The first question is where in the material does the nuclear reaction take place. In other words, were is the nuclear active environment (NAE) located?
The LENR reaction CAN NOT take place in the normal lattice structure where it would be subjected to the well known laws that apply to such structures.
So the question becomes, “Where in space is the NAE located, such as near the surface, and what is unique about the NAE that separates it from the normal structure”?
Before the nature of the nuclear process can be discussed, a NAE must be identified and its existence must be agree to. Failure to do this has resulted in nothing but useless argument with no progress in understanding or causing the phenomenon.
I propose the only place able to support such a nuclear reaction while not being subjected to the known chemical requirements are cracks consisting of two surfaces with a critical gap between them.
Once the characteristics of the NAE are identified, a mechanism can be proposed to operate in this NAE with characteristics compatible with this environment. Attempts to propose a mechanism without identifying the NAE are doomed to failure.
Without knowing the NAE, we are unable to test the characteristics of the nuclear mechanism to see if it is compatible with the material and we are unable to know how to create a potentially active material.
This requirement is so basic, further discussion is pointless unless agreement is achieved.
This is not a normal physics problem where any idea can be made plausible simply by making a few assumptions. The nature of the chemical environment prevents many assumptions. We are proposing to cause a nuclear reaction in ordinary material where none has been seen in spite of enormous effort and none is expected based on well understood theory.
A significant change in the material must first take place. This change must be consistent with the known laws of chemistry. Only the creation of cracks meets this requirement.
Once the NAE is identified, the characteristics of the nuclear reaction must be consistent with what is known. Simply proposing behavior based on general physics concepts is useless. For example, the role of perturbed angular correlations, which you suggest, must be considered in the context of the entire proposed reaction. The question means nothing in isolation.
Like many proposed mechanisms, the idea cannot be tested because it has no clear relationship to the known behavior of LENR or to the variables known to affect the phenomenon.
This is not a guessing game. We now have a large collection of behavior all models most explain. Why not start by considering models that are consistent with this information?by