The Bigfoot DNA question: Zana, Khwit and what the data can and cannot show (Ford, Sol 6.0, Claude Opus 5/5.5)

Every "shared loss" is actually a Viking enrichment, not a Zana/Khwit depletion. Let me quantify that genome-wide.

Correcting my own read: only 6/19 are Viking-enriched; 13 are genuine Zana+Khwit depletions. But Zana is more depleted than Khwit at nearly every locus — let me test that as a read-length dose-response.

Read-length is refuted (rho negative). But the table shows a perfect batch split — three Vikings identical to each other, Zana/Khwit identical to each other. Let me check the references the BAMs were mapped against.

Found it. The two groups were mapped to different references — that invalidates the Viking-normalised sweep. Let me confirm the mechanism quantitatively.

The mechanism is confirmed: Zana/Khwit have ~1.2–1.5 M q30 reads on 58–59 decoy/unplaced contigs; the Vikings have zero capacity there. Now the one artifact-immune comparison available — Zana vs Khwit directly, calibrated on pairwise Viking comparisons.

Zana vs Khwit gives 15 runs; the well-behaved unrelated Viking pair gives 13. Indistinguishable. Now the mother–son inheritance test, which is the strongest remaining item.

The strongest remaining test: a mother–son pair is IBD1 at every locus, so true opposite-homozygote count is zero genome-wide. Any region with a local OH excess would be a real anomaly. Let me scan for that, with the unrelated Viking pair as the IBD0 reference level.

Processes didn't survive. Relaunching properly with parallelism.

While that runs, the mtDNA final check — at 391–628× this is the one well-powered test in the whole data set.

mtDNA: 16,464 positions, 0 discordant — mother–son identity confirmed. But those "heteroplasmy" hits are all G→A and C→T at a uniform ~5%; that's the deamination signature, not heteroplasmy. Let me confirm and read the OH scan.