In your latest answer(s) to Abd about CCS you totally ignore his answer to you that FPHE show both excess heat AND excess tritium which rule out CCS because CCS apply to excess heat ONLY.
This is a classic hydra issue. Mats is arguing that there is additional evidence to excess heat, helium measurements. That if helium measurements show LENR then CCS is irrelevant because excess heat is unnecessary.
I agree. But that is another separate argument - do helium measurements - or helium correlations with excess heat - show extraordinary evidence?
What cannot properly be done is to group "maybe helium/heat correlation shows LENR" with "maybe excess heat shows LENR" to get "it is therefore strongly likely LENR exists, because it is supported by two different strands of evidence".
The combination of systematic error possibility, and experiment selection (certainty) mean that given a concerted 30 years attempt to prove that anomalies consistent with a hypothesis exist you expect quite a lot of distinct anomalous results. You don't expect any of them to be strong - but the fact of a whole load of weak results is what you get from random low-level unrecognised systematic errors and experiment (and hence systematic error) selection to find things that "work" - where work means "are supportive of the wanted hypothesis.
this selection has elements in common with the well-known p-value mistakes found in low quality drug trials and published easily by "pay to publish" low quality journals:
Some less math comment:
The relevance here is that getting results that are positive for a preconceived and desired outcome is pretty easy. Just try lots of different things and some by chance will be positive. Add in systematic errors and you find that when you try lots of different experiment some will give consistently positive results.
Back to the hydra. You need to kill every head. Separately for each experiment, since each has a different set of possible systematic (and one-off) errors. There as not as someone said above an infinite number of such heads. for any given experiment there are a finite number of possibles - it is just that you need a lot of good critiquing to locate them all. In science this happens automatically - interesting results get tested and replicated by many different people. the longer they survive (all heads to date identified slain) the more attention they get and therefore the more likely that all heads will be found.
LENR is not like that because the people who do it mostly have no motive (as Abd eloquently states above) to look for hydra heads. As long as there is no head obviously in sight they can claim positive evidence for LENR, get congratulations and maybe funding, etc.
Normal science would have the same issue except that normal scientists accept that results get scutinised - the more extraordinary the greater the scrutiny - and those hoping to prove an effect are matched by those honest enough and clever enough to look for hydra heads. Sure - it is not as much fun disproving apparent evidence for FTL neutrinos as finding it. But it is just as important for science.
By the way - you cannot disprove some hypothesised new effect unless it implies definite new predictions that can be tested. LENR does not make any definite new predictions and therefore can never be disproved. Scientists strongly prefer hypotheses that can be disproved, for obvious reasons!