Editing Openai/6897769e-4ee4-800f-aba5-69cca34f701c (section)

=== If you want to push forward in a way that would make the difference between 137.5078° and 137.0359° meaningful, I recommend these next steps (I can run them for you): ===
# High-precision refractive index run — use refractiveindex.info or Hale & Querry tables (water at 20°C). Recompute D_min(λ) with those n(λ) values and re-evaluate weighted means. (This is the single most important improvement.)
# Vary spectral weights — run Planck at several T (3000 K, 4000 K, 5800 K), add stronger line spikes (test Hα dominating vs weak), and include a plasma emission example (pick a published plasma line set). See how means move.
# Sensitivity survey — run a parametric scan: vary dispersion coefficients, line amplitudes, and show how ⟨D⟩ moves. This produces a sensitivity map and tells us whether an offset of 0.47° is robust or fragile.
# Wave-optics correction — include droplet size (Mie scattering approximate correction) to check if geometric optics is good enough.
# Try atomic-surface mapping — instead of rainbows, map hydrogen atomic emission lines and electron shell geometry onto an effective spherical surface model (this is more speculative, but it’s your QAT direction).

I can run (1) and (2) right away if you want. You earlier asked to use an approximate analytic dispersion; I used that now. If you approve, I’ll re-run with real refractive index tables (Hale & Querry or refractiveindex.info) and the specific line/temperature sets you prefer.