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

This is an excellent methodological question, and the archive speaks directly to it.

The core problem you're identifying is selection bias: if experimenters unconsciously discard null results or cherry-pick favorable outcomes, a genuine signal can be faked. How do you tell the difference?

The postselection trap

Papers [AG-2026.02-534] and [AG-2026.02-268] describe a repulsive gravitational effect that arises *only* when you postselect (condition on) a specific measurement outcome of the source mass. This is exactly where artifact risk is highest. The effect only appears in the subset of trials where postselection succeeds—which sounds like throwing away data [AG-2026.02-534]. The key insight from [AG-2026.02-268] is that this isn't garden-variety selection bias: the effect requires quantum interference between two gravitational configurations, something a classical field cannot produce. But how would you know you're seeing interference, not just lucky filtering?

Three experimental safeguards

1. Pre-registered prediction windows. Before running the experiment, specify the exact postselection criterion and measurement range in which you expect the effect. This prevents "we saw repulsion in the data, so let's define postselection to capture it." [AG-2024.03-1268] emphasizes how the "Look Elsewhere Effect"—finding significance by searching many possible cuts in a dataset—inflates false positives. The cure is to declare your selection rule *a priori*. If you observe repulsion only where you predicted, in the predicted magnitude range, the artifact hypothesis weakens.

2. Measure the postselection rate. Record what fraction of trials satisfy your postselection condition. If the effect is real, this rate should be stable and match theoretical prediction. If an experimenter is unconsciously biasing which trials to keep, the rate will fluctuate or mysteriously improve over time. [AG-2026.02-268] sketches feasibility parameters (masses, timescales); the postselection success rate is part of that prediction and becomes a null-check on honesty.

3. Test on a control system. Run the same measurement protocol on a system where repulsion is impossible—e.g., two attractive classical masses. If you still find "repulsion" in the postselected subset, you've discovered an artifact. This directly addresses the "null results thrown away" worry: a real effect should vanish in a genuine null case, while an artifact (biased data selection) might persist.

Why quantum interference matters

The deeper answer: [AG-2026.02-268] argues that repulsion here is a *signature of quantumness*—it requires interference of two distinct gravitational paths. A purely classical artifact (like unconsciously keeping favorable trials) cannot produce quantum interference. So if you measure that interference explicitly—via the phase relationship between the two gravitational configurations—you've moved beyond postselection artifacts into a regime where the mechanism itself rules out classical trickery. This would require measuring the weak values [AG-2026.02-534] independently, not just the final force.

---

The provided papers don't discuss formal statistical tests for distinguishing real effects from selection bias in detail, though [AG-2024.05-1213] outlines modern hypothesis-testing methods for high-dimensional data that could be adapted to this problem.