EXPERIMENT · MODE B

NEO 2019 OK Sub-Threshold Recovery

On July 25, 2019, Near-Earth Object 2019 OK passed Earth at a close approach distance of approximately 71,354 km with a relative velocity of about 24.53 km/s. The project's comparison reports a standard survey alert at t = −0.6 days. Detection thresholds and alert timing depend on the survey and its processing pipeline; the source survey and pipeline details are not identified here.

The project reports a sub-threshold audit time of t = −9.6 days. This is a reported benchmark, not an independently verified recovery: the underlying survey residuals, pipeline settings, and fitted coefficients are not included here.

Project-reported comparison of standard optical detection and an asymptotic phase filter
Project-reported detection comparison. The underlying survey residuals and analysis needed to reproduce it are not included here.

1 · The problem

Optical surveys use configured detection thresholds, and the handling of below-threshold observations depends on each instrument and reduction pipeline. Such residuals may warrant review, but their presence alone does not establish a recoverable target signal.

Parameter Value Status tag
Close approach distance d_min ≈ 71,354 km Frame-Conditioned
Relative velocity v_rel ≈ 24.53 km/s Frame-Conditioned
Project-stated survey threshold SNR > 5.0 Frame-Conditioned
Standard alert epoch t = −0.6 days Frame-Conditioned

2 · The sub-threshold recovery method

The proposed workflow audits archived survey residuals and applies the framework's four-step protocol. Whether below-threshold observations are retained, filtered, or otherwise processed depends on the source survey and its pipeline.

Step 1 — Pure geometric initialization

Establish the dimensionless invariants that govern the recovery: apex angle θ = 70.5288°, viewer cone S₊ = 1/3, inverse cone S₋ = 2/3, boundary partition ratio 2.000000.

Step 2 — Empirical boundary pinning

A reproducible audit would declare the survey's cadence, exposure, passband, and residual noise model. Those survey-specific inputs are not fully documented on this page.

Step 3 — Thermodynamic aperture coupling

Apply the calibration that maps the declared survey frame onto the geometric engine. The relevant sub-threshold band is defined below the standard SNR threshold.

Step 4 — Operational mode execution

The proposed audit defines a negative-space residual by comparing measurements with a predicted background:

\[ S_{\text{negative}}(t) = S_{\text{measured}}(t) - S_{\text{predicted}}(t), \]

Here, Spredicted(t) would represent a synthetic background model incorporating known stellar, atmospheric, and instrumental baselines. Its construction and validation are not documented here.

The project proposes fitting a temporal sequence of sub-threshold residuals against a zero-mode fold trajectory:

\[ S_{\text{negative}}(t) = A_Q (t - t_*)^{1/2} + B_Q (t - t_*), \]

where t* is the critical approach epoch, AQ is the zero-mode expansion coefficient, and BQ accounts for linear background drift.

3 · Coherent temporal integration

To lift weak perturbations out of discarded noise floors, the audit performs coherent temporal integration across N sub-threshold image frames. The net cross-correlation signal accumulates as:

\[ \mathrm{SNR}_{\text{net}} = \sqrt{\sum_{k=1}^{N} \mathrm{SNR}_k^2}. \]

Even when individual frames exhibit sub-threshold significance (SNRk < 1.0), coherent phase integration along the proposed square-root trajectory Snegative(t) could be tested for accumulated signal. The project reports a 5σ result, but the per-frame data and analysis needed to assess that significance are not supplied here.

4 · The result

The project reports the following comparison with standard intensity-threshold processing. These values have not been independently verified against the underlying survey data.

Detection metric Standard optical survey (reported) Reported sub-threshold audit Difference / note
Detection epoch (t) t = −0.6 days t = −9.6 days +9.0 days by subtraction of the reported epochs
Separately reported lead-time gain — +9.2 days Does not match the listed detection epochs
Required threshold Frame SNR > 5.0 Integrated 5σ via SNR_net Reported; not independently verified
Data source Active photon spikes Sub-threshold noise floors Archive and processing details not supplied
Operational warning < 24 hours > 230 hours Operational implications not established

The listed epochs differ by 9.0 days, while the project also reports a +9.2-day lead-time gain. This discrepancy must be resolved, and the underlying data and analysis made available, before either value can be treated as an established operational gain.

5 · Search coordinates

The proposed audit output is a search trajectory for reviewing archival residuals. It is a method specification, not evidence that a signal has been found in a particular dataset.

Proposed review field Content
Target dataset Sub-threshold optical survey residuals (SNR < 1.0)
Target coordinate trajectory Snegative(t) = AQ(t − t*)1/2 + BQ(t − t*)
Proposed review Test whether archived optical survey residuals contain a reproducible pattern consistent with the proposed zero-mode fold trajectory. Any candidate recovery would require validation against the source data and the survey's processing pipeline.

6 · Datasets and reproduction

Archive Used for Access
NASA JPL Horizons · CNEOS NEO 2019 OK orbital state vectors ssd.jpl.nasa.gov ↗
Archival optical survey residuals Sub-threshold frames used for integration Survey and archive not identified in this report

7 · Verification requirements

To establish an improvement in early warning, an independent review would need the named survey, archival residuals, pipeline settings, fitted parameters, and a reproducible analysis. The difference between t = −0.6 days and t = −9.6 days is arithmetic on reported values; it does not by itself verify a detection.

The framework's contribution is presented here as a proposed audit method. Geometric closure does not demonstrate empirical recovery; claims about signal detection and warning time require independent validation against the source data.

Cross-references