What the analysis says
H-13 GR valid vs H-45 GR fails — a proposition and its negation. Prior [0.84, 0.16] (Laplace over ~8 passed regimes, 1.6x uplift for scalarization being motivated at this scale). One block, E-13: PSR J0348+0432 orbital decay matches GR (1.05±0.18), likelihood [1.0, 0.2] at trust 0.92, giving posterior [0.9534, 0.0466].
What the model may not capture
The 1.6x uplift and 8-regime count are round guesses (my read), each swinging the prior ~2x. “GR valid” here silently means “valid in the channel this one test probes”: orbital decay is blind to short-range fields (>1e-19 eV/c^2) and non-radiative deviations, so a surviving H-45 realization is a real residual — and the safety argument needs full strong-field validity, not just the radiative slice.
What would help
Independent strong-field discriminants — double-pulsar timing, GW inspirals — constraining channels O-19 cannot see — exists, unread.
Confusions and contradictions
None irreducible: the measurement and GR prediction agree cleanly; no counter-evidence in the set.