NavList:

By request...

I wrote last night: 
"I have marked two "corners" on the star chart. Points x and y are very near the effective horizon. They are also at simple coordinate junctures. Point x is at Dec +25°, SHA 180°. Point y is at Dec -35°, SHA 240°. Suppose we assume, for the sake of the puzzle, that both of these points are, in fact, at 0° true altitude. Given that we also know GHA Aries from the date and time (Josh, I'll trust your 154° for that), then this becomes an unambiguously solvable navigation problem, right? It's another two-star case where the altitudes happen to be zero."

For each point, x and y, we can write the standard altitude equation... basically the spherical "law of cosines". Since both altitudes are zero:
   0 = sin Lat · sin(25°) + cos Lat · cos(25°) · cos(180° - SHAmer),
   0 = sin Lat · sin(-35°) + cos Lat · cos(-35°) · cos(240° - SHAmer).
Two equations, two unknowns, solvable in various ways: Lat = 40°, SHAmer = 293°. And given GHA of Aries for this date and time is 154°, the Lon is -87°.

Summing up: Given the date and time (which, as you recall, I simply invented to turn this into a manageable puzzle), and if we assume those two coordinate points are on the true horizon, which they nearly are, then we have the equivalent of a standard two-body problem, and in this case, the math simplifies cleanly, and the position implied by the graphic on the bracelet is:
  40°N, 87°W.

You were all "close". Everybody gets 10 points, but I subtract 2 from Ian Gifford's score. Not because of your result, Ian, but because of Grok's failure to show its work. :) Bad A.I.! Bad! [I don't object at all to using A.I. chatbots for puzzles like this, but only if we learn something in the process :)]

Two notes not impacting these (very important!) scores. Josh, you shouldn't have second-guessed yourself. Your first estimate, near Champaign, Illinois was exact in latitude and out by only 1° in longitude. Modris, your estimate in longitude was excellent, too. I suspect your latitude was a little over-estimated because of the non-linear scaling of the stereographic projection that is used in the graphic.

Frank Reed