Here's a disturbing thought that just occurred to me.  Have we looked at the bisector variations for this star?  Could this be a blend system that is throwing off the RV measurements?  I guess the limits on secondary lines must elliminate most of the parameter space for this, but maybe not all?

Jason, is it easy for you to look at the shape of the bisector or the cross-correlation peak as a function of epoch?

• Juggling the HET queue, we slowly started knocking down the sidelobes of the power spectrum with "adaptive scheduling" to only observe on nights (and tracks) that would rule out competing aliases of the period consistent with a 3:1 resonance.  Sure enough, every shot we got strengthened our conviction that the 3:1 resonance was the correct solution.  But the resonance was perfect.  Most resonances show period ratios near an integer ratio, but rarely exact, because of dynamical interactions.  This ratio was perfect to within one part in ten thousand.
• Matt Payne's analysis struggled with the sparse data, but we finally got enough points for his code to settle into a favored overall solution, and the stable solutions were very dynamically active (which means, very exciting for a dynamicist to study!)  They also predicted HUGE transit timing variations, if the system was transiting (10 hours!), an order of magnitude larger than anything seen before (this was pre-Kepler).
• The KELT photometry came back totally stable:  this was not some sort of variable star or eclipsing binary.  It was tricky to look for transits, given the large variations expected, but Scott and the others were able to rule out most transiting scenarios, which was disappointing to some extent, but the stable photometry ruled out most false positive scenarios, too.
• The spectral analysis came back clean, with no hint of contamination, again.  But the gravity of the star changed with the new data:  we now had a regular main sequence F star, not a subgiant.  This wasn't a big deal, but it was strange that we couldn't pin it down better.
• Then Justin Crepp found a couple of AO companions, just to make our lives interesting:

I am speculating (flying by the seat of my pants more like it -- just to make sure we cover all the possibilities) that the 6-d period and 2-d period may be produced by the two stellar spectra beating against one another due to regular old RV shifts. In other words, should we be worried about the various pipelines treating the combined spectra as a single star? 

Any time respectable scientists take money from Templeton, they lend their respectability--even if only implicitly--to the idea that science and religion are just different paths to the same ultimate truth.

Due to the efforts of many smart people over the course of many years, scholars who are experts in the fundamental nature of reality have by a wide majority concluded that God does not exist. 

"The IAU does not name planets" (by which, of course, I meant "exoplanets"):

1) Obviously, the IAU has the power to decide on official names an designations for celestial objects. My point is that it has never formally exercised its power for exoplanets, despite claiming in the press release that "Upon discovery, exoplanets and other astronomical objects receive unambiguous and official catalogue designations." The word "official" there is this highly misleading, because it suggests that the IAU has some role in giving planets designations.

2) The IAU has had a quasi-official list of planets and names as recently as 2006, when the Working Group on Exoplanets was dissolved. I pointed this out in my original post. This list was never adopted by the General Assembly, to my knowledge.

3) The IAU Working Group on Exoplanets (now Commission 53) unofficially blessed the practice of adding a lowercase letter starting with 'b' after a valid star name, increasing in order of planet discovery. It did not invent this scheme, nor did it ever enforce it when competing schemes or ambiguous cases appeared in the literature; the scheme arose organically amongst the early planet hunters and is applied inconsistently (for instance, HD 10180 b, GJ 581 g, the mu Arae system).

4) I would be fine with the IAU resolving naming disputes of planets, like those in the mu Arae system, for instance. This would require, at a minimum, a vote from Commission 53, as I understand things. I'm not calling on them to do this, though; bureaucracies are slow, and it's probably unnecessary because these cases are not so common that I can't keep track of them.  So far.

5) I don't think there is a global conspiracy going on here; I think that in its haste to condemn Uwingu the IAU misstated its role in naming planets. I suspect that most of this was just sloppiness, and instead of using the term "official" the IAU should have simply referred to the convention that astronomers usually follow. I think they unnecessarily implied that the IAU has been involved in planet nomenclature to give themselves greater rhetorical authority on the subject in order to bash Uwingu.

"The IAU press release cannot represent IAU policy":

6) My original use of the phrase "rogue press agent" improperly implied that I believed the press agent acted without the authority of the IAU General Secretary or the Commission President. I did not mean to imply that or to insult Mr. Christensen, and I apologize. "Rogue" referred to the fact the assertions in the press release did not reflect any vote by the relevant committee or by the General Assembly. I have edited the post.

7) My issue was not with the IAU pointing to exoplanet.eu as an example of how astronomers give names to exoplanets, which is fine, of course. Indeed, it was Jean Schneider's hard work on exoplanet.eu that led the Working Group to abandon its efforts at keeping its own list. My issue is with the IAU stating that the names and planets on that list have "officially assigned catalog designations", which is false. There is nothing "official" about those names. Indeed that list differs from mine because of differing standards for calling something a planet and differing applications of the unofficial convention for nomenclature.

Commission 53 is charged with resolving these issues, but has not done so yet, so the endorsement of that list without a vote is premature and inappropriate.

Uwingu:

8) I have no role in Uwingu and have not contributed to their organization. I applaud their overall goals, I respect its board and team, and I am sure they are not running a "scam." I take no position on the wisdom of their planet naming contest because I don't have strong opinion about it.

9) I pointed out in my post that Uwingu should make it clearer to casual readers of their website that their names would not necessarily be IAU sanctioned. I think the Uwingu team and board thinks this is already clear, and I think they did not intend to suggest otherwise.

10) Many people wanted to know if I would use the names that win votes at Uwingu. My answer: not unless they appeared as useful designations in the peer-reviewed literature, and even then I would prefer IAU sanction. I note Uwingu is clear that it is proposing "popular" names for exoplanets, which astronomers often use in press releases but very rarely in peer-reviewed papers.

The entirely serious plan to collect solar energy by spaceship and beam it back to Earth with lasers.