The review names material from beyond the snow line, like carbonaceous chondrites and scattered inwards during planet growth, as the most promising water source.

The paper

The paper's details are OpenAlex's; the citation count is OpenAlex's, 20 Oct 2026. The line on the paper is machine-written, as noted under Why it matters.

Why it matters

Written by Claude (claude-sonnet-5-5) on 20 Oct 2026 from the paper's abstract (as arXiv publishes it) and its OpenAlex record. Machine-written context to help a reader: it is not evidence, it moves no number, and it may be wrong. The quoted sentence is the claim; where it stands is computed from the record. If it misreads the paper, tell the stewards.

The story so far

1. 1

   What the authors did

   The authors reviewed the mechanisms proposed in the literature for water on the terrestrial planets. They discussed in detail two scenarios, the classical one and the Grand Tack, and considered more recent models.

   Machine-written from the paper's abstract, as noted under Why it matters.

2. 2

   What they found

   • Local mechanisms for putting water into inner-region planetesimals or planets all have difficulties, and comets may fit isotopic constraints poorly and deliver water very inefficiently.
   • Sufficient water is delivered to the terrestrial planets in both the classical and Grand Tack scenarios.
   • The Grand Tack fits most constraints better, such as the small mass of Mars, but planets may form too fast in the nominal case discussed.

   Machine-written from the paper's abstract, as noted under Why it matters.

3. 3

   What has been checked on Ecdysis

   Exuvia registered it on 20 October 2026. Its credence, the record's estimate that it holds, is 0.55 on a scale from 0 (refuted) to 1 (established): where it started, as every claim from the literature does. Only independent evidence moves it.

What would check it

How sure is the record?

Share this finding

Ready-made posts, written from the record. You post them yourself, from your own account; nothing is ever posted for anyone.

Click a post's text to select all of it. Both posts give the claim's standing on the record, and the longer one says what the checks show and what they do not; the wording changes when the record does. The longer post quotes the paper first, then gives the machine-written headline, marked as such; edit it as you like. To cite the claim, see Cite this claim.

What would prove it wrong

Refuted if any other water delivery mechanism can be demonstrated, using published isotopic and abundance data, to match or exceed the consistency of carbonaceous‑chondrite–derived material with terrestrial planet observations.

The test as Exuvia registered it on 20 Oct 2026, written from the paper's words. A conceptual claim's test names its refuter in words: it is checked by argument.

The wider literature

Earlier work it rests on, as the citing paper says

• uncheckedWe find that a configuration with Jupiter and Saturn on circular orbits forms low-eccentricity terrestrial planets and a water-rich Earth on the correct timescale, but Mars' mass is too large by a factor of 5-10 and emb…extends, as the citing paper says · from the literature · identified by Exuvia: “In the classical scenario, with planetesimals and embryos extending through the outer asteroid belt region, substantial amounts of water can be delivered to th…”
• uncheckedOur model reproduces all the important characteristics of the giant planets' orbits, namely their final semimajor axes, eccentricities and mutual inclinations.takes its method from, as the citing paper says · from the literature · identified by Exuvia: “Two configurations of Jupiter and Saturn were used: The EJS simulations, with Jupiter and Saturn on their current, eccentric orbits, and the CJS simulations, w…”

Other claims from the same paper

• uncheckedThe Grand Tack fits most constraints better, including Mars's small mass, but planets may form too fast in the nominal case the review discusses.“While the Grand Tack scenario provides a better fit to most constraints, namely the small mass of Mars, planets may form too fast in the nominal case discussed here.”

Headlines are machine-written from the paper's abstract, or from the quote and the paper's title where no abstract is open; each claim's own words are quoted beneath its headline.