{"schemaVersion":"1.0","revision":"fa961ab24277a91737c3","article":{"id":"scwiki-i","topicId":"scwiki-topic-i","code":"I","slug":"experimental-methods","publicationKind":"handbook","title":"Experimental methods for superconductivity","summary":"A practical evidence guide to fifteen probes and preparation methods: what each measures, which assumptions it needs, and what it cannot establish alone.","aliases":["experimental techniques","ARPES STM STS INS RIXS NMR muSR TDTS IR DAC MBE PLD XRD","superconductivity measurement methods","实验技术","实验方法","中子散射","隧穿谱","太赫兹光谱","比热测量"],"evidenceTypes":["experiment","theory","hypothesis"],"relatedCodes":["A1","A3","A9","E1","E5","D11","H4"],"editorialStatus":"scoped-check","contentState":"pilot","modifiedAt":"2026-10-18T19:18:40.677339+00:00","review":{"checkedAt":"2026-10-19","scope":"Fifteen individually mapped experimental methods. New Ament RIXS, Brandt vortex-variance and Sonier magnetism/disorder selected readings; named existing probe checks reused with original limits; independent lattice-sum and Gaussian-response calculations.","limitations":["Complete scientific acceptance remains open.","The fixed planning source identifies scope; it is not scientific evidence or a laboratory operating manual.","Author-final comparisons, full supplements, raw data and instrument calibrations remain incomplete for named sources.","No new experimental transition records are inferred from method examples or synthetic models."]},"provenance":{"repository":"JackZH26/jzis-superconductivity","commit":"0a7c9d6696804ec26aa12f8eed68b55c9b3c0fcf","path":"02_BATCH_2_IN_PLAN.md","sha256":"502293e5ed2fe8463b61a6c5b78a2c33bc33f3265bd36fe534fa2c469e42ff48","sourceId":"file-49326006ac2c2636"},"sourceMap":[{"startLine":1,"endLine":31,"targetSections":[],"decision":"planning-only-not-republished","note":"Planning context is not scientific evidence."},{"startLine":32,"endLine":32,"targetSections":["i1"],"decision":"new-research-for-approved-handbook-item","note":"Approved scope item retained; method explanation is newly authored from separately cited primary sources."},{"startLine":33,"endLine":33,"targetSections":["i2"],"decision":"new-research-for-approved-handbook-item","note":"Approved scope item retained; method explanation is newly authored from separately cited primary sources."},{"startLine":34,"endLine":34,"targetSections":["i3"],"decision":"new-research-for-approved-handbook-item","note":"Approved scope item retained; method explanation is newly authored from separately cited primary sources."},{"startLine":35,"endLine":35,"targetSections":["i4"],"decision":"new-research-for-approved-handbook-item","note":"Approved scope item retained; method explanation is newly authored from separately cited primary sources."},{"startLine":36,"endLine":36,"targetSections":["i5"],"decision":"new-research-for-approved-handbook-item","note":"Approved scope item retained; method explanation is newly authored from separately cited primary sources."},{"startLine":37,"endLine":37,"targetSections":["i6"],"decision":"new-research-for-approved-handbook-item","note":"Approved scope item retained; method explanation is newly authored from separately cited primary sources."},{"startLine":38,"endLine":38,"targetSections":["i7"],"decision":"new-research-for-approved-handbook-item","note":"Approved scope item retained; method explanation is newly authored from separately cited primary sources."},{"startLine":39,"endLine":39,"targetSections":["i8"],"decision":"new-research-for-approved-handbook-item","note":"Approved scope item retained; method explanation is newly authored from separately cited primary sources."},{"startLine":40,"endLine":40,"targetSections":["i9"],"decision":"new-research-for-approved-handbook-item","note":"Approved scope item retained; method explanation is newly authored from separately cited primary sources."},{"startLine":41,"endLine":41,"targetSections":["i10"],"decision":"new-research-for-approved-handbook-item","note":"Approved scope item retained; method explanation is newly authored from separately cited primary sources."},{"startLine":42,"endLine":42,"targetSections":["i11"],"decision":"new-research-for-approved-handbook-item","note":"Approved scope item retained; method explanation is newly authored from separately cited primary sources."},{"startLine":43,"endLine":43,"targetSections":["i12"],"decision":"new-research-for-approved-handbook-item","note":"Approved scope item retained; method explanation is newly authored from separately cited primary sources."},{"startLine":44,"endLine":44,"targetSections":["i13"],"decision":"new-research-for-approved-handbook-item","note":"Approved scope item retained; method explanation is newly authored from separately cited primary sources."},{"startLine":45,"endLine":45,"targetSections":["i14"],"decision":"new-research-for-approved-handbook-item","note":"Approved scope item retained; method explanation is newly authored from separately cited primary sources."},{"startLine":46,"endLine":46,"targetSections":["i15"],"decision":"new-research-for-approved-handbook-item","note":"Approved scope item retained; method explanation is newly authored from separately cited primary sources."},{"startLine":47,"endLine":177,"targetSections":[],"decision":"planning-only-not-republished","note":"Remaining approved items retain separate treatment; no inferred permission."}],"corrections":[],"equationChecks":[{"targetSectionId":"i6","tex":"\\langle\\delta B^2\\rangle\\simeq0.00371\\Phi_0^2/\\lambda^4","check":"Independent triangular reciprocal-lattice sum through cutoff540 converges0.0037107353;36GaussianFouriercases and4extra-broadening examples. Restricted idealized limits, not fullGLsolution or materialfit."}],"references":[{"id":"source-a95bcf0cb2681557","doi":"10.1038/nmat3648","title":"Phase diagram and electronic indication of high-temperature superconductivity at 65 K in single-layer FeSe films","year":2013,"url":"https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat3648","publicationStatus":"journal-article","verification":{"scope":"selected-author-ARPES-annealing-and-figure","checkedAt":"2026-10-19","evidenceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.6823v1","note":"Authorv1 submitted30July2012; related journal2013. Selectedpp3–8,p13caption,p14Figure3 visually checked. Symmetrized EDC gaps and BCS-form fits; annealing sequence10~40K/10meV versus15~65K/19meV. Two-degenerate-sheet carrier-count assumption, nonrigid changes; single-layer transport/magnetism described as underway. Full final/SI/temperaturecalibration review open."}},{"id":"source-07213acd01bb9b90","doi":"10.1038/nphys1021","title":"Charge-density-wave origin of cuprate checkerboard visualized by scanning tunnelling microscopy","year":2008,"url":"https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys1021","publicationStatus":"journal-article","verification":{"scope":"selected-final-methods-and-figure-check","checkedAt":"2026-10-19","evidenceUrl":"https://info.phys.tsinghua.edu.cn/wang/publications/CDW-Nature%20Physics.pdf","note":"Published 6 July 2008. Final pp.696–697 read; Figures1–2 on p.697 visually checked. Actual specimen is Pb/La-substituted Bi2201; Na-CCOC is cited prior work. Complete raw maps and quantitative fits not reproduced."}},{"id":"source-716c338ddfa726d3","doi":"10.1038/nature07625","title":"Unconventional superconductivity in Ba0.6K0.4Fe2As2 from inelastic neutron scattering","year":2008,"url":"https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07625","publicationStatus":"journal-article","verification":{"scope":"selected-final-neutron-methods-and-figures-check","checkedAt":"2026-10-19","evidenceUrl":"https://epubs.stfc.ac.uk/manifestation/3900/nature07625.pdf","note":"Final printed pp. 930–931 selected methods/results; p. 931 Figures 2–4 visually checked. Polycrystalline K-doped sample, MERLIN energies, vanadium normalization, 7 K/50 K and integration windows distinguished. Resonance excess fades near the transition; finite background remains. Full synthesis supplement, raw detector counts and a unique phase assignment are not independently verified."}},{"id":"source-928e43733f244912","doi":"10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.117003","title":"Theoretical Demonstration of How the Dispersion of Magnetic Excitations in Cuprate Compounds can be Determined Using Resonant Inelastic X-Ray Scattering","year":2009,"url":"https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.117003","publicationStatus":"journal-article","verification":{"checkedAt":"2026-10-19","scope":"selected-final-selection-rule-and-figure-check","evidenceUrl":"https://www.ifw-dresden.de/uploads/users/59/uploads/publications/PRL_103_117003.pdf","note":"Final published 11 September 2009. Selected main text pp.117003-1–4; Figure1 and symmetry argument on p2 visually checked. Local tetragonal Cu d9, spin orientation, polarization, L/M versus K edge and ultrashort-core-hole expansion retained. Full matrix-element and spin-wave spectra not independently reproduced."}},{"id":"source-c7f8b99a795aba41","doi":"10.1038/s41586-019-1596-2","title":"Constraints on the superconducting order parameter in Sr2RuO4 from oxygen-17 nuclear magnetic resonance","year":2019,"url":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1596-2","publicationStatus":"journal-article","verification":{"scope":"author-manuscript-scoped-check","checkedAt":"2026-10-18","evidenceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.00047v1","note":"Pustogow et al. v1 selected pp.4–7; p.7 RF-energy and heating passage visually checked. Zero-strain0.7107T versus strained1.9980T conditions distinguished. Published identity checked; full final-version equivalence and subsequent literature survey not completed."}},{"id":"source-65b23b74f5402e26","doi":"10.1103/PhysRevB.68.054506","title":"Properties of the ideal Ginzburg-Landau vortex lattice","year":2003,"url":"https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.68.054506","publicationStatus":"journal-article","verification":{"checkedAt":"2026-10-19","scope":"selected-author-variance-and-validity-check","evidenceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0304237v1","note":"Authorv1 submitted10April2003; journal6August2003. Selected pp1,4–6; p5 Eqs11–13 visually checked. Paper sigma is field variance, not a depolarization rate. Ideal isotropic GL model, finite-field validity and restricted London limit retained. Independent triangular reciprocal sum, not full GL reproduction. Typeset2018 is not publication. Final-version comparison open."}},{"id":"source-12acb111709539e8","doi":"10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.127002","title":"Magnetism and Disorder Effects on Muon Spin Rotation Measurements of the Magnetic Penetration Depth in Iron-Arsenic Superconductors","year":2011,"url":"https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.127002","publicationStatus":"journal-article","verification":{"checkedAt":"2026-10-19","scope":"selected-author-magnetism-and-disorder-check","evidenceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/1010.6046v1","note":"Authorv1 submitted28October2010; journal23March2011. Selected pp1–4; p3 Figure3 visually checked. BaFe1.82Co0.18As2 measurements and BaFe1.81Co0.19As2 disorder input distinguished; exp(-sigma²t²) convention retained. Authors explicitly qualify the magnetic model. Full final-version/raw-data/MD comparison open; typeset2018 not publication."}},{"id":"source-c4434644191d0174","doi":"10.1103/sgcz-9rc7","title":"Muon Knight Shift as a Precise Probe of the Superconducting Symmetry of Sr2RuO4","year":2026,"url":"https://doi.org/10.1103/sgcz-9rc7","publicationStatus":"journal-article","verification":{"scope":"selected-author-manuscript-check","checkedAt":"2026-10-18","evidenceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.14107v1","note":"Selected pp.1–5 and Fig.3 visually checked. Published9February2026; manuscript16December2025. Same-crystal field-cooled subtraction and0.5K lower magnetization limit retained. Supplement, final-version comparison and raw-data reproduction open."}},{"id":"source-05b2d5ff6757b5eb","doi":"10.1038/s41567-026-03266-8","title":"Planckian scattering and parallel conduction channels in an iron chalcogenide superconductor","year":2026,"url":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-026-03266-8","publicationStatus":"journal-article","verification":{"scope":"selected-author-spectral-weight-and-final-abstract-check","checkedAt":"2026-10-19","evidenceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/2505.00623v1","note":"H1/H2 selected methods and final abstract retained. H8 explicitly read authorp2response andp4sum-rule paragraphs; pp2/4 visually checked. Authorp4 prints SU=(pi/2)integral(sigma1), inconsistent with same-text Drude numerator S under ordinary integration; p2 delta convention also needs explicit half-line normalization. Final full-text/calibration comparison unresolved; no corrected condensate fraction asserted. Cycle-frequency rate uses kBT/h, not kBT/hbar."}},{"id":"source-8c3a5887a7e6b1a3","doi":"10.1038/nphys1343","title":"Electronic correlations in the iron pnictides","year":2009,"url":"https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys1343","publicationStatus":"journal-article","verification":{"scope":"selected-final-methods-and-figure-check","checkedAt":"2026-10-19","evidenceUrl":"https://infrared.ucsd.edu/basov_pubs/132.%20M.%20M.%20Qazibash%2C%20Nphys%202009.pdf","note":"Final printedpp647–650 selected results/methods read; p648 Figures1/2 visually checked. LaFePO reflectance100–24000cm^-1,ellipsometry5500–25000cm^-1; extended Drude/KK analysis, not a universal two-Drude decomposition. Kexp/Kband0.52 upper and0.4 lower extraction bounds; full supplement not read. Corrects pinned nphys1346, which publisher identifies as In the Moon's wake."}},{"id":"source-02f3aac52d07be56","doi":"10.48550/arXiv.cond-mat/9406083","title":"Quantum transport in semiconductor-superconductor microjunctions (Les Houches lectures; arXiv v2)","year":1994,"url":"https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.cond-mat/9406083","publicationStatus":"preprint","verification":{"scope":"author-review-scoped-check","checkedAt":"2026-10-18","evidenceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/9406083v2","note":"Selected pp. 2–4, Eqs. (1.1)–(1.2): two-terminal, zero-temperature/voltage/field conductance and spatially separated normal/Andreev scattering. Lectures dated June 1994; archive v2 September 2005; linked book chapter 1995. Full review not audited."}},{"id":"source-c1c9ef4bc5cf71dd","doi":"10.1063/1.4937478","title":"Solidification and loss of hydrostaticity in liquid media used for pressure measurements","year":2015,"url":"https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4937478","publicationStatus":"journal-article","verification":{"scope":"selected-author-calibration-and-freezing-methods","checkedAt":"2026-10-18","evidenceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.00087v1","note":"Author v1 submitted 30 November 2015; journal online 16 December 2015. Selected pp. 1–7 read, Fig. 1 on p. 6 visually checked. Manganin/Pb calibration, warming protocol, interpolation and unresolved oil freezing retained. Full results/final-version comparison and raw-data refits remain open."}},{"id":"source-df0c15d62982f853","doi":"10.1038/s41586-023-06408-7","title":"Signatures of superconductivity near 80 K in a nickelate under high pressure","year":2023,"url":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06408-7","publicationStatus":"journal-article","verification":{"scope":"selected-published-primary-passages-check","checkedAt":"2026-10-18","evidenceUrl":"https://iopex6.iphy.ac.cn/PDFlist/2023/Nature621%282023%29493-EX6.pdf","note":"Reused D5 scoped primary reading with unchanged limitations. Selected published p496 Fig3/caption and text, plus Methods PDFp7. Resistance onset, residual resistance, separate magnetic measurement, KBr and room-temperature ruby calibration retained. Raw-data/replication review remains open."}},{"id":"source-684b96e9dbb65a64","doi":"10.1038/nature07293","title":"High-temperature interface superconductivity between metallic and insulating copper oxides","year":2008,"url":"https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07293","publicationStatus":"journal-article","verification":{"scope":"selected-author-layer-order-screening-and-methods","checkedAt":"2026-10-19","evidenceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/0810.1890v1","note":"Authorv1 submitted10October2008. Selectedpp2–5,captions9–10,supplement15–17; p12Figure2,p13Figure3 visually checked. Thickness-series Tc midpoint; screening33.2K(S)/51.6K(M–S),10kHzmutualinductance. Finite cation-interdiffusion bound and model-based thickness retained. Complete final/supplement/raw review open."}},{"id":"source-ea5d0c80335c450d","doi":"10.1126/science.1146006","title":"Superconducting Interfaces Between Insulating Oxides","year":2007,"url":"https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1146006","publicationStatus":"journal-article","verification":{"scope":"selected-final-transport-BKT-and-methods","checkedAt":"2026-10-19","evidenceUrl":"https://d-nb.info/1270414658/34","note":"Selected final pp1196–1199; p1198 Figures3–4 visually checked. 8/15uc LAO approximately200/100mK resistance transitions at100nA; BKT188mK I–V versus190mK resistance fit. Hc2 uses50%R(1K); inferred~10nm thickness conditional on oxygen-defect carrier profile, not imaging. Full SI/raw/replication review open."}},{"id":"source-0c4d7cebb12a0d5b","doi":"10.1126/science.adn7673","title":"High-field superconducting halo in UTe2","year":2025,"url":"https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adn7673","publicationStatus":"journal-article","verification":{"scope":"selected-final-pulsed-field-and-angle-methods","checkedAt":"2026-10-18","evidenceUrl":"https://www.vector.umd.edu/images/publications/Science389_5122025.pdf","note":"Online31July2025; selected final pp512–513 methods/angle/resistance/PDO discussion re-read, plus selected model discussion. Prior D8 p512 visual retained. Typical60/73T pulses,0.63K measurement and2.09K normal reference distinguished. Full supplement/rawdata/orderparameter reconstruction open."}},{"id":"source-85009580cf550887","doi":"10.1088/0953-2048/26/11/115011","title":"Elaboration of the alpha-model derived from the BCS theory of superconductivity","year":2013,"url":"https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-2048/26/11/115011","publicationStatus":"journal-article","verification":{"scope":"author-manuscript-scoped-check","checkedAt":"2026-10-18","evidenceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.2275v1","note":"Author manuscript arXiv:1304.2275v1: section IV Eqs. (19)-(22), section VII Eq. (50) and following entropy caveat, and section VIII gap-anisotropy discussion and section IX summary of coupled-band model extensions (underlying papers not independently checked). Journal identity linked by arXiv metadata; publisher-version text not compared. Manuscript typeset date is not treated as a new publication date. No independent reproduction of every model or experimental dataset."}},{"id":"source-e24f6678715b4917","doi":"10.1103/PhysRevB.80.054517","title":"Thermoelectric power and Hall coefficient measurements on Ba(Fe1-xTMx)2As2 (TM=Co and Cu)","year":2009,"url":"https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.80.054517","publicationStatus":"journal-article","verification":{"scope":"selected-author-methods-and-figure-check","checkedAt":"2026-10-19","evidenceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.1548v2","note":"Author v2,7August2009: selected pp1–6 read;p15Figure5 visually checked. WDS compositions, FeAs-flux crystals; AC four-wire Hall, field alongc, polarity reversed;25KFigure5 and90kOe temperature series. Exfoliation geometry uncertainty noted. p4 printed x>=0.38 conflicts with nearby0.038 scale: final-version comparison pending, numeric threshold not adopted."}},{"id":"source-fae77f2c38d4cf72","doi":"10.1038/nature16983","title":"Change of carrier density at the pseudogap critical point of a cuprate superconductor","year":2016,"url":"https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16983","publicationStatus":"journal-article","verification":{"scope":"selected-author-methods-and-figure-check","checkedAt":"2026-10-19","evidenceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.08162v1","note":"Author v1,25November2015: selected pp1–5,pp28–29methods/errors read;p11Figure2 visually checked. Pulses to88T; normal-state coverage at least40K, lower-temperature p=.16 limit explicit. Figure2 uses vortex melting Hvs, not Hc2. Absolute geometry error up to15percent distinct from relative temperature uncertainty. Published online22February2016. Final/supplement/raw analysis incomplete."}},{"id":"source-b89f6bcf54acb4d8","doi":"10.1038/ncomms11494","title":"Magnetic field controlled charge density wave coupling in underdoped YBa2Cu3O6+x","year":2016,"url":"https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11494","publicationStatus":"journal-article","verification":{"scope":"selected-final-methods-table-and-figure-check","checkedAt":"2026-10-19","evidenceUrl":"https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms11494.pdf","note":"Published 5 May 2016. Selected pp. 3, 5–6 read; Figures 4–5 on p. 5 and Table 1/methods on p. 6 visually checked. Resolution-corrected Gaussian widths, 16.9 T limit and absolute temperature uncertainty distinguished. Complete raw-profile and stacking-model reproduction remain open."}},{"id":"source-d9477b85392d03f9","doi":"10.1126/science.aac6257","title":"Three-dimensional charge density wave order in YBa2Cu3O6.67 at high magnetic fields","year":2015,"url":"https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac6257","publicationStatus":"journal-article","verification":{"scope":"selected-author-methods-and-figure-check","checkedAt":"2026-10-19","evidenceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.07910v1","note":"Author v1 selected pp. 4, 10, 13 read; Figures 2 and 3 on pp. 9–10 visually checked. Gaussian correlation lengths are uncorrected lower bounds. Final-version comparison and raw-data reproduction remain open."}}],"materialCases":[],"claims":[{"id":"scwiki-i-claim-scope-1","sectionId":"scope","statement":"Choose a probe by the observable it measures and the inference that is needed. A spectral gap, a resistance drop, a magnetic response and a thermodynamic anomaly answer different questions. This handbook connects fifteen experimental methods to concrete original studies and their limitations. It is a guide to interpreting evidence, not a universal instrument operating procedure or a catalogue of confirmed transition temperatures. The fixed I1–I15 identifiers preserve the approved reference structure.","evidenceType":"experiment","sourceIds":["source-a95bcf0cb2681557","source-716c338ddfa726d3","source-ea5d0c80335c450d","source-85009580cf550887"],"conditions":"Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.","verificationScope":"Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open."},{"id":"scwiki-i-claim-mathematical-assumptions-1","sectionId":"mathematical-assumptions","statement":"Every inversion needs a forward model: the measured signal is affected by sample response, instrument resolution and background. Parameters are identifiable only if different allowed parameter sets produce distinguishable signals within uncertainty. The independent calculations accompanying this handbook check a triangular London-limit lattice sum, a Gaussian field-distribution transform and additive broadening. They do not reproduce an interacting material or calibrate an instrument. See I6 for the physical assumptions behind the example.","evidenceType":"theory","sourceIds":["source-65b23b74f5402e26","source-12acb111709539e8"],"conditions":"Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.","verificationScope":"Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open."},{"id":"scwiki-i-claim-i1-1","sectionId":"i1","statement":"Angle-resolved photoemission maps the energy and emission direction of electrons leaving a surface. Relating those counts to an electronic spectral function requires occupation factors, matrix elements, energy and angular resolution, and a specified momentum conversion. Photon energy and polarization can change which bands are visible; a weak feature is not automatically an absent band. Record surface preparation, sample temperature, energy reference and the fitting or symmetrization procedure alongside an extracted gap. Synchrotron access does not itself establish bulk sensitivity or remove these assumptions.","evidenceType":"experiment","sourceIds":["source-a95bcf0cb2681557"],"conditions":"Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.","verificationScope":"Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open."},{"id":"scwiki-i-claim-i1-2","sectionId":"i1","statement":"The selected single-layer FeSe study illustrates the inference boundary. He and colleagues tracked annealing-dependent spectra and fitted the temperature dependence of symmetrized energy-distribution curves. The reported high temperature scale is a spectroscopic indication; it is not a simultaneous demonstration of zero resistance or magnetic screening in that measured layer. Band counting also used a degeneracy assumption. Compare the same preparation and carrier state across probes before identifying a superconducting transition or a causal effect of annealing.","evidenceType":"experiment","sourceIds":["source-a95bcf0cb2681557"],"conditions":"Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.","verificationScope":"Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open."},{"id":"scwiki-i-claim-i2-1","sectionId":"i2","statement":"STM resolves a surface through a tunnelling junction, while STS measures its differential conductance versus bias. Interpreting that conductance as a local density of states assumes an adequately characterized tip, tunnelling matrix element and junction regime. Temperature, modulation broadening, setpoint and drift affect the apparent gap or spatial contrast. Preserve the topographic channel and acquisition conditions rather than treating every conductance feature as an intrinsic bulk excitation. A Fourier peak also needs its energy dependence and relation to the atomic lattice.","evidenceType":"experiment","sourceIds":["source-07213acd01bb9b90"],"conditions":"Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.","verificationScope":"Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open."},{"id":"scwiki-i-claim-i2-2","sectionId":"i2","statement":"Wise and colleagues' selected final figures concern Pb/La-substituted Bi2201; Na-CCOC appears as earlier work, not their specimen. Their spatial maps provide an example of separating a checkerboard modulation from a dispersing quasiparticle-interference interpretation. Such an assignment requires competing explanations and energy-dependent controls, rather than one visually striking image. A local gap or zero-bias peak alone does not establish bulk superconductivity, a unique gap phase or a Majorana state. Surface termination and reproducibility across fields of view belong in the evidence record.","evidenceType":"experiment","sourceIds":["source-07213acd01bb9b90"],"conditions":"Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.","verificationScope":"Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open."},{"id":"scwiki-i-claim-i3-1","sectionId":"i3","statement":"INS resolves energy and momentum transferred between neutrons and a sample. Extracting a magnetic spectrum requires resolution, normalization, background and the distinction between magnetic, phonon and nuclear scattering. Single crystals preserve directional information; a powder measurement averages orientations. A resonance at a superconducting transition can constrain a model of the gap and magnetic susceptibility, but the assignment depends on coherence factors, band structure and competing explanations. The measured peak is not by itself a unique identification of the pairing interaction.","evidenceType":"experiment","sourceIds":["source-716c338ddfa726d3"],"conditions":"Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.","verificationScope":"Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open."},{"id":"scwiki-i-claim-i3-2","sectionId":"i3","statement":"Christianson and colleagues studied polycrystalline Ba0.6K0.4Fe2As2, not a Co-substituted sample. The selected methods specify the MERLIN time-of-flight instrument, several incident energies and vanadium normalization. Their below/above-transition comparison used 7 K and 50 K. Energy and momentum integration windows, the elastic-scattering cutoff and a possible small phonon contribution matter when interpreting the resonant excess. A background-subtracted excess fading near the transition must not be described as every count or all magnetic scattering disappearing. Full detector-data reanalysis remains outside this handbook's review.","evidenceType":"experiment","sourceIds":["source-716c338ddfa726d3"],"conditions":"Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.","verificationScope":"Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open."},{"id":"scwiki-i-claim-i4-1","sectionId":"i4","statement":"RIXS measures the energy and momentum lost by resonantly scattered photons. The chosen absorption edge, incoming and outgoing polarization, scattering geometry and intermediate-state dynamics determine which excitations contribute. Elastic, orbital and magnetic channels must be separated with the actual resolution and model. A measured magnetic dispersion can inform a pairing theory, but does not alone prove that the observed excitation is the pairing mediator. Small-volume sensitivity also does not eliminate surface, self-absorption or normalization questions.","evidenceType":"theory","sourceIds":["source-928e43733f244912"],"conditions":"Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.","verificationScope":"Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open."},{"id":"scwiki-i-claim-i4-2","sectionId":"i4","statement":"Ament and colleagues' local tetragonal Cu model makes the selection rule concrete: a direct spin flip forbidden for a moment along the orbital normal can become allowed for an in-plane moment at the L or M edge. That result cannot be transferred unqualified to the K edge. Their collective example uses an ultrashort-core-hole expansion and a Heisenberg spin-wave model. The accessible momentum range at the M edge is much smaller than at L3. Preserve these conditions when comparing intensities or calling a missing peak evidence against magnetism.","evidenceType":"theory","sourceIds":["source-928e43733f244912"],"conditions":"Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.","verificationScope":"Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open."},{"id":"scwiki-i-claim-i5-1","sectionId":"i5","statement":"NMR probes nuclei through resonance shifts and relaxation. A Knight-shift interpretation must separate spin, orbital and diamagnetic contributions and specify the field direction, site and hyperfine coupling. The spin susceptibility inferred in an applied field is not automatically the zero-field response of an unperturbed condensate. Relaxation and shift provide complementary information; neither can be replaced by a single pairing-symmetry label without its model and control measurements. Temperature calibration is especially important when the excitation pulse itself can heat a small sample.","evidenceType":"experiment","sourceIds":["source-c7f8b99a795aba41"],"conditions":"Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.","verificationScope":"Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open."},{"id":"scwiki-i-claim-i5-2","sectionId":"i5","statement":"Pustogow and colleagues' selected oxygen-17 Sr2RuO4 manuscript explicitly examines radio-frequency pulse energy and heating. Its zero-strain and strained measurements use different fields, so those datasets cannot be merged as though strain were the only changed variable. A reduced spin contribution constrains candidate states under the stated field and spin-orbit conditions; it does not uniquely determine every orbital, band or parity component. Report which nucleus, spectral line, strain state, field and reference were compared, and retain the author's pulse-control qualification.","evidenceType":"experiment","sourceIds":["source-c7f8b99a795aba41"],"conditions":"Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.","verificationScope":"Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open."},{"id":"scwiki-i-claim-i6-1","sectionId":"i6","statement":"Muon polarization samples an internal-field distribution. Transverse-field vortex measurements can constrain penetration depth through a field-profile model; zero-field relaxation and a muon Knight shift address different questions. Brandt's ideal triangular London limit gives $\\langle\\delta B^2\\rangle\\simeq0.00371\\Phi_0^2/\\lambda^4$ only in its restricted field and large-$\\kappa$ regime. An independent reciprocal-lattice sum converges to 0.0037107353. This does not validate the approximation near either critical field or for a strongly disordered lattice. The paper's variance symbol must not be mistaken for a relaxation rate.","evidenceType":"theory","sourceIds":["source-65b23b74f5402e26","source-c4434644191d0174"],"conditions":"Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.","verificationScope":"Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open."},{"id":"scwiki-i-claim-i6-2","sectionId":"i6","statement":"For a Gaussian field distribution, $P(t)=\\exp[-(\\gamma_\\mu\\Delta B\\,t)^2/2]$ in a rotating frame, with angular gyromagnetic ratio. A convention without the one-half changes the named rate. Independent numerical integration checks this normalization. Sonier and colleagues show why magnetism and vortex disorder can change the inferred penetration depth and its temperature dependence; their competing fits are not a unique gap assignment. Under an illustrative independent-Gaussian model, unassigned extra broadening would bias an inferred penetration depth downward. Real non-Gaussian or correlated contributions require a fuller model.","evidenceType":"theory","sourceIds":["source-12acb111709539e8"],"conditions":"Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.","verificationScope":"Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open."},{"id":"scwiki-i-claim-i7-1","sectionId":"i7","statement":"TDTS records an electric-field waveform, giving amplitude and phase over a finite frequency window. Recovering complex conductivity requires a sample/reference comparison and a justified optical model for the film, substrate and interfaces. Thickness, time-window choices, multiple reflections and calibration can affect the inversion. The real and imaginary parts must be fitted consistently; a narrow unresolved channel can resemble a different low-frequency response. Keep angular frequency and ordinary frequency distinct when comparing a fitted scattering rate with a temperature scale.","evidenceType":"experiment","sourceIds":["source-05b2d5ff6757b5eb"],"conditions":"Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.","verificationScope":"Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open."},{"id":"scwiki-i-claim-i7-2","sectionId":"i7","statement":"Romero and colleagues' selected author manuscript describes MBE-grown FeTe1−xSex films and a conductivity model constrained by DC transport. It separates a narrow channel from a broader response. The stated rate convention uses ordinary frequency, hence a comparison with $k_BT/h$, rather than silently substituting $k_BT/\\hbar$. The reviewed manuscript's spectral-weight normalization needs a final-version/calibration comparison; this handbook therefore does not adopt an exact condensate fraction. A finite-frequency inductive response must also be distinguished from a demonstrated equilibrium zero-resistance transition.","evidenceType":"experiment","sourceIds":["source-05b2d5ff6757b5eb"],"conditions":"Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.","verificationScope":"Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open."},{"id":"scwiki-i-claim-i8-1","sectionId":"i8","statement":"Infrared measurements constrain charge dynamics through reflectance, transmission or ellipsometry. Converting them to conductivity requires an optical model and, for reflectance-only reconstruction, justified extrapolations outside the measured range. Intraband response, interband transitions, phonons and substrate contributions may overlap. State the frequency convention, integration limits and reference spectrum before comparing a spectral weight or an apparent missing area. An absorption feature is not automatically a superconducting gap, and extracting an effective bosonic spectrum is a model-dependent inverse problem.","evidenceType":"experiment","sourceIds":["source-8c3a5887a7e6b1a3"],"conditions":"Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.","verificationScope":"Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open."},{"id":"scwiki-i-claim-i8-2","sectionId":"i8","statement":"Qazilbash and colleagues' LaFePO study combines reflectance and ellipsometry with a Kramers–Kronig and extended-Drude analysis. Its experimental-to-band kinetic-energy comparison depends on the chosen intraband window and band reference. It is not a universal two-Drude prescription for every iron compound. Reproducing the plotted ratio requires the actual integration and subtraction, rather than copying a material-independent correlation factor. Compare temperature, composition, polarization and spectral windows before combining results from separate crystals. Complete raw-spectrum and supplementary checks remain open in the present source review.","evidenceType":"experiment","sourceIds":["source-8c3a5887a7e6b1a3"],"conditions":"Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.","verificationScope":"Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open."},{"id":"scwiki-i-claim-i9-1","sectionId":"i9","statement":"A normal-metal/superconductor contact probes conversion between electron and hole excitations as well as ordinary transmission. Barrier transparency, mode mixing, temperature and bias determine whether an ideal Andreev-scattering model applies. In a tunnelling limit, spectral weighting and broadening still matter. Contact heating, nonuniform current paths and multiple channels can change a conductance curve without implying a different pairing symmetry. A peak or a fitted gap should be reported with junction geometry, normalization and alternative fits, not just its preferred interpretation.","evidenceType":"theory","sourceIds":["source-02f3aac52d07be56"],"conditions":"Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.","verificationScope":"Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open."},{"id":"scwiki-i-claim-i9-2","sectionId":"i9","statement":"Beenakker's selected lecture derivation treats a two-terminal conductance in the zero-temperature, zero-voltage and zero-field limit, with separately modeled normal and Andreev scattering. That domain explains why a successful ideal-channel formula is not a general finite-bias fitting routine. Preserve whether transmission probabilities refer to the normal region or to the full superconducting junction. A measured gap scale does not supply phase information automatically; sign changes and surface-bound-state interpretations require additional interface assumptions or independent phase-sensitive evidence. The full review and all microscopic contact effects have not been audited here.","evidenceType":"theory","sourceIds":["source-02f3aac52d07be56"],"conditions":"Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.","verificationScope":"Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open."},{"id":"scwiki-i-claim-i10-1","sectionId":"i10","statement":"A DAC changes pressure while confining a small sample, pressure medium, contacts and calibrant. The reported scalar pressure is only part of the state: gradients, deviatoric stress, thermal history and loading path can matter. Record when and where the pressure was calibrated, its uncertainty, the medium and any transition or freezing of that medium. Structural, magnetic and transport measurements performed in different cells are complementary evidence, not automatically simultaneous observations of one identical phase and sample.","evidenceType":"experiment","sourceIds":["source-c1c9ef4bc5cf71dd","source-df0c15d62982f853"],"conditions":"Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.","verificationScope":"Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open."},{"id":"scwiki-i-claim-i10-2","sectionId":"i10","statement":"The selected pressure-medium study distinguishes solidification from loss of hydrostaticity and uses a specified warming/calibration protocol. Its thresholds should not be transplanted to another medium or cell without qualification. In Sun and colleagues' high-pressure nickelate report, the reviewed transport methods use KBr and room-temperature ruby calibration; the magnetic experiment is separate. Resistive onset and residual resistance must remain distinct. Establishing a high-pressure superconducting phase requires checking contacts, sample structure and alternative transitions, while reserving temperature records for their actual measurement criterion.","evidenceType":"experiment","sourceIds":["source-c1c9ef4bc5cf71dd","source-df0c15d62982f853"],"conditions":"Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.","verificationScope":"Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open."},{"id":"scwiki-i-claim-i11-1","sectionId":"i11","statement":"MBE and PLD prepare films through different deposition processes; neither guarantees a desired superconducting state merely because nominal layer counts or target compositions agree. Substrate termination, oxygen history, strain, interdiffusion, thickness and subsequent annealing can change the conducting region. Treat growth diagnostics and structural characterization as evidence about the prepared object, then connect that object to transport, spectroscopy or screening. A nominally one-unit-cell film and an electronically confined interface are different descriptions that require their own support.","evidenceType":"experiment","sourceIds":["source-684b96e9dbb65a64","source-ea5d0c80335c450d"],"conditions":"Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.","verificationScope":"Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open."},{"id":"scwiki-i-claim-i11-2","sectionId":"i11","statement":"The selected oxide examples illustrate this distinction. Gozar and colleagues' MBE cuprate bilayers depend on stacking order and oxygen treatment; their magnetic screening setup has a stated frequency. Reyren and colleagues' PLD LaAlO3/SrTiO3 samples combine structural preparation with low-temperature transport and separate transition analyses. These observations do not license a universal recipe for interface superconductivity or identify charge transfer as the sole cause. Compare layer order and the full preparation history before pooling samples, and preserve the difference between observed conduction, superconducting screening and an inferred thickness of the active region.","evidenceType":"experiment","sourceIds":["source-684b96e9dbb65a64","source-ea5d0c80335c450d"],"conditions":"Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.","verificationScope":"Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open."},{"id":"scwiki-i-claim-i12-1","sectionId":"i12","statement":"High-field experiments test anisotropy, depairing and field-induced phases, but the maximum available field is not itself a measured critical field. Pulsed and steady fields impose different time scales and thermal constraints. Record field orientation, sweep direction, pulse profile, sample thermometry and the observable's threshold. Resistive onset, midpoint, zero resistance and an inductive anomaly need not coincide. An extrapolation beyond the measured range must be identified as such, with the model and uncertainty retained.","evidenceType":"experiment","sourceIds":["source-0c4d7cebb12a0d5b"],"conditions":"Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.","verificationScope":"Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open."},{"id":"scwiki-i-claim-i12-2","sectionId":"i12","statement":"The selected UTe2 high-field study combines resistance and proximity-detector-oscillator responses in carefully specified angular geometries. Its typical 60/73 T pulse capabilities, low-temperature measurement and warmer normal reference are separate quantities. A restricted angular halo is not a generic statement about every orientation or a direct reconstruction of the order parameter. Compare warming, pulse history and background response before interpreting a new feature as reentrant superconductivity. Full supplementary pulse/calibration analysis remains open; no magnet's rated field is entered here as an experimental transition record.","evidenceType":"experiment","sourceIds":["source-0c4d7cebb12a0d5b"],"conditions":"Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.","verificationScope":"Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open."},{"id":"scwiki-i-claim-i13-1","sectionId":"i13","statement":"Heat capacity tests the thermodynamic response of the sample and can reveal a superconducting anomaly that complements transport. Extracting an electronic contribution requires addenda, lattice and possible magnetic-background treatment, a mass or molar normalization and a justified normal reference. A field used to suppress superconductivity can also alter other contributions. Residual terms, broad transitions and a small superconducting volume fraction can complicate gap fits. Quote the transition construction and uncertainty rather than equating every peak temperature with a resistive criterion.","evidenceType":"theory","sourceIds":["source-85009580cf550887"],"conditions":"Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.","verificationScope":"Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open."},{"id":"scwiki-i-claim-i13-2","sectionId":"i13","statement":"Johnston's alpha-model analysis makes model assumptions explicit. In its specified setting, an entropy comparison uses $\\int_0^{T_c}(C_s-C_n)\\,dT/T$, with consistent reference states and extrapolations. A single-band phenomenological gap rescaling does not become a self-consistent multiband calculation simply by summing fitted curves. A normalized jump or low-temperature power law is consequently a constraint, not a unique coupling-strength or gap-symmetry determination. Check entropy balance, background sensitivity and competing gap models; the selected source review does not reproduce every experimental dataset or its full final version.","evidenceType":"theory","sourceIds":["source-85009580cf550887"],"conditions":"Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.","verificationScope":"Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open."},{"id":"scwiki-i-claim-i14-1","sectionId":"i14","statement":"Transport measures a voltage response in a particular current path. Four-terminal geometry removes some lead contributions but not all problems from inhomogeneity, heating, finite voltage resolution or misplaced contacts. Specify current, field and temperature protocol, sample dimensions and the criterion for a transition. For Hall measurements, reversing the field helps isolate the odd transverse component; reversible conditions are needed, and genuine hysteresis must be retained rather than averaged away. A Hall sign is not a direct count of carrier type in a general multiband system.","evidenceType":"experiment","sourceIds":["source-e24f6678715b4917","source-fae77f2c38d4cf72"],"conditions":"Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.","verificationScope":"Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open."},{"id":"scwiki-i-claim-i14-2","sectionId":"i14","statement":"The selected Co/Cu-substituted Ba122 methods use field reversal and a defined crystal orientation, while their sample geometry contributes uncertainty. Badoux and colleagues' high-field cuprate work states temperature and field ranges over which a normal-state interpretation is available; its vortex-melting field is not automatically the upper critical field. Do not infer a zero-temperature carrier density from an inaccessible normal state. Absolute geometry error and relative temperature-dependent uncertainty are distinct, and apparently precise carrier counts require a transport model in addition to a measured Hall slope.","evidenceType":"experiment","sourceIds":["source-e24f6678715b4917","source-fae77f2c38d4cf72"],"conditions":"Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.","verificationScope":"Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open."},{"id":"scwiki-i-claim-i15-1","sectionId":"i15","statement":"Diffraction constrains periodic structure through reciprocal-space positions, intensities and widths. Lattice constants, atomic positions, occupancies, domains and modulation order involve different fitting assumptions. State photon energy, scattering geometry, reciprocal-lattice convention, temperature, field and instrument resolution. A weak superlattice peak may indicate a structural or charge modulation, but is not a direct measurement of the superconducting gap or phase stiffness. Distinguish structural refinement from evidence for a field-dependent ordering correlation length.","evidenceType":"experiment","sourceIds":["source-b89f6bcf54acb4d8","source-d9477b85392d03f9"],"conditions":"Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.","verificationScope":"Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open."},{"id":"scwiki-i-claim-i15-2","sectionId":"i15","statement":"The selected YBa2Cu3O6+x studies show why peak-width conventions matter. Chang and colleagues use resolution-corrected Gaussian widths, whereas the reviewed Gerber author manuscript reports uncorrected widths and corresponding lower bounds on correlation lengths. These numbers cannot be pooled as though their resolution treatment were identical. A reciprocal-space width becomes a real-space length only after specifying the line shape and units; Gaussian and Lorentzian formulas are not interchangeable. Field-induced enhancement or three-dimensional stacking constrains competing-order physics, while causal claims about superconductivity require the separate temperature and field evidence.","evidenceType":"experiment","sourceIds":["source-b89f6bcf54acb4d8","source-d9477b85392d03f9"],"conditions":"Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.","verificationScope":"Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open."},{"id":"scwiki-i-claim-experimental-criteria-1","sectionId":"experimental-criteria","statement":"Match the probe, specimen and preparation before combining observations. A report should preserve the raw observable, reduction model, calibration, uncertainty, transition criterion and any failed controls. Distinguish a sample temperature from a gap-closing scale, a maximum applied field from a fitted critical field, and a resolution-limited width from a deconvolved correlation length. This handbook points to examples; it creates no new sample-specific Tc records.","evidenceType":"experiment","sourceIds":["source-a95bcf0cb2681557","source-0c4d7cebb12a0d5b","source-b89f6bcf54acb4d8"],"conditions":"Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.","verificationScope":"Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open."},{"id":"scwiki-i-claim-limits-and-disputes-1","sectionId":"limits-and-disputes","statement":"Complete scientific acceptance remains open. Each method has a named selected primary-source review; some use author manuscripts whose final versions and supplements have not been fully compared. Reused checks retain their original dates and limitations. The independent model calculations test stated algebra and conventions, not instrument performance or the correctness of every interpretation in a cited paper. A good fit, a successful build and agreement between summaries are not independent experimental replication.","evidenceType":"experiment","sourceIds":["source-65b23b74f5402e26","source-12acb111709539e8","source-05b2d5ff6757b5eb"],"conditions":"Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.","verificationScope":"Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open."},{"id":"scwiki-i-claim-discovery-implications-1","sectionId":"discovery-implications","statement":"Design complementary tests around an explicit competing explanation. Pair local spectroscopy with a macroscopic response when the question is bulk superconductivity; combine structural and transport controls when pressure or growth can change phase identity. Preserve disagreements rather than selecting one favorable probe. A useful next experiment should distinguish hypotheses within its actual resolution, sample and calibration limits.","evidenceType":"hypothesis","sourceIds":["source-a95bcf0cb2681557","source-df0c15d62982f853","source-ea5d0c80335c450d"],"conditions":"Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.","verificationScope":"Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open."}],"scopeItems":[{"id":"I1","sectionIds":["i1"],"status":"scoped-check","checkedAt":"2026-10-19","scope":"ARPES and synchrotron photoemission: selected-author-ARPES-annealing-and-figure. Original source-specific dates and limits are retained below.","limitations":["Selected passages and explicit inference limits only; complete scientific acceptance remains open.","Full raw-data, instrument calibration and final/supplement comparisons are not all complete."]},{"id":"I2","sectionIds":["i2"],"status":"scoped-check","checkedAt":"2026-10-19","scope":"Scanning tunnelling microscopy and spectroscopy: selected-final-methods-and-figure-check. Original source-specific dates and limits are retained below.","limitations":["Selected passages and explicit inference limits only; complete scientific acceptance remains open.","Full raw-data, instrument calibration and final/supplement comparisons are not all complete."]},{"id":"I3","sectionIds":["i3"],"status":"scoped-check","checkedAt":"2026-10-19","scope":"Inelastic neutron scattering: selected-final-neutron-methods-and-figures-check. Original source-specific dates and limits are retained below.","limitations":["Selected passages and explicit inference limits only; complete scientific acceptance remains open.","Full raw-data, instrument calibration and final/supplement comparisons are not all complete."]},{"id":"I4","sectionIds":["i4"],"status":"scoped-check","checkedAt":"2026-10-19","scope":"Resonant inelastic X-ray scattering: selected-final-selection-rule-and-figure-check. Original source-specific dates and limits are retained below.","limitations":["Selected passages and explicit inference limits only; complete scientific acceptance remains open.","Full raw-data, instrument calibration and final/supplement comparisons are not all complete."]},{"id":"I5","sectionIds":["i5"],"status":"scoped-check","checkedAt":"2026-10-19","scope":"NMR and Knight shift: author-manuscript-scoped-check. Original source-specific dates and limits are retained below.","limitations":["Selected passages and explicit inference limits only; complete scientific acceptance remains open.","Full raw-data, instrument calibration and final/supplement comparisons are not all complete."]},{"id":"I6","sectionIds":["i6"],"status":"scoped-check","checkedAt":"2026-10-19","scope":"Muon spin rotation and relaxation: selected-author-variance-and-validity-check; selected-author-magnetism-and-disorder-check; selected-author-manuscript-check. Original source-specific dates and limits are retained below.","limitations":["Selected passages and explicit inference limits only; complete scientific acceptance remains open.","Full raw-data, instrument calibration and final/supplement comparisons are not all complete."]},{"id":"I7","sectionIds":["i7"],"status":"scoped-check","checkedAt":"2026-10-19","scope":"Time-domain terahertz spectroscopy: selected-author-spectral-weight-and-final-abstract-check. Original source-specific dates and limits are retained below.","limitations":["Selected passages and explicit inference limits only; complete scientific acceptance remains open.","Full raw-data, instrument calibration and final/supplement comparisons are not all complete."]},{"id":"I8","sectionIds":["i8"],"status":"scoped-check","checkedAt":"2026-10-19","scope":"Infrared spectroscopy: selected-final-methods-and-figure-check. Original source-specific dates and limits are retained below.","limitations":["Selected passages and explicit inference limits only; complete scientific acceptance remains open.","Full raw-data, instrument calibration and final/supplement comparisons are not all complete."]},{"id":"I9","sectionIds":["i9"],"status":"scoped-check","checkedAt":"2026-10-19","scope":"Andreev and tunnelling spectroscopy: author-review-scoped-check. Original source-specific dates and limits are retained below.","limitations":["Selected passages and explicit inference limits only; complete scientific acceptance remains open.","Full raw-data, instrument calibration and final/supplement comparisons are not all complete."]},{"id":"I10","sectionIds":["i10"],"status":"scoped-check","checkedAt":"2026-10-19","scope":"Diamond-anvil pressure cells: selected-author-calibration-and-freezing-methods; selected-published-primary-passages-check. Original source-specific dates and limits are retained below.","limitations":["Selected passages and explicit inference limits only; complete scientific acceptance remains open.","Full raw-data, instrument calibration and final/supplement comparisons are not all complete."]},{"id":"I11","sectionIds":["i11"],"status":"scoped-check","checkedAt":"2026-10-19","scope":"MBE and pulsed-laser film growth: selected-author-layer-order-screening-and-methods; selected-final-transport-BKT-and-methods. Original source-specific dates and limits are retained below.","limitations":["Selected passages and explicit inference limits only; complete scientific acceptance remains open.","Full raw-data, instrument calibration and final/supplement comparisons are not all complete."]},{"id":"I12","sectionIds":["i12"],"status":"scoped-check","checkedAt":"2026-10-19","scope":"High magnetic fields: selected-final-pulsed-field-and-angle-methods. Original source-specific dates and limits are retained below.","limitations":["Selected passages and explicit inference limits only; complete scientific acceptance remains open.","Full raw-data, instrument calibration and final/supplement comparisons are not all complete."]},{"id":"I13","sectionIds":["i13"],"status":"scoped-check","checkedAt":"2026-10-19","scope":"Heat capacity: author-manuscript-scoped-check. Original source-specific dates and limits are retained below.","limitations":["Selected passages and explicit inference limits only; complete scientific acceptance remains open.","Full raw-data, instrument calibration and final/supplement comparisons are not all complete."]},{"id":"I14","sectionIds":["i14"],"status":"scoped-check","checkedAt":"2026-10-19","scope":"Electrical transport and Hall measurements: selected-author-methods-and-figure-check; selected-author-methods-and-figure-check. Original source-specific dates and limits are retained below.","limitations":["Selected passages and explicit inference limits only; complete scientific acceptance remains open.","Full raw-data, instrument calibration and final/supplement comparisons are not all complete."]},{"id":"I15","sectionIds":["i15"],"status":"scoped-check","checkedAt":"2026-10-19","scope":"Synchrotron X-ray diffraction: selected-final-methods-table-and-figure-check; selected-author-methods-and-figure-check. Original source-specific dates and limits are retained below.","limitations":["Selected passages and explicit inference limits only; complete scientific acceptance remains open.","Full raw-data, instrument calibration and final/supplement comparisons are not all complete."]}],"body":"## Scope\n\nChoose a probe by the observable it measures and the inference that is needed. A spectral gap, a resistance drop, a magnetic response and a thermodynamic anomaly answer different questions. This handbook connects fifteen experimental methods to concrete original studies and their limitations. It is a guide to interpreting evidence, not a universal instrument operating procedure or a catalogue of confirmed transition temperatures. The fixed I1–I15 identifiers preserve the approved reference structure. [R1](#ref-source-a95bcf0cb2681557) [R3](#ref-source-716c338ddfa726d3) [R15](#ref-source-ea5d0c80335c450d) [R17](#ref-source-85009580cf550887)\n\n## Mathematical assumptions\n\nEvery inversion needs a forward model: the measured signal is affected by sample response, instrument resolution and background. Parameters are identifiable only if different allowed parameter sets produce distinguishable signals within uncertainty. The independent calculations accompanying this handbook check a triangular London-limit lattice sum, a Gaussian field-distribution transform and additive broadening. They do not reproduce an interacting material or calibrate an instrument. See I6 for the physical assumptions behind the example. [R6](#ref-source-65b23b74f5402e26) [R7](#ref-source-12acb111709539e8)\n\n## I1 — ARPES and synchrotron photoemission\n\nAngle-resolved photoemission maps the energy and emission direction of electrons leaving a surface. Relating those counts to an electronic spectral function requires occupation factors, matrix elements, energy and angular resolution, and a specified momentum conversion. Photon energy and polarization can change which bands are visible; a weak feature is not automatically an absent band. Record surface preparation, sample temperature, energy reference and the fitting or symmetrization procedure alongside an extracted gap. Synchrotron access does not itself establish bulk sensitivity or remove these assumptions. [R1](#ref-source-a95bcf0cb2681557)\n\nThe selected single-layer FeSe study illustrates the inference boundary. He and colleagues tracked annealing-dependent spectra and fitted the temperature dependence of symmetrized energy-distribution curves. The reported high temperature scale is a spectroscopic indication; it is not a simultaneous demonstration of zero resistance or magnetic screening in that measured layer. Band counting also used a degeneracy assumption. Compare the same preparation and carrier state across probes before identifying a superconducting transition or a causal effect of annealing. [R1](#ref-source-a95bcf0cb2681557)\n\n## I2 — Scanning tunnelling microscopy and spectroscopy\n\nSTM resolves a surface through a tunnelling junction, while STS measures its differential conductance versus bias. Interpreting that conductance as a local density of states assumes an adequately characterized tip, tunnelling matrix element and junction regime. Temperature, modulation broadening, setpoint and drift affect the apparent gap or spatial contrast. Preserve the topographic channel and acquisition conditions rather than treating every conductance feature as an intrinsic bulk excitation. A Fourier peak also needs its energy dependence and relation to the atomic lattice. [R2](#ref-source-07213acd01bb9b90)\n\nWise and colleagues' selected final figures concern Pb/La-substituted Bi2201; Na-CCOC appears as earlier work, not their specimen. Their spatial maps provide an example of separating a checkerboard modulation from a dispersing quasiparticle-interference interpretation. Such an assignment requires competing explanations and energy-dependent controls, rather than one visually striking image. A local gap or zero-bias peak alone does not establish bulk superconductivity, a unique gap phase or a Majorana state. Surface termination and reproducibility across fields of view belong in the evidence record. [R2](#ref-source-07213acd01bb9b90)\n\n## I3 — Inelastic neutron scattering\n\nINS resolves energy and momentum transferred between neutrons and a sample. Extracting a magnetic spectrum requires resolution, normalization, background and the distinction between magnetic, phonon and nuclear scattering. Single crystals preserve directional information; a powder measurement averages orientations. A resonance at a superconducting transition can constrain a model of the gap and magnetic susceptibility, but the assignment depends on coherence factors, band structure and competing explanations. The measured peak is not by itself a unique identification of the pairing interaction. [R3](#ref-source-716c338ddfa726d3)\n\nChristianson and colleagues studied polycrystalline Ba0.6K0.4Fe2As2, not a Co-substituted sample. The selected methods specify the MERLIN time-of-flight instrument, several incident energies and vanadium normalization. Their below/above-transition comparison used 7 K and 50 K. Energy and momentum integration windows, the elastic-scattering cutoff and a possible small phonon contribution matter when interpreting the resonant excess. A background-subtracted excess fading near the transition must not be described as every count or all magnetic scattering disappearing. Full detector-data reanalysis remains outside this handbook's review. [R3](#ref-source-716c338ddfa726d3)\n\n## I4 — Resonant inelastic X-ray scattering\n\nRIXS measures the energy and momentum lost by resonantly scattered photons. The chosen absorption edge, incoming and outgoing polarization, scattering geometry and intermediate-state dynamics determine which excitations contribute. Elastic, orbital and magnetic channels must be separated with the actual resolution and model. A measured magnetic dispersion can inform a pairing theory, but does not alone prove that the observed excitation is the pairing mediator. Small-volume sensitivity also does not eliminate surface, self-absorption or normalization questions. [R4](#ref-source-928e43733f244912)\n\nAment and colleagues' local tetragonal Cu model makes the selection rule concrete: a direct spin flip forbidden for a moment along the orbital normal can become allowed for an in-plane moment at the L or M edge. That result cannot be transferred unqualified to the K edge. Their collective example uses an ultrashort-core-hole expansion and a Heisenberg spin-wave model. The accessible momentum range at the M edge is much smaller than at L3. Preserve these conditions when comparing intensities or calling a missing peak evidence against magnetism. [R4](#ref-source-928e43733f244912)\n\n## I5 — NMR and Knight shift\n\nNMR probes nuclei through resonance shifts and relaxation. A Knight-shift interpretation must separate spin, orbital and diamagnetic contributions and specify the field direction, site and hyperfine coupling. The spin susceptibility inferred in an applied field is not automatically the zero-field response of an unperturbed condensate. Relaxation and shift provide complementary information; neither can be replaced by a single pairing-symmetry label without its model and control measurements. Temperature calibration is especially important when the excitation pulse itself can heat a small sample. [R5](#ref-source-c7f8b99a795aba41)\n\nPustogow and colleagues' selected oxygen-17 Sr2RuO4 manuscript explicitly examines radio-frequency pulse energy and heating. Its zero-strain and strained measurements use different fields, so those datasets cannot be merged as though strain were the only changed variable. A reduced spin contribution constrains candidate states under the stated field and spin-orbit conditions; it does not uniquely determine every orbital, band or parity component. Report which nucleus, spectral line, strain state, field and reference were compared, and retain the author's pulse-control qualification. [R5](#ref-source-c7f8b99a795aba41)\n\n## I6 — Muon spin rotation and relaxation\n\nMuon polarization samples an internal-field distribution. Transverse-field vortex measurements can constrain penetration depth through a field-profile model; zero-field relaxation and a muon Knight shift address different questions. Brandt's ideal triangular London limit gives $\\langle\\delta B^2\\rangle\\simeq0.00371\\Phi_0^2/\\lambda^4$ only in its restricted field and large-$\\kappa$ regime. An independent reciprocal-lattice sum converges to 0.0037107353. This does not validate the approximation near either critical field or for a strongly disordered lattice. The paper's variance symbol must not be mistaken for a relaxation rate. [R6](#ref-source-65b23b74f5402e26) [R8](#ref-source-c4434644191d0174)\n\nFor a Gaussian field distribution, $P(t)=\\exp[-(\\gamma_\\mu\\Delta B\\,t)^2/2]$ in a rotating frame, with angular gyromagnetic ratio. A convention without the one-half changes the named rate. Independent numerical integration checks this normalization. Sonier and colleagues show why magnetism and vortex disorder can change the inferred penetration depth and its temperature dependence; their competing fits are not a unique gap assignment. Under an illustrative independent-Gaussian model, unassigned extra broadening would bias an inferred penetration depth downward. Real non-Gaussian or correlated contributions require a fuller model. [R7](#ref-source-12acb111709539e8)\n\n## I7 — Time-domain terahertz spectroscopy\n\nTDTS records an electric-field waveform, giving amplitude and phase over a finite frequency window. Recovering complex conductivity requires a sample/reference comparison and a justified optical model for the film, substrate and interfaces. Thickness, time-window choices, multiple reflections and calibration can affect the inversion. The real and imaginary parts must be fitted consistently; a narrow unresolved channel can resemble a different low-frequency response. Keep angular frequency and ordinary frequency distinct when comparing a fitted scattering rate with a temperature scale. [R9](#ref-source-05b2d5ff6757b5eb)\n\nRomero and colleagues' selected author manuscript describes MBE-grown FeTe1−xSex films and a conductivity model constrained by DC transport. It separates a narrow channel from a broader response. The stated rate convention uses ordinary frequency, hence a comparison with $k_BT/h$, rather than silently substituting $k_BT/\\hbar$. The reviewed manuscript's spectral-weight normalization needs a final-version/calibration comparison; this handbook therefore does not adopt an exact condensate fraction. A finite-frequency inductive response must also be distinguished from a demonstrated equilibrium zero-resistance transition. [R9](#ref-source-05b2d5ff6757b5eb)\n\n## I8 — Infrared spectroscopy\n\nInfrared measurements constrain charge dynamics through reflectance, transmission or ellipsometry. Converting them to conductivity requires an optical model and, for reflectance-only reconstruction, justified extrapolations outside the measured range. Intraband response, interband transitions, phonons and substrate contributions may overlap. State the frequency convention, integration limits and reference spectrum before comparing a spectral weight or an apparent missing area. An absorption feature is not automatically a superconducting gap, and extracting an effective bosonic spectrum is a model-dependent inverse problem. [R10](#ref-source-8c3a5887a7e6b1a3)\n\nQazilbash and colleagues' LaFePO study combines reflectance and ellipsometry with a Kramers–Kronig and extended-Drude analysis. Its experimental-to-band kinetic-energy comparison depends on the chosen intraband window and band reference. It is not a universal two-Drude prescription for every iron compound. Reproducing the plotted ratio requires the actual integration and subtraction, rather than copying a material-independent correlation factor. Compare temperature, composition, polarization and spectral windows before combining results from separate crystals. Complete raw-spectrum and supplementary checks remain open in the present source review. [R10](#ref-source-8c3a5887a7e6b1a3)\n\n## I9 — Andreev and tunnelling spectroscopy\n\nA normal-metal/superconductor contact probes conversion between electron and hole excitations as well as ordinary transmission. Barrier transparency, mode mixing, temperature and bias determine whether an ideal Andreev-scattering model applies. In a tunnelling limit, spectral weighting and broadening still matter. Contact heating, nonuniform current paths and multiple channels can change a conductance curve without implying a different pairing symmetry. A peak or a fitted gap should be reported with junction geometry, normalization and alternative fits, not just its preferred interpretation. [R11](#ref-source-02f3aac52d07be56)\n\nBeenakker's selected lecture derivation treats a two-terminal conductance in the zero-temperature, zero-voltage and zero-field limit, with separately modeled normal and Andreev scattering. That domain explains why a successful ideal-channel formula is not a general finite-bias fitting routine. Preserve whether transmission probabilities refer to the normal region or to the full superconducting junction. A measured gap scale does not supply phase information automatically; sign changes and surface-bound-state interpretations require additional interface assumptions or independent phase-sensitive evidence. The full review and all microscopic contact effects have not been audited here. [R11](#ref-source-02f3aac52d07be56)\n\n## I10 — Diamond-anvil pressure cells\n\nA DAC changes pressure while confining a small sample, pressure medium, contacts and calibrant. The reported scalar pressure is only part of the state: gradients, deviatoric stress, thermal history and loading path can matter. Record when and where the pressure was calibrated, its uncertainty, the medium and any transition or freezing of that medium. Structural, magnetic and transport measurements performed in different cells are complementary evidence, not automatically simultaneous observations of one identical phase and sample. [R12](#ref-source-c1c9ef4bc5cf71dd) [R13](#ref-source-df0c15d62982f853)\n\nThe selected pressure-medium study distinguishes solidification from loss of hydrostaticity and uses a specified warming/calibration protocol. Its thresholds should not be transplanted to another medium or cell without qualification. In Sun and colleagues' high-pressure nickelate report, the reviewed transport methods use KBr and room-temperature ruby calibration; the magnetic experiment is separate. Resistive onset and residual resistance must remain distinct. Establishing a high-pressure superconducting phase requires checking contacts, sample structure and alternative transitions, while reserving temperature records for their actual measurement criterion. [R12](#ref-source-c1c9ef4bc5cf71dd) [R13](#ref-source-df0c15d62982f853)\n\n## I11 — MBE and pulsed-laser film growth\n\nMBE and PLD prepare films through different deposition processes; neither guarantees a desired superconducting state merely because nominal layer counts or target compositions agree. Substrate termination, oxygen history, strain, interdiffusion, thickness and subsequent annealing can change the conducting region. Treat growth diagnostics and structural characterization as evidence about the prepared object, then connect that object to transport, spectroscopy or screening. A nominally one-unit-cell film and an electronically confined interface are different descriptions that require their own support. [R14](#ref-source-684b96e9dbb65a64) [R15](#ref-source-ea5d0c80335c450d)\n\nThe selected oxide examples illustrate this distinction. Gozar and colleagues' MBE cuprate bilayers depend on stacking order and oxygen treatment; their magnetic screening setup has a stated frequency. Reyren and colleagues' PLD LaAlO3/SrTiO3 samples combine structural preparation with low-temperature transport and separate transition analyses. These observations do not license a universal recipe for interface superconductivity or identify charge transfer as the sole cause. Compare layer order and the full preparation history before pooling samples, and preserve the difference between observed conduction, superconducting screening and an inferred thickness of the active region. [R14](#ref-source-684b96e9dbb65a64) [R15](#ref-source-ea5d0c80335c450d)\n\n## I12 — High magnetic fields\n\nHigh-field experiments test anisotropy, depairing and field-induced phases, but the maximum available field is not itself a measured critical field. Pulsed and steady fields impose different time scales and thermal constraints. Record field orientation, sweep direction, pulse profile, sample thermometry and the observable's threshold. Resistive onset, midpoint, zero resistance and an inductive anomaly need not coincide. An extrapolation beyond the measured range must be identified as such, with the model and uncertainty retained. [R16](#ref-source-0c4d7cebb12a0d5b)\n\nThe selected UTe2 high-field study combines resistance and proximity-detector-oscillator responses in carefully specified angular geometries. Its typical 60/73 T pulse capabilities, low-temperature measurement and warmer normal reference are separate quantities. A restricted angular halo is not a generic statement about every orientation or a direct reconstruction of the order parameter. Compare warming, pulse history and background response before interpreting a new feature as reentrant superconductivity. Full supplementary pulse/calibration analysis remains open; no magnet's rated field is entered here as an experimental transition record. [R16](#ref-source-0c4d7cebb12a0d5b)\n\n## I13 — Heat capacity\n\nHeat capacity tests the thermodynamic response of the sample and can reveal a superconducting anomaly that complements transport. Extracting an electronic contribution requires addenda, lattice and possible magnetic-background treatment, a mass or molar normalization and a justified normal reference. A field used to suppress superconductivity can also alter other contributions. Residual terms, broad transitions and a small superconducting volume fraction can complicate gap fits. Quote the transition construction and uncertainty rather than equating every peak temperature with a resistive criterion. [R17](#ref-source-85009580cf550887)\n\nJohnston's alpha-model analysis makes model assumptions explicit. In its specified setting, an entropy comparison uses $\\int_0^{T_c}(C_s-C_n)\\,dT/T$, with consistent reference states and extrapolations. A single-band phenomenological gap rescaling does not become a self-consistent multiband calculation simply by summing fitted curves. A normalized jump or low-temperature power law is consequently a constraint, not a unique coupling-strength or gap-symmetry determination. Check entropy balance, background sensitivity and competing gap models; the selected source review does not reproduce every experimental dataset or its full final version. [R17](#ref-source-85009580cf550887)\n\n## I14 — Electrical transport and Hall measurements\n\nTransport measures a voltage response in a particular current path. Four-terminal geometry removes some lead contributions but not all problems from inhomogeneity, heating, finite voltage resolution or misplaced contacts. Specify current, field and temperature protocol, sample dimensions and the criterion for a transition. For Hall measurements, reversing the field helps isolate the odd transverse component; reversible conditions are needed, and genuine hysteresis must be retained rather than averaged away. A Hall sign is not a direct count of carrier type in a general multiband system. [R18](#ref-source-e24f6678715b4917) [R19](#ref-source-fae77f2c38d4cf72)\n\nThe selected Co/Cu-substituted Ba122 methods use field reversal and a defined crystal orientation, while their sample geometry contributes uncertainty. Badoux and colleagues' high-field cuprate work states temperature and field ranges over which a normal-state interpretation is available; its vortex-melting field is not automatically the upper critical field. Do not infer a zero-temperature carrier density from an inaccessible normal state. Absolute geometry error and relative temperature-dependent uncertainty are distinct, and apparently precise carrier counts require a transport model in addition to a measured Hall slope. [R18](#ref-source-e24f6678715b4917) [R19](#ref-source-fae77f2c38d4cf72)\n\n## I15 — Synchrotron X-ray diffraction\n\nDiffraction constrains periodic structure through reciprocal-space positions, intensities and widths. Lattice constants, atomic positions, occupancies, domains and modulation order involve different fitting assumptions. State photon energy, scattering geometry, reciprocal-lattice convention, temperature, field and instrument resolution. A weak superlattice peak may indicate a structural or charge modulation, but is not a direct measurement of the superconducting gap or phase stiffness. Distinguish structural refinement from evidence for a field-dependent ordering correlation length. [R20](#ref-source-b89f6bcf54acb4d8) [R21](#ref-source-d9477b85392d03f9)\n\nThe selected YBa2Cu3O6+x studies show why peak-width conventions matter. Chang and colleagues use resolution-corrected Gaussian widths, whereas the reviewed Gerber author manuscript reports uncorrected widths and corresponding lower bounds on correlation lengths. These numbers cannot be pooled as though their resolution treatment were identical. A reciprocal-space width becomes a real-space length only after specifying the line shape and units; Gaussian and Lorentzian formulas are not interchangeable. Field-induced enhancement or three-dimensional stacking constrains competing-order physics, while causal claims about superconductivity require the separate temperature and field evidence. [R20](#ref-source-b89f6bcf54acb4d8) [R21](#ref-source-d9477b85392d03f9)\n\n## Experimental criteria\n\nMatch the probe, specimen and preparation before combining observations. A report should preserve the raw observable, reduction model, calibration, uncertainty, transition criterion and any failed controls. Distinguish a sample temperature from a gap-closing scale, a maximum applied field from a fitted critical field, and a resolution-limited width from a deconvolved correlation length. This handbook points to examples; it creates no new sample-specific Tc records. [R1](#ref-source-a95bcf0cb2681557) [R16](#ref-source-0c4d7cebb12a0d5b) [R20](#ref-source-b89f6bcf54acb4d8)\n\n## Limits and disputes\n\nComplete scientific acceptance remains open. Each method has a named selected primary-source review; some use author manuscripts whose final versions and supplements have not been fully compared. Reused checks retain their original dates and limitations. The independent model calculations test stated algebra and conventions, not instrument performance or the correctness of every interpretation in a cited paper. A good fit, a successful build and agreement between summaries are not independent experimental replication. [R6](#ref-source-65b23b74f5402e26) [R7](#ref-source-12acb111709539e8) [R9](#ref-source-05b2d5ff6757b5eb)\n\n## Discovery implications\n\nDesign complementary tests around an explicit competing explanation. Pair local spectroscopy with a macroscopic response when the question is bulk superconductivity; combine structural and transport controls when pressure or growth can change phase identity. Preserve disagreements rather than selecting one favorable probe. A useful next experiment should distinguish hypotheses within its actual resolution, sample and calibration limits. [R1](#ref-source-a95bcf0cb2681557) [R13](#ref-source-df0c15d62982f853) [R15](#ref-source-ea5d0c80335c450d)\n\n## Related topics\n\nRead [zero resistance](/scwiki/zero-resistance), [specific heat](/scwiki/specific-heat-jump), [Andreev reflection](/scwiki/andreev-reflection), [pressure tuning](/scwiki/pressure-tuning), [magnetic field](/scwiki/magnetic-field), [charge-density waves](/scwiki/charge-density-waves), and [two-dimensional superconductivity](/scwiki/two-dimensional-interfaces).","revision":"2bd39e7e108e63f1db28","sections":[{"id":"scope","title":"Scope","markdown":"## Scope\n\nChoose a probe by the observable it measures and the inference that is needed. A spectral gap, a resistance drop, a magnetic response and a thermodynamic anomaly answer different questions. This handbook connects fifteen experimental methods to concrete original studies and their limitations. It is a guide to interpreting evidence, not a universal instrument operating procedure or a catalogue of confirmed transition temperatures. The fixed I1–I15 identifiers preserve the approved reference structure. [R1](#ref-source-a95bcf0cb2681557) [R3](#ref-source-716c338ddfa726d3) [R15](#ref-source-ea5d0c80335c450d) [R17](#ref-source-85009580cf550887)"},{"id":"mathematical-assumptions","title":"Mathematical assumptions","markdown":"## Mathematical assumptions\n\nEvery inversion needs a forward model: the measured signal is affected by sample response, instrument resolution and background. Parameters are identifiable only if different allowed parameter sets produce distinguishable signals within uncertainty. The independent calculations accompanying this handbook check a triangular London-limit lattice sum, a Gaussian field-distribution transform and additive broadening. They do not reproduce an interacting material or calibrate an instrument. See I6 for the physical assumptions behind the example. [R6](#ref-source-65b23b74f5402e26) [R7](#ref-source-12acb111709539e8)"},{"id":"i1","title":"I1 — ARPES and synchrotron photoemission","markdown":"## I1 — ARPES and synchrotron photoemission\n\nAngle-resolved photoemission maps the energy and emission direction of electrons leaving a surface. Relating those counts to an electronic spectral function requires occupation factors, matrix elements, energy and angular resolution, and a specified momentum conversion. Photon energy and polarization can change which bands are visible; a weak feature is not automatically an absent band. Record surface preparation, sample temperature, energy reference and the fitting or symmetrization procedure alongside an extracted gap. Synchrotron access does not itself establish bulk sensitivity or remove these assumptions. [R1](#ref-source-a95bcf0cb2681557)\n\nThe selected single-layer FeSe study illustrates the inference boundary. He and colleagues tracked annealing-dependent spectra and fitted the temperature dependence of symmetrized energy-distribution curves. The reported high temperature scale is a spectroscopic indication; it is not a simultaneous demonstration of zero resistance or magnetic screening in that measured layer. Band counting also used a degeneracy assumption. Compare the same preparation and carrier state across probes before identifying a superconducting transition or a causal effect of annealing. [R1](#ref-source-a95bcf0cb2681557)"},{"id":"i2","title":"I2 — Scanning tunnelling microscopy and spectroscopy","markdown":"## I2 — Scanning tunnelling microscopy and spectroscopy\n\nSTM resolves a surface through a tunnelling junction, while STS measures its differential conductance versus bias. Interpreting that conductance as a local density of states assumes an adequately characterized tip, tunnelling matrix element and junction regime. Temperature, modulation broadening, setpoint and drift affect the apparent gap or spatial contrast. Preserve the topographic channel and acquisition conditions rather than treating every conductance feature as an intrinsic bulk excitation. A Fourier peak also needs its energy dependence and relation to the atomic lattice. [R2](#ref-source-07213acd01bb9b90)\n\nWise and colleagues' selected final figures concern Pb/La-substituted Bi2201; Na-CCOC appears as earlier work, not their specimen. Their spatial maps provide an example of separating a checkerboard modulation from a dispersing quasiparticle-interference interpretation. Such an assignment requires competing explanations and energy-dependent controls, rather than one visually striking image. A local gap or zero-bias peak alone does not establish bulk superconductivity, a unique gap phase or a Majorana state. Surface termination and reproducibility across fields of view belong in the evidence record. [R2](#ref-source-07213acd01bb9b90)"},{"id":"i3","title":"I3 — Inelastic neutron scattering","markdown":"## I3 — Inelastic neutron scattering\n\nINS resolves energy and momentum transferred between neutrons and a sample. Extracting a magnetic spectrum requires resolution, normalization, background and the distinction between magnetic, phonon and nuclear scattering. Single crystals preserve directional information; a powder measurement averages orientations. A resonance at a superconducting transition can constrain a model of the gap and magnetic susceptibility, but the assignment depends on coherence factors, band structure and competing explanations. The measured peak is not by itself a unique identification of the pairing interaction. [R3](#ref-source-716c338ddfa726d3)\n\nChristianson and colleagues studied polycrystalline Ba0.6K0.4Fe2As2, not a Co-substituted sample. The selected methods specify the MERLIN time-of-flight instrument, several incident energies and vanadium normalization. Their below/above-transition comparison used 7 K and 50 K. Energy and momentum integration windows, the elastic-scattering cutoff and a possible small phonon contribution matter when interpreting the resonant excess. A background-subtracted excess fading near the transition must not be described as every count or all magnetic scattering disappearing. Full detector-data reanalysis remains outside this handbook's review. [R3](#ref-source-716c338ddfa726d3)"},{"id":"i4","title":"I4 — Resonant inelastic X-ray scattering","markdown":"## I4 — Resonant inelastic X-ray scattering\n\nRIXS measures the energy and momentum lost by resonantly scattered photons. The chosen absorption edge, incoming and outgoing polarization, scattering geometry and intermediate-state dynamics determine which excitations contribute. Elastic, orbital and magnetic channels must be separated with the actual resolution and model. A measured magnetic dispersion can inform a pairing theory, but does not alone prove that the observed excitation is the pairing mediator. Small-volume sensitivity also does not eliminate surface, self-absorption or normalization questions. [R4](#ref-source-928e43733f244912)\n\nAment and colleagues' local tetragonal Cu model makes the selection rule concrete: a direct spin flip forbidden for a moment along the orbital normal can become allowed for an in-plane moment at the L or M edge. That result cannot be transferred unqualified to the K edge. Their collective example uses an ultrashort-core-hole expansion and a Heisenberg spin-wave model. The accessible momentum range at the M edge is much smaller than at L3. Preserve these conditions when comparing intensities or calling a missing peak evidence against magnetism. [R4](#ref-source-928e43733f244912)"},{"id":"i5","title":"I5 — NMR and Knight shift","markdown":"## I5 — NMR and Knight shift\n\nNMR probes nuclei through resonance shifts and relaxation. A Knight-shift interpretation must separate spin, orbital and diamagnetic contributions and specify the field direction, site and hyperfine coupling. The spin susceptibility inferred in an applied field is not automatically the zero-field response of an unperturbed condensate. Relaxation and shift provide complementary information; neither can be replaced by a single pairing-symmetry label without its model and control measurements. Temperature calibration is especially important when the excitation pulse itself can heat a small sample. [R5](#ref-source-c7f8b99a795aba41)\n\nPustogow and colleagues' selected oxygen-17 Sr2RuO4 manuscript explicitly examines radio-frequency pulse energy and heating. Its zero-strain and strained measurements use different fields, so those datasets cannot be merged as though strain were the only changed variable. A reduced spin contribution constrains candidate states under the stated field and spin-orbit conditions; it does not uniquely determine every orbital, band or parity component. Report which nucleus, spectral line, strain state, field and reference were compared, and retain the author's pulse-control qualification. [R5](#ref-source-c7f8b99a795aba41)"},{"id":"i6","title":"I6 — Muon spin rotation and relaxation","markdown":"## I6 — Muon spin rotation and relaxation\n\nMuon polarization samples an internal-field distribution. Transverse-field vortex measurements can constrain penetration depth through a field-profile model; zero-field relaxation and a muon Knight shift address different questions. Brandt's ideal triangular London limit gives $\\langle\\delta B^2\\rangle\\simeq0.00371\\Phi_0^2/\\lambda^4$ only in its restricted field and large-$\\kappa$ regime. An independent reciprocal-lattice sum converges to 0.0037107353. This does not validate the approximation near either critical field or for a strongly disordered lattice. The paper's variance symbol must not be mistaken for a relaxation rate. [R6](#ref-source-65b23b74f5402e26) [R8](#ref-source-c4434644191d0174)\n\nFor a Gaussian field distribution, $P(t)=\\exp[-(\\gamma_\\mu\\Delta B\\,t)^2/2]$ in a rotating frame, with angular gyromagnetic ratio. A convention without the one-half changes the named rate. Independent numerical integration checks this normalization. Sonier and colleagues show why magnetism and vortex disorder can change the inferred penetration depth and its temperature dependence; their competing fits are not a unique gap assignment. Under an illustrative independent-Gaussian model, unassigned extra broadening would bias an inferred penetration depth downward. Real non-Gaussian or correlated contributions require a fuller model. [R7](#ref-source-12acb111709539e8)"},{"id":"i7","title":"I7 — Time-domain terahertz spectroscopy","markdown":"## I7 — Time-domain terahertz spectroscopy\n\nTDTS records an electric-field waveform, giving amplitude and phase over a finite frequency window. Recovering complex conductivity requires a sample/reference comparison and a justified optical model for the film, substrate and interfaces. Thickness, time-window choices, multiple reflections and calibration can affect the inversion. The real and imaginary parts must be fitted consistently; a narrow unresolved channel can resemble a different low-frequency response. Keep angular frequency and ordinary frequency distinct when comparing a fitted scattering rate with a temperature scale. [R9](#ref-source-05b2d5ff6757b5eb)\n\nRomero and colleagues' selected author manuscript describes MBE-grown FeTe1−xSex films and a conductivity model constrained by DC transport. It separates a narrow channel from a broader response. The stated rate convention uses ordinary frequency, hence a comparison with $k_BT/h$, rather than silently substituting $k_BT/\\hbar$. The reviewed manuscript's spectral-weight normalization needs a final-version/calibration comparison; this handbook therefore does not adopt an exact condensate fraction. A finite-frequency inductive response must also be distinguished from a demonstrated equilibrium zero-resistance transition. [R9](#ref-source-05b2d5ff6757b5eb)"},{"id":"i8","title":"I8 — Infrared spectroscopy","markdown":"## I8 — Infrared spectroscopy\n\nInfrared measurements constrain charge dynamics through reflectance, transmission or ellipsometry. Converting them to conductivity requires an optical model and, for reflectance-only reconstruction, justified extrapolations outside the measured range. Intraband response, interband transitions, phonons and substrate contributions may overlap. State the frequency convention, integration limits and reference spectrum before comparing a spectral weight or an apparent missing area. An absorption feature is not automatically a superconducting gap, and extracting an effective bosonic spectrum is a model-dependent inverse problem. [R10](#ref-source-8c3a5887a7e6b1a3)\n\nQazilbash and colleagues' LaFePO study combines reflectance and ellipsometry with a Kramers–Kronig and extended-Drude analysis. Its experimental-to-band kinetic-energy comparison depends on the chosen intraband window and band reference. It is not a universal two-Drude prescription for every iron compound. Reproducing the plotted ratio requires the actual integration and subtraction, rather than copying a material-independent correlation factor. Compare temperature, composition, polarization and spectral windows before combining results from separate crystals. Complete raw-spectrum and supplementary checks remain open in the present source review. [R10](#ref-source-8c3a5887a7e6b1a3)"},{"id":"i9","title":"I9 — Andreev and tunnelling spectroscopy","markdown":"## I9 — Andreev and tunnelling spectroscopy\n\nA normal-metal/superconductor contact probes conversion between electron and hole excitations as well as ordinary transmission. Barrier transparency, mode mixing, temperature and bias determine whether an ideal Andreev-scattering model applies. In a tunnelling limit, spectral weighting and broadening still matter. Contact heating, nonuniform current paths and multiple channels can change a conductance curve without implying a different pairing symmetry. A peak or a fitted gap should be reported with junction geometry, normalization and alternative fits, not just its preferred interpretation. [R11](#ref-source-02f3aac52d07be56)\n\nBeenakker's selected lecture derivation treats a two-terminal conductance in the zero-temperature, zero-voltage and zero-field limit, with separately modeled normal and Andreev scattering. That domain explains why a successful ideal-channel formula is not a general finite-bias fitting routine. Preserve whether transmission probabilities refer to the normal region or to the full superconducting junction. A measured gap scale does not supply phase information automatically; sign changes and surface-bound-state interpretations require additional interface assumptions or independent phase-sensitive evidence. The full review and all microscopic contact effects have not been audited here. [R11](#ref-source-02f3aac52d07be56)"},{"id":"i10","title":"I10 — Diamond-anvil pressure cells","markdown":"## I10 — Diamond-anvil pressure cells\n\nA DAC changes pressure while confining a small sample, pressure medium, contacts and calibrant. The reported scalar pressure is only part of the state: gradients, deviatoric stress, thermal history and loading path can matter. Record when and where the pressure was calibrated, its uncertainty, the medium and any transition or freezing of that medium. Structural, magnetic and transport measurements performed in different cells are complementary evidence, not automatically simultaneous observations of one identical phase and sample. [R12](#ref-source-c1c9ef4bc5cf71dd) [R13](#ref-source-df0c15d62982f853)\n\nThe selected pressure-medium study distinguishes solidification from loss of hydrostaticity and uses a specified warming/calibration protocol. Its thresholds should not be transplanted to another medium or cell without qualification. In Sun and colleagues' high-pressure nickelate report, the reviewed transport methods use KBr and room-temperature ruby calibration; the magnetic experiment is separate. Resistive onset and residual resistance must remain distinct. Establishing a high-pressure superconducting phase requires checking contacts, sample structure and alternative transitions, while reserving temperature records for their actual measurement criterion. [R12](#ref-source-c1c9ef4bc5cf71dd) [R13](#ref-source-df0c15d62982f853)"},{"id":"i11","title":"I11 — MBE and pulsed-laser film growth","markdown":"## I11 — MBE and pulsed-laser film growth\n\nMBE and PLD prepare films through different deposition processes; neither guarantees a desired superconducting state merely because nominal layer counts or target compositions agree. Substrate termination, oxygen history, strain, interdiffusion, thickness and subsequent annealing can change the conducting region. Treat growth diagnostics and structural characterization as evidence about the prepared object, then connect that object to transport, spectroscopy or screening. A nominally one-unit-cell film and an electronically confined interface are different descriptions that require their own support. [R14](#ref-source-684b96e9dbb65a64) [R15](#ref-source-ea5d0c80335c450d)\n\nThe selected oxide examples illustrate this distinction. Gozar and colleagues' MBE cuprate bilayers depend on stacking order and oxygen treatment; their magnetic screening setup has a stated frequency. Reyren and colleagues' PLD LaAlO3/SrTiO3 samples combine structural preparation with low-temperature transport and separate transition analyses. These observations do not license a universal recipe for interface superconductivity or identify charge transfer as the sole cause. Compare layer order and the full preparation history before pooling samples, and preserve the difference between observed conduction, superconducting screening and an inferred thickness of the active region. [R14](#ref-source-684b96e9dbb65a64) [R15](#ref-source-ea5d0c80335c450d)"},{"id":"i12","title":"I12 — High magnetic fields","markdown":"## I12 — High magnetic fields\n\nHigh-field experiments test anisotropy, depairing and field-induced phases, but the maximum available field is not itself a measured critical field. Pulsed and steady fields impose different time scales and thermal constraints. Record field orientation, sweep direction, pulse profile, sample thermometry and the observable's threshold. Resistive onset, midpoint, zero resistance and an inductive anomaly need not coincide. An extrapolation beyond the measured range must be identified as such, with the model and uncertainty retained. [R16](#ref-source-0c4d7cebb12a0d5b)\n\nThe selected UTe2 high-field study combines resistance and proximity-detector-oscillator responses in carefully specified angular geometries. Its typical 60/73 T pulse capabilities, low-temperature measurement and warmer normal reference are separate quantities. A restricted angular halo is not a generic statement about every orientation or a direct reconstruction of the order parameter. Compare warming, pulse history and background response before interpreting a new feature as reentrant superconductivity. Full supplementary pulse/calibration analysis remains open; no magnet's rated field is entered here as an experimental transition record. [R16](#ref-source-0c4d7cebb12a0d5b)"},{"id":"i13","title":"I13 — Heat capacity","markdown":"## I13 — Heat capacity\n\nHeat capacity tests the thermodynamic response of the sample and can reveal a superconducting anomaly that complements transport. Extracting an electronic contribution requires addenda, lattice and possible magnetic-background treatment, a mass or molar normalization and a justified normal reference. A field used to suppress superconductivity can also alter other contributions. Residual terms, broad transitions and a small superconducting volume fraction can complicate gap fits. Quote the transition construction and uncertainty rather than equating every peak temperature with a resistive criterion. [R17](#ref-source-85009580cf550887)\n\nJohnston's alpha-model analysis makes model assumptions explicit. In its specified setting, an entropy comparison uses $\\int_0^{T_c}(C_s-C_n)\\,dT/T$, with consistent reference states and extrapolations. A single-band phenomenological gap rescaling does not become a self-consistent multiband calculation simply by summing fitted curves. A normalized jump or low-temperature power law is consequently a constraint, not a unique coupling-strength or gap-symmetry determination. Check entropy balance, background sensitivity and competing gap models; the selected source review does not reproduce every experimental dataset or its full final version. [R17](#ref-source-85009580cf550887)"},{"id":"i14","title":"I14 — Electrical transport and Hall measurements","markdown":"## I14 — Electrical transport and Hall measurements\n\nTransport measures a voltage response in a particular current path. Four-terminal geometry removes some lead contributions but not all problems from inhomogeneity, heating, finite voltage resolution or misplaced contacts. Specify current, field and temperature protocol, sample dimensions and the criterion for a transition. For Hall measurements, reversing the field helps isolate the odd transverse component; reversible conditions are needed, and genuine hysteresis must be retained rather than averaged away. A Hall sign is not a direct count of carrier type in a general multiband system. [R18](#ref-source-e24f6678715b4917) [R19](#ref-source-fae77f2c38d4cf72)\n\nThe selected Co/Cu-substituted Ba122 methods use field reversal and a defined crystal orientation, while their sample geometry contributes uncertainty. Badoux and colleagues' high-field cuprate work states temperature and field ranges over which a normal-state interpretation is available; its vortex-melting field is not automatically the upper critical field. Do not infer a zero-temperature carrier density from an inaccessible normal state. Absolute geometry error and relative temperature-dependent uncertainty are distinct, and apparently precise carrier counts require a transport model in addition to a measured Hall slope. [R18](#ref-source-e24f6678715b4917) [R19](#ref-source-fae77f2c38d4cf72)"},{"id":"i15","title":"I15 — Synchrotron X-ray diffraction","markdown":"## I15 — Synchrotron X-ray diffraction\n\nDiffraction constrains periodic structure through reciprocal-space positions, intensities and widths. Lattice constants, atomic positions, occupancies, domains and modulation order involve different fitting assumptions. State photon energy, scattering geometry, reciprocal-lattice convention, temperature, field and instrument resolution. A weak superlattice peak may indicate a structural or charge modulation, but is not a direct measurement of the superconducting gap or phase stiffness. Distinguish structural refinement from evidence for a field-dependent ordering correlation length. [R20](#ref-source-b89f6bcf54acb4d8) [R21](#ref-source-d9477b85392d03f9)\n\nThe selected YBa2Cu3O6+x studies show why peak-width conventions matter. Chang and colleagues use resolution-corrected Gaussian widths, whereas the reviewed Gerber author manuscript reports uncorrected widths and corresponding lower bounds on correlation lengths. These numbers cannot be pooled as though their resolution treatment were identical. A reciprocal-space width becomes a real-space length only after specifying the line shape and units; Gaussian and Lorentzian formulas are not interchangeable. Field-induced enhancement or three-dimensional stacking constrains competing-order physics, while causal claims about superconductivity require the separate temperature and field evidence. [R20](#ref-source-b89f6bcf54acb4d8) [R21](#ref-source-d9477b85392d03f9)"},{"id":"experimental-criteria","title":"Experimental criteria","markdown":"## Experimental criteria\n\nMatch the probe, specimen and preparation before combining observations. A report should preserve the raw observable, reduction model, calibration, uncertainty, transition criterion and any failed controls. Distinguish a sample temperature from a gap-closing scale, a maximum applied field from a fitted critical field, and a resolution-limited width from a deconvolved correlation length. This handbook points to examples; it creates no new sample-specific Tc records. [R1](#ref-source-a95bcf0cb2681557) [R16](#ref-source-0c4d7cebb12a0d5b) [R20](#ref-source-b89f6bcf54acb4d8)"},{"id":"limits-and-disputes","title":"Limits and disputes","markdown":"## Limits and disputes\n\nComplete scientific acceptance remains open. Each method has a named selected primary-source review; some use author manuscripts whose final versions and supplements have not been fully compared. Reused checks retain their original dates and limitations. The independent model calculations test stated algebra and conventions, not instrument performance or the correctness of every interpretation in a cited paper. A good fit, a successful build and agreement between summaries are not independent experimental replication. [R6](#ref-source-65b23b74f5402e26) [R7](#ref-source-12acb111709539e8) [R9](#ref-source-05b2d5ff6757b5eb)"},{"id":"discovery-implications","title":"Discovery implications","markdown":"## Discovery implications\n\nDesign complementary tests around an explicit competing explanation. Pair local spectroscopy with a macroscopic response when the question is bulk superconductivity; combine structural and transport controls when pressure or growth can change phase identity. Preserve disagreements rather than selecting one favorable probe. A useful next experiment should distinguish hypotheses within its actual resolution, sample and calibration limits. [R1](#ref-source-a95bcf0cb2681557) [R13](#ref-source-df0c15d62982f853) [R15](#ref-source-ea5d0c80335c450d)"},{"id":"related-topics","title":"Related topics","markdown":"## Related topics\n\nRead [zero resistance](/scwiki/zero-resistance), [specific heat](/scwiki/specific-heat-jump), [Andreev reflection](/scwiki/andreev-reflection), [pressure tuning](/scwiki/pressure-tuning), [magnetic field](/scwiki/magnetic-field), [charge-density waves](/scwiki/charge-density-waves), and [two-dimensional superconductivity](/scwiki/two-dimensional-interfaces)."},{"id":"material-cases","title":"Material cases","markdown":"## Material cases\n\nNo sample-specific material records are included in this article. Model results are not experimental transition temperatures."}],"markdown":"# Experimental methods for superconductivity\n\nA practical evidence guide to fifteen probes and preparation methods: what each measures, which assumptions it needs, and what it cannot establish alone.\n\n## Scope\n\nChoose a probe by the observable it measures and the inference that is needed. A spectral gap, a resistance drop, a magnetic response and a thermodynamic anomaly answer different questions. This handbook connects fifteen experimental methods to concrete original studies and their limitations. It is a guide to interpreting evidence, not a universal instrument operating procedure or a catalogue of confirmed transition temperatures. The fixed I1–I15 identifiers preserve the approved reference structure. [R1](#ref-source-a95bcf0cb2681557) [R3](#ref-source-716c338ddfa726d3) [R15](#ref-source-ea5d0c80335c450d) [R17](#ref-source-85009580cf550887)\n\n## Mathematical assumptions\n\nEvery inversion needs a forward model: the measured signal is affected by sample response, instrument resolution and background. Parameters are identifiable only if different allowed parameter sets produce distinguishable signals within uncertainty. The independent calculations accompanying this handbook check a triangular London-limit lattice sum, a Gaussian field-distribution transform and additive broadening. They do not reproduce an interacting material or calibrate an instrument. See I6 for the physical assumptions behind the example. [R6](#ref-source-65b23b74f5402e26) [R7](#ref-source-12acb111709539e8)\n\n## I1 — ARPES and synchrotron photoemission\n\nAngle-resolved photoemission maps the energy and emission direction of electrons leaving a surface. Relating those counts to an electronic spectral function requires occupation factors, matrix elements, energy and angular resolution, and a specified momentum conversion. Photon energy and polarization can change which bands are visible; a weak feature is not automatically an absent band. Record surface preparation, sample temperature, energy reference and the fitting or symmetrization procedure alongside an extracted gap. Synchrotron access does not itself establish bulk sensitivity or remove these assumptions. [R1](#ref-source-a95bcf0cb2681557)\n\nThe selected single-layer FeSe study illustrates the inference boundary. He and colleagues tracked annealing-dependent spectra and fitted the temperature dependence of symmetrized energy-distribution curves. The reported high temperature scale is a spectroscopic indication; it is not a simultaneous demonstration of zero resistance or magnetic screening in that measured layer. Band counting also used a degeneracy assumption. Compare the same preparation and carrier state across probes before identifying a superconducting transition or a causal effect of annealing. [R1](#ref-source-a95bcf0cb2681557)\n\n## I2 — Scanning tunnelling microscopy and spectroscopy\n\nSTM resolves a surface through a tunnelling junction, while STS measures its differential conductance versus bias. Interpreting that conductance as a local density of states assumes an adequately characterized tip, tunnelling matrix element and junction regime. Temperature, modulation broadening, setpoint and drift affect the apparent gap or spatial contrast. Preserve the topographic channel and acquisition conditions rather than treating every conductance feature as an intrinsic bulk excitation. A Fourier peak also needs its energy dependence and relation to the atomic lattice. [R2](#ref-source-07213acd01bb9b90)\n\nWise and colleagues' selected final figures concern Pb/La-substituted Bi2201; Na-CCOC appears as earlier work, not their specimen. Their spatial maps provide an example of separating a checkerboard modulation from a dispersing quasiparticle-interference interpretation. Such an assignment requires competing explanations and energy-dependent controls, rather than one visually striking image. A local gap or zero-bias peak alone does not establish bulk superconductivity, a unique gap phase or a Majorana state. Surface termination and reproducibility across fields of view belong in the evidence record. [R2](#ref-source-07213acd01bb9b90)\n\n## I3 — Inelastic neutron scattering\n\nINS resolves energy and momentum transferred between neutrons and a sample. Extracting a magnetic spectrum requires resolution, normalization, background and the distinction between magnetic, phonon and nuclear scattering. Single crystals preserve directional information; a powder measurement averages orientations. A resonance at a superconducting transition can constrain a model of the gap and magnetic susceptibility, but the assignment depends on coherence factors, band structure and competing explanations. The measured peak is not by itself a unique identification of the pairing interaction. [R3](#ref-source-716c338ddfa726d3)\n\nChristianson and colleagues studied polycrystalline Ba0.6K0.4Fe2As2, not a Co-substituted sample. The selected methods specify the MERLIN time-of-flight instrument, several incident energies and vanadium normalization. Their below/above-transition comparison used 7 K and 50 K. Energy and momentum integration windows, the elastic-scattering cutoff and a possible small phonon contribution matter when interpreting the resonant excess. A background-subtracted excess fading near the transition must not be described as every count or all magnetic scattering disappearing. Full detector-data reanalysis remains outside this handbook's review. [R3](#ref-source-716c338ddfa726d3)\n\n## I4 — Resonant inelastic X-ray scattering\n\nRIXS measures the energy and momentum lost by resonantly scattered photons. The chosen absorption edge, incoming and outgoing polarization, scattering geometry and intermediate-state dynamics determine which excitations contribute. Elastic, orbital and magnetic channels must be separated with the actual resolution and model. A measured magnetic dispersion can inform a pairing theory, but does not alone prove that the observed excitation is the pairing mediator. Small-volume sensitivity also does not eliminate surface, self-absorption or normalization questions. [R4](#ref-source-928e43733f244912)\n\nAment and colleagues' local tetragonal Cu model makes the selection rule concrete: a direct spin flip forbidden for a moment along the orbital normal can become allowed for an in-plane moment at the L or M edge. That result cannot be transferred unqualified to the K edge. Their collective example uses an ultrashort-core-hole expansion and a Heisenberg spin-wave model. The accessible momentum range at the M edge is much smaller than at L3. Preserve these conditions when comparing intensities or calling a missing peak evidence against magnetism. [R4](#ref-source-928e43733f244912)\n\n## I5 — NMR and Knight shift\n\nNMR probes nuclei through resonance shifts and relaxation. A Knight-shift interpretation must separate spin, orbital and diamagnetic contributions and specify the field direction, site and hyperfine coupling. The spin susceptibility inferred in an applied field is not automatically the zero-field response of an unperturbed condensate. Relaxation and shift provide complementary information; neither can be replaced by a single pairing-symmetry label without its model and control measurements. Temperature calibration is especially important when the excitation pulse itself can heat a small sample. [R5](#ref-source-c7f8b99a795aba41)\n\nPustogow and colleagues' selected oxygen-17 Sr2RuO4 manuscript explicitly examines radio-frequency pulse energy and heating. Its zero-strain and strained measurements use different fields, so those datasets cannot be merged as though strain were the only changed variable. A reduced spin contribution constrains candidate states under the stated field and spin-orbit conditions; it does not uniquely determine every orbital, band or parity component. Report which nucleus, spectral line, strain state, field and reference were compared, and retain the author's pulse-control qualification. [R5](#ref-source-c7f8b99a795aba41)\n\n## I6 — Muon spin rotation and relaxation\n\nMuon polarization samples an internal-field distribution. Transverse-field vortex measurements can constrain penetration depth through a field-profile model; zero-field relaxation and a muon Knight shift address different questions. Brandt's ideal triangular London limit gives $\\langle\\delta B^2\\rangle\\simeq0.00371\\Phi_0^2/\\lambda^4$ only in its restricted field and large-$\\kappa$ regime. An independent reciprocal-lattice sum converges to 0.0037107353. This does not validate the approximation near either critical field or for a strongly disordered lattice. The paper's variance symbol must not be mistaken for a relaxation rate. [R6](#ref-source-65b23b74f5402e26) [R8](#ref-source-c4434644191d0174)\n\nFor a Gaussian field distribution, $P(t)=\\exp[-(\\gamma_\\mu\\Delta B\\,t)^2/2]$ in a rotating frame, with angular gyromagnetic ratio. A convention without the one-half changes the named rate. Independent numerical integration checks this normalization. Sonier and colleagues show why magnetism and vortex disorder can change the inferred penetration depth and its temperature dependence; their competing fits are not a unique gap assignment. Under an illustrative independent-Gaussian model, unassigned extra broadening would bias an inferred penetration depth downward. Real non-Gaussian or correlated contributions require a fuller model. [R7](#ref-source-12acb111709539e8)\n\n## I7 — Time-domain terahertz spectroscopy\n\nTDTS records an electric-field waveform, giving amplitude and phase over a finite frequency window. Recovering complex conductivity requires a sample/reference comparison and a justified optical model for the film, substrate and interfaces. Thickness, time-window choices, multiple reflections and calibration can affect the inversion. The real and imaginary parts must be fitted consistently; a narrow unresolved channel can resemble a different low-frequency response. Keep angular frequency and ordinary frequency distinct when comparing a fitted scattering rate with a temperature scale. [R9](#ref-source-05b2d5ff6757b5eb)\n\nRomero and colleagues' selected author manuscript describes MBE-grown FeTe1−xSex films and a conductivity model constrained by DC transport. It separates a narrow channel from a broader response. The stated rate convention uses ordinary frequency, hence a comparison with $k_BT/h$, rather than silently substituting $k_BT/\\hbar$. The reviewed manuscript's spectral-weight normalization needs a final-version/calibration comparison; this handbook therefore does not adopt an exact condensate fraction. A finite-frequency inductive response must also be distinguished from a demonstrated equilibrium zero-resistance transition. [R9](#ref-source-05b2d5ff6757b5eb)\n\n## I8 — Infrared spectroscopy\n\nInfrared measurements constrain charge dynamics through reflectance, transmission or ellipsometry. Converting them to conductivity requires an optical model and, for reflectance-only reconstruction, justified extrapolations outside the measured range. Intraband response, interband transitions, phonons and substrate contributions may overlap. State the frequency convention, integration limits and reference spectrum before comparing a spectral weight or an apparent missing area. An absorption feature is not automatically a superconducting gap, and extracting an effective bosonic spectrum is a model-dependent inverse problem. [R10](#ref-source-8c3a5887a7e6b1a3)\n\nQazilbash and colleagues' LaFePO study combines reflectance and ellipsometry with a Kramers–Kronig and extended-Drude analysis. Its experimental-to-band kinetic-energy comparison depends on the chosen intraband window and band reference. It is not a universal two-Drude prescription for every iron compound. Reproducing the plotted ratio requires the actual integration and subtraction, rather than copying a material-independent correlation factor. Compare temperature, composition, polarization and spectral windows before combining results from separate crystals. Complete raw-spectrum and supplementary checks remain open in the present source review. [R10](#ref-source-8c3a5887a7e6b1a3)\n\n## I9 — Andreev and tunnelling spectroscopy\n\nA normal-metal/superconductor contact probes conversion between electron and hole excitations as well as ordinary transmission. Barrier transparency, mode mixing, temperature and bias determine whether an ideal Andreev-scattering model applies. In a tunnelling limit, spectral weighting and broadening still matter. Contact heating, nonuniform current paths and multiple channels can change a conductance curve without implying a different pairing symmetry. A peak or a fitted gap should be reported with junction geometry, normalization and alternative fits, not just its preferred interpretation. [R11](#ref-source-02f3aac52d07be56)\n\nBeenakker's selected lecture derivation treats a two-terminal conductance in the zero-temperature, zero-voltage and zero-field limit, with separately modeled normal and Andreev scattering. That domain explains why a successful ideal-channel formula is not a general finite-bias fitting routine. Preserve whether transmission probabilities refer to the normal region or to the full superconducting junction. A measured gap scale does not supply phase information automatically; sign changes and surface-bound-state interpretations require additional interface assumptions or independent phase-sensitive evidence. The full review and all microscopic contact effects have not been audited here. [R11](#ref-source-02f3aac52d07be56)\n\n## I10 — Diamond-anvil pressure cells\n\nA DAC changes pressure while confining a small sample, pressure medium, contacts and calibrant. The reported scalar pressure is only part of the state: gradients, deviatoric stress, thermal history and loading path can matter. Record when and where the pressure was calibrated, its uncertainty, the medium and any transition or freezing of that medium. Structural, magnetic and transport measurements performed in different cells are complementary evidence, not automatically simultaneous observations of one identical phase and sample. [R12](#ref-source-c1c9ef4bc5cf71dd) [R13](#ref-source-df0c15d62982f853)\n\nThe selected pressure-medium study distinguishes solidification from loss of hydrostaticity and uses a specified warming/calibration protocol. Its thresholds should not be transplanted to another medium or cell without qualification. In Sun and colleagues' high-pressure nickelate report, the reviewed transport methods use KBr and room-temperature ruby calibration; the magnetic experiment is separate. Resistive onset and residual resistance must remain distinct. Establishing a high-pressure superconducting phase requires checking contacts, sample structure and alternative transitions, while reserving temperature records for their actual measurement criterion. [R12](#ref-source-c1c9ef4bc5cf71dd) [R13](#ref-source-df0c15d62982f853)\n\n## I11 — MBE and pulsed-laser film growth\n\nMBE and PLD prepare films through different deposition processes; neither guarantees a desired superconducting state merely because nominal layer counts or target compositions agree. Substrate termination, oxygen history, strain, interdiffusion, thickness and subsequent annealing can change the conducting region. Treat growth diagnostics and structural characterization as evidence about the prepared object, then connect that object to transport, spectroscopy or screening. A nominally one-unit-cell film and an electronically confined interface are different descriptions that require their own support. [R14](#ref-source-684b96e9dbb65a64) [R15](#ref-source-ea5d0c80335c450d)\n\nThe selected oxide examples illustrate this distinction. Gozar and colleagues' MBE cuprate bilayers depend on stacking order and oxygen treatment; their magnetic screening setup has a stated frequency. Reyren and colleagues' PLD LaAlO3/SrTiO3 samples combine structural preparation with low-temperature transport and separate transition analyses. These observations do not license a universal recipe for interface superconductivity or identify charge transfer as the sole cause. Compare layer order and the full preparation history before pooling samples, and preserve the difference between observed conduction, superconducting screening and an inferred thickness of the active region. [R14](#ref-source-684b96e9dbb65a64) [R15](#ref-source-ea5d0c80335c450d)\n\n## I12 — High magnetic fields\n\nHigh-field experiments test anisotropy, depairing and field-induced phases, but the maximum available field is not itself a measured critical field. Pulsed and steady fields impose different time scales and thermal constraints. Record field orientation, sweep direction, pulse profile, sample thermometry and the observable's threshold. Resistive onset, midpoint, zero resistance and an inductive anomaly need not coincide. An extrapolation beyond the measured range must be identified as such, with the model and uncertainty retained. [R16](#ref-source-0c4d7cebb12a0d5b)\n\nThe selected UTe2 high-field study combines resistance and proximity-detector-oscillator responses in carefully specified angular geometries. Its typical 60/73 T pulse capabilities, low-temperature measurement and warmer normal reference are separate quantities. A restricted angular halo is not a generic statement about every orientation or a direct reconstruction of the order parameter. Compare warming, pulse history and background response before interpreting a new feature as reentrant superconductivity. Full supplementary pulse/calibration analysis remains open; no magnet's rated field is entered here as an experimental transition record. [R16](#ref-source-0c4d7cebb12a0d5b)\n\n## I13 — Heat capacity\n\nHeat capacity tests the thermodynamic response of the sample and can reveal a superconducting anomaly that complements transport. Extracting an electronic contribution requires addenda, lattice and possible magnetic-background treatment, a mass or molar normalization and a justified normal reference. A field used to suppress superconductivity can also alter other contributions. Residual terms, broad transitions and a small superconducting volume fraction can complicate gap fits. Quote the transition construction and uncertainty rather than equating every peak temperature with a resistive criterion. [R17](#ref-source-85009580cf550887)\n\nJohnston's alpha-model analysis makes model assumptions explicit. In its specified setting, an entropy comparison uses $\\int_0^{T_c}(C_s-C_n)\\,dT/T$, with consistent reference states and extrapolations. A single-band phenomenological gap rescaling does not become a self-consistent multiband calculation simply by summing fitted curves. A normalized jump or low-temperature power law is consequently a constraint, not a unique coupling-strength or gap-symmetry determination. Check entropy balance, background sensitivity and competing gap models; the selected source review does not reproduce every experimental dataset or its full final version. [R17](#ref-source-85009580cf550887)\n\n## I14 — Electrical transport and Hall measurements\n\nTransport measures a voltage response in a particular current path. Four-terminal geometry removes some lead contributions but not all problems from inhomogeneity, heating, finite voltage resolution or misplaced contacts. Specify current, field and temperature protocol, sample dimensions and the criterion for a transition. For Hall measurements, reversing the field helps isolate the odd transverse component; reversible conditions are needed, and genuine hysteresis must be retained rather than averaged away. A Hall sign is not a direct count of carrier type in a general multiband system. [R18](#ref-source-e24f6678715b4917) [R19](#ref-source-fae77f2c38d4cf72)\n\nThe selected Co/Cu-substituted Ba122 methods use field reversal and a defined crystal orientation, while their sample geometry contributes uncertainty. Badoux and colleagues' high-field cuprate work states temperature and field ranges over which a normal-state interpretation is available; its vortex-melting field is not automatically the upper critical field. Do not infer a zero-temperature carrier density from an inaccessible normal state. Absolute geometry error and relative temperature-dependent uncertainty are distinct, and apparently precise carrier counts require a transport model in addition to a measured Hall slope. [R18](#ref-source-e24f6678715b4917) [R19](#ref-source-fae77f2c38d4cf72)\n\n## I15 — Synchrotron X-ray diffraction\n\nDiffraction constrains periodic structure through reciprocal-space positions, intensities and widths. Lattice constants, atomic positions, occupancies, domains and modulation order involve different fitting assumptions. State photon energy, scattering geometry, reciprocal-lattice convention, temperature, field and instrument resolution. A weak superlattice peak may indicate a structural or charge modulation, but is not a direct measurement of the superconducting gap or phase stiffness. Distinguish structural refinement from evidence for a field-dependent ordering correlation length. [R20](#ref-source-b89f6bcf54acb4d8) [R21](#ref-source-d9477b85392d03f9)\n\nThe selected YBa2Cu3O6+x studies show why peak-width conventions matter. Chang and colleagues use resolution-corrected Gaussian widths, whereas the reviewed Gerber author manuscript reports uncorrected widths and corresponding lower bounds on correlation lengths. These numbers cannot be pooled as though their resolution treatment were identical. A reciprocal-space width becomes a real-space length only after specifying the line shape and units; Gaussian and Lorentzian formulas are not interchangeable. Field-induced enhancement or three-dimensional stacking constrains competing-order physics, while causal claims about superconductivity require the separate temperature and field evidence. [R20](#ref-source-b89f6bcf54acb4d8) [R21](#ref-source-d9477b85392d03f9)\n\n## Experimental criteria\n\nMatch the probe, specimen and preparation before combining observations. A report should preserve the raw observable, reduction model, calibration, uncertainty, transition criterion and any failed controls. Distinguish a sample temperature from a gap-closing scale, a maximum applied field from a fitted critical field, and a resolution-limited width from a deconvolved correlation length. This handbook points to examples; it creates no new sample-specific Tc records. [R1](#ref-source-a95bcf0cb2681557) [R16](#ref-source-0c4d7cebb12a0d5b) [R20](#ref-source-b89f6bcf54acb4d8)\n\n## Limits and disputes\n\nComplete scientific acceptance remains open. Each method has a named selected primary-source review; some use author manuscripts whose final versions and supplements have not been fully compared. Reused checks retain their original dates and limitations. The independent model calculations test stated algebra and conventions, not instrument performance or the correctness of every interpretation in a cited paper. A good fit, a successful build and agreement between summaries are not independent experimental replication. [R6](#ref-source-65b23b74f5402e26) [R7](#ref-source-12acb111709539e8) [R9](#ref-source-05b2d5ff6757b5eb)\n\n## Discovery implications\n\nDesign complementary tests around an explicit competing explanation. Pair local spectroscopy with a macroscopic response when the question is bulk superconductivity; combine structural and transport controls when pressure or growth can change phase identity. Preserve disagreements rather than selecting one favorable probe. A useful next experiment should distinguish hypotheses within its actual resolution, sample and calibration limits. [R1](#ref-source-a95bcf0cb2681557) [R13](#ref-source-df0c15d62982f853) [R15](#ref-source-ea5d0c80335c450d)\n\n## Related topics\n\nRead [zero resistance](/scwiki/zero-resistance), [specific heat](/scwiki/specific-heat-jump), [Andreev reflection](/scwiki/andreev-reflection), [pressure tuning](/scwiki/pressure-tuning), [magnetic field](/scwiki/magnetic-field), [charge-density waves](/scwiki/charge-density-waves), and [two-dimensional superconductivity](/scwiki/two-dimensional-interfaces).\n\n## Material cases\n\nNo sample-specific material records are included in this article. Model results are not experimental transition temperatures.\n\n## Sources\n\n### Ref source-a95bcf0cb2681557\n\n[R1] Phase diagram and electronic indication of high-temperature superconductivity at 65 K in single-layer FeSe films (2013). [DOI 10.1038/nmat3648](https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat3648). Publication: journal-article. Check: selected-author-ARPES-annealing-and-figure. Checked: 2026-10-19. Authorv1 submitted30July2012; related journal2013. Selectedpp3–8,p13caption,p14Figure3 visually checked. Symmetrized EDC gaps and BCS-form fits; annealing sequence10~40K/10meV versus15~65K/19meV. Two-degenerate-sheet carrier-count assumption, nonrigid changes; single-layer transport/magnetism described as underway. Full final/SI/temperaturecalibration review open.\n### Ref source-07213acd01bb9b90\n\n[R2] Charge-density-wave origin of cuprate checkerboard visualized by scanning tunnelling microscopy (2008). [DOI 10.1038/nphys1021](https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys1021). Publication: journal-article. Check: selected-final-methods-and-figure-check. Checked: 2026-10-19. Published 6 July 2008. Final pp.696–697 read; Figures1–2 on p.697 visually checked. Actual specimen is Pb/La-substituted Bi2201; Na-CCOC is cited prior work. Complete raw maps and quantitative fits not reproduced.\n### Ref source-716c338ddfa726d3\n\n[R3] Unconventional superconductivity in Ba0.6K0.4Fe2As2 from inelastic neutron scattering (2008). [DOI 10.1038/nature07625](https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07625). Publication: journal-article. Check: selected-final-neutron-methods-and-figures-check. Checked: 2026-10-19. Final printed pp. 930–931 selected methods/results; p. 931 Figures 2–4 visually checked. Polycrystalline K-doped sample, MERLIN energies, vanadium normalization, 7 K/50 K and integration windows distinguished. Resonance excess fades near the transition; finite background remains. Full synthesis supplement, raw detector counts and a unique phase assignment are not independently verified.\n### Ref source-928e43733f244912\n\n[R4] Theoretical Demonstration of How the Dispersion of Magnetic Excitations in Cuprate Compounds can be Determined Using Resonant Inelastic X-Ray Scattering (2009). [DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.117003](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.117003). Publication: journal-article. Check: selected-final-selection-rule-and-figure-check. Checked: 2026-10-19. Final published 11 September 2009. Selected main text pp.117003-1–4; Figure1 and symmetry argument on p2 visually checked. Local tetragonal Cu d9, spin orientation, polarization, L/M versus K edge and ultrashort-core-hole expansion retained. Full matrix-element and spin-wave spectra not independently reproduced.\n### Ref source-c7f8b99a795aba41\n\n[R5] Constraints on the superconducting order parameter in Sr2RuO4 from oxygen-17 nuclear magnetic resonance (2019). [DOI 10.1038/s41586-019-1596-2](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1596-2). Publication: journal-article. Check: author-manuscript-scoped-check. Checked: 2026-10-18. Pustogow et al. v1 selected pp.4–7; p.7 RF-energy and heating passage visually checked. Zero-strain0.7107T versus strained1.9980T conditions distinguished. Published identity checked; full final-version equivalence and subsequent literature survey not completed.\n### Ref source-65b23b74f5402e26\n\n[R6] Properties of the ideal Ginzburg-Landau vortex lattice (2003). [DOI 10.1103/PhysRevB.68.054506](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.68.054506). Publication: journal-article. Check: selected-author-variance-and-validity-check. Checked: 2026-10-19. Authorv1 submitted10April2003; journal6August2003. Selected pp1,4–6; p5 Eqs11–13 visually checked. Paper sigma is field variance, not a depolarization rate. Ideal isotropic GL model, finite-field validity and restricted London limit retained. Independent triangular reciprocal sum, not full GL reproduction. Typeset2018 is not publication. Final-version comparison open.\n### Ref source-12acb111709539e8\n\n[R7] Magnetism and Disorder Effects on Muon Spin Rotation Measurements of the Magnetic Penetration Depth in Iron-Arsenic Superconductors (2011). [DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.127002](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.127002). Publication: journal-article. Check: selected-author-magnetism-and-disorder-check. Checked: 2026-10-19. Authorv1 submitted28October2010; journal23March2011. Selected pp1–4; p3 Figure3 visually checked. BaFe1.82Co0.18As2 measurements and BaFe1.81Co0.19As2 disorder input distinguished; exp(-sigma²t²) convention retained. Authors explicitly qualify the magnetic model. Full final-version/raw-data/MD comparison open; typeset2018 not publication.\n### Ref source-c4434644191d0174\n\n[R8] Muon Knight Shift as a Precise Probe of the Superconducting Symmetry of Sr2RuO4 (2026). [DOI 10.1103/sgcz-9rc7](https://doi.org/10.1103/sgcz-9rc7). Publication: journal-article. Check: selected-author-manuscript-check. Checked: 2026-10-18. Selected pp.1–5 and Fig.3 visually checked. Published9February2026; manuscript16December2025. Same-crystal field-cooled subtraction and0.5K lower magnetization limit retained. Supplement, final-version comparison and raw-data reproduction open.\n### Ref source-05b2d5ff6757b5eb\n\n[R9] Planckian scattering and parallel conduction channels in an iron chalcogenide superconductor (2026). [DOI 10.1038/s41567-026-03266-8](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-026-03266-8). Publication: journal-article. Check: selected-author-spectral-weight-and-final-abstract-check. Checked: 2026-10-19. H1/H2 selected methods and final abstract retained. H8 explicitly read authorp2response andp4sum-rule paragraphs; pp2/4 visually checked. Authorp4 prints SU=(pi/2)integral(sigma1), inconsistent with same-text Drude numerator S under ordinary integration; p2 delta convention also needs explicit half-line normalization. Final full-text/calibration comparison unresolved; no corrected condensate fraction asserted. Cycle-frequency rate uses kBT/h, not kBT/hbar.\n### Ref source-8c3a5887a7e6b1a3\n\n[R10] Electronic correlations in the iron pnictides (2009). [DOI 10.1038/nphys1343](https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys1343). Publication: journal-article. Check: selected-final-methods-and-figure-check. Checked: 2026-10-19. Final printedpp647–650 selected results/methods read; p648 Figures1/2 visually checked. LaFePO reflectance100–24000cm^-1,ellipsometry5500–25000cm^-1; extended Drude/KK analysis, not a universal two-Drude decomposition. Kexp/Kband0.52 upper and0.4 lower extraction bounds; full supplement not read. Corrects pinned nphys1346, which publisher identifies as In the Moon's wake.\n### Ref source-02f3aac52d07be56\n\n[R11] Quantum transport in semiconductor-superconductor microjunctions (Les Houches lectures; arXiv v2) (1994). [DOI 10.48550/arXiv.cond-mat/9406083](https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.cond-mat/9406083). Publication: preprint. Check: author-review-scoped-check. Checked: 2026-10-18. Selected pp. 2–4, Eqs. (1.1)–(1.2): two-terminal, zero-temperature/voltage/field conductance and spatially separated normal/Andreev scattering. Lectures dated June 1994; archive v2 September 2005; linked book chapter 1995. Full review not audited.\n### Ref source-c1c9ef4bc5cf71dd\n\n[R12] Solidification and loss of hydrostaticity in liquid media used for pressure measurements (2015). [DOI 10.1063/1.4937478](https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4937478). Publication: journal-article. Check: selected-author-calibration-and-freezing-methods. Checked: 2026-10-18. Author v1 submitted 30 November 2015; journal online 16 December 2015. Selected pp. 1–7 read, Fig. 1 on p. 6 visually checked. Manganin/Pb calibration, warming protocol, interpolation and unresolved oil freezing retained. Full results/final-version comparison and raw-data refits remain open.\n### Ref source-df0c15d62982f853\n\n[R13] Signatures of superconductivity near 80 K in a nickelate under high pressure (2023). [DOI 10.1038/s41586-023-06408-7](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06408-7). Publication: journal-article. Check: selected-published-primary-passages-check. Checked: 2026-10-18. Reused D5 scoped primary reading with unchanged limitations. Selected published p496 Fig3/caption and text, plus Methods PDFp7. Resistance onset, residual resistance, separate magnetic measurement, KBr and room-temperature ruby calibration retained. Raw-data/replication review remains open.\n### Ref source-684b96e9dbb65a64\n\n[R14] High-temperature interface superconductivity between metallic and insulating copper oxides (2008). [DOI 10.1038/nature07293](https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07293). Publication: journal-article. Check: selected-author-layer-order-screening-and-methods. Checked: 2026-10-19. Authorv1 submitted10October2008. Selectedpp2–5,captions9–10,supplement15–17; p12Figure2,p13Figure3 visually checked. Thickness-series Tc midpoint; screening33.2K(S)/51.6K(M–S),10kHzmutualinductance. Finite cation-interdiffusion bound and model-based thickness retained. Complete final/supplement/raw review open.\n### Ref source-ea5d0c80335c450d\n\n[R15] Superconducting Interfaces Between Insulating Oxides (2007). [DOI 10.1126/science.1146006](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1146006). Publication: journal-article. Check: selected-final-transport-BKT-and-methods. Checked: 2026-10-19. Selected final pp1196–1199; p1198 Figures3–4 visually checked. 8/15uc LAO approximately200/100mK resistance transitions at100nA; BKT188mK I–V versus190mK resistance fit. Hc2 uses50%R(1K); inferred~10nm thickness conditional on oxygen-defect carrier profile, not imaging. Full SI/raw/replication review open.\n### Ref source-0c4d7cebb12a0d5b\n\n[R16] High-field superconducting halo in UTe2 (2025). [DOI 10.1126/science.adn7673](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adn7673). Publication: journal-article. Check: selected-final-pulsed-field-and-angle-methods. Checked: 2026-10-18. Online31July2025; selected final pp512–513 methods/angle/resistance/PDO discussion re-read, plus selected model discussion. Prior D8 p512 visual retained. Typical60/73T pulses,0.63K measurement and2.09K normal reference distinguished. Full supplement/rawdata/orderparameter reconstruction open.\n### Ref source-85009580cf550887\n\n[R17] Elaboration of the alpha-model derived from the BCS theory of superconductivity (2013). [DOI 10.1088/0953-2048/26/11/115011](https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-2048/26/11/115011). Publication: journal-article. Check: author-manuscript-scoped-check. Checked: 2026-10-18. Author manuscript arXiv:1304.2275v1: section IV Eqs. (19)-(22), section VII Eq. (50) and following entropy caveat, and section VIII gap-anisotropy discussion and section IX summary of coupled-band model extensions (underlying papers not independently checked). Journal identity linked by arXiv metadata; publisher-version text not compared. Manuscript typeset date is not treated as a new publication date. No independent reproduction of every model or experimental dataset.\n### Ref source-e24f6678715b4917\n\n[R18] Thermoelectric power and Hall coefficient measurements on Ba(Fe1-xTMx)2As2 (TM=Co and Cu) (2009). [DOI 10.1103/PhysRevB.80.054517](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.80.054517). Publication: journal-article. Check: selected-author-methods-and-figure-check. Checked: 2026-10-19. Author v2,7August2009: selected pp1–6 read;p15Figure5 visually checked. WDS compositions, FeAs-flux crystals; AC four-wire Hall, field alongc, polarity reversed;25KFigure5 and90kOe temperature series. Exfoliation geometry uncertainty noted. p4 printed x>=0.38 conflicts with nearby0.038 scale: final-version comparison pending, numeric threshold not adopted.\n### Ref source-fae77f2c38d4cf72\n\n[R19] Change of carrier density at the pseudogap critical point of a cuprate superconductor (2016). [DOI 10.1038/nature16983](https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16983). Publication: journal-article. Check: selected-author-methods-and-figure-check. Checked: 2026-10-19. Author v1,25November2015: selected pp1–5,pp28–29methods/errors read;p11Figure2 visually checked. Pulses to88T; normal-state coverage at least40K, lower-temperature p=.16 limit explicit. Figure2 uses vortex melting Hvs, not Hc2. Absolute geometry error up to15percent distinct from relative temperature uncertainty. Published online22February2016. Final/supplement/raw analysis incomplete.\n### Ref source-b89f6bcf54acb4d8\n\n[R20] Magnetic field controlled charge density wave coupling in underdoped YBa2Cu3O6+x (2016). [DOI 10.1038/ncomms11494](https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11494). Publication: journal-article. Check: selected-final-methods-table-and-figure-check. Checked: 2026-10-19. Published 5 May 2016. Selected pp. 3, 5–6 read; Figures 4–5 on p. 5 and Table 1/methods on p. 6 visually checked. Resolution-corrected Gaussian widths, 16.9 T limit and absolute temperature uncertainty distinguished. Complete raw-profile and stacking-model reproduction remain open.\n### Ref source-d9477b85392d03f9\n\n[R21] Three-dimensional charge density wave order in YBa2Cu3O6.67 at high magnetic fields (2015). [DOI 10.1126/science.aac6257](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac6257). Publication: journal-article. Check: selected-author-methods-and-figure-check. Checked: 2026-10-19. Author v1 selected pp. 4, 10, 13 read; Figures 2 and 3 on pp. 9–10 visually checked. Gaussian correlation lengths are uncorrected lower bounds. Final-version comparison and raw-data reproduction remain open.\n\n## Claim evidence and conditions\n\n### scwiki-i-claim-scope-1\n\nChoose a probe by the observable it measures and the inference that is needed. A spectral gap, a resistance drop, a magnetic response and a thermodynamic anomaly answer different questions. This handbook connects fifteen experimental methods to concrete original studies and their limitations. It is a guide to interpreting evidence, not a universal instrument operating procedure or a catalogue of confirmed transition temperatures. The fixed I1–I15 identifiers preserve the approved reference structure.\n\nEvidence: experiment. Sources: source-a95bcf0cb2681557, source-716c338ddfa726d3, source-ea5d0c80335c450d, source-85009580cf550887.\n\nConditions: Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open.\n\n### scwiki-i-claim-mathematical-assumptions-1\n\nEvery inversion needs a forward model: the measured signal is affected by sample response, instrument resolution and background. Parameters are identifiable only if different allowed parameter sets produce distinguishable signals within uncertainty. The independent calculations accompanying this handbook check a triangular London-limit lattice sum, a Gaussian field-distribution transform and additive broadening. They do not reproduce an interacting material or calibrate an instrument. See I6 for the physical assumptions behind the example.\n\nEvidence: theory. Sources: source-65b23b74f5402e26, source-12acb111709539e8.\n\nConditions: Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open.\n\n### scwiki-i-claim-i1-1\n\nAngle-resolved photoemission maps the energy and emission direction of electrons leaving a surface. Relating those counts to an electronic spectral function requires occupation factors, matrix elements, energy and angular resolution, and a specified momentum conversion. Photon energy and polarization can change which bands are visible; a weak feature is not automatically an absent band. Record surface preparation, sample temperature, energy reference and the fitting or symmetrization procedure alongside an extracted gap. Synchrotron access does not itself establish bulk sensitivity or remove these assumptions.\n\nEvidence: experiment. Sources: source-a95bcf0cb2681557.\n\nConditions: Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open.\n\n### scwiki-i-claim-i1-2\n\nThe selected single-layer FeSe study illustrates the inference boundary. He and colleagues tracked annealing-dependent spectra and fitted the temperature dependence of symmetrized energy-distribution curves. The reported high temperature scale is a spectroscopic indication; it is not a simultaneous demonstration of zero resistance or magnetic screening in that measured layer. Band counting also used a degeneracy assumption. Compare the same preparation and carrier state across probes before identifying a superconducting transition or a causal effect of annealing.\n\nEvidence: experiment. Sources: source-a95bcf0cb2681557.\n\nConditions: Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open.\n\n### scwiki-i-claim-i2-1\n\nSTM resolves a surface through a tunnelling junction, while STS measures its differential conductance versus bias. Interpreting that conductance as a local density of states assumes an adequately characterized tip, tunnelling matrix element and junction regime. Temperature, modulation broadening, setpoint and drift affect the apparent gap or spatial contrast. Preserve the topographic channel and acquisition conditions rather than treating every conductance feature as an intrinsic bulk excitation. A Fourier peak also needs its energy dependence and relation to the atomic lattice.\n\nEvidence: experiment. Sources: source-07213acd01bb9b90.\n\nConditions: Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open.\n\n### scwiki-i-claim-i2-2\n\nWise and colleagues' selected final figures concern Pb/La-substituted Bi2201; Na-CCOC appears as earlier work, not their specimen. Their spatial maps provide an example of separating a checkerboard modulation from a dispersing quasiparticle-interference interpretation. Such an assignment requires competing explanations and energy-dependent controls, rather than one visually striking image. A local gap or zero-bias peak alone does not establish bulk superconductivity, a unique gap phase or a Majorana state. Surface termination and reproducibility across fields of view belong in the evidence record.\n\nEvidence: experiment. Sources: source-07213acd01bb9b90.\n\nConditions: Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open.\n\n### scwiki-i-claim-i3-1\n\nINS resolves energy and momentum transferred between neutrons and a sample. Extracting a magnetic spectrum requires resolution, normalization, background and the distinction between magnetic, phonon and nuclear scattering. Single crystals preserve directional information; a powder measurement averages orientations. A resonance at a superconducting transition can constrain a model of the gap and magnetic susceptibility, but the assignment depends on coherence factors, band structure and competing explanations. The measured peak is not by itself a unique identification of the pairing interaction.\n\nEvidence: experiment. Sources: source-716c338ddfa726d3.\n\nConditions: Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open.\n\n### scwiki-i-claim-i3-2\n\nChristianson and colleagues studied polycrystalline Ba0.6K0.4Fe2As2, not a Co-substituted sample. The selected methods specify the MERLIN time-of-flight instrument, several incident energies and vanadium normalization. Their below/above-transition comparison used 7 K and 50 K. Energy and momentum integration windows, the elastic-scattering cutoff and a possible small phonon contribution matter when interpreting the resonant excess. A background-subtracted excess fading near the transition must not be described as every count or all magnetic scattering disappearing. Full detector-data reanalysis remains outside this handbook's review.\n\nEvidence: experiment. Sources: source-716c338ddfa726d3.\n\nConditions: Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open.\n\n### scwiki-i-claim-i4-1\n\nRIXS measures the energy and momentum lost by resonantly scattered photons. The chosen absorption edge, incoming and outgoing polarization, scattering geometry and intermediate-state dynamics determine which excitations contribute. Elastic, orbital and magnetic channels must be separated with the actual resolution and model. A measured magnetic dispersion can inform a pairing theory, but does not alone prove that the observed excitation is the pairing mediator. Small-volume sensitivity also does not eliminate surface, self-absorption or normalization questions.\n\nEvidence: theory. Sources: source-928e43733f244912.\n\nConditions: Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open.\n\n### scwiki-i-claim-i4-2\n\nAment and colleagues' local tetragonal Cu model makes the selection rule concrete: a direct spin flip forbidden for a moment along the orbital normal can become allowed for an in-plane moment at the L or M edge. That result cannot be transferred unqualified to the K edge. Their collective example uses an ultrashort-core-hole expansion and a Heisenberg spin-wave model. The accessible momentum range at the M edge is much smaller than at L3. Preserve these conditions when comparing intensities or calling a missing peak evidence against magnetism.\n\nEvidence: theory. Sources: source-928e43733f244912.\n\nConditions: Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open.\n\n### scwiki-i-claim-i5-1\n\nNMR probes nuclei through resonance shifts and relaxation. A Knight-shift interpretation must separate spin, orbital and diamagnetic contributions and specify the field direction, site and hyperfine coupling. The spin susceptibility inferred in an applied field is not automatically the zero-field response of an unperturbed condensate. Relaxation and shift provide complementary information; neither can be replaced by a single pairing-symmetry label without its model and control measurements. Temperature calibration is especially important when the excitation pulse itself can heat a small sample.\n\nEvidence: experiment. Sources: source-c7f8b99a795aba41.\n\nConditions: Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open.\n\n### scwiki-i-claim-i5-2\n\nPustogow and colleagues' selected oxygen-17 Sr2RuO4 manuscript explicitly examines radio-frequency pulse energy and heating. Its zero-strain and strained measurements use different fields, so those datasets cannot be merged as though strain were the only changed variable. A reduced spin contribution constrains candidate states under the stated field and spin-orbit conditions; it does not uniquely determine every orbital, band or parity component. Report which nucleus, spectral line, strain state, field and reference were compared, and retain the author's pulse-control qualification.\n\nEvidence: experiment. Sources: source-c7f8b99a795aba41.\n\nConditions: Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open.\n\n### scwiki-i-claim-i6-1\n\nMuon polarization samples an internal-field distribution. Transverse-field vortex measurements can constrain penetration depth through a field-profile model; zero-field relaxation and a muon Knight shift address different questions. Brandt's ideal triangular London limit gives $\\langle\\delta B^2\\rangle\\simeq0.00371\\Phi_0^2/\\lambda^4$ only in its restricted field and large-$\\kappa$ regime. An independent reciprocal-lattice sum converges to 0.0037107353. This does not validate the approximation near either critical field or for a strongly disordered lattice. The paper's variance symbol must not be mistaken for a relaxation rate.\n\nEvidence: theory. Sources: source-65b23b74f5402e26, source-c4434644191d0174.\n\nConditions: Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open.\n\n### scwiki-i-claim-i6-2\n\nFor a Gaussian field distribution, $P(t)=\\exp[-(\\gamma_\\mu\\Delta B\\,t)^2/2]$ in a rotating frame, with angular gyromagnetic ratio. A convention without the one-half changes the named rate. Independent numerical integration checks this normalization. Sonier and colleagues show why magnetism and vortex disorder can change the inferred penetration depth and its temperature dependence; their competing fits are not a unique gap assignment. Under an illustrative independent-Gaussian model, unassigned extra broadening would bias an inferred penetration depth downward. Real non-Gaussian or correlated contributions require a fuller model.\n\nEvidence: theory. Sources: source-12acb111709539e8.\n\nConditions: Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open.\n\n### scwiki-i-claim-i7-1\n\nTDTS records an electric-field waveform, giving amplitude and phase over a finite frequency window. Recovering complex conductivity requires a sample/reference comparison and a justified optical model for the film, substrate and interfaces. Thickness, time-window choices, multiple reflections and calibration can affect the inversion. The real and imaginary parts must be fitted consistently; a narrow unresolved channel can resemble a different low-frequency response. Keep angular frequency and ordinary frequency distinct when comparing a fitted scattering rate with a temperature scale.\n\nEvidence: experiment. Sources: source-05b2d5ff6757b5eb.\n\nConditions: Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open.\n\n### scwiki-i-claim-i7-2\n\nRomero and colleagues' selected author manuscript describes MBE-grown FeTe1−xSex films and a conductivity model constrained by DC transport. It separates a narrow channel from a broader response. The stated rate convention uses ordinary frequency, hence a comparison with $k_BT/h$, rather than silently substituting $k_BT/\\hbar$. The reviewed manuscript's spectral-weight normalization needs a final-version/calibration comparison; this handbook therefore does not adopt an exact condensate fraction. A finite-frequency inductive response must also be distinguished from a demonstrated equilibrium zero-resistance transition.\n\nEvidence: experiment. Sources: source-05b2d5ff6757b5eb.\n\nConditions: Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open.\n\n### scwiki-i-claim-i8-1\n\nInfrared measurements constrain charge dynamics through reflectance, transmission or ellipsometry. Converting them to conductivity requires an optical model and, for reflectance-only reconstruction, justified extrapolations outside the measured range. Intraband response, interband transitions, phonons and substrate contributions may overlap. State the frequency convention, integration limits and reference spectrum before comparing a spectral weight or an apparent missing area. An absorption feature is not automatically a superconducting gap, and extracting an effective bosonic spectrum is a model-dependent inverse problem.\n\nEvidence: experiment. Sources: source-8c3a5887a7e6b1a3.\n\nConditions: Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open.\n\n### scwiki-i-claim-i8-2\n\nQazilbash and colleagues' LaFePO study combines reflectance and ellipsometry with a Kramers–Kronig and extended-Drude analysis. Its experimental-to-band kinetic-energy comparison depends on the chosen intraband window and band reference. It is not a universal two-Drude prescription for every iron compound. Reproducing the plotted ratio requires the actual integration and subtraction, rather than copying a material-independent correlation factor. Compare temperature, composition, polarization and spectral windows before combining results from separate crystals. Complete raw-spectrum and supplementary checks remain open in the present source review.\n\nEvidence: experiment. Sources: source-8c3a5887a7e6b1a3.\n\nConditions: Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open.\n\n### scwiki-i-claim-i9-1\n\nA normal-metal/superconductor contact probes conversion between electron and hole excitations as well as ordinary transmission. Barrier transparency, mode mixing, temperature and bias determine whether an ideal Andreev-scattering model applies. In a tunnelling limit, spectral weighting and broadening still matter. Contact heating, nonuniform current paths and multiple channels can change a conductance curve without implying a different pairing symmetry. A peak or a fitted gap should be reported with junction geometry, normalization and alternative fits, not just its preferred interpretation.\n\nEvidence: theory. Sources: source-02f3aac52d07be56.\n\nConditions: Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open.\n\n### scwiki-i-claim-i9-2\n\nBeenakker's selected lecture derivation treats a two-terminal conductance in the zero-temperature, zero-voltage and zero-field limit, with separately modeled normal and Andreev scattering. That domain explains why a successful ideal-channel formula is not a general finite-bias fitting routine. Preserve whether transmission probabilities refer to the normal region or to the full superconducting junction. A measured gap scale does not supply phase information automatically; sign changes and surface-bound-state interpretations require additional interface assumptions or independent phase-sensitive evidence. The full review and all microscopic contact effects have not been audited here.\n\nEvidence: theory. Sources: source-02f3aac52d07be56.\n\nConditions: Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open.\n\n### scwiki-i-claim-i10-1\n\nA DAC changes pressure while confining a small sample, pressure medium, contacts and calibrant. The reported scalar pressure is only part of the state: gradients, deviatoric stress, thermal history and loading path can matter. Record when and where the pressure was calibrated, its uncertainty, the medium and any transition or freezing of that medium. Structural, magnetic and transport measurements performed in different cells are complementary evidence, not automatically simultaneous observations of one identical phase and sample.\n\nEvidence: experiment. Sources: source-c1c9ef4bc5cf71dd, source-df0c15d62982f853.\n\nConditions: Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open.\n\n### scwiki-i-claim-i10-2\n\nThe selected pressure-medium study distinguishes solidification from loss of hydrostaticity and uses a specified warming/calibration protocol. Its thresholds should not be transplanted to another medium or cell without qualification. In Sun and colleagues' high-pressure nickelate report, the reviewed transport methods use KBr and room-temperature ruby calibration; the magnetic experiment is separate. Resistive onset and residual resistance must remain distinct. Establishing a high-pressure superconducting phase requires checking contacts, sample structure and alternative transitions, while reserving temperature records for their actual measurement criterion.\n\nEvidence: experiment. Sources: source-c1c9ef4bc5cf71dd, source-df0c15d62982f853.\n\nConditions: Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open.\n\n### scwiki-i-claim-i11-1\n\nMBE and PLD prepare films through different deposition processes; neither guarantees a desired superconducting state merely because nominal layer counts or target compositions agree. Substrate termination, oxygen history, strain, interdiffusion, thickness and subsequent annealing can change the conducting region. Treat growth diagnostics and structural characterization as evidence about the prepared object, then connect that object to transport, spectroscopy or screening. A nominally one-unit-cell film and an electronically confined interface are different descriptions that require their own support.\n\nEvidence: experiment. Sources: source-684b96e9dbb65a64, source-ea5d0c80335c450d.\n\nConditions: Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open.\n\n### scwiki-i-claim-i11-2\n\nThe selected oxide examples illustrate this distinction. Gozar and colleagues' MBE cuprate bilayers depend on stacking order and oxygen treatment; their magnetic screening setup has a stated frequency. Reyren and colleagues' PLD LaAlO3/SrTiO3 samples combine structural preparation with low-temperature transport and separate transition analyses. These observations do not license a universal recipe for interface superconductivity or identify charge transfer as the sole cause. Compare layer order and the full preparation history before pooling samples, and preserve the difference between observed conduction, superconducting screening and an inferred thickness of the active region.\n\nEvidence: experiment. Sources: source-684b96e9dbb65a64, source-ea5d0c80335c450d.\n\nConditions: Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open.\n\n### scwiki-i-claim-i12-1\n\nHigh-field experiments test anisotropy, depairing and field-induced phases, but the maximum available field is not itself a measured critical field. Pulsed and steady fields impose different time scales and thermal constraints. Record field orientation, sweep direction, pulse profile, sample thermometry and the observable's threshold. Resistive onset, midpoint, zero resistance and an inductive anomaly need not coincide. An extrapolation beyond the measured range must be identified as such, with the model and uncertainty retained.\n\nEvidence: experiment. Sources: source-0c4d7cebb12a0d5b.\n\nConditions: Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open.\n\n### scwiki-i-claim-i12-2\n\nThe selected UTe2 high-field study combines resistance and proximity-detector-oscillator responses in carefully specified angular geometries. Its typical 60/73 T pulse capabilities, low-temperature measurement and warmer normal reference are separate quantities. A restricted angular halo is not a generic statement about every orientation or a direct reconstruction of the order parameter. Compare warming, pulse history and background response before interpreting a new feature as reentrant superconductivity. Full supplementary pulse/calibration analysis remains open; no magnet's rated field is entered here as an experimental transition record.\n\nEvidence: experiment. Sources: source-0c4d7cebb12a0d5b.\n\nConditions: Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open.\n\n### scwiki-i-claim-i13-1\n\nHeat capacity tests the thermodynamic response of the sample and can reveal a superconducting anomaly that complements transport. Extracting an electronic contribution requires addenda, lattice and possible magnetic-background treatment, a mass or molar normalization and a justified normal reference. A field used to suppress superconductivity can also alter other contributions. Residual terms, broad transitions and a small superconducting volume fraction can complicate gap fits. Quote the transition construction and uncertainty rather than equating every peak temperature with a resistive criterion.\n\nEvidence: theory. Sources: source-85009580cf550887.\n\nConditions: Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open.\n\n### scwiki-i-claim-i13-2\n\nJohnston's alpha-model analysis makes model assumptions explicit. In its specified setting, an entropy comparison uses $\\int_0^{T_c}(C_s-C_n)\\,dT/T$, with consistent reference states and extrapolations. A single-band phenomenological gap rescaling does not become a self-consistent multiband calculation simply by summing fitted curves. A normalized jump or low-temperature power law is consequently a constraint, not a unique coupling-strength or gap-symmetry determination. Check entropy balance, background sensitivity and competing gap models; the selected source review does not reproduce every experimental dataset or its full final version.\n\nEvidence: theory. Sources: source-85009580cf550887.\n\nConditions: Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open.\n\n### scwiki-i-claim-i14-1\n\nTransport measures a voltage response in a particular current path. Four-terminal geometry removes some lead contributions but not all problems from inhomogeneity, heating, finite voltage resolution or misplaced contacts. Specify current, field and temperature protocol, sample dimensions and the criterion for a transition. For Hall measurements, reversing the field helps isolate the odd transverse component; reversible conditions are needed, and genuine hysteresis must be retained rather than averaged away. A Hall sign is not a direct count of carrier type in a general multiband system.\n\nEvidence: experiment. Sources: source-e24f6678715b4917, source-fae77f2c38d4cf72.\n\nConditions: Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open.\n\n### scwiki-i-claim-i14-2\n\nThe selected Co/Cu-substituted Ba122 methods use field reversal and a defined crystal orientation, while their sample geometry contributes uncertainty. Badoux and colleagues' high-field cuprate work states temperature and field ranges over which a normal-state interpretation is available; its vortex-melting field is not automatically the upper critical field. Do not infer a zero-temperature carrier density from an inaccessible normal state. Absolute geometry error and relative temperature-dependent uncertainty are distinct, and apparently precise carrier counts require a transport model in addition to a measured Hall slope.\n\nEvidence: experiment. Sources: source-e24f6678715b4917, source-fae77f2c38d4cf72.\n\nConditions: Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open.\n\n### scwiki-i-claim-i15-1\n\nDiffraction constrains periodic structure through reciprocal-space positions, intensities and widths. Lattice constants, atomic positions, occupancies, domains and modulation order involve different fitting assumptions. State photon energy, scattering geometry, reciprocal-lattice convention, temperature, field and instrument resolution. A weak superlattice peak may indicate a structural or charge modulation, but is not a direct measurement of the superconducting gap or phase stiffness. Distinguish structural refinement from evidence for a field-dependent ordering correlation length.\n\nEvidence: experiment. Sources: source-b89f6bcf54acb4d8, source-d9477b85392d03f9.\n\nConditions: Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open.\n\n### scwiki-i-claim-i15-2\n\nThe selected YBa2Cu3O6+x studies show why peak-width conventions matter. Chang and colleagues use resolution-corrected Gaussian widths, whereas the reviewed Gerber author manuscript reports uncorrected widths and corresponding lower bounds on correlation lengths. These numbers cannot be pooled as though their resolution treatment were identical. A reciprocal-space width becomes a real-space length only after specifying the line shape and units; Gaussian and Lorentzian formulas are not interchangeable. Field-induced enhancement or three-dimensional stacking constrains competing-order physics, while causal claims about superconductivity require the separate temperature and field evidence.\n\nEvidence: experiment. Sources: source-b89f6bcf54acb4d8, source-d9477b85392d03f9.\n\nConditions: Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open.\n\n### scwiki-i-claim-experimental-criteria-1\n\nMatch the probe, specimen and preparation before combining observations. A report should preserve the raw observable, reduction model, calibration, uncertainty, transition criterion and any failed controls. Distinguish a sample temperature from a gap-closing scale, a maximum applied field from a fitted critical field, and a resolution-limited width from a deconvolved correlation length. This handbook points to examples; it creates no new sample-specific Tc records.\n\nEvidence: experiment. Sources: source-a95bcf0cb2681557, source-0c4d7cebb12a0d5b, source-b89f6bcf54acb4d8.\n\nConditions: Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open.\n\n### scwiki-i-claim-limits-and-disputes-1\n\nComplete scientific acceptance remains open. Each method has a named selected primary-source review; some use author manuscripts whose final versions and supplements have not been fully compared. Reused checks retain their original dates and limitations. The independent model calculations test stated algebra and conventions, not instrument performance or the correctness of every interpretation in a cited paper. A good fit, a successful build and agreement between summaries are not independent experimental replication.\n\nEvidence: experiment. Sources: source-65b23b74f5402e26, source-12acb111709539e8, source-05b2d5ff6757b5eb.\n\nConditions: Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open.\n\n### scwiki-i-claim-discovery-implications-1\n\nDesign complementary tests around an explicit competing explanation. Pair local spectroscopy with a macroscopic response when the question is bulk superconductivity; combine structural and transport controls when pressure or growth can change phase identity. Preserve disagreements rather than selecting one favorable probe. A useful next experiment should distinguish hypotheses within its actual resolution, sample and calibration limits.\n\nEvidence: hypothesis. Sources: source-a95bcf0cb2681557, source-df0c15d62982f853, source-ea5d0c80335c450d.\n\nConditions: Retain specimen, geometry, preparation, probe, resolution, frequency and fitting assumptions; distinguish direct observations from model-dependent inference. No new sample transition record is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Named reference-specific selected original text/figures; additional independent idealized calculations only where stated. Full final/supplement/raw-data acceptance remains open.\n\n## Approved scope items\n\nI1. Checked: 2026-10-19. ARPES and synchrotron photoemission: selected-author-ARPES-annealing-and-figure. Original source-specific dates and limits are retained below.\n\n- Selected passages and explicit inference limits only; complete scientific acceptance remains open.\n- Full raw-data, instrument calibration and final/supplement comparisons are not all complete.\n\nI2. Checked: 2026-10-19. Scanning tunnelling microscopy and spectroscopy: selected-final-methods-and-figure-check. Original source-specific dates and limits are retained below.\n\n- Selected passages and explicit inference limits only; complete scientific acceptance remains open.\n- Full raw-data, instrument calibration and final/supplement comparisons are not all complete.\n\nI3. Checked: 2026-10-19. Inelastic neutron scattering: selected-final-neutron-methods-and-figures-check. Original source-specific dates and limits are retained below.\n\n- Selected passages and explicit inference limits only; complete scientific acceptance remains open.\n- Full raw-data, instrument calibration and final/supplement comparisons are not all complete.\n\nI4. Checked: 2026-10-19. Resonant inelastic X-ray scattering: selected-final-selection-rule-and-figure-check. Original source-specific dates and limits are retained below.\n\n- Selected passages and explicit inference limits only; complete scientific acceptance remains open.\n- Full raw-data, instrument calibration and final/supplement comparisons are not all complete.\n\nI5. Checked: 2026-10-19. NMR and Knight shift: author-manuscript-scoped-check. Original source-specific dates and limits are retained below.\n\n- Selected passages and explicit inference limits only; complete scientific acceptance remains open.\n- Full raw-data, instrument calibration and final/supplement comparisons are not all complete.\n\nI6. Checked: 2026-10-19. Muon spin rotation and relaxation: selected-author-variance-and-validity-check; selected-author-magnetism-and-disorder-check; selected-author-manuscript-check. Original source-specific dates and limits are retained below.\n\n- Selected passages and explicit inference limits only; complete scientific acceptance remains open.\n- Full raw-data, instrument calibration and final/supplement comparisons are not all complete.\n\nI7. Checked: 2026-10-19. Time-domain terahertz spectroscopy: selected-author-spectral-weight-and-final-abstract-check. Original source-specific dates and limits are retained below.\n\n- Selected passages and explicit inference limits only; complete scientific acceptance remains open.\n- Full raw-data, instrument calibration and final/supplement comparisons are not all complete.\n\nI8. Checked: 2026-10-19. Infrared spectroscopy: selected-final-methods-and-figure-check. Original source-specific dates and limits are retained below.\n\n- Selected passages and explicit inference limits only; complete scientific acceptance remains open.\n- Full raw-data, instrument calibration and final/supplement comparisons are not all complete.\n\nI9. Checked: 2026-10-19. Andreev and tunnelling spectroscopy: author-review-scoped-check. Original source-specific dates and limits are retained below.\n\n- Selected passages and explicit inference limits only; complete scientific acceptance remains open.\n- Full raw-data, instrument calibration and final/supplement comparisons are not all complete.\n\nI10. Checked: 2026-10-19. Diamond-anvil pressure cells: selected-author-calibration-and-freezing-methods; selected-published-primary-passages-check. Original source-specific dates and limits are retained below.\n\n- Selected passages and explicit inference limits only; complete scientific acceptance remains open.\n- Full raw-data, instrument calibration and final/supplement comparisons are not all complete.\n\nI11. Checked: 2026-10-19. MBE and pulsed-laser film growth: selected-author-layer-order-screening-and-methods; selected-final-transport-BKT-and-methods. Original source-specific dates and limits are retained below.\n\n- Selected passages and explicit inference limits only; complete scientific acceptance remains open.\n- Full raw-data, instrument calibration and final/supplement comparisons are not all complete.\n\nI12. Checked: 2026-10-19. High magnetic fields: selected-final-pulsed-field-and-angle-methods. Original source-specific dates and limits are retained below.\n\n- Selected passages and explicit inference limits only; complete scientific acceptance remains open.\n- Full raw-data, instrument calibration and final/supplement comparisons are not all complete.\n\nI13. Checked: 2026-10-19. Heat capacity: author-manuscript-scoped-check. Original source-specific dates and limits are retained below.\n\n- Selected passages and explicit inference limits only; complete scientific acceptance remains open.\n- Full raw-data, instrument calibration and final/supplement comparisons are not all complete.\n\nI14. Checked: 2026-10-19. Electrical transport and Hall measurements: selected-author-methods-and-figure-check; selected-author-methods-and-figure-check. Original source-specific dates and limits are retained below.\n\n- Selected passages and explicit inference limits only; complete scientific acceptance remains open.\n- Full raw-data, instrument calibration and final/supplement comparisons are not all complete.\n\nI15. Checked: 2026-10-19. Synchrotron X-ray diffraction: selected-final-methods-table-and-figure-check; selected-author-methods-and-figure-check. Original source-specific dates and limits are retained below.\n\n- Selected passages and explicit inference limits only; complete scientific acceptance remains open.\n- Full raw-data, instrument calibration and final/supplement comparisons are not all complete.\n\n## Revision and review\n\nArticle ID: scwiki-i. Revision: 2bd39e7e108e63f1db28. Updated: 2026-10-18T19:18:40.677339+00:00.\n\nReview scope: Fifteen individually mapped experimental methods. New Ament RIXS, Brandt vortex-variance and Sonier magnetism/disorder selected readings; named existing probe checks reused with original limits; independent lattice-sum and Gaussian-response calculations.\n\n- Complete scientific acceptance remains open.\n- The fixed planning source identifies scope; it is not scientific evidence or a laboratory operating manual.\n- Author-final comparisons, full supplements, raw data and instrument calibrations remain incomplete for named sources.\n- No new experimental transition records are inferred from method examples or synthetic models.\n\nSource: [02_BATCH_2_IN_PLAN.md](https://github.com/JackZH26/jzis-superconductivity/blob/0a7c9d6696804ec26aa12f8eed68b55c9b3c0fcf/02_BATCH_2_IN_PLAN.md), commit 0a7c9d6696804ec26aa12f8eed68b55c9b3c0fcf, SHA-256 502293e5ed2fe8463b61a6c5b78a2c33bc33f3265bd36fe534fa2c469e42ff48.\n","wordCount":2935}}