P88 independent-instrument 2x2 -- a COVERAGE measurement, not yet a Gaia-vs-TESS crossmatch (period-matched orbits: 0)

Reproduce: npm run p88:independent-corroboration -- --pos 8 --neg 10 --tmag 12

Headline (read first): 0 of 17 hosts had a Gaia orbit ON the candidate period, so this run measured INDEPENDENT-INSTRUMENT COVERAGE (Gaia data present for 6/17) -- NOT a Gaia-vs-TESS period crossmatch. With 0 period matches the two datasets never actually intersected, so the 2x2 is all-zeros BY CONSTRUCTION. The honest read is "safe but under-powered", never "Gaia agrees/disagrees"; discoveryClaim false.

Gaia (a different satellite) is asked, for 7 confirmed planets (must keep) and 10 labelled FP/EB blends (should veto): does its two-body orbit / RV series independently corroborate a stellar-mass companion on the candidate's period?

Independent Gaia data present for 6/17 hosts; an orbit on the candidate period for 0.

• veto power (blends Gaia corroborates): 0.00 [0,0.2775401687666166] (LOWER bound -- most hosts have no Gaia orbit)
• false-veto (real planets Gaia brands an EB): 0 of 7 (0.000) -- any > 0 disqualifies
• AUC (orbit RV semi-amplitude, period-matched cases): n/a

VERDICT: safeToGate = false. zero false vetoes but veto power 0.00 (95% low 0.00) is below target 0.5 / not above chance 0.5 -- safe but under-powered

Independent-instrument corroboration is a genuine second opinion (not TESS re-reading its own pixels); but at this coverage it can only EXCLUDE blends it has an orbit for, so its catch-rate is a lower bound and a single false veto on a known planet keeps it out of the money/verdict path. research-only; discoveryClaim false; nothing here is anchored, gated, or deployed.