{
  "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"
}