Yes, the signature could have formed in a planet from material shed as the star became a white dwarf: niobium, zinc and copper are unusual, while iron and silicon are depleted. A repeating 4.4-day signal and atmospheric loss provide a coherent picture, but the planet remains a candidate and the interpretation is not yet uniquely demonstrated.
Two lenses on the same evidence. Source weight and the primary source ratio show what each rests on.
Alternative
Source weight 69%
Lens adapted to this topic: Other explanations and remaining tests
A cautious reading treats the ejecta-origin interpretation as compelling but provisional. The observations directly establish unusual atmospheric abundances and accretion, while the planet’s existence and second-generation origin are inferred. The available sources do not show that the elemental ratios have no possible explanation involving a surviving first-generation planet, unusual chemical evolution, or modelling uncertainties; confirmation will require further observations and independent tests of the companion and its composition.
The object is consistently described as a candidate or possible second-generation planet, so the data do not yet constitute definitive proof of its origin.
The observed chemistry demonstrates unusual accretion, but abundance measurements alone do not directly observe the planet forming from white-dwarf ejecta.
The proposed explanation depends on interpreting the accreted atmosphere and orbital signal together; neither the chemical signature nor the periodic signal alone uniquely establishes second-generation formation.
The claim is presented as a first candidate and as an unexpected discovery, indicating that the formation pathway remains an active area for follow-up research.