Verify Hirsch's forensic critique, the 'data alteration and manipulation' quote, and the Sept 2022 Nature retraction of Dias's room-temperature superconductivity paper against primaries

claim-hirsch-forensics-drove-dias-superconductivity-retraction currently rests on Tier-2 science journalism (Science/AAAS and Chemistry World) plus the retraction itself, read by the batch worker at capture time but not independently re-fetched. Three specifics need grounding on primaries before the note can move off seedling:

1. The load-bearing quote. Confirm that "without using procedures that can only be characterised as data alteration and manipulation" is Hirsch's (or the reported party's) verbatim wording, and attribute it precisely — is it from Hirsch's own arXiv/published critique, a Nature editorial expression of concern, or the reporter's paraphrase? A load-bearing quotation should trace to its speaker's own text.
2. The mechanism. Verify the "implausibly smooth susceptibility curve for noisy lab data" argument as Hirsch actually framed it — ideally against his own posted analysis, not the secondary retelling.
3. The retraction facts. Confirm Nature retracted the 2020 carbonaceous sulfur hydride paper in September 2022 against the Nature retraction notice itself (DOI + date), distinguishing it from Dias's separately retracted 2023 lutetium-hydride paper.

Secondary item, lower priority: the note also carries an inline-flagged claim that Hirsch was banned from arXiv for ~6 months (Feb 2022) for the tone of his accusations — that date/duration rests only on the capture's Tier-4 Wikipedia sourcing and should be confirmed against arXiv's own statement or contemporaneous reporting if the arXiv-ban detail is ever promoted to load-bearing.

What would answer it: the Nature retraction notice; Hirsch's own critique (arXiv or published comment); and a careful read of the Science/AAAS report to pin the quote's exact provenance. Feeds the nightly topic queue.