That would be reasonable only if the planets orbit is inside that suns atmosphere.
Mercury for example is nearly half the distance to the sun then earth is. Because of the volume increases with a increase of diameter, earth receives around 1/4 of the energy that mercury does. Mercury is 800° F on its airless surface. (much cooler away from the equator to extremely cold in it’s polar regions and on the Darkside… 300°F below zero)
Earths moon is 250°F but none of that heat penetrates our atmosphere which is extremely cold in the stratosphere. Heating up the deeper into earths atmosphere you go indicating that heat is a function of air pressure… Just as it is on all of the other planets.

Same with Venus, it’s upper atmosphere is so cold that carbon dioxide freezes into CO2 snow. That’s colder, despite how close it is to the sun, than any region on earth!
This documented occurrence proves that no solar heating by convection is possible. It would violate the laws of thermodynamics.
It would be like cooking a turkey in the oven having the inside be done, while the outside of the turkey is still raw.

It would be more correct to say that these large planets have a thicker atmosphere because their proximity to the sun allows them to capture more solar gases from the solar wind making them fluffy.

Empirical evidence trumps speculation.
Just as 40 years of satellite observation has never captured a “greenhouse event” where the upper atmosphere is warmer than the lower atmosphere. despite 50 weather balloons released twice a day across America has never measured any rise in temperature according to the greenhouse theory. (which also violates the laws of thermodynamics)
Even so, it is often repeated as fact when it’s completely fictional. A means to an end watering down the scientific method for the purpose of manipulation.

Max: The reason the distance from the star matters is that it heats up all these planets, making them expand with thick gaseous atmospheres. The ones that are of heavier mass thus resemble Neptune reasonably. The others not so much.

Overall however we must apply the uncertainty of science to all these conclusions. We presently know very little about these exoplanets other than their mass and orbits, and the nature of the star. This is why infrared Webb observations will be so illuminating.

Quote;
“all have masses less than six Earth-masses, data suggests they more resemble Neptune because of their expanded gaseous make-up caused by the close orbits to the star”

There’s no logic in the statement that they resemble Neptune because of how close they are to the star.
Does Mercury and Venus resemble Neptune because of how close they are to the star? Does Neptune look
like Neptune because of how close it is to the star?
One thing has nothing to do with the other. Just as the heat of a planet is not associated with the sun. (The hottest planet to the coldest is Jupiter, nearly 4 times hotter than the surface of the sun, then Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, Venus, mercury, Earth and then Mars)

Although Saturn is much larger than these planets, if you could walk the surface of this ball of gas, you’d only be 10% heavier than on earth. I fully expect an attempt to terraform this real estate into a water planet in a 1000 years.
Although there’s not enough light for photosynthesis at 7AU (which is the true meaning of the “green zone”) the problem will be “cooling” the planet down enough.

100 lightyears away in the constellation Coma Berenices. I guess though I never thought of “earth like” as being less than six earth masses but OK, close enough for definitional purposes.

The constellation is defined as an ancient asterism (an observed pattern in the sky separate from the 88 defined constellations.). It is visible in the northern sky in a rough square between constellations Leo, Bootes, Ursa Major and Virgo. First introduced in the 3rd Century BC by a Greek astronomer, Conon of Samos.

Great stuff Robert! Thank You.