How did you or Angus McCallum happen on this error? And before that, why had it been missed if it was so fundamental by the referees and so forth?

I can answer the first question better than the second one.

Angus had the patience to go through the whole thing, and it turned out it wasn't it.

This particular one, unlike all the big coding errors, wasn't hidden in the code.

It was right there written out.

in the supplement what they required, and you could read that they just didn't require these two features of their favored hypothesis that they required of the unfavored one.

Who knows if I even read the supplement that carefully.

Before we get further into that, do you want to describe the specific pieces of evidence that they left out of one likelihood, but included in the other likelihood?