v155: narrowing pathprefix's scope is a PRICED trade (17.3% of gain for 15.2x less retention loss), and my risk assignment was BACKWARDS - the 277 bare mentions are lossless while the 1714 continuations destroy an answer term on 41 challenges. Both mechanism hypotheses were rejected individually and both were partly right, covering only 45% of the gap. Corrected two of my own claims mid-turn. 1235 tests, 34/34 mutations fire

bareonly.json

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+{
+  "arm": "bareonly",
+  "mode": "bare",
+  "subs": 277,
+  "token_delta": -1662,
+  "component_mean": 0.003189720169977722,
+  "d_term_mean": 0.0,
+  "n": 150,
+  "n_term_pop": 150
+}

base.json

@@ -1,11 +1,10 @@
 {
   "arm": "base",
-  "fix_applied": 0,
-  "comp_applied": 0,
-  "mark_applied": 0,
+  "mode": "none",
+  "subs": 0,
   "token_delta": 0,
   "component_mean": 0.0,
   "d_term_mean": 0.0,
-  "tilde_kept": 0,
-  "tilde_mangled": 71
+  "n": 150,
+  "n_term_pop": 150
 }