Round 5 re-ran round 1's content through the lever it should have used --
counterexamples, rendered to the detector as "Worked examples" rather than
"Known non-issues, do not report these" -- and was rejected because one pair
of eight moved, at p = 1.000.
So the experiment I designed to give the demo lever a fair test could not
give it one. Correcting my authoring error changed the reason for the verdict
and not the verdict, because the rule cannot tell a lever that helps from a
lever that does nothing.
Five rounds, $2.17, zero decisions distinguishable from chance.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
Four rounds on injection, $1.76. Not one decision carried evidence, in either
direction. Round 2 rejected a change because one pair of eight moved, at
p = 1.000 -- the maximum the sign test can return. Round 3 accepted one at
p = 0.500 and that acceptance is now versioned as v1. On a family where 11 of
20 pairs disagree with themselves between runs of the unchanged detector,
both readings are what changing nothing looks like.
I corrected an overstatement in the notes: after two rejections I wrote that
the rule was near-incapable of accepting. Round 3 accepted. The accurate
statement is symmetric and worse -- it accepts on noise as readily as it
rejects on it.
Escalated, not applied: Req 9.5's threshold rule should be replaced by an
acceptance that survives the measured variance. The Pareto archive and the
sign test both exist and neither decides anything. The honest caveat is that
at a minibatch of 8 a reliability-gated rule would accept almost nothing
either -- the corpus is the binding constraint, not the rule.
And the finding that outranks the rounds, in the maintainer's words: the
error is not the model, the error is the elsewhere. Eighteen defects this
session, every one in this repository, three of them the same shape of fixing
an instance and missing the class. The default assumption for an unexplained
number is now that we broke it -- which puts pro's 46.7% against flash's
83.3% on our side of the ledger until shown otherwise.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
