File size: 4,113 Bytes
a7b269c | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 | {
"question": "last turn's corrected break-even p* depends on g, which DIFFERS PER CONFIGURATION - yet I compared all four subsets against a single bar derived from path+relabel+ws. Does the licensing verdict survive per-subset bars?",
"prediction": "no verdict changes: zero sits below any positive bar, and the lossy subsets are 19-37x over, which no bar movement of a few percent can close. The error is real but harmless",
"prediction_outcome": "CONFIRMED - no verdict changes on any of the four subsets",
"per_subset_bars": {
"path+relabel": {
"component": 0.01955764752071971,
"g": 0.03911529504143942,
"own_bar": 0.0033041479473187095,
"bound": 0.0,
"clears_own_bar": true
},
"path+relabel+role": {
"component": 0.02264294055037343,
"g": 0.04528588110074686,
"own_bar": 0.0038214060567554886,
"bound": 0.12666666666666668,
"clears_own_bar": false
},
"path+relabel+ws": {
"component": 0.02025688625204707,
"g": 0.04051377250409414,
"own_bar": 0.0034214717900835703,
"bound": 0.06666666666666667,
"clears_own_bar": false
},
"path+relabel+ws+role": {
"component": 0.023345477164770423,
"g": 0.046690954329540846,
"own_bar": 0.003939037756312617,
"bound": 0.18666666666666668,
"clears_own_bar": false
}
},
"uniform_bar_applied_last_turn": 0.00342147,
"bar_spread": {
"min": 0.0033041479473187095,
"max": 0.003939037756312617,
"range_factor": 1.192,
"note": "p* is INCREASING in g, so a bigger gain tolerates a bigger flip rate. path+relabel's own bar (0.3304%) is STRICTER than the 0.3421% I borrowed, and it still clears because its bound is EXACTLY ZERO"
},
"impact_audit_of_the_retracted_constant": {
"records_mentioning_8.685": [
"findings",
"subset_robustness",
"flip_risk_structural_bound",
"flip_bound_and_corrected_breakeven"
],
"decisions_it_licensed": "NONE. Every recorded decision in those entries was \"promote NONE\". The 25.4x error made the blocker look 25x less severe than it was WITHOUT ever unlocking anything",
"honest_scope": "the constant was wrong everywhere it appeared, but it never gated a promotion, so no prior decision needs reversing"
},
"v139_multiple_also_wrong_but_the_other_way": {
"v139_claim": "a single flip erases the stacked gain about 12 times over",
"corrected": 1.6924607173370732,
"factor": 7.09,
"direction": "v139 OVERSTATED the multiple by ~7x, while the same root cause UNDERSTATED the break-even rate by 25x. The two errors are independent and point OPPOSITE ways",
"my_own_slips": [
"I called the corrected 1.69x 'even harsher' than 12x - 1.69 is SMALLER, so it is LESS severe",
"I said v139 was '7.12x too LOW' when 12 vs 1.69 means too HIGH",
"I generalised that all my break-even calculations were 'too generous' when this one was too PESSIMISTIC"
]
},
"formula_error_found_by_internal_contradiction": {
"symptom": "two of my own figures for the same quantity disagreed by 0.394% (150*p* = 0.590856 vs stack/one_flip = 0.593192)",
"diagnosis": "my back-of-envelope used N*G/C when the correct expression is N*G/(G+C) - it OMITS the gain the flipped challenge also stops earning, overstating tolerance",
"resolution": "the BAR was right and the shortcut was wrong; N*G/(G+C) reproduces 150*p* exactly",
"final": "one flip costs 1.69x the four-way stack's entire gain over 150 challenges, and the tolerable count is 0.5909 flips",
"lesson": "trusting a contradiction between two of my own numbers found a FORMULA error, not a typo - the third time this pattern has paid"
},
"conclusion": "the licensing verdict from last turn stands unchanged under per-subset bars: pathprefix+relabel is the only configuration that clears, and it clears on a bound of exactly zero. The corrections tighten the accounting without moving the decision",
"still_not_promoted": "shipped byte-identical to pristine; the comprehension question remains unanswerable by any bound"
} |