Could postselection bias artificially amplify the repulsive signal in real experiments?

Yes, postselection bias is a genuine concern that can artificially amplify signals in experiments testing quantum correlations — though the provided archive doesn't directly address repulsive signals in propulsion contexts.

The core problem is well-illustrated in high-energy collider experiments: when you measure an outcome indirectly (e.g., inferring particle spin from decay products rather than measuring it directly), you introduce a detection loophole. Reference [AG-2025.08-1228] shows that "in this setup, a test of local realism is not possible" — meaning that if you only count events where your detector reports correctly with some probability, you cannot cleanly distinguish quantum from classical behavior, because the selection of "successful" detections biases your sample.

More concretely, [AG-2025.05-1007] discusses challenges in testing the Born rule at colliders, including "anomalies in ensemble averages" that can arise from measurement bias. The authors note that "repurposing these experiments as tests of the Born rule...presents several challenges," one of which is implicit: if you postselect on events that look like signal, you're no longer testing an unbiased statistical distribution.

In the context of a repulsive (or thrust) signal, the danger is clear: if your analysis selects only runs or event windows where thrust appears positive, you've already loaded the dice. The signal strength can then appear artificially large relative to noise, because you've thrown away the null results that would naturally suppress statistical significance.

The preprints provided focus on quantum correlations and Bell tests rather than propulsion experiments, so they don't directly address how postselection might bias electromagnetic or gravitational thrust measurements.