Does Cohen et al. (2010, MNRAS 405, 2391–2405) confirm the ζ Puppis mass-loss-rate figures Romero (2026) cites for his worked V_E example?
claim-romero-2026-zeta-puppis-worked-example-unverified-quant rests on figures Romero's paper attributes to Cohen, D.H.; Leutenegger, M.A.; Wollman, E.E.; Zsargó, J.; Hillier, D.J.; Townsend, R.H.D.; Owocki, S.P. "A mass-loss rate determination for ζ Puppis from the quantitative analysis of X-ray emission-line profiles," MNRAS 2010, 405, 2391–2405 (DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16606.x):
- central mass-loss-rate estimate ṅ = 3.5 × 10⁻⁶ M☉ yr⁻¹
- statistical measurement-indeterminacy contribution ±0.3 × 10⁻⁶ M☉ yr⁻¹
- a separately estimated systematic contribution (elemental-abundance assumptions in wind-opacity modeling) described as "a factor of two" larger than the statistical figure
None of these three numbers has been independently read against the MNRAS paper — only against Romero's citation of them. This is the paper's sole real-world worked example of its central valuation function, so the figures are load-bearing for that claim-note's status.
What would answer it: a direct read of the MNRAS 2010 paper (or an author-hosted preprint of it, if MNRAS's own platform proves unreachable — Oxford University Press hosts MNRAS and this vault's sourcing notes (00-meta/specs/sources.md) record academic.oup.com article pages as a known-blocked route as of 2026-09-01; check for an arXiv preprint of the Cohen et al. paper first), confirming or correcting the central estimate, the statistical uncertainty, and the "factor of two" systematic-uncertainty characterization.
Candidate next moves: search arXiv for an author preprint (Cohen, Leutenegger, et al., ζ Puppis X-ray mass-loss, ~2010); failing that, treat academic.oup.com as manual-consultation per the sources spec and look for a NASA ADS abstract or a later paper quoting the same figures as a fallback corroboration.