Material that was worked up for Uranium-Series Dating of Corals and Speleothems and is not printed in the article, because it could not be verified. Nothing here is deleted. Rejecting a claim from publication and erasing it from the record are different decisions.
"The Devils Hole record extends to about 570,000 years (Winograd et al. 2006)"
Where it came from. The research dossier at research/_brief.md §5c carried a row in its acceleration-factor table reading "Devils Hole extended (Winograd 2006) | 570,000 yr | K = 127," flagged in §7 as "Not located. The exact citation still needs pinning down before the 570 kyr figure in §5c is used."
What was tried, 30 August 2026. A Crossref bibliographic query for Winograd Devils Hole Quaternary Research 2006 returned 10.1016/j.yqres.2006.06.003. The full Crossref record for that DOI was fetched as JSON and read locally. It is Winograd, Landwehr, Coplen, Sharp, Riggs, Ludwig and Kolesar, "Devils Hole, Nevada, δ¹⁸O record extended to the mid-Holocene," Quaternary Research 66 (2006): 202–212, and its abstract opens: "The mid-to-late Pleistocene Devils Hole δ¹⁸O record has been extended from 60,000 to 4500 yr ago." A PubMed search for the same terms returned zero records.
Verdict. That paper extends the record toward the present, not into the deeper past. It does not support a 570,000-year Devils Hole chronology, and the dossier's row misattributed the figure. The row has been dropped from the article's table, which now runs from the 500,000-year DH-11 record of Winograd et al. 1992 straight to the 641,300-year Sanbao/Hulu composite of Cheng et al. 2016.
What would resolve it. A published Devils Hole chronology reaching about 570 ka may well exist; it was simply not found. Candidates to check are the DH-11 open-file data release (USGS Open-File Report 97-792, "Data from Devils Hole Core DH-11") and later Winograd or Landwehr papers. Until somebody reads one of them, no 570 kyr figure should appear in this article.
Edwards et al. 1997: the per-sample ²³¹Pa versus ²³⁰Th residuals
What is missing. The article quotes the word "identical" from the publisher abstract of Edwards, Cheng, Murrell and Goldstein, Science 276 (1997): 782–786. The sample-by-sample agreement in years and per cent is in that paper's tables, and the full text was not obtained.
What was tried. science.org behind a paywall and a registered-reader account; OpenAlex, which lists no open-access location; Semantic Scholar, which reports the record CLOSED. The publisher abstract was obtained verbatim as raw text from the NCBI E-utilities API, PMID 9115200.
Why it matters. The article's bound on ²³⁰Th versus ²³¹Pa differential acceleration is stated as "roughly the per-cent level," derived indirectly from the ²³⁰Th analytical precision that Fairbanks et al. publish. With the Edwards tables in hand it could be stated as a real number, the same way the δ²³⁴U bound is. This is the single most valuable item still missing from this article.
Also missing, for the same reason: Chiu, Fairbanks, Mortlock et al., "Redundant ²³⁰Th/²³⁴U/²³⁸U, ²³¹Pa/²³⁵U and ¹⁴C dating of fossil corals for accurate radiocarbon age calibration," Quaternary Science Reviews 25 (2006): 2431–2440, which carries paired-age tables. ScienceDirect is paywalled; ldeo.columbia.edu/~tcchiu/publications.html returns empty to curl; the open directory rainbow.ldeo.columbia.edu/~alexeyk/Papers/ holds only the two Fairbanks papers. A browser route with bin/cdp-fetch.py has not been tried.
The young-earth rejection-rate figure that does not exist
The claim that could not be made. The article says that no source reports what fraction of analysed corals and speleothems fail the δ²³⁴U window, the X-ray diffraction screen and the Pa/Th concordance check. That is a negative finding from the sources obtained, not a proof that no such figure has been published. If somebody finds one, the "Where the young-earth case is strongest" section changes.
Young-earth books not obtained
Snelling, Earth's Catastrophic Past (2009), and Woodmorappe, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods (1999). An archive.org advanced search on both titles returned zero items. Neither the openlibrary.org per-item full-text search, the Answers in Genesis store, nor the ICR store was tried. The article's claim that the young-earth literature has not engaged this method rests on a documented set of searches, and if either book contains a real critique of U-series carbonate dating, that section is wrong.
Manning versus Oard on the speleothem series, Journal of Creation 34(2):52–53 — identified, not obtained
What it is. The contents listing for Journal of Creation 34(2) (August 2020) carries, at pages 52–53, "Rapid growth of caves and speleothems — Letter from Arthur Manning. REPLY: Michael J. Oard." Arthur Manning published two Hamilton Cave papers in Journal of Creation 21(2) (2007), so this is a cave specialist inside the young-earth movement disputing, in print, the exact three-part Oard series the article cites.
Why it is worth having. Creationist-on-creationist criticism of a source this article leans on is worth more than any external critique, in both directions. If Manning's objection is about dating rather than growth rates, the article's claim that the young-earth engagement is thin gets weaker and should be revised. If it is about growth rates, it belongs beside the Silvestru/Oard contradiction the article already identifies.
Routes tried, all failed. Five direct PDF paths under creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j34_2/ — j34_2_52-53.pdf, j34_2_52-54.pdf, j34_2_51-53.pdf, j34_2_52.pdf, j34_2_53.pdf — each returns 14 bytes of "Page not found." The site's Meilisearch index, queried for the exact title, returns the three Oard parts and the Cox feedback but no letter. On 30 August 2026 the Wayback Machine CDX API was queried on the creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/ prefix, which returns thousands of captures for early volumes; a prefix query on creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j34_2/ returns zero captures, and so do j33_1, j34_1, j34_3 and j35_1. The Wayback Machine holds no captures of any recent Journal of Creation volume PDF directory, so that route is exhausted rather than untried.
What would resolve it. The print issue, or CMI's paid Journal of Creation subscriber archive. Nothing from this item is quoted or paraphrased in the article, and the article's claims about the young-earth literature are stated with this gap acknowledged.