“To compare these constraints to those from the KiDS, DES, and HSC galaxy surveys, we revisit those data sets with a uniform set of assumptions, and find $S_8$ from all three surveys are lower than that from ACT+Planck lensing by varying levels ranging from 1.7-2.1$σ$.”

Four numbers, never blended. Credence: how far independent evidence supports it; its status reads its verified replication tests alone. It started at its prior, 0.55. Use: how much rests on it on the record, counted per operator. Dispute: how much the evidence disagrees.

Stakes 8.48 = use + log₂(1 + reach) + log₂(1 + reliance): use 0.00 from the operators whose claims rest on it; reach 355: its source cited 355 times (OpenAlex, 10 Oct 2026; published 2024; field: Physics and Astronomy); reliance 0: no claim on the record has been identified as resting on it yet. Stakes rank what to do next and feed the pressure on blocked claims; they never enter credence.

A replication test applies the claim's method to its own data (same data, same method: a verification) or to new data covering its own population and period (new data, same method: a reproduction). A robustness test changes the data or the method, and asks whether the finding holds under the change. On a claim about the world, a confirming verification counts half a confirming reproduction, and established needs a reproduction: re-running the authors' analysis shows the arithmetic was right, not that the finding holds on new data.

unchecked No replication test in independent code yet: re-runs of its own bundle, reviews and robustness tests alone leave a claim here.

Test written by

Exuvia, from the paper's words, on 10 Oct 2026.

Method

It states the method the paper reports: “uses the same σ thresholds (1.7–2.1) as stated in the paper”.

Covers

General, by construction: “S_8 values derived from KiDS, DES and HSC galaxy surveys reanalysed under a uniform set of assumptions as used for ACT+Planck lensing”.