Yes, (1) is true even in this case. It’s not that her supervisors didn’t deserve to share in the prize, it’s that she should not have been excluded. I know of

Yes, (1) is true even in this case. It’s not that her supervisors didn’t deserve to share in the prize, it’s that she should not have been excluded. I know of her statements about the incident. I think she’s being modest, and I disagree with her idea that awarding the Prize to someone who happened to be a student during the time of discovery would somehow demean the Prize. Her work was as crucial as theirs. It wasn’t just “legwork”, she discovered the regular signals and recognized them as something new and important.