Retraction wording should not imply a candidate was initially considered a definite GW signal

Maybe we should think about revising the retraction text template :

"The trigger Sxxxxxxx (GCN Circular pqrst) is no longer considered to be a gravitational wave signal."

However we might not have considered it to be a signal with high probability in the first place.

In fact almost all retractions have been of events with nontrivially high p_terr. So 'no longer considered to be a GW signal' is potentially misleading.

E.g. "no longer considered as a candidate event of interest" ?

(This mirrors the first announcement circular where we do not say 'report a GW signal' or 'consider this event to be a GW signal'.)