What experimental design could distinguish a real repulsive effect from an artifact created purely by throwing away null results?

This is a sharp question about experimental epistemology—how to tell a real physical effect from a statistical mirage created by selective reporting of "successful" runs.

The preprints provided don't directly address artifact rejection or experimental design principles for distinguishing real from spurious effects. However, the two quantum gravity papers [AG-2026.02-534, AG-2026.02-268] do illuminate a related problem: they describe a genuine (if subtle) repulsive gravitational signal *conditional on postselection*—a procedure that naturally raises exactly your concern.

Here's the key distinction these papers implicitly draw:

A real effect from postselection:

When you prepare a source mass in a spatial superposition and then *postselect* on finding it in a specific state, the probe mass experiences repulsion [AG-2026.02-534]. This is not an artifact. It's a genuine quantum-mechanical consequence of weak values and spacetime superposition—the repulsion exists in the *conditional* statistics. Classically, gravity cannot repel; quantum interference makes it happen here [AG-2026.02-268].

Why this isn't just throwing away null results:

The postselection is *predetermined* (you commit to a measurement outcome before analyzing data), and the repulsive effect should appear with a calculable strength in the conditioned dataset. You don't hunt through many possible post-hoc splits of your data and report whichever subset looks best.

How to distinguish real from artifact in general:

1. Pre-register your selection criterion before data collection (e.g., "we will postselect on spin state X").

2. Calculate the expected signal size and statistical power under your null and alternative hypotheses.

3. **Report the *fraction* of data you discard and verify it matches theory.

4. Use an independent dataset to validate that the effect reproduces at the predicted size—not just that it's present.

5. Control for correlated noise** by running a physically identical "null" measurement (same apparatus, different configuration expected to yield no signal) in parallel.

The antimatter gravity paper [AG-2025.04-1363] offers a cautionary tale from the opposite angle: the ALPHA experiment's null result (antihydrogen falls) was so strong it rules out 1*g* repulsion to 10^−15^ confidence—yet the authors argue composite versus elementary particles might behave differently. This shows why effect *size* and *mechanism specificity* matter.

Finally, [AG-2025.02-1332] is the clearest example of artifact rejection: Parkhomov reported sporadic decay-rate spikes correlated with the sky orientation; the replication found none, using signal *and control* detectors in parallel. No fancy postselection—just honest controls.

None of these papers directly explain a general experimental framework for artifact rejection, so you may need to consult methodological literature on selective reporting and pre-registration in quantum experiments.