost in about 13 years (computed here, order of magnitude). Laplace avoided this by demanding u at least 1e7 c, which gives about 1.6e10 years (computed here), but that requires exactly the superluminal speeds the essay's "2.5e6 m/s gas" does not have. The two halves of the essay (a sub-light gas in claim 1, a superluminal flux here) are therefore not consistent with each other. A second classical objection: the flux has to be absorbed by matter to produce a shadow, which implies heating (Kelvin, Darwin, Poincare; [memory, high]). b. Experiment. GR passes: light bending at 1.75 arcsec to the percent level or better, Mercury, Shapiro delay, binary-pulsar orbital decay, LIGO waves [memory, high]. A gas refraction would be dispersive (depend on colour); measured solar deflection is the same in radio and optical to high precision (VLBI) [memory, high]. Gravitational redshift is not explained by refraction. None of these are addressed in the essay. "1935 eclipse experiments" are named without detail. c. Tested. The refraction-versus-curvature question was settled by multi-wavelength deflection and the pulsar/LIGO tests; the essay does not engage them. The proposed test (simultaneous light-speed and gravity-force measurement, correlated variation) is conditional and was never done by the author [read: deep read, prediction 1]. d. If true. GR's equivalence principle and gravitational-wave results would need re-explaining by a fluid, with an exact reproduction of GR's predictions. Note that "fluid analogue" models of gravity exist in the mainstream as analogies (analogue gravity), not as replacements. Verdict (split): the strong form (gravity is La Sage pressure of a fast gas, replacing GR) is Refuted by calculation (the drag estimate above, plus the essay's own inconsistent speeds) and Tested, not supported (dispersion-free deflection, binary pulsars). The weak form (refractive-index description of weak-field light bending) is Established as a mathematical equivalence for one observable, but is only a re-description of GR, not an alternative.

Claim 3: Fast positive electrostatic discharges above about 500,000 statvolts locally neutralise gravity (Piggott 1920), and Tesla transformers conduct aether, not electrons.

Two separable parts.

3A. Piggott levitation. a. Mathematics. None offered. The essay's 500,000 statvolts is 1.5e8 V, a unit slip by a factor of about 300 against Piggott's own "neighborhood of 500,000" volts [web: rexresearch]. At 1.5e8 V in air the field would exceed breakdown over any laboratory distance. b. Consistency. Piggott's own article reports a pressurised (3 atm) dried-air Wimshurst machine, silver balls 11 mm, objects settling about 25 cm from the field centre, a dark belt and a bluish aura of "darting particles", ground contact "can be entirely eliminated", about 1.25 s hover after stopping [web]. I checked magnitudes (computed here, rough): - A solid silver ball of 11 mm diameter has mass 7.3 g, not the "1.3 g" in the transcription (a mismatch to flag; hollow ball or transcription slip are both possible). - A conducting ball can hold at most q = 4 pi eps0 r^2 E_breakdown: 1.0e-8 C at air's 3e6 V/m, 3e-8 C at an assumed 9e6 V/m for 3 atm. Force qE at E ~ 2e6 V/m (500 kV over 25 cm) is about 0.02 to 0.06 N, against a weight of 0.072 N (7.3 g) or 0.013 N (1.3 g). So ordinary electrostatic force on a charged ball in a strong field is of the right order to lift a small ball; no gravity cancellation has to be invoked to get the magnitude. This is a bounded estimate, not a model of Piggott's apparatus. - Stable suspension in a static electric field is forbidden by Earnshaw's theorem (a static field with no charge in the region has no stable equilibrium) [memory, high], but corona ion wind, space charge and the oscillating field from a rotating Wimshurst machine break its assumptions. The report of oscillation before settling fits this. - The "remains suspended for quite some time" in the essay is 1.25 s in Piggott's own account, which is the discharge time of the residual charge plausibly. - Nothing in Piggott's text is a weight measurement; the effect is on small, light, charged objects, which is what electrostatics predicts. The essay's "mere presence of the grounded plate would have destroyed it" is contradicted by Piggott ("ground can be eliminated") and by Vassilatos (who says the opposite: no ground, no effect); the two secondary and primary accounts disagree with each other. c. Tested. Piggott's own demonstration (1920) is the only report found. No independent replication found; I did not find a negative or positive one. Not read yet: the original magazine scan (worldradiohistory, EE-1920-07.pdf), so the rexresearch transcription is unchecked. d. If true as claimed (gravity cancelled): conservation of energy and the equivalence principle would be at stake; but nothing here measures gravity. Verdict 3A: Never properly tested as a gravity effect (no weight measurement, no replication on record, no dismissal either); but the observation itself is Plausible, untested as conventional electrostatics/ion-wind levitation, and the quantitative order of magnitude above is consistent with that.

3B. Tesla coils conduct "aether", with 10,000 V per inch and no measurable current. a. Mathematics. A coil of length 10 in x 10,000 V/in = 100,000 V: the essay's own arithmetic holds. But "no current" is not what any circuit does: a capacitive or radiating load draws displacement current, and a voltage measured without a current measurement is just that. "Zero output when 180 degrees out of phase with incoming aether waves" has no numbers or frequency [read]. b. Consistency. Tesla-coil behaviour (resonant rise of voltage, skin effect, corona and displacement current) is explained by Maxwell's equations and circuit theory [memory, high]. 100 MV from a coil is a claim, not a documented measurement. c. Tested. Source is Vassilatos (secondary); Boyd's own Tesla page quotes Vassilatos; Correa's aetherometry claims related "massfree" radiation (an interested party's own characterization; no independent test found) [web: research notes]. No controlled replication known. d. If true. Maxwell's displacement-current accounting would need a second carrier with no mass or charge. Verdict 3B: Never properly tested (no measurement protocol, no data in the text); the current-free claim is Not testable as stated until "measurable" is defined.

Claim 4: Ether-drift experiments (Michelson-Morley records, Miller, Kehr, Silvertooth) show light-speed variations up to 3000 m/s and an aether entrained by Earth.

a. Mathematics. No derivation; the 3000 m/s figure is uncited. 3000 m/s is 1e-5 of c. Michelson-Morley measures a fringe shift, not c itself, and the 1887 shift was well under the expected 0.4 fringe (about 0.01 or less) [memory, high]. b. Consistency. Modern tests: cryogenic and optical resonator experiments exclude anisotropy of c at the 1e-17 level [web: Eisele, Nevsky, Schiller 2009, "Laboratory test of the isotropy of light propagation at the 10^-17 level", https://www.exphy.hhu.de/fileadmin/redaktion/Fakultaeten/Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche_Fakultaet/Physik/AG_Schiller/older_publications/Eisele_et_al_Laboratory_Test_of_the_Isotropy_of_Light_Propagation_at_the_10-17_Level_2009.pdf]. Since 1983 the metre is defined from c = 299,792,458 m/s [memory, high], so "variation in c" can only be tested through isotropy or clock comparisons, and those agree to 1e-17. Silvertooth's 378 km/s (toward Leo, his own report) rests on papers with no data graphs [web: Marett]. Marett's 2011-12 independent replication reproduced the 12-hour pattern then traced it to room-temperature changes in the laser beam angle, "only a very elaborate thermometer"; zero-null, sign and sidereal uniqueness were not reproduced [web: http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Silvertooth/Silvertooth.html]. Sherwin (1989) criticised the beam-twist path analysis [web via Marett]. Documented in one published web report by a researcher who hoped for a positive result; no second replication found. Miller (1933) reported an apparent drift of about 10 km/s; Shankland et al. (1955) re-analysed it as temperature effects [memory, medium; the Investigator listed this check as not reached; not web-verified here]. Related record: Michelson, Pease and Pearson 1935 found "strange, unexplained cyclic drifts" and a 22 km/s discrepancy between campaigns [web: otherhand.org Irvine Ranch page]. That is a real unresolved metrology discrepancy (a kilometre-scale baseline and instrument problem, 7e-5 of c), not an aether finding, and not the essay's 3000 m/s. Modern c measurements (laser frequency/wavelength, 1970s) have uncertainty near 4e-9 [memory, medium], far below 1e-5. c. Tested. Yes, at length and by many groups; the essay selects the four positive-reading sources. Kehr could not be read (reference only). d. If true. Special relativity's second postulate would need a preferred frame to be detectable at the 1e-5 level, 12 orders of magnitude above the current limit. Verdict: Tested, not supported (modern isotropy tests and the Marett replication). The 3000 m/s figure is Not testable as stated (no source). The Irvine-Ranch 22 km/s discrepancy stays in the record as an unexplained historical metrology difference.

Claim 5: Dehmelt's trapped electron, and a Boyd "proof" for monochromatic photons, refute Heisenberg uncertainty, so hidden variables exist.

a. Mathematics. The essay's step: "the location is fixed, so its momentum equals its rest mass". This is a category error. Momentum p = mv has units kg m/s; rest mass is kg (or rest energy mc^2 in J). A particle held fixed on average has mean momentum zero, not "equal to its rest mass", and a bound state has a spread in both. Worked bound: even a localisation of 1 micrometre forces dp >= hbar/(2 dx) = 5.3e-29 kg m/s, i.e. a velocity spread of at least 58 m/s for an electron (computed here). The trap confines on a scale of order micrometres or less, so uncertainty is not violated by an electron that is "stored" for months; storage time says nothing about dx dp. Boyd's photon "proof" (2001 page): wavelength, frequency, phase, momentum and position of a coherent monochromatic beam are claimed all known; position is limited only by emission-timer accuracy [read: research/files/boyd-wayback-heisenburg-refute.htm]. A monochromatic wave is a plane wave of infinite extent: its position is completely undefined (dx infinite), which is what dx dp >= hbar/2 allows. A finite pulse with timing known to 10 fs has a bandwidth of order 1/dt, so frequency/momentum are then no longer single-valued. The same page says explicitly that this argument fails for electrons. b. Consistency. Dehmelt's lecture (Penning trap; continuous Stern-Gerlach effect; electron stored 10 months) reports quantised cyclotron/axial/magnetron motions and spin flips, i.e. direct use of quantum mechanics including zero-point motion; no uncertainty claim [web: research/files/dehmelt-1989-nobel-lecture.pdf]. Quantitative tests of uncertainty-type relations (e.g. Heisenberg-Robertson bounds, ground-state cooling of trapped ions to the zero-point energy) support it [memory, high]. c. Tested. Uncertainty relations have been tested widely; refutation by the electron trap has no source other than the essay. Hidden variables: local hidden variables are excluded by Bell tests (Aspect 1982; loophole-free 2015 onwards) [memory, high]; the essay's own logic "these results imply local hidden variables exist" (from PEAR) reverses the conclusion of Bell tests. Bohmian mechanics, which the essay quotes, is a non-local hidden-variable theory fully consistent with the uncertainty relation in its predictions. d. If true. Quantum mechanics' Fourier structure would be false; all of spectroscopy and solid-state physics. Verdict: Refuted by calculation (the electron argument fails on units and on dx dp >= hbar/2 numbers; the monochromatic-photon argument is consistent with, not contrary to, the infinite-position-uncertainty of a plane wave). The Boyd contradiction (2001: uncertainty holds for electrons; 2002 essay: refuted for electrons) is kept in the record.

Claim 6: Superluminal subquantum particles carry quantum information; human attention and intention alter antenna patterns and the quantum potential (1999 Los Alamos paper, French follow-ups); Gariaev genetics.

a. Mathematics. None given. "Quantum potential" is Bohm's term for an extra term Q = -(hbar^2/2m)(div^2 R)/R in the Schrodinger equation written in polar form; it is a mathematical rewriting, not an independent field with a "divergence" to measure. b. Consistency. No-signalling: quantum correlations cannot transmit messages. A particle flow carrying the information superluminally would make signalling possible (as the essay's own quoted authors, Boerner, note), and would conflict with causality in special relativity. Bell tests exclude local hidden variables but not no-signalling [memory, high]. c. Tested. The key experimental claim is unsourced: no title, author or number for the 1999 "Los Alamos archive" paper or the "French" experiments, and three Google queries by the Investigator and Boyd's 2002 pages gave nothing [web: sites.md]. This is an absence worth analysing (sites.md lists competing explanations: withdrawn paper, moderation rejection, other host, misremembering; what would settle it: arXiv 1999-2000 withdrawn entries, the Quantum-Mind list, Sarfatti-group correspondence). I cannot say which applies; the claim has no checkable data. Gariaev's "wave genome" experiments, DePalma, PEAR: cited as references only; PEAR's work (small deviations in random-number generators correlated with intention) is a real body of data with a contested record and a closed lab (2007) [memory, medium; not web-checked]; its results are statistical effects of size around 1e-4 in bit probability, not antenna pattern shifts. Honest summary: reported by interested parties (Boyd, Gariaev group, Klein), with no independent replication found in this review. d. If true. Physical (not just statistical) mind-matter coupling at a measurable level, and signalling faster than light, with a rewrite of special relativity and information theory. Verdict: Never properly tested (the key experiment is unidentified; no neutral controlled test on record, and not dismissed after testing either). The superluminal-signalling element is Refuted by calculation only in the sense that it contradicts no-signalling; the essay gives no model that could be calculated. Antenna/consciousness: Not testable as stated until the experiment is identified.

Claim 7: A Klein-Gordon-type equation with free parameter K allows arbitrary particle masses; Planck's constant varies.

a. Mathematics. The equation as extracted: i d(theta)/d(r) = box theta, ansatz theta = exp(-iKr) lambda(x), giving K theta = box theta. With units c = hbar = 1 and K = m0^2 this is the Klein-Gordon equation (box + m^2) phi = 0 up to a sign convention. [read, extraction garbled; not seen as rendered image] Checks: - The ansatz step does work: i d/dr [exp(-iKr) lambda] = K exp(-iKr) lambda. So K theta = box theta follows from the (probably intended) first line. That algebra is consistent. - The sign: Klein-Gordon is (box + m^2) phi = 0 in one metric signature convention, so K theta = box theta needs box defined with the opposite sign; not decidable from the garbled text. - Content: the Klein-Gordon equation already allows any mass; m is a free parameter in standard theory, set by experiment. Letting K be arbitrary therefore adds nothing; "room for an infinite range of masses" is already true. The additional "order parameter r" resembles proper-time (Stueckelberg-Schwinger) parametrisations [memory, medium]. - Units: K has units of m^2 (inverse length squared) if box does; r then has length squared. The essay gives none, so the dimensions cannot be checked from the text. b. Planck's constant. The Webb et al. 2001 paper measures alpha = e^2/(4 pi eps0 hbar c) via quasar absorption lines: Delta-alpha/alpha = -0.72 +/- 0.18 x 10^-5 [web: arXiv astro-ph/0012539]. A change of alpha does not say which of e, hbar or c changed; only the dimensionless alpha is physical. Later, higher-precision observations have not confirmed the effect uniformly [memory, medium; not checked here]. So the essay's "it has been determined by experiment that Planck's constant is not a constant" is not what the cited paper says. Experiments in the lab keep h fixed to about 1e-8 (Kibble balance defines h exactly since 2019) [memory, high]. c. Tested. The equation: nothing to test. The Webb result: reported in a refereed journal, a 4-sigma claim awaiting confirmation (Physics Today's call as recorded by the Investigator). d. If true. Variation of alpha at 1e-5 over cosmic time is a significant claim for the Standard Model but does not require subquantum matter. Verdict (split): The Klein-Gordon step is Plausible, untested in the trivial sense (it is the standard equation with m free; nothing new is predicted). "Planck's constant varies" is Never properly tested as stated (the cited result bears on alpha, not h).

Investigator findings kept in the record (whatever the verdict)

• Mendeleev's 1904 text is primary evidence for a real historical ether-gas proposal, with different numbers from the essay [web].
• Piggott's own 1920 article (apparatus, ground, 1.25 s) and its drift through Vassilatos to Boyd (place "France", units, ground role, duration, threshold 400,000 vs 500,000 statvolts) [web].
• Silvertooth 1986-1992 (378 km/s, interested party's report), Marett 2011-12 replication tracing it to thermal drift, Sherwin 1989 critique [web].
• Michelson-Pease-Pearson 1935 unexplained cyclic drifts and the 22 km/s gap [web].
• Dehmelt lecture: 10 months, Penning trap, no uncertainty claim [web]; Boyd's 2001 reversal.
• Gelinas/Honeywell patent US 4,432,098 family on curl-free vector-potential signalling (a corporate assignee's description, assumes finite propagation speed) [web: Google Patents].
• Haisch-Rueda-Dobyns 2001 zero-point inertia (essay ref 26) and Webb 2001 (essay ref 30) are mis-described by the essay; both are real mainstream papers.
• The 1999 Los Alamos paper: missing from the record; competing explanations listed in sites.md.
• Boyd's later work with Klein, Christianto, Smarandache (2006-2023), the 2006 STG-IX submission whose "publication is pending", and Boyd's CV (an interested party's self-description; Los Alamos plasma test, NASA ranging, Project Greenglow, Gariaev staff 2004) are unread/unchecked by me.
• Not yet read by anyone: Piggott's magazine scan; Miller 1933 and Shankland 1955; Kehr; Vassilatos pp.252-253; the UNM 301-page book.

Web verification

Checked [web]: Webb 2001 content (arXiv astro-ph/0012539); Eisele et al. 2009 resonator limit 1e-17. Not checked within budget (so [memory] and flagged): Shankland 1955 re-analysis of Miller (medium); modern c measurement precision of about 4e-9 (medium); Kibble-balance redefinition of h (high); later alpha-variation results (medium); PEAR closure and effect size (medium). None of the verdicts depends on these alone.

Verdict summary