What we did
RefCal compared its published per-band confidence intervals with values then treated as RadCalNet surface reference measurements. The claim-grade subset contained 131 measurement rows across 121 independent site-days at all six available sites.
What we saw
On that basis, the intervals contained the reference value in 0.397 of cases, against a nominal 0.683. Later lineage work established that the comparison mixed surface reflectance with top-of-atmosphere reference values, so this number does not describe current surface-to-surface confidence performance.
What it means
This run failed on the basis used at the time and remains part of the dated record. It taught a more fundamental lesson than the original verdict: confidence coverage is not interpretable when the product and reference describe different measurement levels. The corrected surface-to-surface result now carries the current evidence.