Marius CiepluchandClaude Opus 5 66a51c674c docs(learning-harness): round 5, and what it says about the experiment itself ...

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

2026-09-07 08:09:50 +02:00

..

fixtures

feat(three-stage-scan): gate stage-2 maps against split-sink ranking

2026-09-04 11:53:06 +02:00

manifests

feat(three-stage-scan): add aliased-sink mutation the regex scan misses

2026-09-04 11:50:44 +02:00

measurements

docs(learning-harness): round 5, and what it says about the experiment itself

2026-09-07 08:09:50 +02:00

pairs

measure: the candidate generator must be the IR, not the ruleset

2026-09-06 16:04:07 +02:00