for the precise definition). However, the naive version of this statement fails for two reasons: (1) a classical automorphic form for $G({\mathbb{A}}_{F^+})$ can only give Galois representations which have distinct Hodge-Tate weights (in each direction $F\hookrightarrow \overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p$) and (2) the phenomenon of [*companion*]{} forms shows that there can exist classical and non-classical forms giving the same Galois representation. However, we can resolve (1) by requiring $\rho_x$ to have distinct Hodge-Tate weights and (2) by requiring $x$ to be of “classical” (or dominant) weight. In fact, since the Hodge-Tate weights of $\rho_x$ are related to the weight of $x$, requiring the latter automatically implies the former, once $\rho_x$ is assumed to be de Rham. As a conclusion, it seems reasonable to expect that any overconvergent form $x$ of classical weight such that $\rho_x$ is de Rham at places of $F$ dividing $p$ is a classical automorphic form (see Conjecture $\ref{classiconj}$ and Remark \[extra\]).

Such a classicality theorem is due to Kisin ([@Kisinoverconvergent]) in the context of Coleman-Mazur’s eigencurve, i.e. in the slightly different setting of ${\rm GL}_2/{\mathbb{Q}}$. Note that, at the time of [@Kisinoverconvergent], the notion of a trianguline representation was not available, and in fact [@Kisinoverconvergent] inspired Colmez to define 