I see your point, but I still have a sense that the false positive rate is just too high. I don&#x27;t know the actual false positive rate, but I&#x27;ve somehow pictured maybe a dozen or so very brief (&lt;1 sec?) signals per year. Under anything like those circumstances, an accidental coincidence would still be vanishingly unlikely (since there are 3x10^7 sec&#x2F;year, it would be something like a one in a million chance), but the collaboration can&#x27;t be expected to do full, detailed analysis of false signals a dozen times a year.